Demoted for not backing gay marriage: housing manager's pay slashed for criticising new law on Facebook

  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Oct 23, 2011 4:13 PM GMT
    Demoted for not backing gay marriage: housing manager's pay slashed for criticising new law on Facebook

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052319/Adrian-Smith-demoted-backing-gay-marriage-criticising-new-law-Facebook.html


    (I have heard that this paper is not known for printing accurate stories...more like fox news type reporting. So take it with a grain of salt for now.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 4:16 PM GMT
    "Dislike button"



    This is wrong.

    I agree with him, too. Gay Marriages don't belong in churches that don't support it.

    Churches have a right to say what they do or do not believe in, just as much as we have a right to choose what church we do or do not join... or get married in.

    The state, however, should not have the right to bring religion into a legal matter, such as marriage.

    Get married under your "God" on your own time, don't fuck it up for us. It's not like everyone who has a marriage license has done it in the name of your fucked up imaginary friend, they have their own (or don't).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 4:26 PM GMT
    He was posting on his personal Facebook page, so his comments should not have been construed as coming from his official post, i.e. housing manager for the Trafford Council and Trafford Housing Trust (non-religious organizations).

    If he is able to separate his religious views from his official duties, he should not have been demoted. The question is how you would ensure that. Periodic audits?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 4:32 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidHe was posting on his personal Facebook page, so his comments should not have been construed as coming from his official post, i.e. housing manager for the Trafford Council and Trafford Housing Trust (non-religious organizations).

    If he is able to separate his religious views from his official duties, he should not have been demoted. The question is how you would ensure that. Periodic audits?


    This would assume psychoanalysis of all employees, no? Not just the Christians?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 4:35 PM GMT
    No need for psychoanalysis. I don't know what his exact duties are, but say they include approval of housing for people. You would have somebody review paperwork for any signs of bias against gays, married or not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 4:52 PM GMT
    Regardless, until an issue presents, they have no right to do this.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 5:11 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidHe was posting on his personal Facebook page, so his comments should not have been construed as coming from his official post


    I think nowadays it's a pretty general understanding that anything you post anywhere can have a bearing on every aspect of your professional and personal life. There are no safe zones, you are accountable for all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 5:26 PM GMT
    ThePenIsMyTier said"Dislike button"



    This is wrong.

    I agree with him, too. Gay Marriages don't belong in churches that don't support it.

    Churches have a right to say what they do or do not believe in, just as much as we have a right to choose what church we do or do not join... or get married in.

    The state, however, should not have the right to bring religion into a legal matter, such as marriage.

    Get married under your "God" on your own time, don't fuck it up for us. It's not like everyone who has a marriage license has done it in the name of your fucked up imaginary friend, they have their own (or don't).



    From what I understood the new law being passed does not impose anything upon existing churches.

    QuoteThe proposed new law, on which the Government is consulting, will allow churches to open their doors to gay ceremonies if they wish


    Whatever the case, I do think its an overreaction however certain things should be overreacted when you are trying to make a change.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 5:59 PM GMT
    Somewhat draconian, but still he should know better.

    it would REALLY help things if people distinguished between:

    (1) civil marriage (which would be better called a civil union, but marriage is what the fight is over, so we keep the word marriage. Whatever)

    and

    (2) Religious celebrations of marriage.

    Everyone, with no exceptions and no distinction, should have the right to (1).

    Individual churches will then be allowed to offer (2) to their adherents. Having (2) will give you no more civil rights than being baptised or circumcised. It´s just a thing some people like to do. NB not all churches want to deny (2) to gay people. Just some. Not all religious people agree with the extreme conservatives

    (1) and (2) should not be done at the same time, and (1) should not be done by a minister of religion or in a religious building.

    End. Of. Problem.

  • shutoman

    Posts: 505

    Oct 23, 2011 6:16 PM GMT
    I agree with him, too. Gay Marriages don't belong in churches that don't support it.

    This is not the proposal. At the moment, civil partnerships are purely secular ceremonies by the State (Registrars). Thus churches and places of worship that wish to conduct them (Unitarians, liberal evangelicals, etc) cannot do so. The proposal is to remove this prohibition and allow churches to conduct civil partnerships if they wish to do so.

    See here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12442375

    By the way, if you ever get the opportunity to read the Daily Mail, don't. The mind is a very difficult thing to cleanse once polluted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 6:25 PM GMT
    So he took a 14,000 Euro a year pay cut because he had an opinion, which sadly, kind of makes sense (The bible/church part)?

    Wow! We are really making progress by taking away liberties of others guys!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 6:29 PM GMT
    Tdawg saidSo he took a 14,000 Euro a year pay cut because he had an opinion, which sadly, kind of makes sense (The bible/church part)?

    Wow! We are really making progress by taking away liberties of others guys!


    Hun. The currency in the UK is the pound.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 6:33 PM GMT
    Something tells me that we are not getting the whole story here. Looks more like a shock piece made to incite umbrage, kind of like talk radio.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 6:46 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidSomewhat draconian, but still he should know better.

    it would REALLY help things if people distinguished between:

    (1) civil marriage (which would be better called a civil union, but marriage is what the fight is over, so we keep the word marriage. Whatever)

    and

    (2) Religious celebrations of marriage.

    Everyone, with no exceptions and no distinction, should have the right to (1).

