BYU-I Teach let go

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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?

Then their mission statement does not match what they wish to promote and they need to change their mission statement.

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours 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?

 

30 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.  

 

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, my tech company example falls into #1.  They have no interest in protecting the rights of those who discriminate against gay couples.  

Then they weren't really respecting of ALL employees, contrary to their mission statement which specifically claims "respect to all employees" is core value of the company.

They are discriminating hypocrites whom are not really interested in diversity.  

.  Their mission statement is a lie.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, rockpond said:

How would you define "receiving the Brethren"?

Well, the passage I quoted uses the verb δέχομαι, which according to my Greek lexicon means:

• to take hold of, to take up; 
• of the thing offered in speaking, teaching, instructing: to receive favourably, give ear to, embrace, make one's own, approve, not to reject; 
• to take upon one's self, sustain, bear, endure.

Whilst we're defining words, 'despiseth' in the same passage is ἀθετέω, which means:

• to do away with, to set aside, disregard;
• to thwart the efficacy of anything, nullify, make void, frustrate;
• to reject, to refuse, to slight.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

Robertson didn't know that she couldn't post a pro-LGBT message on her personal Facebook page.

The theoretical company would be firing the employee for promoting discrimination against a fellow LGBT employee. Can you see how that wouldn't be interpreted as promoting diversity?

[rockpond]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Then their mission statement does not match what they wish to promote and they need to change their mission statement.

No... promoting discrimination (anti marriage equality for LGBT) is not supporting diversity, regardless of how you want to spin it.

[rockpond]

21 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

 

 

Then they weren't really respecting of ALL employees, contrary to their mission statement which specifically claims "respect to all employees" is core value of the company.

They are discriminating hypocrites whom are not really interested in diversity.  

.  Their mission statement is a lie.  

Being anti-SSM is not supporting diversity.  You've misunderstood the principle.

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Being anti-SSM is not supporting diversity.  You've misunderstood the principle.

Somebody who truly loves diversity WELCOMES those who say "diversity is responsible for the end of the world" and gives them the podium to say it.  They welcome EVERYONE.

The tech company you describe earlier shunned diversity by discriminating against those who are anti-diversity.  

Edited July 26, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Somebody who truly loves diversity WELCOMES those who say "diversity is responsible for the end of the world" and gives them the podium to say it.  They welcome EVERYONE.

The tech company you describe earlier shunned diversity by discriminating against those who are anti-diversity.  

I don't even think that makes sense (referring to the part that I bolded).  Strikes me as an abuse of the concept.

Edited July 26, 2017 by rockpond

[Jane_Doe]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't even think that makes sense.  Strikes me as an abuse of the concept.

No, it's the logical conclusion of the statement "I respect all views".  All = ALL.  ALL includes the view that "diversity is horrible".  

If you are kicking people out for their views (whatever those views may be) then by definition you are being selective.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No... promoting discrimination (anti marriage equality for LGBT) is not supporting diversity, regardless of how you want to spin it.

Yes it is.  It is promoting diversity of thought.  I'm not spinning it; it's basic english. Promoting diversity means supporting a variety of different things.  If you only support one ideological or political position (pro-SSM, for example) and get rid of everyone who disagrees with it, you are, by definition, not supporting diversity. 

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

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).  

Cool beans. 

 

Quote

Respect to all employees (including LGBT) was a core value of the company.  

Sounds like a good value to promote. Of course, it does make me wonder what, exactly, is meant by the tem “respect.”

Does “respect” for LGBT coworkers mean treating them with courtesy, politeness, and kindness; listening to their ideas; collaborating with them; providing equal opportunities for advancement; etc.?

Or does “respect” for LGBT coworkers mean adhering to a certain political viewpoint?

 

Quote

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?

It depends on what said Mormon was promoting: his personal religious views or his personal political views. It’s generally illegal to terminate an employee for the former; in some states it’s also illegal to terminate an employee for the latter.

 

 

[Amulek]

50 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Robertson didn't know that she couldn't post a pro-LGBT message on her personal Facebook page.

I don’t think this characterization is entirely…complete.

She was a Church Education System employee who took to the internet to vent her complaints about the church.

If she didn’t know that sort of thing could cause problems with her employer, then it’s probably for the best that she learned differently early in her career.

 

 

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Sounds like a good value to promote. Of course, it does make me wonder what, exactly, is meant by the tem “respect.”

