Escaping the Echo Chamber

[Frelga]

I think unless you're Brangelina, the lesser famous will always be referred to by their relation to the more famous. Even in famous power couples you'll hear things like "Pamela Stephenson, Comedienne and wife of Billy Connolly" or "David Beckham, retired footballer and husband of style icon and musician Victoria Beckham". People like to connect the dots. But that's no excuse for the case above where her name isn't even mentioned.

Right. If both parties are named, and one is explained in relation to the other, it makes sense. (Miranda Lambert snaps over question about new husband Brendan McLoughlin). I also found headlines where neither party was named (COUNCILMEMBER SAYS SHE WAS ASSAULTED BY RALEIGH MAYOR'S HUSBAND) which also makes sense, I guess.

Also, "Police: Intoxicated woman backs into husband, then kicks him" which I only clicked on because it was in Kokomo Tribune and goes to show that you CAN'T get away from it all.

[Cerin]

I think the best way to have put it would have been, 'Stephen and Tabitha King' (if her name is indeed King). The fact of his celebrity is irrelevant here; the donation would have been just as noteworthy if made by unknowns, and it was made by both parties, so both should have been named equally.

However, if the report concerned their appearance at a celebrity event, I think 'Stephen King and his wife' would have been more acceptable (if not entirely polite). And the same if the celebrity were a woman with a non-public male companion. Yes, those people have names, but their names are irrelevant in this context; they are only referred to because they are accompanying a public person, and so the relevant information is their relationship to that celebrity.

[Alatar]

This may work here.

Israel Faloa, an Australian International Rugby player, has had his contract terminated for tweeting homophbic images. The post contains an image which says that “hell awaits” drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators. The image also states that “only Jesus saves”.

Faloa had already been warned about posting "hate speech", but he believes that even if he has to forgo his career, he can't go against his religious beliefs.

So, Religious Freedom vs Hate Speech?

[yovargas]

If that was the entirety of his post then you may be surprised to hear that I do not agree with that decision, nor with calling it hate speech.

[Cerin]

It's possible the quote comes directly from scripture, which I guess would make it more clearly a case of freedom of religious expression than it would be otherwise.

I wonder if the Bible will be banned in my lifetime.

[Frelga]

Is harming other people because you think your god wants you to different from harming people for any other reason? If so, to what extent?

[elengil]

It isn't religious freedom vs. hate speech. He has his freedom of religion, he has his freedom of speech. What he doesn't have is an employer who is willing to keep him employed.

[yovargas]

Actually, I'm pretty sure employers cannot fire you for expressing a religious belief, at least in the US. V-man could speak more to how that might apply in this particular case.

[Inanna]

cue xkcd comic:

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Actually, I'm pretty sure employers cannot fire you for expressing a religious belief, at least in the US. V-man could speak more to how that might apply in this particular case.

You can't be fired for practicing a particular religion, and your religious beliefs need to be reasonably accommodated (e.g., allowing a Muslim woman to wear a headscarf, or allowing an Orthodox Jew to not work on the Sabbath). But I doubt that posting something that would be considered hate speech would be considered practicing a particular religion. You don't have to post those images in order to practice your religion.

[yovargas]

Do you think the law would allow firing someone for openly sharing their general religious beliefs? For example, I grew up a Seventh day Adventist. Would an employer get in trouble if they fired me because they didn't like my "Saturday is the Sabbath!" Twitter post?

[elengil]

Do you think the law would allow firing someone for openly sharing their general religious beliefs? For example, I grew up a Seventh day Adventist. Would an employer get in trouble if they fired me because they didn't like my "Saturday is the Sabbath!" Twitter post?

Yes, IMO they would.

But then I also think there is a rather large difference between saying "Saturday is the Sabbath" and "Sunday Worshipers are going to hell!"

[yovargas]

But then I also think there is a rather large difference between saying "Saturday is the Sabbath" and "Sunday Worshipers are going to hell!"

A large legal difference or a moral one? I could understand the latter (though I personally think it's frankly silly), but I can't see how there could be a legal difference.

[River]

"Sunday Worshippers are Going to Hell!" comes off as threatening. So, depending on the verse, does putting a Bible verse on top of a picture of burning stuff. And it's generally considered impolite to offer unsolicited advice, especially about personal things like belief systems and death. In the US at least, "Go to hell" is one of those phrases that falls in the same category as "Go **** yourself". Unless you and the target know each other quite well and understand where the boundaries between play and injury are, it's an incredibly nasty thing to say to someone.

[Frelga]

Do you think the law would allow firing someone for openly sharing their general religious beliefs? For example, I grew up a Seventh day Adventist. Would an employer get in trouble if they fired me because they didn't like my "Saturday is the Sabbath!" Twitter post?

According to the training I recently got, your employer is supposed to accommodate your religious practices to the extent that it does not interfere with your performance. So if you asked to not be scheduled to work on Saturday because it's your Sabbath and offered to work Sundays instead, that should not be a problem. In reality, it well might be, if they need full staff on Saturdays (or if they are using that as a pretext for religious discrimination) but that's a different issue.

If you said that Saturday is the Sabbath and everyone who works on Saturday is going to hell, and your employer is evil for being open on Saturdays, you might be considered creating a hostile work environment, and they would have a much stronger case for firing you.

TL;DR practicing your religion in your private life is usually OK. Forcing other people to practice your religion with insults and threats is a long way from OK.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, what River and Frelga said is correct.

The trickier issue would arise if you were an employee of a bakery and refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding because of religious reasons. Then the question would be whether accommodating the employees religious beliefs would cause the employer an undue hardship. If there were not other employees available who could easily handle that assignment, it probably would not be considered a reasonable accommodation.

[yovargas]

None of that really addresses the question of whether legally someone can fire you for expressing a religious belief that they did not like.

[yovargas]

It is also very much worth noting that the tweet in question is basically just a quote from the Bible. If quoting the Bible is considered "hate speech", then we have some serious problems.

[Frelga]

If he quoted Tolkien justifying his racist views, would that be different?

[yovargas]

Tolkien didn't found a religion with a few billion members.