Disciplined for refusing to hand out literature on homosexuality

[Spie]

I'm lost in a feedback loop of sarcasm and misdirection.

Say what?

I'm sure you are. Never mind.

 

[The_TailGunner]

you bored this afternoon spie?

 

[Spie]

Nope.

 

[Borris]

I'm sure you are. Never mind.

I don't mind at all, believe you me.

Whatever point there was has obviously shot through the air above my head at a tremendous rate.

 

[scorza]

Is diversity training about telling people what to think, or is it about setting boundaries on how they express their thoughts, through their actions, in the context of the workplace?

Given they were sent for diversity correction therapy for refusing to attend some political stunt demanded by their PCLE employers I would say its about telling free-thinkers what they should really be thinking.

If they really objected they could have quit.

Absolutely ridiculous. Just goes to demonstrate the weakness of your argument if you think people should quit over every little thing they don't agree with.

And people should expect to get the same service from public servants regardless of their sexual orientation. And as firemen are payed for by taxpayers money the publics right to service trumps their right to object to serve that part of the community. Anyway they can still think evil thoughts they just cannot refuse to do their jobs based on their brand of bigotry.

I'd agree with you if they were refusing to put out gay people's fires, but as other people have noted, this isn't about them not doing their job its about them refusing to attend a gay pride event where they might have been ridiculed and offended. If they were ordered to hand out leaflets at a BNP rally would you support them not wanting to attend? But of course, you don't see firemen handing out leaflets at BNP rallys or any other sort of adult related event - only gay pride because the Fire Brigade thought it would help them look "trendy" and modern in a Graham Norton kind of way.

 

[Sleepy]

Absolutely ridiculous. Just goes to demonstrate the weakness of your argument if you think people should quit over every little thing they don't agree with.

Except this is not a little thing, if it was they wouldn't have objected. And if they had a strong moral objection they would have resigned as it is they accepted disciplinary measures.

I'd agree with you if they were refusing to put out gay people's fires, but as other people have noted, this isn't about them not doing their job its about them refusing to attend a gay pride event where they might have been ridiculed and offended.

Actually as has been pointed out in this thread fire safety education is a part of their contractual obligations, and again as has been pointed out occurs at many public events. Also if they are so emotionally vulnerable as to risk permament trauma from the rude behaviour of a few maybe the are in the wrong job.

 

[Borris]

Given they were sent for diversity correction therapy for refusing to attend some political stunt demanded by their PCLE employers I would say its about telling free-thinkers what they should really be thinking.

I would have thought, as I mentioned a few times, that it was about telling people that they could think what they liked, just not act out on it.

Absolutely ridiculous. Just goes to demonstrate the weakness of your argument if you think people should quit over every little thing they don't agree with.

The job was a core responsibility. In any job, if you do not perform, you can expect to be disciplined. The alternative is to resign.

The weakness of your arguement is that you are not making one.

'd agree with you if they were refusing to put out gay people's fires, but as other people have noted, this isn't about them not doing their job its about them refusing to attend a gay pride event where they might have been ridiculed and offended. If they were ordered to hand out leaflets at a BNP rally would you support them not wanting to attend? But of course, you don't see firemen handing out leaflets at BNP rallys or any other sort of adult related event - only gay pride because the Fire Brigade thought it would help them look "trendy" and modern in a Graham Norton kind of way.

Here is a primarily sourced post that categorically states that it was a core duty. Any supposition that BNP rallies are not attended is weightless, and a straw man at best.

In fact, your entire post is a straw man - PCLE, publicity stunt, trendy and modern. All insubstantive.

 

[scorza]

Except this is not a little thing, if it was they wouldn't have objected. And if they had a strong moral objection they would have resigned as it is they accepted disciplinary measures.

WTF are you on man? People don't object to things they don't disagree with. I look forward to hearing that you've resigned from your job because your boss is making you do something you don't want to do.

Actually as has been pointed out in this thread fire safety education is a part of their contractual obligations, and again as has been pointed out occurs at many public events. Also if they are so emotionally vulnerable as to risk permament trauma from the rude behaviour of a few maybe the are in the wrong job.

The argument is not whether or not firemen should hand out fire safety advice, but why a gay pride march is considered a suitable event that the fire brigade get involved in, and the glaring double standards that would have applied if these firemen weren't Christians.

 

[scorza]

I would have thought, as I mentioned a few times, that it was about telling people that they could think what they liked, just not act out on it.

But equally you shouldn't force people to attend events that are considered offensive to them.

The job was a core responsibility. In any job, if you do not perform, you can expect to be disciplined. The alternative is to resign.

The weakness of your arguement is that you are not making one.

Here is a primarily sourced post that categorically states that it was a core duty. Any supposition that BNP rallies are not attended is weightless, and a straw man at best.

In fact, your entire post is a straw man - PCLE, publicity stunt, trendy and modern. All insubstantive.

I'm sure when that policy was written the "community events" the fire brigade got involved with were all non-contentious. This one is contentious and the decision to support it has been driven by PCLE policy with blatent disregard for the actual people on the grounds personal beliefs. The BNP example is a good one, but it is an extreme example, a better one might be a march by the Orange Order (as I believe they happen in Glasgow), should there be a protestant driven agenda at the fire brigade and an Orange Order march was chosen as a community event, should Catholic firemen be forced to attend it and hand out leaflets? I say not.

 

[Borris]

But equally you shouldn't force people to attend events that are considered offensive to them.

I'm sure when that policy was written the "community events" the fire brigade got involved with were all non-contentious. This one is contentious and the decision to support it has been driven by PCLE policy with blatent disregard for the actual people on the grounds personal beliefs. The BNP example is a good one, but it is an extreme example, a better one might be a march by the Orange Order (as I believe they happen in Glasgow), should there be a protestant driven agenda at the fire brigade and an Orange Order march was chosen as a community event, should Catholic firemen be forced to attend it and hand out leaflets? I say not.

That would be political correctness of the highest order, in that case, even if it were anything other than supposition.

Employing someone, among other things, to engage in community education, but then give then the choice to decline on moral, ethical or religous grounds, yet face no sacntion for doing so? That's nothing but candy-arsed, lilly-livered, whoopsy-liberal nonsense.

The argument is not whether or not firemen should hand out fire safety advice, but why a gay pride march is considered a suitable event that the fire brigade get involved in, and the glaring double standards that would have applied if these firemen weren't Christians.

The arguement is whether they have a choice for whom they provide a core service. Putting out fires is a core service, educating the community is a core service.

 

[Sleepy]

WTF are you on man? People don't object to things they don't disagree with. I look forward to hearing that you've resigned from your job because your boss is making you do something you don't want to do.

You're the one who said it was a little thing, I said that if they felt strongly enough about the issue they could quit, thus demonstrating their opposition to the task they were to carry out. As it was they didn't think it that much of an issue, infact they now admit that they were wrong.

As I'm the boss its unlikely I'd be in that position again but I have walked away from a job cos of principles.

The argument is not whether or not firemen should hand out fire safety advice, but why a gay pride march is considered a suitable event that the fire brigade get involved in, and the glaring double standards that would have applied if these firemen weren't Christians.

I imagine that there would be a big crowd present. Why shouldn't the fire service educate the attending public on fire safety? And to why do you object to them appearing at a gay pride march? What makes gay people less worthy of their fire services education efforts.

As to the religious beliefs of the firemen what double standards are you reffering to?

 

[Violent-J]

You're the one who said it was a little thing, I said that if they felt strongly enough about the issue they could quit, thus demonstrating their opposition to the task they were to carry out. As it was they didn't think it that much of an issue, infact they now admit that they were wrong.

As I'm the boss its unlikely I'd be in that position again but I have walked away from a job cos of principles.I imagine that there would be a big crowd present. Why shouldn't the fire service educate the attending public on fire safety? And to why do you object to them appearing at a gay pride march? What makes gay people less worthy of their fire services education efforts.

As to the religious beliefs of the firemen what double standards are you reffering to?

The leaflets weren't fire safety leaflets, the title of this thread clearly states they were required to hand out homosexual literature. Girls love firemen, somet bout a man in uniform and big, strong tough etc. and no doubt gay guys love firemen too. In handing out gay literature the queers walking in the march might have seen the firemen and been like, "OH MY GOSH, FIREMEN!" and been mobbed by the crowd and approached in a sexual manner etc. which isn't right.

 

[scorza]

That would be political correctness of the highest order, in that case, even if it were anything other than supposition.

Employing someone, among other things, to engage in community education, but then give then the choice to decline on moral, ethical or religous grounds, yet face no sacntion for doing so? That's nothing but candy-arsed, lilly-livered, whoopsy-liberal nonsense.

Exactly, except for some reason political correctness doesn't apply if you're a Christian. Real political correctness has been replaced by a PCLE version where if it offends Christians, its good and therefore should be encouraged - like the gay pride event in Scotland.

The arguement is whether they have a choice for whom they provide a core service. Putting out fires is a core service, educating the community is a core service.

Did you actually read what I wrote? I don't disupte that firemen can't choose who they offer fire safety advice to, but why choose a gay pride event to support? People in authority have to acknowledge that gay culture isn't to everyone's tastes and its wrong to ahem ... ram it down people's throats. I would argue its a form of bullying by their bosses. It will be interesting to hear what their union say when they get around to it.

Like Sleepy's sig says: a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.

 

[M0T]

A load of fags and lycra must have presented a serious fire risk. I don't think the event should have been allowed.

If they don't teach them fire prevention then surely there is an even worse risk if their wardrobes catch fire?

 

[Spie]

If they don't teach them fire prevention then surely there is an even worse risk if their wardrobes catch fire?

This is true. Also, think of the added risk posed by tins of hairspray. The whole place could go up in a puff of smoke.

 

[singist]

Surely CBS has had his pound of flesh from his baited thread by now? .......... let it die ........ or maybe we could discuss the habit of smoking?

 

[jezsoup]

This is true. Also, think of the added risk posed by tins of hairspray. The whole place could go up in a puff of smoke.

And you say it like its a bad thing!