BYU-I Teach let go

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

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.  

Campaigning in favor of gay marriage is supporting the rights of other employees.  Campaigning against gay marriage is working against the rights of other employees.  Do you still not realize that?

Care to answer my question or are we done?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

So this is the brave new world we're in. One where disrespecting and working to undermine your employer is to be tolerated by the employer and heralded by the public as heroic. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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

Unless those equal rights are freedom of conscience?

[Jane_Doe]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Campaigning in favor of gay marriage is supporting the rights of other employees.  Campaigning against gay marriage is working against the rights of other employees.  Do you still not realize that?

Care to answer my question or are we done?

So is Bob not allowed to campaigning against SSM?  Is he not invited to your table because you are discriminating against him and his views?  Suppressing his rights?

[sunstoned]

9 hours 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. 

I agree that BYU-I and BYU for that matter does not claim to support or value diversity.  They also do not support academic freedom, and therefore in my opinion the education they provide is compromised. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

So is Bob not allowed to campaigning against SSM?  Is he not invited to your table because you are discriminating against him and his views?  Suppressing his rights?

Apparently some rights are more equal than others.

[MiserereNobis]

9 hours 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?

In the words of the Nobel prize winner in literature Bob Dylan: "others say don't hate nothing at all except hatred"

[sunstoned]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So this is the brave new world we're in. One where disrespecting and working to undermine your employer is to be tolerated by the employer and heralded by the public as heroic. 

Where did the disrespecting and  the undermining come from?  Whole cloth I assume as I did not read that in her post.  

[MiserereNobis]

The way the word "diversity" is currently used is an exclusionary term, which goes directly against the word's own original meaning. But language is fluid, I suppose, and maybe we need to recognize that the term diversity has been co-opted to mean accepting certain things while not accepting others.

For example, if you see an advertisement for a pro-diversity rally, you should know that traditional conservative viewpoints will not be welcome there. People using the term diversity should recognize, acknowledge, and own the fact that they are using the word "diversity" in a different way than its original meaning.

I'm quite liberal in my viewpoint and politics but this something that does irk me. True diversity and true tolerance would try to understand divergent viewpoints, not shut them out or shame them or use the latest academic theories and terms to silence their voices.

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So this is the brave new world we're in. One where disrespecting and working to undermine your employer is to be tolerated by the employer and heralded by the public as heroic. 

No.  I've said, repeatedly, that I thought BYUI was well within their rights to terminate her

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Unless those equal rights are freedom of conscience?

So you are saying that being able to promote a view on Facebook is "freedom of conscience"?  And you are saying that BYU professors should not be granted freedom of conscience?

 

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

So is Bob not allowed to campaigning against SSM?  Is he not invited to your table because you are discriminating against him and his views?  Suppressing his rights?

First, please don't confuse me with the hypothetical. 

Second, I'm tired of answering your questions when you dodge mine. 

Third, to answer your questions, please tell me why it was okay to terminate Robertson for promoting gay marriage but  it's not okay the tech company to terminate and employee for opposing gay marriage?  (And you don't get to do it by using your own interpretation of the company values - the company gets to determine their own values.)

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The way the word "diversity" is currently used is an exclusionary term, which goes directly against the word's own original meaning. But language is fluid, I suppose, and maybe we need to recognize that the term diversity has been co-opted to mean accepting certain things while not accepting others.

For example, if you see an advertisement for a pro-diversity rally, you should know that traditional conservative viewpoints will not be welcome there. People using the term diversity should recognize, acknowledge, and own the fact that they are using the word "diversity" in a different way than its original meaning.

I'm quite liberal in my viewpoint and politics but this something that does irk me. True diversity and true tolerance would try to understand divergent viewpoints, not shut them out or shame them or use the latest academic theories and terms to silence their voices.

I disagree.  Diversity needs to welcome all views but not those which promote discrimination.  If an LGBT person were to argue in favor of denying marriage rights to Mormon couples, I would argue that that is also failing to support diversity. 

[Atheist Mormon]

On 7/18/2017 at 11:33 AM, Duncan said:

I hope there is more to the story than this, i can't see why they'd fire someone over a FB post, unless it was illegal activity or something sinister  was afoot

" i can't see why they'd fire someone over a FB post,"

i can, especially when you are working for a private university. Rule #1 is "Keep your political mouth shut, opinions to yourself!". No matter how unfair this seems a little caution & common sense could prevent this.  

 

[Gray]

7 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The way the word "diversity" is currently used is an exclusionary term, which goes directly against the word's own original meaning. But language is fluid, I suppose, and maybe we need to recognize that the term diversity has been co-opted to mean accepting certain things while not accepting others.

For example, if you see an advertisement for a pro-diversity rally, you should know that traditional conservative viewpoints will not be welcome there. People using the term diversity should recognize, acknowledge, and own the fact that they are using the word "diversity" in a different way than its original meaning.

