Court Vs Conversation…

Obviously, it is wrong to use an employer’s time to evangelise (or do anything else that is unrelated to the job  – that’s stealing) but what about breaks, lunchtime etc?  Is it OK to discuss religion, hopefully bring colleagues to at least think about the Faith? Or is it a case of “not the time or the place” ?  On a more sinister note, is it too risky to evangelise in the workplace? The point is made near the end of the short video that these cases of perceived inappropriate remarks by one employee to another, could easily be settled by a conversation with the employer – as any boss with even a modicum of management skill would know by instinct. So, what do you think – is a call to the boss’s office for a conversation about the complaint preferable to an appearance in court?

7 responses

  1. I think employers use the courts because they want to get rid of anyone who is departing from the party line on homosexuality. It’s not because they lack communication or management skills, they go on enough courses! I think they want to sweep out the workplace so that nobody who disagrees with the gay lifestyle will be able to influence others.

    The Christian Concern group do great work and they should be commended for their defence of people like Sarah who are persecuted at work and even lose their jobs. It will be interesting to see if Sarah is given her job back because it was notable that her employer is not pleased at the tribunal clearing her of any wrong-doing. .

  2. She has the faith and commitment Catholics used to have. I saw this programme this am, and it really made me think. One of Vat.II’s errors is that one can save one’s soul through a false religion. Until today I have had no problem with opposing this error, but it would be difficult for me to argue that that young ‘born-again’ lady isn’t on her way to heaven – as a born-again evangelical, or is it in spite of this?

    And how utterly ridiculous it is that a few words expressing a religious belief should be put into the category of ‘gross professional misconduct’. Of course this should have been dealt with in the boss’s office, one hopes with the lesbian being kindly told that if one person’s religious beliefs are not acceptable topics of conversation to her, she should also understand that conversations about her own sexual practices might not be acceptable to others.

    This whole matter, and all similar instances are quite sinister, and I am glad the BBC has at least allowed a relatively unbiased interview this time.

    • I agree. The position in society now is that it’s wrong to express any views that are critical of homosexuality. I have no doubt that employers are trying to “re-educate” employees to this new thinking and will try to get rid of those who disagree, calling them troublemakers.

      That girl was excellent as was her lawyer. They did extremely well in the interview which I agree was less biased than usual. They got a chance to put their case without constant interruption. She was a fair interviewer.

  3. Sarah Mbuyi and the lawyer Andrea Williams was excellent in that interview. Christian Concern and the Christian Institute are about the only groups that finance legal cases like Sarah’s and that is very good, but why no Catholic organisation to do that?

  4. I agree with all comments so far – all six of them, my own included!

    Like others here, I am of the opinion that there is a drive to eradicate all opposition to homosexuality from the workplace. No matter the lengths they have to go to, there are employers who are so diabolically disoriented that they think they are doing good by spreading “tolerance” and punishing those who are “intolerant”. Crazy stuff.

    I note that Sarah’s employer issued a statement to say they are considering their position (words to that effect) so it will be interesting to see if she is reinstated or paid off. I suspect the latter.

%d bloggers like this: