Lds Church Backs Utah Lgbt Anti-Discrimination Bill

[tonie]

Why indeed! That's why I say it appears they are seeking privileges for a protected class, not preservation of rights to which everyone is entitled.

Dont you mean "protected classes"?

And who isnt protected under the current propsal?

[Scott Lloyd]

Dont you mean "protected classes"?

And who isnt protected under the current propsal?

I have no quarrel with the current proposal. I was alluding to senator, newby and others, who apparently believe that an employer should be allowed to fire -- or allow himself to be pressured into firing -- an employee for the mere expression of a political or religious viewpoint.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Ahab]

You are wrong because of two major flaws in your scenario.

First major flaw, Utah DOES NOT recognize gender identity or LGBT/Heterosexual as protected classes. Therefore no baker in Utah is required to bake a cake for anyone. Nor a photographer to photograph.

Second major flaw, SB296 IS NOT ABOUT providing goods/services. SB296 is about HOUSING and EMPLOYMENT.

I wanted to give someone something to be nitpicky about. Plus I was trying to be funny.

Feel free to give another example of the type of discrimination that is allowed by that bill.

[Senator]

Really?

 

I find that bizarre -- and a bit frightening that someone would thus favor the suppression of freedom of speech.

 

But fortunately for you, I could not pressure your employer into legally firing you over such a mere expression of opinion on a political matter -- at least not under the proposed legislation.

 

(Not that I would do such a thing, but in theory no one else would be able to do so either.)

 

And I find it bizarre, and a bit frightening that someone would thus favor the suppression of a business owners right to control his companies good name and public reputation ( a form of free speech) through the representation of its employees.

 

I can easily see how one's political and/or religious expressions could cross the line into harassment or bullying at the most, to mere interoffice disharmony and distrust at the least.

[Senator]

I have no quarrel with the current proposal. I was alluding to senator, newby and others, who apparently believe that an employer should be allowed to fire -- or allow himself to be pressured into firing -- an employee for the mere expression of a political or religious viewpoint.

 

Now we are getting to more precise language. The difference between "the mere expression of a viewpoint" to " permitting speech or behavior that interfered with the business purpose of the company, as in your example of one who is employed to be the public face of the company".

 

So you would agree that there are at least some exceptions to the freedom of speech of an employee in regards to his employment?

[Scott Lloyd]

And I find it bizarre, and a bit frightening that someone would thus favor the suppression of a business owners right to control his companies good name and public reputation ( a form of free speech) through the representation of its employees.

 

 

One could argue that it harms his company's name and reputation to have practicing homosexuals in its workforce. Why should they be privileged above those who cherish and assert the right to express themselves in a political or religious vein?

 

If you purport to push legislation to safeguard rights, you have to be consistent in how that is applied.

 

I can easily see how one's political and/or religious expressions could cross the line into harassment or bullying at the most, to mere interoffice disharmony and distrust at the least.

 

Harrassment and bullying are what they are. If, by any honest reckoning, political or religious expression has not gotten to that point, you can't ethically (or legally, under the proposed bill) suppress it because you think that someday it might.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Now we are getting to more precise language. The difference between "the mere expression of a viewpoint" to " permitting speech or behavior that interfered with the business purpose of the company, as in your example of one who is employed to be the public face of the company".

 

So you would agree that there are at least some exceptions to the freedom of speech of an employee in regards to his employment?

Of course. I never said other otherwise.

 

The proposed legislation, which you apparently oppose because it makes too many concessions to the Church and because you think the Church didn't give up enough ground, allows for such exceptions.

 

But to draw on calmoriah's hypothetical example, a janitor who works for the company ought to have freer lattitude in public expression of political or religious viewpoints than the PR guy who is seen as the "face of the company," this because such expression from the janitor would not be apt to interfere with the "business purpose" of the company as it would coming from the PR man.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Pahoran]

Not necessarily.

 

I don't know why I should expect to be able to say anything I please without any repercussions.

