Housing manager disciplined for criticizing gay marriage

[Jamie123]

Sale housing trust boss in ?gay marriage? row to sue | Manchester Evening News - menmedia.co.uk

This is about contraversial proposals to force Churches to perform gay marriages.

What Adrian Smith actually said was “The Bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women. If the state wants to offer civil marriages to the same sex then that is up to the state; but the state shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.”

Trafford Housing Trust disagrees, and posting that remark cost Adrian Smith his managerial post, a pay-cut of £14,000 a year, and (and this really takes the biscuit) if it were not for his 25 years of loyal service he would (so they say) have been sacked!

The funny thing, this isn't even getting them any brownie-points from the gay community. Several gay organizations have come out in defence of Adrian Smith, and even Peter Tatchell (the famous gay-rights activist) says Trafford Housing Trust are seriously in the wrong.

Nevertheless they say they're going to "vigorously defend their position". It'll be interesting to see where this leads...

[Dravin]

I wonder what the exact policy is listed in the code of conduct. I suspect it's some variation of a vague, "Don't say anything that may offend anyone whatsoever. We don't even need actual offended people, just the possiblity that someone could take it offensively is a violation."

[sister_in_faith]

You have a right to free speech, but not when you are doing it as a representative for a company, if they disapprove.

I tend to agree with the housing people, because we want to make sure that there isn't any possibility that there is housing discrimination going on. If he publicly criticized disabled people I would fear that he would possibly discirminate against them too...

That's just my first take on it, and I don't know ANY of the details, so I may be wrong. Again. Yes. It happened once before.

[Dravin]

You have a right to free speech, but not when you are doing it as a representative for a company, if they disapprove.

You still have a right to free speech*, you just don't have a right of freedom from consequences from your employer. Rights have limitations on just where and how they apply. In this case the right to free speech is, in concept (there are numerous exceptions), the right to say what you will without government consequence. Other entities are free to levy consequences within the constraints of your rights that would apply to them (for instance I can ban you from this message board for say going on a ranting tirade about evil Mormons, I can not, legally, kill you in response as that'd be in violation of other rights that do apply to me).

*Well in the US, not to imply the UK is totalitarian but I don't know exactly what their enumerated rights are.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Dravin

[HoosierGuy]

British and European law is very cool. A woman was sued recently by Sky broadcasting. She wanted to watch soccer but did not want to pay the monthly Sky feed. So she bought a receiver that would pick up the German TV signals and watch soccer that way. Sky sued and said if she is going to watch British soccer it must be though Sky TV and not free German TV. The case went to the European court and they sided with the woman! They said she was watching live soccer and you can't copyright live TV, only the fonts used on the screen during the production, something along those lines. Anyway, she won, the way it should be.

What does this have to do with the post? It looks like British and European laws are very much for the people. In this case they are not messing around with some hate speech from a Christian evangelical.

[Dravin]

What does this have to do with the post? It looks like British and European laws are very much for the people. In this case they are not messing around with some hate speech from a Christian evangelical.

I wouldn't have suspected you believe that hate speech is enshrined in the US constitution. There may be additional comments available elsewhere but the only comment of his shared in the article was espousing what amounts to first amendment principles of separation of church and state.

[Jamie123]

You have a right to free speech, but not when you are doing it as a representative for a company, if they disapprove.

I tend to agree with the housing people, because we want to make sure that there isn't any possibility that there is housing discrimination going on. If he publicly criticized disabled people I would fear that he would possibly discirminate against them too...

That's just my first take on it, and I don't know ANY of the details, so I may be wrong. Again. Yes. It happened once before.

A good point, but consider the following....

Firstly Adrian Smith didn't speak as a representative of a company. He posted the message on a private web page, visible only to his Facebook "friends". I see no difference between that and voicing your own personal opinions at a party, or during the lunch hour at work. The comment would never have reached his employers' ears had not one of his so-called "friends" snitched on him.

