A Christian housing manager, Adrian Smith, is taking legal action after he was demoted for posting allegedly homophobic comments on his personal Facebook page. I am backing his bid for reinstatement and I'm prepared to testify in his defence. Strange but true.
Trafford Housing Trust (THT), based near Manchester, was wrong, in my view, to demote Smith and cut his salary. They demoted him on the basis that he had described as "an equality too far" a BBC website report that the government was planning to allow same-sex couples to "marry" in churches.
In fact, the government had no such plans. It was proposing that religious organisations that wish to, should be allowed to host same-sex civil partnerships - not marriages.
When Facebook friends queried his stance, Smith added: "The bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women if the state wants to offer civil marriage to same sex then that is up to the state; but they shouldn't impose its rules on places of faith and conscience."
In other words, Smith accepted that the state should be free to conduct same-sex civil marriages, but he opposed churches being forced to conduct them.
THT construed these remarks as causing offence and insinuated that they had bought THT into disrepute. In addition, although the comments were made on his own facebook page, Smith identified himself as working for THT which, they say, contravenes their social media rules for employees.
THT has issued a statement defending its stance.
It has also claimed that there is more to this story than has been reported. However, Smith's solicitor, Tom Ellis, questions this claim. He says that THT's defence, already served to the court in advance of the trial, includes no significant new revelations.
Adrian Smith made his comments in his own time on his own facebook page, which is not viewed by the general public. He expressed an opinion. He did not personally discriminate against anyone. There is no evidence that he has treated any of his gay housing clients adversely.
Smith voiced his opinion in a calm, non-abusive manner. He was not threatening or intimidating.
His only possible misdemeanour is that he made his comments on a facebook page where it mentions that he works for THT, which is allegedly contrary to THT regulations. This is hardly a major crime. It certainly does not warrant the disproportionate punishment inflicted upon him.
Smith's demotion cuts his annual salary from £35,000 to £21,000 - equivalent to an indefinite fine of £14,000 a year. This is a very harsh punishment for a minor infraction of the THT's rules regarding postings on social media.
If a gay employee was treated this harshly by a Christian organisation for writing pro-gay comments on their personal facebook page, there would quite rightly be an outcry and accusations of homophobia. Why, then, are some lesbian and gay people supporting such a harsh penalty for Adrian Smith?
The views expressed by Smith are not particularly homophobic. He actually supported same-sex civil marriages by the state. His opposition to churches being compelled to hold gay marriages is shared by much of the population and by all equality and human rights organisations - plus the Prime Minister, the Equality Minister, the gay rights group Stonewall and the entire leadership of the Church of England. If Mr Smith is guilty, then they are all guilty.
Even I'm opposed to churches being forced by law to conduct same-sex marriages. I do, however, support an end to the legal ban on faith organisations holding gay weddings if they wish to do so. The Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Jews want to perform same-sex religious marriages and they want the law changed to enable them to do this. I support their appeal for law reform.
I have no doubt that THT acted with good intentions, in a bid to ensure equal opportunities, non-discrimination and inclusive service provision. Although its commitment to equality for lesbian and gay people is commendable, THT's response to Mr Smith's remarks is unjustified and over-the-top.
I have written to THT, urging them to reconsider their decision, and to revoke Smith's demotion and salary cut. In my opinion, if any disciplinary action was justified, it would have been sufficient for Trafford Housing Trust to have warned him about making contentious remarks in social media forums where he is identified as their employee. I hope they will now do this.
In a democratic society, Adrian Smith and others have a right to express their point of view, even if some people think it is misguided and wrong. Freedom of speech should only be penalised in extreme circumstances, such as when a person incites violence against others. Smith's words did not cross this threshold.
The right to speak our mind is hard-won and precious. It means the right of others to say things that many of us might find disagreeable and offensive. In a free society, even homophobes have a right to free speech - providing they don't incite violence.
As a straight man, I'm not going to pretend I don't struggle with the 'born this way' issue of homosexuality generally, but I've managed to reconcile my faith with showing love for the individual. No-one deserves to be persecuted in going about their daily business - I thought the attitude of the owners of the bridal salon in the recent "My Transsexual Summer" TV series, in trying to justify their own obvious prejudices by claiming their clientele might object, was disgusting. Everyone deserves a job and a fair chance.
Congratulations on remaining so objective.
[P.S. I do have an issue with the word 'homophobic'? It's not a FEAR of gays - it's ignorance. Not strictly a phobia. You could get some mileage with a debate on that topic!]
The unfortunate thing for him is that most people dont agree with him that Homosexulaity is a norm, as is shown otherwise by mother nature, its quite the opposite, so he tries to stifel and label people who are prepared to stand up and say so.