So you think it is reasonable that anytime you express your opinion on any subject, on your own time and your own dime, you should be subject to censorship from your employer?

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

And I find it bizarre, and a bit frightening that someone would thus favor the suppression of a business owners right to control his companies good name and public reputation ( a form of free speech) through the representation of its employees.

But if someone who works for, say, a trucking company, chooses to support a legislative initiative to protect traditional marriage, what does that "represent" about his employer?

I suggest that, to reasonable people, it "represents" nothing at all.

The censorious Left no doubt see things differently. How about you?

I can easily see how one's political and/or religious expressions could cross the line into harassment or bullying at the most,

At which point, the employer has a valid reason to do something about it.

to mere interoffice disharmony and distrust at the least.

At which point, the employer can legitimately tell the censorious disapprovers to pull their heads in and focus on the job they are paid to do.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Senator]

One could argue that it harms his company's name and reputation to have practicing homosexuals in its workforce. Why should they be privileged above those who cherish and assert the right to express themselves in a political or religious vein?

They shouldn't

 

If you purport to push legislation to safeguard rights, you have to be consistent in how that is applied.

I agree

 

Harrassment and bullying are what they are. If, by any honest reckoning, political or religious expression has not gotten to that point, you can't ethically (or legally, under the proposed bill) suppress it because you think that someday it might.

I would agree with that too.

[Senator]

The proposed legislation, which you apparently oppose because it makes too many concessions to the Church and because you think the Church didn't give up enough ground, allows for such exceptions.

I've said nothing about the proposed legislation, so you're putting words in my mouth.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've said nothing about the proposed legislation, so you're putting words in my mouth.

But that's the very topic under discussion.

 

If that's not what you're doing, why are you chiming in to sustain newby? Is it merely to be argumentative?

[Calm]

And I find it bizarre, and a bit frightening that someone would thus favor the suppression of a business owners right to control his companies good name and public reputation ( a form of free speech) through the representation of its employees.

 

I can easily see how one's political and/or religious expressions could cross the line into harassment or bullying at the most, to mere interoffice disharmony and distrust at the least.

If there was no political or religious discussion at work and if employees did not intentionally target other employees during their off time for harassment, etc, do you still think this is an issue?

[Senator]

So you think it is reasonable that anytime you express your opinion on any subject, on your own time and your own dime, you should be subject to censorship from your employer?

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

Regards,

Pahoran

If, as I gather from you above commeents, that you agree with Scott an I that, "you would agree that there are at least some exceptions to the freedom of speech of an employee in regards to his employment" then we are not that far off in disagreement.

[Senator]

But that's the very topic under discussion.

 

If that's not what you're doing, why are you chiming in to sustain newby? Is it merely to be argumentative?

Oh please.

I enter this discussion at a point where it seemed apparent to me that some very broad brush declarations of consequence free freedom of speech was being promoted. I wished to address that idea specifically.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Senator

[Senator]

If there was no political or religious discussion at work and if employees did not intentionally target other employees during their off time for harassment, etc, do you still think this is an issue?

Certainly not as much.

[Scott Lloyd]

Certainly not as much.

 

Why would it be an issue in any degree?

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh please.

I enter this discussion at a point where it seemed apparent to me that some very broad brush declarations of consequence free freedom of speech was being promoted. I wished to address that idea specifically.

What you apparently didn't take cognizance of -- if you had even made yourself aware of it -- was that the "consequence" that was being upheld was workplace retaliation for exercising freedom of speech.

[Analytics]

You mean like sexual harassment? Bullying? That sort of thing?

 

That's not what the proposed legislation would protect. As I understand it, it pertains to expression of political opinion, religious belief and the like. You think your employer ought to be able to fire you for doing that?

 

I'd be interested in your specific answer to that question, Scott.  Do you think your employer ought to be able to fire you for expressing political opinion, religious belief, and the like?

