Re: Teacher suspended after anti-gay Facebook posts

**Jagdgeschwader** 20th August 2011, 9:55 pm

LimeyPolo wrote:
Super Mega King wrote:The point when his own views ruin his objectiveness in a professional setting (ie: school) is the point that he should be fired; he should not be fired for posting comments on his facebook.

That being, I understand WHY they fired him, I just don't 100% believe it was just.
People have an auditonium of their individuality with social media and they can't expect disrespectful behaviour to be contained EXCLUSIVELY to their room, sadly. I agree, though, that boundaries should be established between professionalism and our personal lives.

They think his behaviour has discredited his character, existing in the professional setting as it is truly 'him', and a decent character is integral to his employment (or it has them look bad if they have him employed). More the implications of his statements, perhaps, and their concerns how it may develop. Theoretical as hell, sure, and outside of the setting, but they're not going to take any risks, it seems.

Everyone should know, though, that every employer is the same legally to protect their reputation that staff sustain. Just? I think it was right for them to not take any chances with a person who's viably homophobic as there's too much of a chance it'll be transferred to his professional life. I mean, he's teaching, not packing metals or serving tea.

The minute his opinion of gays comes to the classroom is grounds to fire him. It is not just to fire someone for stating something outside of the workplace that as I have stated twice now, not conspiring to inflict harm on said parties. Once that comes into the context of his work, i.e. telling his students homosexuality is morally wrong, etcetera he is to be judged on his actions and it is his superiors call whether or not action should be taken against him and if so, how far.

They should not have fired him. Period. These rules justifying this shouldn't even be in place.

In other words, what he is saying is erroneous, but he can spew it all he likes.

Why your forum analogy doesn't work is because this is a community, not a workplace. When you're here, the staff has jurisdiction and enforces the rules. The same applies if he were to yell this outside in public.

**Limey Polo** 20th August 2011, 10:57 pm

Jagdgeschwader wrote:
LimeyPolo wrote:
Super Mega King wrote:The point when his own views ruin his objectiveness in a professional setting (ie: school) is the point that he should be fired; he should not be fired for posting comments on his facebook.

That being, I understand WHY they fired him, I just don't 100% believe it was just.
People have an auditonium of their individuality with social media and they can't expect disrespectful behaviour to be contained EXCLUSIVELY to their room, sadly. I agree, though, that boundaries should be established between professionalism and our personal lives.

They think his behaviour has discredited his character, existing in the professional setting as it is truly 'him', and a decent character is integral to his employment (or it has them look bad if they have him employed). More the implications of his statements, perhaps, and their concerns how it may develop. Theoretical as hell, sure, and outside of the setting, but they're not going to take any risks, it seems.

Everyone should know, though, that every employer is the same legally to protect their reputation that staff sustain. Just? I think it was right for them to not take any chances with a person who's viably homophobic as there's too much of a chance it'll be transferred to his professional life. I mean, he's teaching, not packing metals or serving tea.

The minute his opinion of gays comes to the classroom is grounds to fire him. It is not just to fire someone for stating something outside of the workplace that as I have stated twice now, not conspiring to inflict harm on said parties. Once that comes into the context of his work, i.e. telling his students homosexuality is morally wrong, etcetera he is to be judged on his actions and it is his superiors call whether or not action should be taken against him and if so, how far.

They should not have fired him. Period. These rules justifying this shouldn't even be in place.

In other words, what he is saying is erroneous, but he can spew it all he likes.

Why your forum analogy doesn't work is because this is a community, not a workplace. When you're here, the staff has jurisdiction and enforces the rules. The same applies if he were to yell this outside in public.

You're taking it literally as:

Workplace>Professional Life
Outside>Personal Life

You entirely ignored my remarks pertaining to the /interrelation/ of these two and recited SMK's previous comments. Is he your new Wikipedia, by the way?

**Jagdgeschwader** 20th August 2011, 11:59 pm

Of course I'm taking it literally like that. This is a literal situation if you haven't noticed.

A professional separates their personal life and their work. It's really cut and dry. People like you just need to complicate things apparently when they don't need to be.

This is what I mean by 'Get over yourself'. You're just trying to '1-up' me constantly and it's annoying as fuck.

**Super Mega King** 21st August 2011, 12:27 am

Let's keep this on topic, fellows.

**Limey Polo** 21st August 2011, 12:31 am

Super Mega King wrote:Let's keep this on topic, fellows.

Remove this at least, then:

"This is what I mean by 'Get over yourself'. You're just trying to '1-up' me constantly and it's annoying as fuck."

