Comments

  1. Cris says

    I actually agree with the ruling. His Facebook was set to private. If it had been public, it could reflect on the company (assuming his company was listed on his page), but a private page should be private.

    Also, what he said was pretty mild compared to what some people post.

  2. dazzer says

    “London’s top court”????????????????????
    Ummm… London doesn’t have a “top” court. It’s the High Court of England and Wales, which is sitting in London. Also, judges in the more senior Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (ex House of Lords) might take umbrage at a lower court being described as a “top” anything.
    Theoretically, Trafford Council could appeal against the decision, but it’s unlikely they’d win. And many gay commentators in the UK seem to think that the court made the right decision, anyway.

  3. Lucas H says

    Yeah, he’s an ignorant @$$, but…I’d hate to think that I could be fired or demoted if I said something offensive on my personal FB account outside of work. Jerkfaces deserve the same rights as we do, I guess…

  4. Jim says

    While I would hate to be punished at work for what is on my Facebook, it is good to see that with all the romanticizing that we Americans can do about the Brits (Kate, Will, Winston, et al) that we are reminded that they have their own ignorant people as well.

  5. gregory brown says

    It’s better to let people make their assy remarks so others can see them instead of letting them fester in whispers. Private communications are distinct from those that might be seen as representing an official/public entity, whether a business or government. There are legitimate limits to utterances in speech or writing but the employer here went beyond them, as some in the USA do time to time.

  6. Luke says

    Yeah, I don’t get why gays would want to get married in churches either. Personally, I hope I never set foot in a church ever again. C’mon gays, find somewhere else to get married.

  7. rdiac says

    So he’s gone and libeled the government and gay community by saying that churches could be forced to accommodate weddings outside their communion, gone on to post other positions overtly hostile to the council’s clients and his coworkers; and then somehow it isn’t a libelous falsehood or an HR issue?

    To say “the state shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience” is clearly deceptive, and obviously certain politico-religious interests have learnt nothing from their child abuse facilitation, coverups and soon to be scandals relating to diversion of funds to lobbying.

    Needless to say the ‘private’ setting would appear to denote public speech if it’s gone this far. Grrrr.

  8. Diogenes Arktos says

    I’m not a lawyer. I would hope one who reads this feed could offer a brief statement on employment law in the US regarding private postings on Facebook &c. I have heard about employers asking for the passwords to these accounts as part of the hiring process. I believe that has been ruled unacceptable, but have heard that an employer must be allowed to be a friend. Help!

  9. Howard says

    Question for our British friends. Can the government force a church to marry a couple that goes against the church’s religious values? IE an inter-faith couple, or a divorced couple?

    If not, then why all the ruckus about gay couples? It seems the same rules apply to marrying gay couples as any other couple. If there is a religious objection (inter-faith, divorced, gay etc) then the church gets to opt out. Seems simple to me, but then what do I know.

  10. Howard says

    Question for our British friends. Can the government force a church to marry a couple that goes against the church’s religious values? IE an inter-faith couple, or a divorced couple?

    If not, then why all the ruckus about gay couples? It seems the same rules apply to marrying gay couples as any other couple. If there is a religious objection (inter-faith, divorced, gay etc) then the church gets to opt out. Seems simple to me, but then what do I know.

  11. Devin says

    Thanks Howard, I was wondering the same thing.

    Also, since when do companies have the right to demand access to my personal bloggs, Facebook, etc? Unlike some, I don’t collect friends just to get high numbers. My FB is private and for friends and family only. The company gets me for a limited number of hours, not for around the clock surveillance. They may connect with me on LinkedIn however as that is an appropriate space. I had one co-worker (who was a Swinger) try to contact my brother (for dubious reasons) on FB because I had my page set to public. Imagine if it had been my Boss.

  12. Booker says

    There aren’t enough details here for me to be sure, but…I can’t imagine this guy thinks the UK government would make all churches perform same-sex marriage ceremonies; he may be worried that the Established Church at some point would have to, which is the situation in Denmark (although individual priests can opt out) Since the U.S. has no state church, the issue here is (obviously) very different.

  13. dazzer says

    Howard, theoretically Parliament could pass a law forcing churches to marry couples. There’s no law anything like that on the statute books and I can’t foresee one ever being there. In fact, I suspect it would fall foul of the Human Rights legislation (the right to religious beliefs)and never see the light of day – should anyone ever propose it.

    The opponents of equal marriage in the UK use the selfsame Human Rights legislation to create an entirely false panic that somehow churches will be forced to officiate at gay weddings.

    Essentially, the objections of the religions that oppose equal marriage amount to barely covered homophobia and general bigotry (I’m using both perjorative words with consideration – they are accurate and appropriate in this context).

    Howard, it IS simple. Also, already you probably know more than most UK opponents to equality.

  14. Linda says

    I’m gay, but I agree with the court’s ruling. Even a bigot is entitled to free speech. What he says in a private forum is nothing to do with his employer.

Leave A Reply