 

Here is why I ask.  SB0296 says:

 

An employer may not discharge, demote, terminate, or refuse to hire any person, or retaliate against, harass, or discriminate in matters of compensation or in terms, privileges, and conditions of employment against any person otherwise qualified, for lawful expression or expressive activity outside of the workplace regarding the person's religious, political, or personal convictions, including convictions about marriage, family, or sexuality, unless the expression or expressive activity is in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.

 

However, the bill also specifically says:

 

"Employer" does not include: ...any corporation or association constituting an affiliate, a wholly owned subsidiary, or an agency of any religious organization, religious corporation sole, religious association, or religious society; or the Boy Scouts of America or its councils, chapters, or subsidiaries….

 

Given that the Deseret News Publishing Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of the religious corporation sole "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," by definition it is not an “employer” and thus isn't subject to this law and is thus free to discharge, demote, terminate, and refuse to hire, retaliate against, harass, and discriminate against people for the lawful expression outside of the workplace regarding the person’s religious, political, and personal convictions.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Analytics

[Senator]

 

Why would it be an issue in any degree?

 

 

It might depend on the issue.  What if a strident and prolific blogger, due to his religious beliefs, insisted that women aught naught be present in the workplace, shoud remain home and be subservient to their husbands.  It would be very likely that such opinions would find their way back into his worplace which then could rightfully cause some ruffled feathers amoung fellow female employees.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'd be interested in your specific answer to that question, Scott.  Do you think your employer ought to be able to fire you for expressing political opinion, religious belief, and the like?

 

If such expression amounted to poking the company or its owner in the eye, absolutely.

 

That, in my view, would be the functional equivalent of such political or religious expression "interfering with the business purpose" of the employer.

Edited March 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

It might depend on the issue.  What if a strident and prolific blogger, due to his religious beliefs, insisted that women aught naught be present in the workplace, shoud remain home and be subservient to their husbands.  It would be very likely that such opinions would find their way back into his worplace which then could rightfully cause some ruffled feathers amoung fellow female employees.

Any one of us might find ourselves working alongside individuals whose politics or religious beliefs we find unsavory. That, per se, does not constitute grounds for firing a worker, any more than a homosexual lifestyle is grounds, per se, for firing an individual.

 

I think we have seen a real-world example of this in the recently publicized incident involving the Salt Lake City Police Department and one of its officers. The police chief summarily suspended the officer and, in effect, forced him out of the job, merely because the police didn't like the fact that the officer had asked to trade assignments so as not to appear to support the message of the gay pride parade. As I've already made clear, I believe the reason for the suspension and subsequent events that made the officer's continued employment impossible was unjustified.

[tonie]

I wanted to give someone something to be nitpicky about. Plus I was trying to be funny.

Feel free to give another example of the type of discrimination that is allowed by that bill.

 

I highly doubt that was your intent.

[tonie]

If such expression amounted to poking the company or its owner in the eye, absolutely.

 

That, in my view, would be the functional equivalent of such political or religious expression "interfering with the business purpose" of the employer.

 

This exposes another weakness in the present bill. The "essential business-related interests of the employer" is profit. Thus any expression, that prompts ridicule on a business would be grounds for termination. Thus, people could boycott an business because the boycotting group realized that the targeted entitity employees marched in Days of 47 parade; or marched with Mormon Building Bridges.

 

i am aware, however, of many employers firing employees for "online conduct". I know of one christian group that will seek out the employer of an advesary; seeking out an advesaries employer can only be to get the person terminated.  I also know of one US State that will not provide unemployment benefits to individuals whose private expressions prompt the employer to terminate the employee.

Edited March 11, 2015 by tonie

[Analytics]

If such expression amounted to poking the company or its owner in the eye, absolutely.

 

That, in my view, would be the functional equivalent of such political or religious expression "interfering with the business purpose" of the employer.

 

So you agree that it is proper for the bill granting special protection to the Mormon Church that it denies secular business owners: the bill says that if you work at a for-profit company owned by an atheist, the atheist cannot fire you for speaking your religious convictions outside of work, but if you work for a for-profit company owned by the Mormon Church, the Mormon Church can fire you for speaking your religious convictions outside of work.