Homophobic Bigot Loses Case.......

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-56089759
...bet she wished she'd kept her trap shut.

[jim360]

This isn't a "personal" view, though. She expressed it, and has made clear that she stands by it. A view that gay people are "wrong" about what is, by implication, a lifestyle choice is in any case clearly exclusionary and discriminatory. I'm not sure why anybody should be obliged to employ someone who is openly "-ist" about something or other, or should be described as bigoted for refusing to do so.

The two positions are categorically different: for example, because one is discrimination based on ignorance, and the other is manifestly not.

[Mozz71]

Well, I think employers always look at past performances when employing people. I mean, this woman works in theatre, you can't tell me she isn't surrounded by LGTB+ types every working day of her life. Now, no casting agent is going to employ her in a production that includes gay cast/crew for fear of so kind of friction between the two. She's cut her own throat here.

[naomi24]

She should be entitled to express her views, Jim, as should everyone.

[pixie374]

In your view, Jim. And while I totally agree with it everyone is entitled to their own, whether you see it as right or wrong.
As I said earlier, you and I sometimes have totally opposite ideas of bigotry on some subjects. That doesn't mean someone can't do their paid job. (Won't...is a different matter).

[pixie374]

... totally agree with you!...

[jim360]

// You shouldn't be working around a principle, Jim. If it's wrong for one it's wrong for all. //

I'm not working around it. In both my examples there are, in effect, two jobs on offer at both places: For the case of the Sabbath "exemption", there is one position that requires a Saturday shift and one that does not; for the case of refusing to sell alcohol, there is a position that requires directly selling alcohol and one that does not. In such situations, the person seeking the "exemption" merely takes the second position and not the first.

If, however, the second position were not available, for whatever reason, then absolutely the person shouldn't be offered an exemption, or, on discovering that they are refusing to fulfil their duties properly, they should be sacked.

Applying this to the present case, in the limited case that she hadn't also made and reaffirmed homophobic comments etc, then if two parts are available, one requiring an actress to play a lesbian against their wishes and one that doesn't, you could simply offer the second part.

[jim360]

// She should be entitled to express her views, Jim, as should everyone. //

Agreed. She is not, however, entitled to keep her job when doing so would bring the company into disrepute, affect ticket sales, create an uncomfortable working environment for those colleagues she obviously judges negatively, etc.

[Mozz71]

//She should be entitled to express her views, Jim, as should everyone.//

Agreed, but nobody should be free from the consequence of publicly airing those views.

[naomi24]

Jim, the drum you beat depends upon your own personal opinions. Principle doesn’t enter into it.

[jim360]

It's pretty clear what the principle I'm espousing is: people shouldn't accept jobs they would refuse to do properly. If an alternative job is available, they should accept (or be offered) that job instead.

[Peter Pedant]

// She should be entitled to express her views, Jim, as should everyone.//
hullo naomi - why are you always whining about me then?

and what about the usual- terrorism, incitement to kill people like the vice president of the united states and selling drugs to children?

every country limits free speech somewhere
it just depends where

but I think you really knew that

[pixie374]

No such thing as 'incitement'. Adults make their own choices, and even if I tried to persuade all ABers to rob their local bank... it would be their choice and responsibility, if they did.
An opinion , with no actions, is just communication. And you are never going to change someone's mind or "educate" them, by shutting them up.

[jim360]

Luckily for us all, incitement is accepted -- rightly -- as a crime in many instances, particularly when it comes to terrorism. As an example, you could point to Charles Manson, who never murdered anybody personally, but created the environment that made those murders possible. The idea that he was not also culpable is difficult to take seriously. Note that his own culpability for his part in the crime doesn't take away from the equal guilt of those who actually committed the murders.

[Zacs-Master]

Incitement is enshrined in law and is defined as 'incitement occurs when a person seeks to persuade another to commit a criminal offence'. Note the word 'seeks' and not 'succeeds'.

Not sure how you can say there's no such thing?

[pixie374]

I suspect he was a little more involved than a post on social media. But in any case, it is impossible (literally) to brainwash an adult. Maybe we should hold people more responsible for their own actions, than what they were "told".

[pixie374]

Legally, zacs. Not in reality or principle though.

[jim360]

I don't dispute that brainwashing isn't a thing, but it doesn't mean that incitement isn't also a crime (and, for the record, is clearly far more serious than anything Omooba has said).

[Zacs-Master]

'Legally, zacs. Not in reality or principle though.'

I have no idea what that means. Law is the most basic form of reality, surely?

[pixie374]

Jim and zacs... I know it is legally a crime. But we also know (at least, nowadays), that you cannot incite another adult into committing a crime.
Personally, in every way, I would prefer people to take far more responsibility for their own behaviour, than "but he told me to". It's childish and weak.

[Zacs-Master]

'But we also know (at least, nowadays), that you cannot incite another adult into committing a crime.'

Then why is incitement written into law?