Secondly he didn't criticize gay people. He didn't even criticize gay partnerships. He merely said the state should NOT force religious organizations to change their internal sacred practices to conform to the current political orthodoxy. Yes I know what you're going to say - where does one draw the line? Should the state tolerate such things as non-consentual female circumcision in the name of religious liberty? Maybe not. But allowing every gay couple in Britain to select any church and force them to perform sacred ceremonies contrary to their beliefs is indeed (to use Adrian Smith's own words) "an equality too far".

If you were asked by one of your work colleagues if you thought the US Government should be allowed to force the LDS Church to perform Temple marriages for gay couples, what would your response be? And if you said "no", and that colleague relayed your response to your bosses, would they be justified in punishing you as a "gay-basher"?

I think not.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Jamie123

[Dravin]

A good point, but consider the following....

Firstly Adrian Smith didn't speak as a representative of a company. He posted the message on a private web page, visible only to his Facebook "friends". I see no difference between that and voicing your own personal opinions at a party, or during the lunch hour at work. The comment would never have reached his employers' ears had not one of his so-called "friends" snitched on him.

The clincher is that he identified himself with the company. If you identified yourself as a teller at 5th/3rd bank (I think that's an idiotic name for a bank BTW) and then went on a tirade at a party about how all the Jews are greedy and evil that fact the you are at a party wouldn't save you from termination (them never hearing about it will though). The interest the company has in the event is in being associated with undesirable people and their opinions and how that might affect potential customers or the organizations ability to accomplish it's goals.

Could we agree that if he truly was over in crazy hateville that the idea of termination to protect company reputation makes sense?

The thing is as you point out he didn't go into crazy hateville and that's not a minor point.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Dravin

[Jamie123]

Could we agree that if he truly was over in crazy hateville that the idea of termination to protect company reputation makes sense?

The thing is as you point out he didn't go into crazy hateville and that's not a minor point.

OK I guess I'd agree. As a tenured academic I've lived a somewhat spoiled existence, and I've learned to take academic freedom for granted. The "real world" is perhaps a little harsher.

But this is WAY too harsh. As you say, suggesting that the ceremonial practices of churches should be off-limits to state interference is very far from "crazy hateville".

[PrinceofLight2000]

The clincher is that he identified himself with the company. If you identified yourself as a teller at 5th/3rd bank (I think that's an idiotic name for a bank BTW) and then went on a tirade at a party about how all the Jews are greedy and evil that fact the you are at a party wouldn't save you from termination (them never hearing about it will though). The interest the company has in the event is in being associated with undesirable people and their opinions and how that might affect potential customers or the organizations ability to accomplish it's goals.

Could we agree that if he truly was over in crazy hateville that the idea of termination to protect company reputation makes sense?

The thing is as you point out he didn't go into crazy hateville and that's not a minor point.

I think there's quite a lot of overreaching when you'd have to remove the info from your career description on facebook in order to preserve freedom of speech on your own personal page. In my mind, this is the same as having your boss walk into your house and overhearing you say something they disagreed with to a group of visitors, then firing you because you happened to be wearing your company jacket complete with nametag on your own personal time. If it's not happening on company property (as in a company-issued or official company facebook page) or on company time, they should have absolutely no grounds for disciplinary action, and I'd support a law specifically outlining such criteria. I also believe that most people with at least half a brain will realize that an individual stating their opinion, even in a professional setting, is not necessarily the position of any given conglomerate of people, including a company. Overreactions like this are quite patronizing. Frankly, it's none of the company's business what an employee says on anyone else's property, including social gatherings, when they aren't acting as a representative of the company (better known as being on the clock). That may also include professional company-related social gatherings where one is still recognized as a company rep, which is what I think you might have been thinking of when the word party was brought up.

Edited November 5, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000

[Dravin]

I think there's quite a lot of overreaching when you'd have to remove the info from your career description on facebook in order to preserve freedom of speech on your own personal page.

Being censured by your employer isn't a freedom of speech issue (I suppose possibly if your employer is the government). Freedom of speech (in the US) revolves around the government, it's Congress shall make no law, not your employer shall make no policy.

That may also include professional company-related social gatherings where one is still recognized as a company rep, which is what I think you might have been thinking of when the word party was brought up.

