Originally posted by Rank outsiderYou seem to be harbouring the delusion that Jehovahs Witnesses impose their religious beliefs on those whom they employ, the very crux of your hypothetical question, this is not the case.
You and Robbie seem to be under the impression that I am interested in your views on blood transfusions.
I am not. I know them and do not need you to explain them to me again.
The question was what would you (hypothetically) do if someone in your employment as the anchor of a (hypothetical) JWTV channel started to preach about the evils of blood ...[text shortened]... aven't answered this question yet, and it is absolutely to the heart of the OP as you stated it.
For example if a Jehovahs Witness health service manager is requested by a patient to administer a blood transfusion, then they must comply with the wishes of the health trust and the patient and any Jehovahs witness doctor would not discharge anyone under their employment for carrying out the wishes of the patient even though it goes against their own religious principles. In the case of your scenario, as per the law of the land, the employee in question is protected by law to the right of freedom of speech, however, that someone who was employed by a hypothetical JW station was to start ranting against blood transfusions is not only unlikely but borders on the absurd, but that's what we have come to expect.
Under the guise of a question about an issue concerning freedom of speech you have once again reduced the issue to one of Jehovahs Witnesses which was probably not your original intent, but has transpired anyway.
Once again, the religious disposition of Jehovahs witnesses has no bearing on the right of an individual to freedom of speech, its absurd to think otherwise, one however must question the wisdom of doing so under certain circumstances, for while 'all things may be lawful, not all things are advantageous'.
I trust I will not have to repeat myself.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's nothing of the sort, it's a legitimate question on the motive, meaning and intent of Galveston's OP. He was questioned on it from the start and refused to respond which gave rise to people doubting his motives. You can froth all you like robbie, but if Galveston had simply addressed the questions he was being asked the theme of this thread would have been very different; but no, as usual you and he choose to avoid answering questions and then you end up getting like this, all 'panties in a knot' and feeling victimised. It's ridiculous.
you seem to be harbouring the delusion that Jehovahs witnesses impose their religious beliefs on those whom they employ, the very crux of your hypothetical question, this is not the case.
For example if a Jehovahs witness doctor is required by a patient to administer a blood transfusion, then they must comply with the wishes of the patient, even ...[text shortened]... issue to one of Jehovahs Witnesses which is not only intellectually dishonest, its contemptible.
Originally posted by divegeesterpsssst between you and I (looks to the left and then to the right) ...I plan to buy a Christmas pudding and eat it after Christmas in your honour, i will begin with a speech, oh great pudding....we come before you to honour all pudding's everywhere, foremost our friend divesgeester, the greatest pudding of all........
It's nothing of the sort, it's a legitimate question on the motive, meaning and intent of Galveston's OP. He was questioned on it from the start and refused to respond which gave rise to people doubting his motives. You can froth all you like robbie, but if Galveston had simply addressed the questions he was being asked the theme of this thread would ha ...[text shortened]... n you end up getting like this, all 'panties in a knot' and feeling victimised. It's ridiculous.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOK - I'll change the question to a non-religious one and see if I get an answer.
You seem to be harbouring the delusion that Jehovahs Witnesses impose their religious beliefs on those whom they employ, the very crux of your hypothetical question, this is not the case.
For example if a Jehovahs Witness health service manager is requested by a patient to administer a blood transfusion, then they must comply with the wishes of ...[text shortened]... gs may be lawful, not all things are advantageous'.
I trust I will not have to repeat myself.
If someone who works as a receptionist at a GP's surgery was to start saying openly to visiting patients that she thought people who smoke and contract lung cancer get what they deserve, and shouldn't be treated at the taxpayer's expense, would it be acceptable for the surgery to intervene to prevent her saying this in future. And, if need be, to dismiss her?
Or does her right to free speech trump this?
Originally posted by Rank outsiderYou got an answer, I see that it will need repetition,
OK - I'll change the question to a non-religious one and see if I get an answer.
If someone who works as a receptionist at a GP's surgery was to start saying openly to visiting patients that she thought people who smoke and contract lung cancer get what they deserve, and shouldn't be treated at the taxpayer's expense, would it be acceptable for the ...[text shortened]... his in future. And, if need be, to dismiss her?
Or does her right to free speech trump this?
Everyone has recourse to freedom of speech depending upon the laws of the land, whether it is wise or advantageous to exercise that freedom of speech remains to be seen.
Do you think it wise or advantageous to tell your wife that her new hairdo is horrendous? Yet you have freedom of speech to do so.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat doesn't answer the question.
You got an answer, I see that it will need repetition,
Everyone has recourse to freedom of speech depending upon the laws of the land, whether it is wise or advantageous to exercise that freedom of speech remains to be seen.
Do you think it wise or advantageous to tell your wife that her new hairdo is horrendous? Yet you have freedom of speech to do so.
The question is "Is it acceptable to fire this receptionist?"
Your 'answer' is not an answer to this question.