    Individual churches will then be allowed to offer (2) to their adherents. Having (2) will give you no more civil rights than being baptised or circumcised. It´s just a thing some people like to do. NB not all churches want to deny (2) to gay people. Just some. Not all religious people agree with the extreme conservatives

    (1) and (2) should not be done at the same time, and (1) should not be done by a minister of religion or in a religious building.

    End. Of. Problem.



    This is exactly what I was saying, but with a fancy Brittish accent and "proper terms".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 6:48 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidSomewhat draconian, but still he should know better.

    it would REALLY help things if people distinguished between:

    (1) civil marriage (which would be better called a civil union, but marriage is what the fight is over, so we keep the word marriage. Whatever)

    and

    (2) Religious celebrations of marriage.

    Everyone, with no exceptions and no distinction, should have the right to (1).

    Individual churches will then be allowed to offer (2) to their adherents. Having (2) will give you no more civil rights than being baptised or circumcised. It´s just a thing some people like to do. NB not all churches want to deny (2) to gay people. Just some. Not all religious people agree with the extreme conservatives

    (1) and (2) should not be done at the same time, and (1) should not be done by a minister of religion or in a religious building.

    End. Of. Problem.



    word choice is everything

    1) "Marriage"

    2) "Holy Matrimony"

    Problem solved.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 6:49 PM GMT
    I read the article and the new law allows churches to perform gay marriages. It does not force any church to do so.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 6:50 PM GMT
    I grossly misspoke. Mah bad... Nobody (Except me) ever vaguely implied it would force them. Oops.


    I don't agree that it takes equality too far, unless a church feels pressured to perform a marriage that goes against it's twisted little creed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 6:55 PM GMT
    I would like to say that most of what I spoke on was not about this proposed law, but about Marriage as the law views it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 7:14 PM GMT
    Lostboy saidSomewhat draconian, but still he should know better.

    it would REALLY help things if people distinguished between:

    (1) civil marriage (which would be better called a civil union, but marriage is what the fight is over, so we keep the word marriage. Whatever)

    and

    (2) Religious celebrations of marriage.

    Everyone, with no exceptions and no distinction, should have the right to (1).

    Individual churches will then be allowed to offer (2) to their adherents. Having (2) will give you no more civil rights than being baptised or circumcised. It´s just a thing some people like to do. NB not all churches want to deny (2) to gay people. Just some. Not all religious people agree with the extreme conservatives

    (1) and (2) should not be done at the same time, and (1) should not be done by a minister of religion or in a religious building.

    End. Of. Problem.



    This is spot on and is the crux of why there is so much resistance to "gay marriage."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 7:16 PM GMT
    ThePenIsMyTier said"Dislike button"



    This is wrong.

    I agree with him, too. Gay Marriages don't belong in churches that don't support it.

    Churches have a right to say what they do or do not believe in, just as much as we have a right to choose what church we do or do not join... or get married in.

    The state, however, should not have the right to bring religion into a legal matter, such as marriage.

    Get married under your "God" on your own time, don't fuck it up for us. It's not like everyone who has a marriage license has done it in the name of your fucked up imaginary friend, they have their own (or don't).


    +1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 7:16 PM GMT
    metta8 saidDemoted for not backing gay marriage: housing manager's pay slashed for criticising new law on Facebook

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052319/Adrian-Smith-demoted-backing-gay-marriage-criticising-new-law-Facebook.html


    (I have heard that this paper is not known for printing accurate stories...more like fox news type reporting. So take it with a grain of salt for now.)


    if this is true, this is freaking ridiculous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 7:25 PM GMT
    Yes, it is unfair that he received a demotion for voicing an opinion.

    But that said, this should once again be a lesson for us all concerning what we post online. We seem to all like bringing up the 'Freedom of Speech' thing but this is something between you as a citizen and your government not an agreement between you and your employer. This employee likely has some kind of 'bringing your employer into disrepute' clause in his employment contract. Clauses like that are pretty subjective and open to a lot of interpretation. For those in certain jobs, and maybe even most, it is probably not a good idea to post anything on Facebook that you not feel appropriate to also tell your coworkers in the break room during lunch hour. Discipline or job termination is not uncommon for your actions or words outside of work and sometimes it doesn't seem fair.
  • needleninja

    Posts: 713

    Oct 23, 2011 7:32 PM GMT
    Ariodante said
    q1w2e3 saidHe was posting on his personal Facebook page, so his comments should not have been construed as coming from his official post


    I think nowadays it's a pretty general understanding that anything you post anywhere can have a bearing on every aspect of your professional and personal life. There are no safe zones, you are accountable for all.


    yep its what it has come down to. There are even teachers who are being fired for comments like that. if your going to post something on the internet, then think before you post it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 7:38 PM GMT
    needleninja said
    Ariodante said
    q1w2e3 saidHe was posting on his personal Facebook page, so his comments should not have been construed as coming from his official post


    I think nowadays it's a pretty general understanding that anything you post anywhere can have a bearing on every aspect of your professional and personal life. There are no safe zones, you are accountable for all.


    yep its what it has come down to. There are even teachers who are being fired for comments like that. if your going to post something on the internet, then think before you post it.



    Those cases of teachers, however, involved the added aspect of having 'friended' students in addition to their controversial Facebook posts. I think a lot of people probably think it is inappropriate to 'friend' your minor aged students on your personal Facebook page. You have to place limits on your relationship with your students. They are your students, not your friends.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 23, 2011 8:11 PM GMT
    Like you said, @OP the Daily Mail aka the Daily Fail is a biased paper, I only read it for my celeb gossip.