BYU-I Teach let go

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

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. 

That's fine.  I don't think that BYU-I or BYU mind that you think that, nor the people who choose to attend those schools.   Thankfully, there are lots of schools to choose from and everyone can find the perfect fit for them.  

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Would "Bob" be given a podium to say how he is against SSM?

If the answer is "no" then Bob is being discriminated against by company policy.  The claim "there's no description here" is a hypocritical farce. 

*** IF *** The company flat out said it was pro-SSM.  I've said this many times.  "Gay rights of America" can fire as many anti-SSM employees they want.

Now if a company says they protect the rights of all employees but is lying about it (like your tech company), then no I'm not ok with lying or hypocrisy. 

BYU is not dishonest about their mission.  "Gay Rights of America" is not dishonest about their mission.  Your tech company is.  That's the difference.

I spoke of values in the company.  But I'm done trying to help you understand and you still refuse to answer my question and dialogue with me.

 

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If their stated values are 'we support diversity', then there is no way for them to terminate someone for not holding the correct political view without being hypocrites.

The termination would have been for violating the company value - as I've explained.

And to be clear - this particular company would NOT have fired the hypothetical individual.  I'm using the example to understand why it is okay for BYUI and not okay for the company to terminate and individual who was in violation of a core value of the company.

Edited July 27, 2017 by rockpond

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If their stated values are 'we support diversity', then there is no way for them to terminate someone for not holding the correct political view without being hypocrites.

Again, that's not what diversity means in context.

[ALarson]

Just now, rockpond said:

I spoke of values in the company.  But I'm done trying to help you understand and you still refuse to answer my question and dialogue with me.

 

I don't know how you've been as patient as you've been here, rockpond.  Time to move on, IMO 

She just doesn't get it and won't respond to your questions.  

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not talking about merely asking. I'm talking about agitating, pressuring, campaigning, generally trying to bully the Church into complying. 

Hasn't happened yet, but I believe it's on the horizon. 

I don't see this happening, but if it does, I cannot see the church being forced to comply (and they should not have to).

I think the most we will see is for members to continue asking or hoping.  I doubt there will be agitating or pressuring or bullying.  But that's just my opinion on what I've seen and heard from members who are gay (and family members of those who are gay).

Edited July 27, 2017 by ALarson

[bluebell]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

The police department says it wants to protect our neighborhood, but that's a lie. They just arrested someone for assaulting his neighbor. They're obviously not concerned with protecting people who want to beat up their neighbors. How hypocritical and deceitful can you get?

The police department says it wants to protect the neighborhood in compliance with the laws and regulations of the country/state.    Can't leave out that last part because it's an active and literal part of the police department's goal.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Agitating, pressuring, campaigning, and bullying... all things the Church and members did in California to repeal marriage equality there.

So, yes, I agree with you that it might happen in the future.  Fortunately, the church has the constitution on its side to prevent such an outcome.

Unfortunately, the Constitution has not hindered the juggernaut from forcing bakers to make cakes for weddings that conflict with their religious values or from shutting down Catholic adoption agencies from adhering to religious values in their adoption policies. These things do not bode well. 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

Again, that's not what diversity means in context.

Does the company have a qualifying statement somewhere in parentheses that says (be aware, we aren't using the actual definition of the word diversity we only mean sexual diversity)?

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Unfortunately, the Constitution has not hindered the juggernaut from forcing bakers to make cakes for weddings that conflict with their religious values or from shutting down Catholic adoption agencies from adhering to religious values in their adoption policies. These things do not bode well. 

What took place with the bakery was entirely different, IMO.  I'm not familiar with what took place with the adoption agencies (but will try to look that up).

I still cannot see the church being forced to allow SSM sealings.

[Jane_Doe]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I spoke of values in the company.  But I'm done trying to help you understand and you still refuse to answer my question and dialogue with me.

 

How did I not specifically address every line of your last post?  

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The termination would have been for violating the company value - as I've explained.

 

Yes, that's been understood from the beginning.  The problem is that the company would be in violation of the company values--as stated--by firing them.  (Hence, the hypocrisy accusation).

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The police department says it wants to protect the neighborhood in compliance with the laws and regulations of the country/state.    Can't leave out that last part because it's an active and literal part of the police department's goal.  

And SSM is also "in compliance with the laws and regulations of the country/state".

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The termination would have been for violating the company value - as I've explained.

And to be clear - this particular company would NOT have fired the hypothetical individual.  I'm using the example to understand why it is okay for BYUI and not okay for the company to terminate and individual who was in violation of a core value of the company.

Is there an inherent and recognizable difference between core values when expressed by a religious organization and those of a for-profit business?  That is, between a religious value and a business value.

