Anti gay marriage in church Christian sacked

[Furrowed Brow]

Facebook gay wedding comment man wins demotion case

Adrian Smith described gay marriage as an "equality too far" on Facebook and was demoted at work as a result. His employer was Trafford Housing Trust (THT). This is their policy on Equality and Diversity

From the BBC Website: Peter Tatchell, a prominent campaigner on gay and lesbian issues, described the trust's actions as "excessive".
I agree with Tatchell

Adrian Smith said: "Something has poisoned the atmosphere in Britain, where an honest man like me can be punished for making perfectly polite remarks about the importance of marriage.

I also agree with Adrian Smith.

So to be clear this thread starts with the assertion that the Trust got it wrong, were way too heavy handed, and they should not have demoted Smith. Shame on them.

Do Christians in the UK, America and elsewhere feel the atmosphere is being poisoned against them when they see cases like this? But....before answering this question please also answer this next question. If Adrian Smith had posted a positive affirmation of gay marriage but worked in a Christian institution like the Vatican, or the head office of Watchtower, or they were an administrator at Brigham Young university etc, would they be treated better or worse than the way Trafford Housing Trust treated Smith? Do you think a pro gay marriage manager exercising their free speech should expect to stay employed within a Christian organisation that opposes gay marriage?

So the point I want to get at is this. Are folk like Adrian Smith victimised in a way Christian organisations would not do if roles were reversed?

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 5 by connermt]

You do realize that Christians are humans right?

We certainly do.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 5 by connermt]

You do realize that Christians are humans right?

We certainly do.

As I'm sure you realize that these grand christians/people are supposed to be "god-like" in their lives.
Unfortunately, many christians act less than human than non-christians. Some even frequent this forum!

[Mr.Badham]

[Replying to post 1 by Furrowed Brow]

How do I get a job where they pay me to look at employees facebook pages? What kind of company thinks they're going to eliminate prejudiced employees by monitoring facebook? Come on!

Unless... wait, maybe there's more to it. Maybe there's something about this story that we don't know! Maybe we shouldn't jump to conclusions about this man any more than he shouldn't jump to conclusions about homosexuality, and gay marriage.

[Philbert]

I tend to agree employers should not involve themselves in the public policy opinions of their employees, but the situation does get more complicated the higher ranking the employee is.

That said, I found this quote from the demoted employee hilarious....

Does the Prime Minister want to create a society where people like me, people who believe in traditional marriage, are treated as outcasts?

One wonders how long it will take people like the clueless demoted employee to realize that treating people like outcasts is exactly what they are arguing for themselves.

[Choir Loft]

Facebook gay wedding comment man wins demotion case

Adrian Smith described gay marriage as an "equality too far" on Facebook and was demoted at work as a result. His employer was Trafford Housing Trust (THT). This is their policy on Equality and Diversity

From the BBC Website: Peter Tatchell, a prominent campaigner on gay and lesbian issues, described the trust's actions as "excessive".
I agree with Tatchell

Adrian Smith said: "Something has poisoned the atmosphere in Britain, where an honest man like me can be punished for making perfectly polite remarks about the importance of marriage.

I also agree with Adrian Smith.

So to be clear this thread starts with the assertion that the Trust got it wrong, were way too heavy handed, and they should not have demoted Smith. Shame on them.

Do Christians in the UK, America and elsewhere feel the atmosphere is being poisoned against them when they see cases like this? But....before answering this question please also answer this next question. If Adrian Smith had posted a positive affirmation of gay marriage but worked in a Christian institution like the Vatican, or the head office of Watchtower, or they were an administrator at Brigham Young university etc, would they be treated better or worse than the way Trafford Housing Trust treated Smith? Do you think a pro gay marriage manager exercising their free speech should expect to stay employed within a Christian organisation that opposes gay marriage?

So the point I want to get at is this. Are folk like Adrian Smith victimised in a way Christian organisations would not do if roles were reversed?

The fact that the question has to be asked at all is it's own answer. Christians are no longer allowed to practice their own religion in their own way.

This is a form of tyranny and a violation of the freedom of religion.

But nobody cares, beginning with Christians. If they gave a nickels' worth of a damn, they'd be out in the street protesting day and night. Muslims do so for far less grievances.

The fault, therefore, is not on the part of the gay community. It is squarely upon the shoulders of Christians who've let it happen.

Cry not for us, for we have died by our own hand.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft....

[Philbert]

Adrian Smith said: "Something has poisoned the atmosphere in Britain, where an honest man like me can be punished for making perfectly polite remarks about the importance of marriage.

Of course it is marriage that the gay community is promoting.

Smith isn't interested in the importance of marriage, he's interested in his own fantasy superiority, he's interested in denying his neighbors legal rights he claims for himself, and he's interested in competing with the gay community for victim status.

Christians are no longer allowed to practice their own religion in their own way.

This is blatantly false. If a Christian sincerely believes homosexuality is a sin, they have every right to not participate in homosexuality, and in all the endless conversations and controversy on this topic, I've not seen a single person argue otherwise.

What some, but not all, Christians want to do is shove their religion down their neighbor's throats, using the force of law as their weapon. That's not practicing a religion of love, that's being a huge jerk.

The compromise is there any time these Christians are ready to come to their senses.

1) The state must treat all citizens equally before the law, thus gay people must be allowed to marry if their straight neighbors are allowed to marry.

2) The state should not force any religion to marry gay people, and this too should be instituted in to law anywhere this is not already the case.

What's infected the atmosphere is a group of people who think it's a great idea to have one law for them, and another for their neighbor.

It's important to remember that NOT all Christians are like this, but rather a subgroup of Christians. As example, 50% of American Catholics support gay marriage. So people like Smith should not be allowed to claim or imply that they are speaking for Christianity. They are speaking only for themselves.