A good society whilst protecting the rights of minorities not to be subdugated or victimised, cannot be run for them, but has to be run for the majority (as in the result of an election) who though he may not like it do not agree with him.
Mother Nature has produced homosexuality in many (if not most) species. (Google, then read "Biological Exuberance".)
No, it is not the statistical "norm", but that doesn't mean it isn't natural or normal.
If your last aparagraph is indeed your idea of a "good society", PLEASE let me know how and where I can leave it. What is to protect minorities from the tyranny of the "majority" you think society should be "run for"? How does treating all citizens equally take away anything from the majority?
.
. I am not advocating any minorities not being treated equally as far as can be allowed, there is too much hatred in the world as it is, but defending the right for those who dont agree to be able to say so without being branded as bigots or "Homophobes".
It is easy to talk about treating all citizens equally, and up to a point this is a fine idea but its not always possible to do this at the expense of the overall wellbeing of society.
There is a big difference in being allowed to practice something yourself, as in the case of gay people, or any other minority section of society. than to attempt to force others to agree with you. And sorry again, a coherant society has to be run for the majority, with as many safeguards as possible to protect persecution for others.
1. Although I don't applaud you, I do commend you for defending this homophobe's rights to express his homophobia on his own Facebook page.
2. I disagree that this man has a right to call himself a "Christian": True followers of Jesus follow Jesus' admonition to "Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself." Jesus said nothing about "Loving Your Neighbor Unless Your Neighbor's a Big Ol' Homo." Unconditional love. That's what Jesus said.
3. I assume this housing complex the guy manages has a non-discrimination policy and that's why he was demoted. I think the housing complex has a right to assure itself that all its residents will be treated fairly, without discrimination as to sexual orientation. And it soiunds like this guy's posts on Facebook were nasty enough to cause his employer concern about his ability to do his job without discriminating against people who didn't live lives that squared with his religious beliefs.
4. It just goes to show --- don't post anything publicly that you're not willing to suffer consequences for. If this guy wants to be a hater, he shouldn't work for organizations that have policies against discrimination. But I guess he values his homophobia more than his job ...
1. Homophobia exists, but we need to pick our fights. Destroying a man's career because he mildly expressed a widely-held Christian opinion is not. the. way.
2. All he said was that he didn't see why people of no faith should be allowed to get married by religious organisations, and that civil marriage is fine but that religious organisations shouldn't be made to perform functions they don't approve of. That's it!
By all accounts the man has an opinion, which he made reasonably in a semi-private forum. So what, we're not allowed to say any opinions anywhere on the internet that our employer might not like? We're not allowed to employ Christians in any facet of society where they might come into contact with gay people? Do you really want to split the world into "good people" and "homophobes"?
No, he didn't say that.
He said, "if the state wants to offer civil marriage to same sex then that is up to the state; but they shouldn't impose its rules on places of faith and conscience."
And, of course, the state ISN'T doing that. It is NOT "impos[ing] its rules"; it's ALLOWING those faiths that DO wish to perform them to perform them.
He also said, "religious organisations shouldn't be made to perform functions they don't approve of."
And they are NOT being "made to perform" them.
Yes, of course he's allowed his opinion. He is NOT allowed his own 'facts'.
The fact is that social media gives a lot of people insight into our private thoughts and attitudes. All I can say is that we all should be a little more circumspect in our postings. Most readers on Huffington Post use pseudonyms, so they can speak freely. But I bet many are more circumspect on sites like Facebook where they use their real names. This ol' boy just found out how social media works, the hard way ...
I am actually rather sad Adrian thinks this way,but it would be a rather strange experience anyway for anyone to agree to be married in a place where they were not welcome,and indeed,despised or treated as second class human beings.
This gay man agrees.
Stop bearing false witness.
"Stop bearing false witness."
Stop being a punk.
In these cases, the employer (not us) has the responsibility to decide what, if any, punishment is appropriate. If the employee disagrees, they have the right to appeal to the employment tribunal, which will consider all the evidence, from both sides, then makes a decision. I think it would be presumptious for me to hold an opinion about what punishment is appropriate, given that I don't have access to all that evidence.
I'm not saying you should not give evidence in Mr Smith's defence. That's your prerogative and the tribunal (if that is where this is being appealed) will make the final decision, of course.
By the way, as an athiest, I couldn't care less whether churches host same-sex marriages, civil partnerships or anything else. I do realise it is important to some people, sadly.
Best wishes, dear friend.
This would be a far better solution than this ridiculous punishment that harms the company even further.