This view of marriage was, I think, expressly mentioned as acceptable in society during the same-sex marriage debate in Parliament. On the other hand, expressing this view at work can well trip discrimination or harassment statutes.
-
-
Replying to @ramendik @MForstater
The Mackereth case establishes that it is right and proper, at least, to gag your view *at work*. You write in (71) that trans-inclusive spaces at work make you feel uncomfortable; the Mackereth case seems to answer "your own problem"; there's another too.https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/store-failed-to-take-the-grievances-of-a-transgender-staff-member-seriously-36612162.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik @MForstater
But a very interesting question in your case is whether there is a legally recognized boundary where a view can be gagged at work and yet protected from discrimination when expressed off work.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik @MForstater
To be honest, I do not see this boundary in UK law. But then I am not a lawyer (nor in the UK, but the Republic of Ireland setup seems broadly similar - Northern Ireland on the other hand is different as political views are expressly protected there).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik @MForstater
Personally I would prefer that such a boundary would exist, and that views lawfully and properly disallowed at work could still be protected from employment discrimination when expressed outside work.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik
So I think you are saying that in your view yes this is a protected belief under the EqA (i.e. it meets the 5 Grainger criteria)? And like all protected beliefs the question of whether an employer can restrain expression of the belief is one of proportionate means/legitimate aim?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MForstater
It is not just about my views. There already is the Mackereth decision, which named he view incompatible with criterion 5. The question is whether this incompatibility is conditional on the view being applied at work, or absolute. I'd prefer "conditional".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik @MForstater
The Mackereth decision did not just say that the employer had a legitimate aim to restrict expression of the view, it named *the view itself* incompatible with human dignity. And this is the precedent you work with. The Christian Legal Centre poisoned the well for you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik @MForstater
This would be more clean-cut if you did not attempt to submit an anti-trans work about development, in my view. The work was rightly rejected as incompatible with the values of the company. They could perhaps claim that you intended to keep submitting such incompatible works?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ramendik @MForstater
My preferred outcome would be an ironclad work-personal border. As in, your views were rightly NOT protected when you attempted to express them at work, but expressing them off work under a disclaimer should not have figured in work decisions.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
So if Kristina Harrison expressed her belief (which I share) at work, that she is a male person who lives as a woman via a legal fiction and a degree of social acceptance, but does not have a right to access all female spaces -- that an employer should be able to fire her?
-
-
Replying to @MForstater
Not a "first offence" thing generally. The employer is however able to gag this expression at work - which is important for support of other trans employees and for any trans customers or service users, if applicable. This is not even a "should", the Mackereth decision exists.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 7 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.