Christian Counselor in UK Fired after Refusing to Give Sex Advice to Gay Couple

[Zaac]

Sorry, Zaac, my irony meter is still registering off the scale.

Our church just happens to be part of an alliance that adopted the Kurdish people. You'd be surprised just how much I know about what's really going on up in Mosul and Dohuk and Arbil.

The people of Northern Iraq love us. Contrary to the reports you hear from the anti-war crowd, these folks are ecstatic that someone cared enough to come help them.

Time and time again we hear them saying that Islam has brought us nothing but death and destruction. We want something else.

 

[Forgiven_and_Redeemed]

You're dangerous, man. I don't believe for one second that you are a representative of Jesus and I call you out on that!

Huh? How am I dangerous?

 

[HaloHope]

Blah, Blah, Blah.. if you can't provide the services your job requires you to, to anyone regardless of gender, race, creed, sexual orientation etc.. then you shouldn't have even applied for the job.

I can imagine if someone called me at work, looking to utilise my expertise in sales and marketing and I said "Oh, sorry I'm assuming from the name you just gave me your aren't white, sorry I can't work with you". Even if I reffered the person to someone else who would deal with them this is still totally unacceptable behaviour and would be NO different to this counsellers situation.

Certainly not ashamed to say if someone refused me services based on my sexual orientation i'd do my best to sue them. Id be pretty appalled.

 

[Zaac]

Blah, Blah, Blah.. if you can't provide the services your job requires you to, to anyone regardless of gender, race, creed, sexual orientation etc.. then you shouldn't have even applied for the job.

I can imagine if someone called me at work, looking to utilise my expertise in sales and marketing and I said "Oh, sorry I'm assuming from the name you just gave me your aren't white, sorry I can't work with you". Even if I reffered the person to someone else who would deal with them this is still totally unacceptable behaviour and would be NO different to this counsellers situation.

Certainly not ashamed to say if someone refused me services based on my sexual orientation i'd do my best to sue them. Id be pretty appalled.

I don't know about the UK, but sexual orientation does not have protected status in the United States with the exception of some local and state governments. Those laws don't extend to private companies.

And unless Relate told him before that he would have to counsel homosexuals about sex practices regardless of his religious affiliation, they don't have a case. And no HR department would have told him any such thing because that in itself is akin to prima facie religious discrimination.

They have to prove that he did not do something that he AGREED to do. And based on the paper, they let him go based upon the biased reports of those who had a problem with his religious stance, and because they ASSUMED he wouldn't do something, not because he didn't do something.

If they had done due diligence before they hired him and asked him if this would be a problem or if there would be some conflict with his religious beliefs to counsel in such cases, then they would have a case. But seeing as it would also be illegal for them to ask sucha question, they probably didn't.

So how do you fire somebody for not doing something they never agreed to do ?

 

[Jase]

I don't know about the UK, but sexual orientation does not have protected status in the United States with the exception of some local and state governments. Those laws don't extend to private companies.

Sexual orientation is protected when it comes to employment.

 

[Zaac]

Huh? How am I dangerous?

Forgiven, don't even worry about his assessment. He doesn't think you represent Christ because your by the "Word of God" response doesn't mesh with his liberal, "be tolerant, make sin into unsin" desired response.

Somwhere down the road, even though you have said nothing mean or hateful, you will be called mean and hateful because you stand on the words that proceedeth out of the mouth of God and not sinful man's opinions.

So you press on in Christ. The Pharisees and the Sadducces thought he was dangerous too because he was usurping what they thought was their power and authority.

 

[Zaac]

Sexual orientation is protected when it comes to employment.

Where? In the United States? That would be a definite NO IT AIN'T. In the federal government and its entities, yes. State and local governments and their entities and Private companies, nope.

As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, there are over 30 states where they can legally fire you or deny you a job because of your orientation.

Title VII does not cover sexual orientation.

