Jane_Doe Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: I think it has yet to be proven that Robertson promoted gay marriage "as a teacher". She IS a teacher. And social media is not a "private" venue. 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: Why would it matter? It's critical because it's the difference between saying "we promote diversity" (aka all views) and "we promote these specific views". 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: If the organization believes in a gay couple's right to marry (and has it written in the organization's values) -and- a Mormon employee professes on social media their belief that gay couples should not marry, than the organization should be able to terminate the employee, just like BYUI, right? If a group has a mission statement that say "we are here promoting gay marriage" then they are not supporting diversity and they have every right to fire an anti-gay-marriage employee. A group that's mission statement says "we promote diversity" cannot rightfully fire a person for any view. 1
Jane_Doe Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 3 minutes ago, Gray said: But to take your argument further along its logical conclusion, true diversity must include people with the opinion that people who don't support diversity should not be welcome. Right? Totally. It's the incredible irony of the pro-diversity argument.
Calm Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 7 hours ago, rockpond said: Robertson taught an International Relations class in the political science department. Of course she shared her views. I think the question is whether she was sharing those specific beliefs that the administration deemed subversive to testimony building in students. What the student refers to in the quote you provided is "political". Obviously political talk/debate would be welcome in a political science class, including political talk regarding LGBT issues since that topic was part of the semester's curriculum. I agree she shared her views and it likely was appropriate for her to,do so, though whether she did it appropriately is another matter (there is no indication she is capable of trying to present both sides effectively). It only makes sense. She obviously was considered liberal by her conservative student. Her overstatement of never sharing her views in class rather than presenting a realistic version shows, imo, a desire to craft a narrative of total victim who could not have done anything wrong. 2
rockpond Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 8 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: She IS a teacher. And social media is not a "private" venue. It's critical because it's the difference between saying "we promote diversity" (aka all views) and "we promote these specific views". If a group has a mission statement that say "we are here promoting gay marriage" then they are not supporting diversity and they have every right to fire an anti-gay-marriage employee. A group that's mission statement says "we promote diversity" cannot rightfully fire a person for any view. I'll try to ask another way to avoid the "diversity" definition that keeps getting debated. The tech company I worked for supported gay partners and considered them to be equal to legally married spouses (this was before gay marriage was legally recognized). Respect to all employees (including LGBT) was a core value of the company. Under that core value, would you support the right of the company to fire a Mormon who promoted the view that gay couples should not be legally married?
Calm Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, rockpond said: Her Facebook post wasn't against the Board of Trustees. And, lest I be misunderstood, I'll repeat that I believe they had the right to terminate her contract. So you construct a reason out of conjecture and then condemn her employers for having no evidence with which to no reup her contract for another semester? You appear to be saying, sure, they had a right to not rehire her, but they did it for petty reasons with no foundation. Edited July 26, 2017 by Calm 1
Jane_Doe Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'll try to ask another way to avoid the "diversity" definition that keeps getting debated. The tech company I worked for supported gay partners and considered them to be equal to legally married spouses (this was before gay marriage was legally recognized). Respect to all employees (including LGBT) was a core value of the company. Under that core value, would you support the right of the company to fire a Mormon who promoted the view that gay couples should not be legally married? Respect is for ALL employees, so no firing. 1
rockpond Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 7 minutes ago, Calm said: So you construct a reason out of conjecture and then condemn her employers for having no evidence with which to no reup her contract for another semester? You appear to be saying, sure, they had a right to not rehire her, but they did it for petty reasons with no foundation. No... I find BYUI's reasons for her contract termination to be reasonable and with foundation. I'm confused by your question.
rockpond Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: Respect is for ALL employees, so no firing. So BYUI gets a special privilege? Is that because it is church owned? But a non-church owned company shouldn't be able to fire someone for promoting beliefs contrary to the company values?
Jane_Doe Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 1 minute ago, rockpond said: So BYUI gets a special privilege? Is that because it is church owned? But a non-church owned company shouldn't be able to fire someone for promoting beliefs contrary to the company values? BYUI has nothing to do with. The tech company's mission was to "Respect to all employees (including LGBT) was a core value of the company." Firing an employee for that person's views is a violation of the company's own mission statement. 1
bluebell Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: So BYUI gets a special privilege? Is that because it is church owned? But a non-church owned company shouldn't be able to fire someone for promoting beliefs contrary to the company values? I think Jane's point is that you can't claim to support diversity, or respect all employees equally, if you fire someone for not believing "correctly." That's not supporting diversity, that's supporting things you agree with. Anti-SSM is a part of diversity just as much as pro-SSM is. You can't value one and outlaw the other AND claim to respect all employees equally. It's clearly not true. Clearly the anti-SSM employee isn't respected or valued. BYU-I does not claim to support or value diversity. 1
rockpond Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 10 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: BYUI has nothing to do with. The tech company's mission was to "Respect to all employees (including LGBT) was a core value of the company." Firing an employee for that person's views is a violation of the company's own mission statement. The LGBT employee didn't argue against the Mormon employees right to be Mormon. The Mormon employee violated the core value of the company (I worked there, I can speak to their values). You are saying that BYUI has a privilege to terminate someone for promoting a belief that went against BYUI's values. I'm saying that the tech company should have the same privilege.