[Choir Loft]

Adrian Smith said: "Something has poisoned the atmosphere in Britain, where an honest man like me can be punished for making perfectly polite remarks about the importance of marriage.

Of course it is marriage that the gay community is promoting.

Smith isn't interested in the importance of marriage, he's interested in his own fantasy superiority, he's interested in denying his neighbors legal rights he claims for himself, and he's interested in competing with the gay community for victim status.

Christians are no longer allowed to practice their own religion in their own way.

This is blatantly false. If a Christian sincerely believes homosexuality is a sin, they have every right to not participate in homosexuality, and in all the endless conversations and controversy on this topic, I've not seen a single person argue otherwise.

What some, but not all, Christians want to do is shove their religion down their neighbor's throats, using the force of law as their weapon. That's not practicing a religion of love, that's being a huge jerk.

The compromise is there any time these Christians are ready to come to their senses.

1) The state must treat all citizens equally before the law, thus gay people must be allowed to marry if their straight neighbors are allowed to marry.

2) The state should not force any religion to marry gay people, and this too should be instituted in to law anywhere this is not already the case.

What's infected the atmosphere is a group of people who think it's a great idea to have one law for them, and another for their neighbor.

It's important to remember that NOT all Christians are like this, but rather a subgroup of Christians. As example, 50% of American Catholics support gay marriage. So people like Smith should not be allowed to claim or imply that they are speaking for Christianity. They are speaking only for themselves.

Christians are increasingly being forced to abandon their religious beliefs in favor of those of a debauched and corrupt society. To claim otherwise is to accept a lie.

There have been a number of news stories published involved preachers and pastors who have refused to marry gay couples. The fact that these stories have been published bears witness to the pressure exerted by the media and gay alliance upon Christians to abandon their religious principles and adopt wicked ideas.

The moral high ground of gays who have often stated that it is wrong for one group of people to dictate the behavior of another is pure hypocrisy.

It is hypocritical because gays are now dictating to others how those others should believe and act and what others should accept. If a Christian wishes to attend a church that refuses to accept the gay world view (God has declared that it is an abomination), to accept the gay life style as godly (it isn't), and to marry gay couples (sexual relations between men and beasts is forbidden) then a Christian has the God given right, if not the legal one, to do so without interference and obstruction by self-righteous gay activists.

It has been said that one ought not kill the messenger for bearing bad news. Such is the exception in American society today. The pages of the Bible forbid homosexual relations. Killing and denouncing the messenger does not eradicate the message.

The sodomite will not see the Kingdom of Heaven.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[Philbert]

Christians are increasingly being forced to abandon their religious beliefs in favor of those of a debauched and corrupt society.

Please provide evidence of Christians being forced to abandon their religious beliefs.

There have been a number of news stories published involved preachers and pastors who have refused to marry gay couples. The fact that these stories have been published bears witness to the pressure exerted by the media and gay alliance upon Christians to abandon their religious principles and adopt wicked ideas.

As your own words clearly demonstrate, the preachers and pastors have successfully declined to perform the gay marriages.

NOBODY FORCED THEM TO PERFORM THE MARRIAGES.

The moral high ground of gays who have often stated that it is wrong for one group of people to dictate the behavior of another is pure hypocrisy.

Is there a law on the books that denies gays the right to marry? Yes.

Is there a law on the books that dictates what Christians must do or believe? No.

It is hypocritical because gays are now dictating to others how those others should believe and act and what others should accept.

Gay people are asking for the very same rights you claim for yourself, and nothing more.

If a Christian wishes to attend a church that refuses to accept the gay world view (God has declared that it is an abomination), to accept the gay life style as godly (it isn't), and to marry gay couples (sexual relations between men and beasts is forbidden) then a Christian has the God given right, if not the legal one, to do so without interference and obstruction by self-righteous gay activists.

If you want people to get out of your face, then get out of theirs. The gay community has been victimized for centuries, due in significant part to the Bible interpretations of some Christians.

YOU ARE NOT THE VICTIM HERE.

Christianity does not involve competing with the oppressed and downtrodden for victim status.

The pages of the Bible forbid homosexual relations. Killing and denouncing the messenger does not eradicate the message.

Nobody has killed any Christians over this issue, please put your hysteria and glorious martyr syndrome back in your pocket.

The solution is unbelievably simple.

If a Christian sincerely believes homosexuality is a sin, they are entirely free to not engage in homosexuality.

Nobody has any objection to this at all.

Mind your own business, and you won't find yourself at war with your neighbors.

[tokutter]

Christians are increasingly being forced to abandon their religious beliefs in favor of those of a debauched and corrupt society. To claim otherwise is to accept a lie.




.

If a change comes to your christian beliefs..it will come from within.

It will change.....or you will start losing members.

Thats not good...for business....the business of Christianity.

So drip by drip by drip....the powers that be will start reinterpreting...or focus on other concepts until you just give homosexuality the minimal lip service you can and move on......much like you all do with divorce/adultery......

Here is part of an on going argument our fellow member KCID has made about divorce/adultery and how christians turn a blind eye http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... ht=#591463

So fear not Choir Loft....christianity..like the good virus it is...will mutate....and LIVE ON.


.

[Furrowed Brow]

This is a form of tyranny and a violation of the freedom of religion.

Ok. And as I pointed out in the OP the Trust got it wrong and were way to heavy handed. But maybe you are right, if the Trust has been more subtle, subtle pressure is still pressure. So yes I think I agree that there is a restraint on religious freedom imposed.

But you ignore the other question posed in the OP. If the roles were reversed would a pro gay marriage manager in a Christian organisation have fared better?