Does “respect” for LGBT coworkers mean treating them with courtesy, politeness, and kindness; listening to their ideas; collaborating with them; providing equal opportunities for advancement; etc.?

Or does “respect” for LGBT coworkers mean adhering to a certain political viewpoint?

 

I think this is a good point.

If someone can do the job they were hired to do (the whole job) and treat people with respect, why do they need to adhere to a specific political viewpoint?

If part of a job is to promote SSM, then no one should have the job if they can't do that.  But, if the job has nothing to do with SSM, and they can treat everyone with respect, what is the purpose of firing them?

[Gray]

7 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Totally.  It's the incredible irony of the pro-diversity argument. 

It's an irony based on taking the word too literally. Like saying pro-lifers should support Ebola because they're pro-life and Ebola is a living thing.

[Hamba Tuhan]

52 minutes ago, Gray said:

It's an irony based on taking the word too literally. Like saying pro-lifers should support Ebola because they're pro-life and Ebola is a living thing.

Got it. So just as people use 'pro-life' as shorthand for 'pro-human life' and nothing more, when people say 'pro-diversity', they actually mean 'pro-LGBTIQ+' and nothing more.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

No, it's the logical conclusion of the statement "I respect all views".  All = ALL.  ALL includes the view that "diversity is horrible".  

If you are kicking people out for their views (whatever those views may be) then by definition you are being selective.

That mandate isn't to respect all views but to respect the differences in all people and their corresponding rights.

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes it is.  It is promoting diversity of thought.  I'm not spinning it; it's basic english. Promoting diversity means supporting a variety of different things.  If you only support one ideological or political position (pro-SSM, for example) and get rid of everyone who disagrees with it, you are, by definition, not supporting diversity. 

Diversity of thought is fine.  We're talking about promoting a view that gay couples should not be equal to straight couples... a view that disrespects other employees and promotes discrimination.  Why can't a company terminate an employee if that is in violation of their values?

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

Does “respect” for LGBT coworkers mean treating them with courtesy, politeness, and kindness; listening to their ideas; collaborating with them; providing equal opportunities for advancement; etc.?

Or does “respect” for LGBT coworkers mean adhering to a certain political viewpoint?

 

It depends on what said Mormon was promoting: his personal religious views or his personal political views. It’s generally illegal to terminate an employee for the former; in some states it’s also illegal to terminate an employee for the latter.

 

 

Respect means not discriminating or promoting discrimination against a fellow employee.

I understand what is illegal.  I'm asking why should it be right for BYUI to terminate someone for violating the university/church values but wrong for a company to terminate an employee for violating a company value?

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

I don’t think this characterization is entirely…complete.

She was a Church Education System employee who took to the internet to vent her complaints about the church.

If she didn’t know that sort of thing could cause problems with her employer, then it’s probably for the best that she learned differently early in her career.

 

 

It's what she said.  She didn't think that making that post on her private facebook page could get her fired.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Got it. So just as people use 'pro-life' as shorthand for 'pro-human life' and nothing more, when people say 'pro-diversity', they actually mean 'pro-LGBTIQ+' and nothing more.

No, when people say pro-diversity they mean anti-discriminating against those who are different.

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Diversity of thought is fine.  We're talking about promoting a view that gay couples should not be equal to straight couples... a view that disrespects other employees and promotes discrimination.  Why can't a company terminate an employee if that is in violation of their values?

Do you still not realize that you're actively advocating FOR discrimination right here right now?

Until you say "Bob has every right to campaign against SSM in the work place, just John has every right to campaign for SSM" you are actively discriminating against Bob.  

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It's what she said.  She didn't think that making that post on her private facebook page could get her fired.

Facebook is not a secret diary. People post things on it because they want others to read them. 

Edited July 27, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Hamba Tuhan]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, when people say pro-diversity they mean anti-discriminating against those who are different.

Unless what makes people 'different' is that they maintain that marriage requires a man and a woman?

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Unless what makes people 'different' is that they maintain that marriage requires a man and a woman?

Yes... when the difference you are talking about is that someone believes that a person should not have equal rights.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Facebook is not a secret diary. People post things on it because they want others to read them. 

Again - She didn't believe that it could get her fired.  Her words.  But, go ahead, assume she is lying since that helps your confirmation bias.