1. "Are you so privileged that you can't imagine having to work alongside someone whose values differ from your own?" My personal point of view should be discussed on its merits, not on my personal attributes thank you.
2. You're accusing me of lying ? That's a new one. Of course I didn't lie. If I misunderstood something then I apologize. I thought Black Dog stated something about this a few pages back.
3. I don't agree. If it's one's "personal philosophy" and you state it in a non-harrassing way then it's ok apparently.
4. What is a 'protected philosophical belief' if it doesn't protect you from being fired ? What are you protected from ? Speech is already allowed, and can't be stopped by the government.
5. Not any more, no.
6. Having offensive beliefs was never the question, but expressing them public was.
7. You are making this personal for some reason. Again let me state that I don't care either way, I really don't. I just want clarity...
2) see previous post.
3),4) The ruling made comparison to people having a right to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. People have a protected right to believe that only traditional marriage is real, or that homosexuality is immoral; gay employees are still entitled to a work environment free from harassment and discrimination. You seem baffled by the idea that a trans employee could somehow coexist with a coworker who believes biological sex is real, but gay people have been coexisting with religious coworkers for a long time.
In its written judgement, the Appeal Panel noted:
Just as the legal recognition of civil partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender ‘for all purposes’ within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society.
The summary also went on to say:
This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the EqA.5) never did.
6) If Forstater had a public-facing job where she represented her organization to the world, I could buy that argument. I can understand Nike dropping woman-choking sex-addict Tiger Woods as their spokesman, or HNIC dropping senile racist Don Cherry from their broadcast. I can understand McDonald's firing a cashier for calling the customers fat while he's on the job, but not for something he says during his own time. Forstater was a tax accountant with a think tank, not a public representative. It's not like think-tank customers are thinking "oh my gosh, is that the think-tank with the TERF accountant? Let's go to some other think-tank instead."
1), 7) I remain baffled by your inability to grasp that working with people who might not approve of you is a fact of life for many many people.
-k