Ok, where and in what capacity as the official point of view with regards to her job did she make these claims?!
Seriously, what I’m seeing here is that a person can’t have a bumper sticker, can’t attend church, can’t write a letter stating an opinion…is that correct??
Well, only if it is politically correct.
Regards,
Shodan
Cripes! Her salary was $134,383 as a state employee? And she is trying to make some point about the income of gay households - not sure I get it. Are they sucking away our money now?
The blog just looks like sermon - this week it’s anti-gay, next week it will be something else that she feels is wrong with world. Personally, I would be reluctant to deal with her if I knew of her religious zeal. I would very much expect to be treated poorly if she found out about my religious beliefs. Maybe I’m wrong - maybe she could be professional - but if I was a contributor to the school or a business that dealt directly with her, this would certainly make me worry about that relationship.
This woman is very, very well paid for more than just doing some HR paperwork 8 hours a day. At that level she is a representative of the school and, rightly, expected to be above reproach. If she had posed nude (ugh!) or used the “N” word or wrote about getting laid she would have rightly been sent on her way.
No, you can have any bumper sticker you want. You can attend church.
But, if you’re writing a letter stating your personal opinion, be sure to NOT include ANY reference to your place of employment. That just might be the problem.
You get a good deal on straw this week?
If a judge makes a public statement that tends to indicate his predisposition on a particular law, then is scheduled to hear a case on that law, he is expected to recuse himself because his ability to hear the case objectively has been compromised.
In her position (HR), she may very well be called upon to act as a judge of sorts. She has now taken a public position that she considers a certain type of person to be a sinner (ie, not a good person in her worldview). The university has taken the position that, rather than going to the trouble of sorting through her workload and recusing her from any case where her bias might endanger the university, they will simply prevent her from acting on their behalf at all.
As an analogy, can you imagine the furor if a family court judge announced in an article that he doesn’t see a problem with women being “taken in hand” since they are bibically bound to submit to their husbands? It would be a thoughtcrime to see that he doesn’t hear domestic abuse cases? And if hearing domestic abuse cases is a significant portion of his job or it’s an undue burden on his employer to have him recused from those cases, shouldn’t they be allowed to remove him altogether and get someone who doesn’t have those issues?
In this particular case? Once she gives a gay person an unfavorable ruling that creates an opening for a lawsuit. The university will have to spend resources to defend itself against that suit - a task made more difficult (read: expensive) by her now publically stated bias.
How much are the university (and taxpayers) supposed to put at risk so this bigot can have her $134K a year job?
Obviously the same logic (so to speak) applies to other groups. Atheists must be excluded from jobs in HR because occasionally they have to rule on religious accomodations in the workplace, and their beliefs may possibly lead them to engage in anti-religious discrimination. And so on.
Well, that is an analogy, but it is a rather piss-poor one. Could you please cut and paste the part from the article in which she states that she has no problem discriminating against gays as part of her job?
Fortunately we have a First Amendment that gives special protection to religious speech. Y’all might want to read it sometime.
Regards,
Shodan
A better analogy would be an HR person who thought that blacks were inferior, and said so publicly in the local newspaper. Just imagine trying to defend the university in a discrimination lawsuit, when the plaintiff pulls out this letter as Exhibit A. You’re gonna lose.
Special protection to religious speech? Really? Where?
It gives the right of freedom of speech, which Ms Dixon has exercised. And her employer is perfectly justified in not wanting to continue its business relationship with her based on what she said. The Constitutional right of freedom of speech has nothing to do with this case.
Okey dokey…
She states that there are “consequences” when one “chooses” to violate “God’s divine order”. Further, she states (remember, in the context of a response to gay man who was concerned about the inequality of health care offered to gays) that “[ i]t is base human nature to revolt and become indignant when the world … disagrees with our choice…”
Emphasis added
Since I assume she is part of “the world” to which she refers, I would infer that she has no problem with any alleged discrimination, since, after all, there are “consequences” when one denies God’s will.
The official point of view of any HR person has to be religiously ethnically and gender neutral making a documented public statement to the effect that you are not neutral WRT sexual orientation or ethnicicy has just brought your professional judgement into question because much of your job is based on your opinion of people presenting themselves for employment. If you have strong opinions like this and work in HR, you keep your mouth shut, period, for fear of finding yourself on the wrong end of a lawsuit.
And if you’re making $134,000 a year in HR and don’t know enough to keep your yap shut, then you’re incompetent and you deserve to be fired anyway.
Free speech means you may say what you wish without censure from the government. It does not mean that you may say what you wish without repercussions. What she said puts her employers at risk and they took actions. Her message opened the possibility of lawsuits based on her views. Her employers have the right to protect themselves.
Free speech is a right, but it does not preclude consequences from your employer. As an example, I may not tell everyone I see that my employer does a bad job at what we do and expect the government to prevent them from firing me. People are permitted to say that a company sucks - there is no law against it - but the company may then let them go.
In this specific case the article was about benefits for gays. She says in the second to last paragraph:
Had she stopped there, it might not have been too bad. That is a good statement for an HR person to make: yes, due to a merge there are disparities, we are working on it. But in the last paragraph she says:
This specifically puts the university at risk for a lawsuit. An HR representative states that there *is *a disparity in benefits but denies it is because of sexual orientation, but then goes on to state that there are consequences for our choices.
Each job has certain responsibilities. HR must be responsible for their companies. If you make irresponsible statements, you put them at risk and of course put your job at risk.
If an HR atheist were to publicly state that Christians have made a choice to defy the laws of logic and then added that there are consequences for our choices, yes, he would be unfit to be in HR. Especially if there is a disparity in what benefits the Christians were receiving.