That would lead to a second question.  Are we now looking away from religion and looking to for-profit businesses to define what is right and wrong?

Edited July 27, 2017 by ksfisher

[bluebell]

Just now, ALarson said:

And SSM is also "in compliance with the laws and regulations of the country/state".

That really has nothing to do with the point being made though.

We're dealing specifically and only with whether or not stated mission statements or company values, match the actions of the company.  If a company states 'we support diversity' and then does not support diversity of political ideology, they are in violation of their own stated mission statement.

In the example that gray provided, the police would not be in violation of their 'mission statement' by arresting someone who was attacking a neighbor because arresting people who break the law is part of their stated "mission statement."

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Unfortunately, the Constitution has not hindered the juggernaut from forcing bakers to make cakes for weddings that conflict with their religious values or from shutting down Catholic adoption agencies from adhering to religious values in their adoption policies. These things do not bode well. 

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is still waiting to be heard by SCOTUS.  Let's hope they make the right decision.

I agree with you that Catholic Charities should have received the religious exemption they requested.

As for being forced to perform gay marriages in LDS chapels and temples -- I still don't see it happening.  Though I disagree with it, I understand the logic (i.e. public accommodation laws, state licensing) that went into the decisions regarding bakeries and adoption agencies.  But pushing into actual religious spaces seems a step too far for our nation and SCOTUS given our constitution and history.  Time will tell.

[Jane_Doe]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That really has nothing to do with the point being made though.

We're dealing specifically and only with whether or not stated mission statements or company values, match the actions of the company.  If a company states 'we support diversity' and then does not support diversity of political ideology, they are in violation of their own stated mission statement.

In the example that gray provided, the police would not be in violation of their 'mission statement' by arresting someone who was attacking a neighbor because arresting people who break the law is part of their stated "mission statement."

Exactly!!!

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, that's been understood from the beginning.  The problem is that the company would be in violation of the company values--as stated--by firing them.  (Hence, the hypocrisy accusation).

Based on your misunderstanding of supporting diversity.

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Is there an inherent and recognizable difference between core values when expressed by a religious organization and those of a for-profit business?  That is, between a religious value and a business value.

That would lead to a second question.  Are we now looking away from religion and looking to for-profit businesses to define what is right and wrong?

Yes to the first question.  No to the second - though each organization should be able to decide what is right and wrong within their own walls (within legal limits).

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Based on your misunderstanding of supporting diversity.

????

Because I don't add a subtext of "Diversity really only means supporting XYZ and discriminating against ABC", or that "All doesn't really mean all, just some"

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

How did I not specifically address every line of your last post?  

You could go back and answer the questions you skipped over.  But I wouldn't recommend using your time to do that at this point.  It is too tiresome to me to interact with someone who isn't willing to participate in respectful dialogue.

[rockpond]

Just now, Jane_Doe said:

????

Because I don't add a subtext of "Diversity really only means supporting XYZ and discriminating against ABC", or that "All doesn't really mean all, just some"

No.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That really has nothing to do with the point being made though.

Sure it does, if we're discussing who should not be discriminated against.   Do we narrow it down to only covering those who are in compliance with the laws and regulations of the state/country?  If so, then that would include those entering a SSM.  That was the point I was making.  I get what you're saying too, though.

[cinepro]

I don't know how many people are still reading this thread, but I just returned from a family reunion where I was surprised to find out that I actually have a niece at BYU-I who was in this teacher's political science class last semester!

No one will be shocked to learn that there is much more to the story than a simple Facebook post (as her Reddit posts already indicated).  My niece is a very sharp, somewhat liberal returned missionary who considers herself a feminist, but from almost day one, she was telling her mother about the weird stuff this teacher was teaching and doing in class.  From showing up with blue hair, to constantly belittling the boys in the class for being...boys.  Comments about how we can't trust LDS prophets because of the Priesthood ban, and mocking any student who would defend the idea that we should trust Church leaders even though they're imperfect.  There were lots of comments against the Church's policies on homosexuality and gay marriage throughout the course.  Nothing that would be out of place on an internet message board, but obviously a little surprising for a BYU-I classroom.  There were many more stories, but overall I couldn't believe any teacher would act so immaturely.

So the idea that she had kept her unorthodox political and doctrinal views out of the classroom is a complete fiction. 

I guess students in one of her other classes had complained about her, because she told my niece's class how "cool" they were in comparison to her other class that "complained all the time" about her.  So her time was no doubt already short at BYU-I and the Facebook post was probably just the last straw.

 

 

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

No.

Then how can a company honestly say "we support ALL employees" who they discriminate against people that are against SSM?