No it it wasn't. If you have a habit of blasting offensive tirades and you have associated yourself with the companies name and image they have a vested interest in disassociating themselves from you. Generally the more you represent the company and the more you are associated with the company the more they care. Nobody thinks much about the burger flipper doing something stupid or offensive, it tends to be professionals who feel the full weight of such consequences. It may not be illegal and it may be off the clock, but something like a pictures on Facebook of a lawyer doing a beer bong or a wall post of him going on about evil <insert race> reflect poorly on the firm if people make the connection, a lot of people are going to want to avoid the law firm where the drunk or racist lawyer works. The concern is if he's clearly identified himself as working for the firm people will make the connection.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Dravin

[Soulsearcher]

Sadly I'm sure he agreed to company policies. We might not like them but they are there and in every job I've had i've had to read and sign off on policies i was required to follow including internet and social networking policies. They can be a bit vague at times but they have them for a reason. Easiest way to avoid trouble is not to identify who you work for*, otherwise you tend to fall under the policies that you agreed to. Is this case fair? Probably not, but if most companies violated a policy not many people would usually be on the company's side against the "wronged" worker/workers.

*In some cases this might not even be enough if there is a clause governing any action or activity that could tarnish the reputation of a company.

Edited November 5, 2011 by Soulsearcher

[Jamie123]

Dravin makes a very good point that "freedom of speech" need not necessarily mean that a person can say anything he/she wants and expect no ill consequences, but simply that (subject to certain limits) government may not punish them for doing so.

That a person may criticize gays and (so long as his remarks are not violent or threatening) not expect a criminal penalty is now more-or-less established in the UK. There have recently been several attempts to prosecute Christians for saying that homosexuality is sinful, and as far as I know all of these (with the exception of one American preacher, who pleaded guilty in order to get home quickly) failed - often with the police paying damages for wrongful arrest.

But this is not a criminal matter. Adrian Smith was punished for breaking company guidelines, not the law of the land. Rather than making this a free speech issue, it would be better to concentrate on the following questions:

1. Are private communications between an employee and his acquaintances any business of his employer, even when those acquaintances know that he is their employee?

and...

2. Can voicing your support for current legislation (and that was all he effectively did) be considered "behavior likely to offend"?

In both cases it depends on what is written in the person's contract of employment, but this would need to be very clearly spelled out. We will have to see what the lawyers make of it...

For what it's worth, the proposal of making it illegal for churches to discriminate against practicing homosexuals in the matter of marriage (*) is ludicrous and doomed to failure. Parliament could (in theory I suppose) impose such a rule on the established Church of England, but this would cause such a mass-exodus that the church would practically cease to exist. To to apply that same rule to Roman Catholics, Evangelical Fundamentalists, Jehovah's Witnesses and (heaven forbid!) Mormons would be tantamount to outlawing those faiths. It would be the death of religious freedom!

And *shudder* dare you even imagine what would happen if they tried imposing that rule on the Muslims?

To be honest I don't believe any politician is seriously proposing anything so stupid, but that is nonetheless the position Adrian Smith sets out to criticize. So perhaps he can be accused of making a strawman attack...? I don't know. We shall see..

Edited November 6, 2011 by Jamie123

[HEthePrimate]

It's not clear to me that the government was forcing churches to perform gay marriages. From what I understand, this fellow was complaining that they were LETTING churches perform gay marriages. Their is a huge difference.

A housing trust manager who was demoted after making Facebook comments criticising plans to let gay couples marry in church is suing his bosses for £50,000....

Commenting on a BBC story headlined ‘Gay church "marriage" to get go-ahead’, Mr Smith wrote: "An equality too far."

(Emphasis added by HEP)

Edited November 9, 2011 by HEthePrimate

[HEthePrimate]

Ok, I just found the BBC story that prompted Mr. Smith to write what he did on Facebook. As it turns out, I was right--the article says the government was lifting a ban on same-sex marriages in churches, and specifically states that churches will not be obliged to perform SSMs. So Mr. Smith and his church are not being forced to do anything they don't want to--they just don't want other people and churches to have the freedom to do it if they want.