**mboddz751** 21st August 2011, 12:38 am

LimeyPolo wrote:
Super Mega King wrote:Let's keep this on topic, fellows.
Remove this at least, then:

"This is what I mean by 'Get over yourself'. You're just trying to '1-up' me constantly and it's annoying as fuck."

just drop it kid

**YouDirtyCamper** 27th August 2011, 11:38 am

The fact that he said "It makes me sick" is bad enough. In the 21st century, where anything is widely accepted (especially being GBLT in recent times) I think the bastard deserves to be locked up. That's my opinion, anyway, really against homophobia/racism, lol.

**Jagdgeschwader** 27th August 2011, 11:53 am

And 1st amendment apparently.

What do you mean "Everything is widely accepted"?

**bman4782** 27th August 2011, 1:02 pm

I wish I had that teacher.

**Jagdgeschwader** 27th August 2011, 1:12 pm

It's not nice to homophobic.

**YouDirtyCamper** 27th August 2011, 2:21 pm

I like to think that things that used to be seen as "different" such as Homosexuality are now regarded as normal in civilized communities. Of course there are still places in the Middle East and such where that activity carries the death penalty, but still!

By the way, you make a great point about the 1st amendment. I just feel that even though they are within their rights to say things like that, it shouldn't be accepted anywhere in civilized society. Maybe I am a bit to outspoken about it Razz

**Super Mega King** 27th August 2011, 2:31 pm

You're too idealistic.

I agree that it should be accepted anywhere in civilized society, but it simply isn't.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108115/americans-evenly-divided-morality-homosexuality.aspx

Americans are evenly divided on the the issue according to this poll. Hell, it was only recently that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was repelled.

**Limey Polo** 27th August 2011, 2:47 pm

Super Mega King wrote:
Americans are evenly divided on the the issue according to this poll. Hell, it was only recently that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was repelled.

That was in place to ensure unit cohesion by keeping gay boys apart during their long deployments together in hot, sweaty environments with nothing else to do...

**Super Mega King** 27th August 2011, 2:49 pm

LimeyPolo wrote:
Super Mega King wrote:
Americans are evenly divided on the the issue according to this poll. Hell, it was only recently that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was repelled.
That was in place to ensure unit cohesion by keeping gay boys apart during their long deployments together in hot, sweaty environments with nothing else to do...

Regardless of the reason, it was still anti-homosexual.

**YouDirtyCamper** 27th August 2011, 2:51 pm

The same poll shows that apparently Abortion isn't morally acceptable and neither is Cloning...

Sigh.

I am too idealistic.

**Limey Polo** 27th August 2011, 2:55 pm

Super Mega King wrote:
LimeyPolo wrote:
Super Mega King wrote:
Americans are evenly divided on the the issue according to this poll. Hell, it was only recently that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was repelled.
That was in place to ensure unit cohesion by keeping gay boys apart during their long deployments together in hot, sweaty environments with nothing else to do...

Regardless of the reason, it was still anti-homosexual.

Is the military anti-women too? D:

**Super Mega King** 27th August 2011, 2:58 pm

LimeyPolo wrote:
Super Mega King wrote:
LimeyPolo wrote:
Super Mega King wrote:
Americans are evenly divided on the the issue according to this poll. Hell, it was only recently that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was repelled.
That was in place to ensure unit cohesion by keeping gay boys apart during their long deployments together in hot, sweaty environments with nothing else to do...

Regardless of the reason, it was still anti-homosexual.
Is the military anti-women too? D:

I don't understand your analogy.

If there is a rule in place that bars open homosexuality, then it is anti-homosexual. QED.

**Jagdgeschwader** 27th August 2011, 7:31 pm

LimeyPolo wrote:
Super Mega King wrote:
LimeyPolo wrote:
Super Mega King wrote:
Americans are evenly divided on the the issue according to this poll. Hell, it was only recently that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was repelled.
That was in place to ensure unit cohesion by keeping gay boys apart during their long deployments together in hot, sweaty environments with nothing else to do...

Regardless of the reason, it was still anti-homosexual.
Is the military anti-women too? D:

No, women can do anything in the military as long as they can utilize themselves to the standards men do. It's not anti-female, it's that this is the situation, you must be able to accomplish that task to the standard a man can.

YouDirtyCamper wrote:I like to think that things that used to be seen as "different" such as Homosexuality are now regarded as normal in civilized communities. Of course there are still places in the Middle East and such where that activity carries the death penalty, but still!

By the way, you make a great point about the 1st amendment. I just feel that even though they are within their rights to say things like that, it shouldn't be accepted anywhere in civilized society. Maybe I am a bit to outspoken about it

Also, it shouldn't be regarded as normal. Because it isn't. Men and women aren't supposed to be attracted to themselves. When they are, something isn't sparking right in the brain. Not saying it's bad, but it's not normal.

Again, you're anti 1st amendment because by being able to say that, you're still punished. This is similar as in the Middle East, homosexuality is punished with death. You can be homosexual all you want, it's just that once you get caught you're done.

That's pretty much what you're qualifying.

Sponsored content