rockpond Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: I think Jane's point is that you can't claim to support diversity, or respect all employees equally, if you fire someone for not believing "correctly." That's not supporting diversity, that's supporting things you agree with. Anti-SSM is a part of diversity just as much as pro-SSM is. You can't value one and outlaw the other AND claim to respect all employees equally. It's clearly not true. Clearly the anti-SSM employee isn't respected or valued. BYU-I does not claim to support or value diversity. No. Anti-SSM says that I don't want someone different from me having the same privileges as me. That is not supporting diversity. I'm sorry, you don't get to claim to respect diversity while saying that you don't want people to have the same rights you enjoy. 1
rockpond Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 12 minutes ago, bluebell said: Clearly the anti-SSM employee isn't respected or valued. Because they are promoting the idea that LGTB individuals are not to have the same rights. 2
Amulek Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, rockpond said: You are incorrect. She already had a signed contract to teach the next two semesters and was listed in those schedules as the teacher. They terminated her contract. Source: Robertson interview with John Dehlin. As near as I have been able to tell, she had (at best) a conditional contract for at least one more semester and verbal assurances that she would continue teaching into 2018. I think she may be stretching the truth about saying she had a "signed contract to teach for two more semesters." I could be wrong though. Until somebody produces the contract, all we have to go on is her word. YMMV on how reliable you find that to be. Edited July 26, 2017 by Amulek Found additional info and updated reply 2
bluebell Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 29 minutes ago, rockpond said: Because they are promoting the idea that LGTB individuals are not to have the same rights. But isn't the employer supposed to respect ALL employees, and support diverse thought and belief? Isn't that the mission statement?
bluebell Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 34 minutes ago, rockpond said: No. Anti-SSM says that I don't want someone different from me having the same privileges as me. That is not supporting diversity. I'm sorry, you don't get to claim to respect diversity while saying that you don't want people to have the same rights you enjoy. Saying "I don't want anyone to work for me that doesn't agree with my views on LGTB" also isn't supporting diversity. Like you said, the company shouldn't get to claim they respect diversity when they don't want people who don't agree with their views on LGTB to work for them.
bluebell Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 41 minutes ago, rockpond said: You are saying that BYUI has a privilege to terminate someone for promoting a belief that went against BYUI's values. I'm saying that the tech company should have the same privilege. It's the tech company's own mission statement that makes them hypocritical. No one is making them support diversity or respect all employees, they claim that on their own. If they want the same privileges as BYU-I then they need to just be honest and put it in their mission statement that they don't respect employees who don't agree with LGBT rights and that no employee who disagrees with them will be hired or maintain employment. THEN, they would have the same privilege as BYU-I.
Danzo Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 1 minute ago, bluebell said: Saying "I don't want anyone to work for me that doesn't agree with my views on LGTB" also isn't supporting diversity. Like you said, the company shouldn't get to claim they respect diversity when they don't want people who don't agree with their views on LGTB to work for them. We here support diversity in thought as long as they agree with us. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others . . 1
Jane_Doe Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: The LGBT employee didn't argue against the Mormon employees right to be Mormon. The Mormon employee violated the core value of the company (I worked there, I can speak to their values). You are saying that BYUI has a privilege to terminate someone for promoting a belief that went against BYUI's values. I'm saying that the tech company should have the same privilege. BYU's mission is to promote LDS values. She was in violation of that mission statement and hence was let go. The tech company who's mission is to respect ALL people is in violation of their own mission statement by firing over political views. Edited July 26, 2017 by Jane_Doe 1
rockpond Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 41 minutes ago, bluebell said: But isn't the employer supposed to respect ALL employees, and support diverse thought and belief? Isn't that the mission statement? 39 minutes ago, bluebell said: Saying "I don't want anyone to work for me that doesn't agree with my views on LGTB" also isn't supporting diversity. Like you said, the company shouldn't get to claim they respect diversity when they don't want people who don't agree with their views on LGTB to work for them. 36 minutes ago, bluebell said: It's the tech company's own mission statement that makes them hypocritical. No one is making them support diversity or respect all employees, they claim that on their own. If they want the same privileges as BYU-I then they need to just be honest and put it in their mission statement that they don't respect employees who don't agree with LGBT rights and that no employee who disagrees with them will be hired or maintain employment. THEN, they would have the same privilege as BYU-I. 35 minutes ago, Danzo said: We here support diversity in thought as long as they agree with us. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others . . I'll try it one more time: Promoting the belief that gay people should not be afford the same rights as straight people is NOT supporting diversity nor is it respectful to all employees. The hypothetical employee would be terminated for failing to support a core value of the company. Just as Robertson was terminated for failing to support a core value of BYUI. I'm fine with Church entities firing people who do not promote their values. I think, however, that it is hypocritical to do that and simultaneously tell other entities that they cannot fire employees who don't promote their values. (Consider the outrage that was expressed here over the cases of Peter Vidmar and Brandon Eich... why weren't those "forced" resignations okay with church members? The olympic committe and Mozilla were just doing what BYUI did.) 1