Here's a link: BBC Article on SSM

Edited November 9, 2011 by HEthePrimate

[prisonchaplain]

Ok, I just found the BBC story that prompted Mr. Smith to write what he did on Facebook. As it turns out, I was right--the article says the government was lifting a ban on same-sex marriages in churches, and specifically states that churches will not be obliged to perform SSMs. So Mr. Smith and his church are not being forced to do anything they don't want to--they just don't want other people and churches to have the freedom to do it if they want.

I beg to differ. You may accuse Mr. Smith of misunderstanding the new practice, but it is unfair, based upon his words, to say that he does not want other churches to have their freedom. From the original link, Smith's comment was:

"The Bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women. If the state wants to offer civil marriages to the same sex then that is up to the state; but the state shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience."

The company claims the only issue they demoted him for was publically identifying himself on Facebook as a manager with them. Cutting his pay and position for such a seemingly mild infraction might lead most to guess that somebody high up disagreed with Mr. Smith. In fact, that would be my guess.

[HEthePrimate]

I beg to differ. You may accuse Mr. Smith of misunderstanding the new practice, but it is unfair, based upon his words, to say that he does not want other churches to have their freedom. From the original link, Smith's comment was:

Quote:

"The Bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women. If the state wants to offer civil marriages to the same sex then that is up to the state; but the state shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience."

Perhaps you're right, and Mr. Smith does not want to impose his will on other churches, and is actually complaining about the state forcing its rules on churches. The problem with that is the state is NOT imposing its rules on churches. The state is allowing churches to perform gay marriages, if they choose to. If they do not want to, they don't have to. The state is not imposing anything at all. It is, in fact, providing greater freedom to churches.

The reason I thought Mr. Smith might be trying to impose his will on other churches is partly because of the article's opening paragraph:

"A housing trust manager who was demoted after making Facebook comments criticising plans to let gay couples marry in church is suing his bosses for £50,000." (emphasis added)

That would lead one to believe that he thinks the government should not permit churches to perform same sex marriages. However, it is not a direct quote, and the reporter may have misunderstood him. Another thing is that Mr. Smith referred to gay marriage as "An equality too far," implying that gays should not be "as equal" as straight people.

So, I cannot prove from this article that Mr. Smith wants to impose his will on other churches, but it would not surprise me if it's true. Heaven knows I've run into enough people who do believe that nobody should be allowed to perform same sex marriages!

Edited November 9, 2011 by HEthePrimate

[HEthePrimate]

FWIW, I think that Mr. Smith, like everybody else, should be allowed to express his views freely. (I'm big on freedom of speech.) I don't know the details of the case, but it does sound like a higher up might have disagreed with him and unfairly disciplined him, and that's not right, so he has my sympathy for that.

But if he wants (IF! ) the government to enforce his religious standards on other churches, I reserve the right to disagree with him on that. (I'm also big on freedom of religion.)

[prisonchaplain]

In this case they are not messing around with some hate speech from a Christian evangelical.

A couple of questions here:

1. What content from Mr. Smith would you characterize as hate speech?

2. What does Smith's identity as a Christian evangelical have to do with "they" not messing around with some hate speech?

[Jamie123]

Another thing is that Mr. Smith referred to gay marriage as "An equality too far," implying that gays should not be "as equal" as straight people.

I think he may have used the word "equality" ironically - like George Orwell did when he said "some are more equal than others".

You're quite right though - Mr. Smith's comment was directed against a strawman. But all the same, it was by no means "likely to cause offence". At least not to anyone without a severe persecution complex.

[PrinceofLight2000]

What does this have to do with the post?

Nothing. Apples and oranges.

It looks like British and European laws are very much for the people.

Hardly.

In this case they are not messing around with some hate speech from a Christian evangelical.

First, this has nothing to do with British laws. It's about a company intruding into the personal lives of their employees when they have no business doing so.

Second, if I had a nickel for every time you post baseless claims like this hate speech bit and only substantiated them with more baseless claims and platitudes, I'd be rich. Sometimes I wonder if you don't really believe what you do, are just trying to stir the pot by making these baseless claims, or both.

Edited November 10, 2011 by PrinceofLight2000