Originally posted by googlefudgeYou are only partially correct, it does highlight the issue and whether the right to freedom of speech trumps the actual exercise of that freedom, but a direct answer would be that it depends upon the discretion of the employer, surely?
That doesn't answer the question.
The question is "Is it acceptable to fire this receptionist?"
Your 'answer' is not an answer to this question.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderwhy does it not answer the question, its entirely at an employers discretion whether they 'fire' an employee or not? Whether they acted reasonably remains to be seen. Footballers for example say and do all sorts of silly things, yet these are often overlooked because of the players ability and perceived value to the team. Alex Ferguson famously stated of Eric Cantona who was inappropriately dressed for a formal occasion (after complaints from his team mates) that if the rest of the team could play football like him, they could attire themselves accordingly. He karate kicked a supporter and yet remained employed.
That doesn't answer the question.
If the receptionist continued to make such comments after repeated warnings, and she was fired, would the employer have acted reasonably?
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieso its fair to say that if phil roberts comments about homosexuals were in direct conflict with the ethos of his employers a+e networks. that it was perfectly reasonable for them to terminate his employment. wouldnt you agree?
why does it not answer the question, its entirely at an employers discretion whether they 'fire' an employee or not? Whether they acted reasonably remains to be seen. Footballers for example say and do all sorts of silly things, yet these are often overlooked because of the players ability and perceived value to the team. Alex Ferguson famously st ...[text shortened]... ey could attire themselves accordingly. He karate kicked a supporter and yet remained employed.
Originally posted by stellspalfieNo I don't agree, his perceived value to the station may be greater than flack from public opinion, who can say? they may simply bide their time until its blown over and thank him for the publicity, either way, I had never heard of the guy until now and even bad publicity is publicity. He has a lot of supporters you know, some of them quite prominent. Sacking him might be like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
so its fair to say that if phil roberts comments about homosexuals were in direct conflict with the ethos of his employers a+e networks. that it was perfectly reasonable for them to terminate his employment. wouldnt you agree?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHowever, it is now clear that you agree that, if it were the case that his value to the station were less than the flack from public opinion, then it is acceptable to sack him.
No I don't agree, his perceived value to the station may be greater than flack from public opinion, who can say? they may simply bide their time until its blown over and thank him for the publicity, either way, I had never heard of the guy until now and even bad publicity is publicity. He has a lot of supporters you know, some of them quite prominent. Sacking him might be like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
So it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, but is simply a matter of a person (reasonably) observing the terms of their employment and, if they choose not to, running the risk that they might be (reasonably) sacked.
Does galveston75 agree with this?
Originally posted by Rank outsiderno not really, after all, lets look at what he has said,
However, it is now clear that you agree that, if it were the case that his value to the station were less than the flack from public opinion, then it is acceptable to sack him.
So it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, but is simply a matter of a person (reasonably) observing the terms of their employment and, if they choose not to, running the risk that they might be (reasonably) sacked.
Does galveston75 agree with this?
That according to the Bible, homosexuality is a sin, well that's true
That in a similar respect, according to the Bible, bestiality is also a sin, well, once again, that is true
That according to his own experience he did not witness any unhappiness in Louisiana while growing up, well, hard to argue with his personal experience,
Therefore we are left with, why is he being suspended? and the answer is because of a reaction to perceived public opinion. Now while I have not seen his contract, is it reasonable to assume that his contract contains such a clause? I doubt it, although its possible. Is it also possible that he is being suspended because his perceived value is less than the flack from public opinion, quite possibly and we are once again brought to the point that its entirely at an employers discretion.
You are quite wrong if you think it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, it has, because he exercised that freedom and found to his detriment that it was ill received, had he, and I take this opportunity to highlight the Bibles own superlative wisdom, applied the rather interesting principle, 'all things are lawful for me but not all things are advantageous', 1 Corinthians 6:12, then he might have deemed it wise to refrain, because of the reaction to perceived public opinion.
I cannot say about the Gman, we have as yet, not perfected telepathy.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
20 Dec 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe has a lot of supporters you know, some of them quite prominent. Sacking him might be like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
No I don't agree, his perceived value to the station may be greater than flack from public opinion, who can say? they may simply bide their time until its blown over and thank him for the publicity, either way, I had never heard of the guy until now and even bad publicity is publicity. He has a lot of supporters you know, some of them quite prominent. Sacking him might be like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
there is no doubt that a+e networks are risking a lot of money. he is one of the stars of an extremely lucrative tv show (estimated worth around $400million). a+e networks have always been strong supporters of the lgbt community.
so are you saying the company should put money first, before its moral values? is that how you would run a business?
I would just like to say that I think hes due an apology, his comments have been misconstrued and misrepresented by the hysterical media.
He did not equate homosexuality with bestiality, what in fact he said, was that according to the Bible, both are sinful, as was adultery. Which is true.
He has not made any racist comments as was erroneously asserted by the hysterical googlefudge, all he stated was that in his experience of growing up among African Americans in Louisiana he did not witness any unhappiness.
It appears to me that his case is typical of the news media to misconstrue, misinform and slanderously defame a person for airing their religious views.