bluebell Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 1 minute ago, rockpond said: I'll try it one more time: Promoting the belief that gay people should not be afford the same rights as straight people is NOT supporting diversity nor is it respectful to all employees. I agree. Saying that you'll only hire people who agree with your stance on SSM isn't supporting diversity either, neither is it respectful to all employees. Neither belief is supportive of diversity nor respectful to everyone. Quote The hypothetical employee would be terminated for failing to support a core value of the company. Just as Robertson was terminated for failing to support a core value of BYUI. Why should the employee be terminated for failing to support the core value of the company when the company also isn't supporting their core value? The company is in violation of their own values, per the wording of their mission statement. They have no respect nor support for those who disagree with SSM, despite having a mission statement which says they support ALL. Quote I'm fine with Church entities firing people who do not promote their values. I think, however, that it is hypocritical to do that and simultaneously tell other entities that they cannot fire employees who don't promote their values. (Consider the outrage that was expressed here over the cases of Peter Vidmar and Brandon Eich... why weren't those "forced" resignations okay with church members? The olympic committe and Mozilla were just doing what BYUI did.) Two questions- 1) When people accept a job for BYU-I, do they know they will have to agree with specific beliefs and doctrine and that if they don't they will be fired? 2) When Peter Vidmar and Brandon Eich accepted their jobs for the Olympic committee and Mozilla, did they know they would have to support SSM or they would be fired? 2
Jane_Doe Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 5 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'm fine with Church entities firing people who do not promote their values. I think, however, that it is hypocritical to do that and simultaneously tell other entities that they cannot fire employees who don't promote their values. (Consider the outrage that was expressed here over the cases of Peter Vidmar and Brandon Eich... why weren't those "forced" resignations okay with church members? The olympic committe and Mozilla were just doing what BYUI did.) There's a huge difference between mission statements that say: 1) "we promote gay rights" -- this does NOT protect rights of anti-gay-marriage folks. 2) "we promote the rights of everyone" -- aka "we really promote diversity"-- this INCLUDES anti-gay-marriage folks. No one has a problem with anti-gay-rights person being fired from company with mission statement 1. Your tech company was an example of #2 though, and firing such a person would be in violations of their own mission statement. 1
rockpond Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 17 minutes ago, bluebell said: I agree. Saying that you'll only hire people who agree with your stance on SSM isn't supporting diversity either, neither is it respectful to all employees. Neither belief is supportive of diversity nor respectful to everyone. Why should the employee be terminated for failing to support the core value of the company when the company also isn't supporting their core value? The company is in violation of their own values, per the wording of their mission statement. They have no respect nor support for those who disagree with SSM, despite having a mission statement which says they support ALL. Two questions- 1) When people accept a job for BYU-I, do they know they will have to agree with specific beliefs and doctrine and that if they don't they will be fired? 2) When Peter Vidmar and Brandon Eich accepted their jobs for the Olympic committee and Mozilla, did they know they would have to support SSM or they would be fired? In the hypothetical, the company supported the anti-SSM employee but they can't support that employee in promoting discrimination against a fellow employee. The company isn't saying the anti-SSM employee doesn't have a right to believe in and participate in their opposite-sex marriage. They are, theoretically, terminating the employee for not supporting the core value. 1) According to Robertson, she was required to maintain a temple recommend. One can support same-sex marriage and still maintain a temple recommend. But, I believe that BYUI was within their rights to terminate her. And I think the Church should not speak against the rights of other entities to terminate those who promote values contrary to the aims of those organizations. 2) Probably not. Nor did Robertson know the standard she would be held to.
rockpond Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 21 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said: There's a huge difference between mission statements that say: 1) "we promote gay rights" -- this does NOT protect rights of anti-gay-marriage folks. 2) "we promote the rights of everyone" -- aka "we really promote diversity"-- this INCLUDES anti-gay-marriage folks. No one has a problem with anti-gay-rights person being fired from company with mission statement 1. Your tech company was an example of #2 though, and firing such a person would be in violations of their own mission statement. No, my tech company example falls into #1. They have no interest in protecting the rights of those who discriminate against gay couples. Now that you better understand the example, is it okay for the company to fire a Mormon employee who promotes their belief that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry? 1
bluebell Posted July 26, 2017 Posted July 26, 2017 Just now, rockpond said: In the hypothetical, the company supported the anti-SSM employee but they can't support that employee in promoting discrimination against a fellow employee. The company isn't saying the anti-SSM employee doesn't have a right to believe in and participate in their opposite-sex marriage. They are, theoretically, terminating the employee for not supporting the core value. 1) According to Robertson, she was required to maintain a temple recommend. One can support same-sex marriage and still maintain a temple recommend. But, I believe that BYUI was within their rights to terminate her. And I think the Church should not speak against the rights of other entities to terminate those who promote values contrary to the aims of those organizations. 2) Probably not. Nor did Robertson know the standard she would be held to. The theoretical company is supporting the employee in their belief that SSM is wrong? And, Robertson didn't know she would have to maintain belief in the church? That's not what i've heard from other BYU-I employees.
Recommended Posts