Tag Archives: Termination

UK judge rules in favor of firing people who disagree with transgenderism

Thinking about transgenderism
Thinking about transgenderism

This case is from the UK, but keep in mind that the United States is just a few years off from this, depending on who wins the presidency in 2020. A woman tweeted that transgender women (biological men) are not the same as biological women. The judge ruled that it should be legal to fire employees who say that a transgender woman (biological man) is not the same a biological woman.

Here is the story from Insider:

A judge in the UK ruled on Wednesday that it was legal for a leading think tank to fire a worker for arguing publicly that transgender women are not real women.

The Centre for Global Development (CGD) sacked tax expert Maya Forstater in March 2019 over a series of tweets in which she supported the notion that “men cannot change into women.”

She sued the CGD on grounds of discrimination, but her argument was rejected by a judge, who said her position on the issue is “not worthy of respect” and does not enjoy legal protection.

[…]Before her dismissal Forstater was accused by her managers of using “offensive and exclusionary” language and “fear-mongering,” the Times of London reported.

The judge said that the defendant “is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.”

NBC News had an article up where the author explained why the ruling was justified:

This, then, is what Forstater wanted the courts to uphold: Her right to make her co-workers uncomfortable… her right to be… rude and disrespectful in social and professional contexts; and her right to disrespect U.K. law, which defines transgender women as women and transgender men as men…

Courts, of course, tend to look askance at being asked to rule that an employee should be allowed to harm their employers and co-workers based on “philosophical beliefs” they’ve decided are both “biological truths” and tantamount to religious canon.

Indeed. So the mainstream view among the progressive elites is that not affirming the views of transgender people is “harming” them. And the right way to stop dissent from the LGBT agenda is to have these people fired, so that they have to choose between feeding their family and supporting the LGBT agenda. And this is all fine with the “compassion” crowd, who are more concerned with the feelings of transgender people than with free speech and conscience rights.

By the way, the UK judge’s position is the same as about half the people in this country – the half that votes for the Democrat Party. The Democrats in the House have already passed a bill called the Equality Act, which would make American laws match the UK laws that make it acceptable for people who express disagreement with the LGBT agenda to be fired.

Personal application

I’ve noticed that a lot of evangelical pastors and leaders are drifting away from the teachings of the Bible on sex, marriage and morality in general. And it’s becoming a real question about how far they will go with this. Like, I don’t know where “conservative” evangelical pastors and leaders would stand on this question of firing someone who isn’t “generous” about accepting a transgender person’s preferred pronouns.

Based on what I’m seeing right now, I don’t expect that Bible-believing conservatives who disagree with LGBT agenda are going to get any help from the “conservative” evangelical pastors and leaders . And that affects how free those Bible-believing conservatives are to be generous about taking on additional responsibilities, like charitable contributions, marriage, and children. After all, if the “conservative” evangelical pastors and leaders aren’t concerned when a secular leftist fires a dissenter from LGBT orthodoxy, then why should that dissenter take on additional obligations to others that reduce his ability to survive being fired?

Here is what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:

32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord.

33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—

34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.

35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

And here’s Paul again in 2 Timothy:

 Join with me in suffering, like a good soldier of Christ Jesus.

No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather tries to please his commanding officer.

I do understand that evangelical pastors and leaders think that men just marry for love, and they don’t even think about how much providing for a wife and children costs. But that’s delusional. Men DO calculate the costs of having a wife and children, and they understand that it is easier to be faithful on controversial issues when you are a single man, than when you are burdened with a wife and children. If pastors don’t want to do anything to defend free speech from the secular left, that makes marriage less attractive to men who are committed to fighting the secular left.

Police chaplain forced to resign for supporting traditional marriage

Mary sent me this article from the UK Telegraph.

Excerpt:

A police chaplain says he was forced out of his post after criticising the Government’s plans for gay marriage on his personal website, MPs have been told.

Rev Brian Ross said he was summoned to a meeting with a senior officer and told that postings on his blog on the subject of marriage did not fit with the force’s equality and diversity policies.

Campaigners against same-sex marriage claimed that the case was “just the start of things to come”.

They said it backed up warnings that chaplains in hospitals, prisons and the armed forces as well as teachers and other public servants could be dismissed legally from their jobs if they take what they consider to be a stand on grounds of conscience over the issue.

Ministers have repeatedly insisted that no one should be sacked from their job for voicing opposition to same-sex marriage and have built in special “protections” for clerics into the Government’s Marriage Bill.

But in a written submission to a committee of MPs revising the bill in the House of Commons Rev Ross claimed that his case was “typical of the kind of situation that could, and would, arise” once gay marriage becomes law.

[…][Ross] went on: “Just before the summer, a particular senior officer in one of the divisions read my personal blog and objected to my expressed support for traditional marriage as, it was claimed, it went against the force’s equality and diversity policies.

“I was summoned to a meeting, the end result of which has been that my services have been dispensed with.

“This, I would emphasise, is before any legislation has been placed on the Statute Book.”

I recommend that Christians who like to blog on social issues blog under an alias, because this kind of thing happens more than you expect, and the consequences can be much worse than this. Depending on where you are, you might end up paying tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees as you go through a multi-year trial in front of some political correctness tribunal.

China confirms that photo of forced late-term abortion is authentic

From AFP:

Chinese authorities confirmed Thursday that a woman was forced to abort seven months into her pregnancy, several days after her plight came to light when images of her baby’s corpse were posted online.

Rights groups have blamed authorities in north China’s Shaanxi province for forcing Feng Jianmei to abort her pregnancy because she failed to pay a hefty fine for exceeding China’s strict “one-child” population control policy.

The Shaanxi provincial government said in a statement that a preliminary probe had confirmed the case was “basically true”, and the investigators have recommended action be taken against the perpetrators.

[…]Chinese web users have reacted in anger to the abortion, with one comparing it to acts perpetrated by “Japanese devils and Nazis”, after photos online showed Feng lying on a hospital bed next to the blood-smeared body of her baby.

A relative told AFP on Wednesday that Feng and her husband had opposed the termination.

[…]China has implemented its draconian family planning policy since the late 1970s in an effort to control a population that has grown to 1.3 billion people, the world’s largest.

Under the policy, urban families are generally allowed to have one child, while rural families can give birth to two children if the first is a girl. They have to pay a fine if they contravene the rules.

Rights groups say that as a result of the policy, thousands of women have been forced by authorities to terminate their pregnancies.

Blind activist Chen Guangcheng, who recently left China for the United States after fleeing house arrest, was once jailed after angering local officials for bringing to light hundreds of forced abortions.

Official statistics show that since the start of the policy, the number of abortions peaked in 1983, with a total of 14.37 million terminations that year.

You can see the absolutely horrifying photo of the woman and her child here on Life Site News. China is, of course, a country whose official state religion is atheism. There is no grounding for human rights – like the right to life – on atheism. The strong can do anything thing they want to the weak if it makes them feel good – there is no objective morality, so things like this are rational on atheism.

Would the Democrats be any different than China on the issue of coerced abortions? Vice president Joe Biden expressed support for China’s one-child policy, and presumably for their methods of enforcing it. Not only is Barack Obama the most pro-abortion President ever, but he also has voted for infanticide several times and he opposed the ban on partial birth abortions. Additionally, Obama appointed John Holdren to be his “science czar”, and Holdren had previously advocated for mass sterilizations and coerced abortions.

Take a good look at that picture. That’s what happens when a country turns its back on God and his moral laws.