I'm quite liberal in my viewpoint and politics but this something that does irk me. True diversity and true tolerance would try to understand divergent viewpoints, not shut them out or shame them or use the latest academic theories and terms to silence their voices.

If you define traditional conservative viewpoints as sexism, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, etc, then you're right, traditional conservative viewpoints will not be welcome there. I know a lot of conservatives who would disagree that these things represent their views, though. But conservatives will be welcome, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc.

This whole notion that tolerance should include tolerance for intolerance is silly, IMO. As silly as my example of saying pro-life people should be pro-Ebola because it's technically living.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

9 hours 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, it's the idea that we accept anyone regardless of their biology or circumstances of their birth or religious upbringing. The things that generally go to the core of someone's being.

It's not meant to refer to diverse ideologies. Pro-diversity does not mean rolling out the welcome mat for the KKK, after all. Just as pro-life doesn't mean letting a wolf sustain itself by eating your children.

Edited July 27, 2017 by Gray

[USU78]

30 minutes ago, Gray said:

If you define traditional conservative viewpoints as sexism, racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, etc, then you're right, traditional conservative viewpoints will not be welcome there. I know a lot of conservatives who would disagree that these things represent their views, though. But conservatives will be welcome, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc.

This whole notion that tolerance should include tolerance for intolerance is silly, IMO. As silly as my example of saying pro-life people should be pro-Ebola because it's technically living.

Some people should be made to shut up. It's as simple as that.

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Some people should be made to shut up. It's as simple as that.

I have to disagree with your opinion. Even the nastiest bigots deserve their freedom of speech. But hate speech doesn't belong in the office.

[Gray]

Perhaps to help illustrate what diversity actually is. Ideally diversity looks something like this:

 

Diversity, however, is not best represented by this image, despite the fact that these individuals are still entitled to their freedom of speech:

 

Is it really so difficult to understand?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I disagree.  Diversity needs to welcome all views but not those which promote discrimination.  If an LGBT person were to argue in favor of denying marriage rights to Mormon couples, I would argue that that is also failing to support diversity. 

How about if that same person were to argue for LGBT access to Mormon chapels and even temples and Mormon rites for gay "marriage"?

 

[USU78]

23 minutes ago, Gray said:

I have to disagree with your opinion. Even the nastiest bigots deserve their freedom of speech. But hate speech doesn't belong in the office.

Irony ... Meter ... Broken ...

[MiserereNobis]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

This whole notion that tolerance should include tolerance for intolerance is silly, IMO.

The problem is: who gets to define what is intolerant? Sure, there are clear cut examples, like you listed (racism, sexism, etc), but within those clear cut examples there are gray areas. For example, is it sexist that Catholics are pro-life? Would Catholics be welcome at a pro-diversity rally because of this? Even more, would a pro-diversity rally argue that I should have the right to have a pro-life view?

Should my voice be silenced?

Like I said, I generally have a liberal viewpoint and liberal politics and most of my friends are liberal, some exceedingly so. I have seen this first hand and was/am probably guilty of it, too. Intolerance is commonly defined as not-liberal. For many pro-diversity people and groups, anyone who is truly conservative/republican would be considered intolerant because they consider the foundation of conservatism to be at its core intolerant. Again, I speak from personal experience here. The words diversity and tolerance are taking on a new meaning. As I said, perhaps this is ok because language is fluid, but it needs to recognized and acknowledged by those who are using the new meaning.

The ACLU has an interesting track record of being consistently for civil liberties and free speech, even if that speech is odious. I consider them truly pro-diversity in the original sense of the word. Remember the incident where they defended neo-nazis in Chicago?

Here's an interesting article to peruse: Excommunicate Me from the Church of Social Justice It is written by a transgender activist in Seattle who has all the right bona fides to be able to make the critiques that they (their chosen pronoun) are making.

 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Pro-diversity does not mean rolling out the welcome mat for the KKK, after all. Just as pro-life doesn't mean letting a wolf sustain itself by eating your children.

Certainly. But these are extreme examples. The problems happen in the practicalities, however, where non-liberal viewpoints are silenced by those advocating tolerance and diversity. This happens frequently, especially on college campuses.

[Gray]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Irony ... Meter ... Broken ...

You weren't being sincere when you observed that some people should be made to shut up? It's often difficult to tell with you. You've expressed some rather startling views in the past. It makes it difficult to tell irony from sincerity. I believe it's called Melville's Law. Or was it Poe's Law? Something along those lines.

[MiserereNobis]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

Is it really so difficult to understand?

You keep using extreme examples. Instead, let's get back to the practicalities of non-extreme examples that actually occur in people's lives. It's not very often that a KKK march/rally occurs. I've never seen one nor seen one advertised. I have, however, seen people protest against allowing a conservative speaker on my college campus because his views were considered intolerant. He was no Richard Spencer or David Duke.