 

[*Starlight*]

I don't know about the UK, but sexual orientation does not have protected status in the United States with the exception of some local and state governments. Those laws don't extend to private companies.

And unless Relate told him before that he would have to counsel homosexuals about sex practices regardless of his religious affiliation, they don't have a case. And no HR department would have told him any such thing because that in itself is akin to prima facie religious discrimination.

They have to prove that he did not do something that he AGREED to do. And based on the paper, they let him go based upon the biased reports of those who had a problem with his religious stance, and because they ASSUMED he wouldn't do something, not because he didn't do something.

If they had done due diligence before they hired him and asked him if this would be a problem or if there would be some conflict with his religious beliefs to counsel in such cases, then they would have a case. But seeing as it would also be illegal for them to ask sucha question, they probably didn't.

So how do you fire somebody for not doing something they never agreed to do ?

Here's a similar scenario...

Let's say that a Scientologist gets a job as a psychotherapist, and he starts referring his clients to Dianetics and the Church of Scientology as the only way to solve their problems. Do you think that, in such a case, the employer would be wrong to fire him?

You said that no HR department would tell a potential employee that he/she will be required to do things against his/her religion, because it would be illegal. As far as I know, Scientologists are against normal psychotherapy, so if a Scientologists started to work in that profession, he/she would need to refer everyone to the CoS or refuse to do anything at all, because otherwise he/she would go against Scientologist beliefs. And if you're correct about saying that it's illegal for a HR department to tell a potential employee to do things against his/her religion, then the employer would have no idea that the Scientologist would refuse to properly do his/her job.

 

[Zaac]

Here's a similar scenario...

Let's say that a Scientologist gets a job as a psychotherapist, and he starts referring his clients to Dianetics and the Church of Scientology as the only way to solve their problems. Do you think that, in such a case, the employer would be wrong to fire him?

Yep. Unless they have told him that we will not refer clients to Dianetics and the Church of Scientology as a solution to their problems and that doing so is grounds for dismissal, they wouldn't have just cause to fire him.

You said that no HR department would tell a potential employee that he/she will be required to do things against his/her religion, because it would be illegal. As far as I know, Scientologists are against normal psychotherapy, so if a Scientologists started to work in that profession, he/she would need to refer everyone to the CoS or refuse to do anything at all, because otherwise he/she would go against Scientologist beliefs. And if you're correct about saying that it's illegal for a HR department to tell a potential employee to do things against his/her religion, then the employer would have no idea that the Scientologist would refuse to properly do his/her job.

Scientology is universally regarded as a cult and not a religion by everyone except Scientologists. In your example, I would venture that the person would be pressed to prove that Scientology is indeed a religion. And in doing so, they would enter some testimony that the "Church " of Scientology simply doesn't want broadcast in a high profile way.

The "CHurch" would write him a check and he would go away and find another job.

 

[*Starlight*]

Yep. Unless they have told him that we will not refer clients to Dianetics and the Church of Scientology as a solution to their problems and that doing so is grounds for dismissal, they wouldn't have just cause to fire him.

Hmm... so it's against the law to fire someone for not doing the job he/she applied to? That sounds rather crazy. In that case, anyone who has a job anywhere can simply refuse to do anything and claim that it's against his/her beliefs.

 

[Zaac]

Hmm... so it's against the law to fire someone for not doing the job he/she applied to? That sounds rather crazy.

It's crazy cause you said that. I didn't.

The job McFarlane was hired to do was to deal with couples with sexual problems. And as a Christian, couples are men and women. And if Relate did not say you have to counsel homosexual couples on their sex problems, then they can't rightly fire him because he did not.

And to then, if the story is correct, fire him because coworkers obviously didn't like his Christian stance and accordingly branded him homophobic, it just doesn't bode well for Relate.

According to the story, they basically fired him because his coworkers disagreed with his Christian stance and branded him a homophobe. It was their biased testimony that led managment to assume that he would not uphold some standard they probably never said he, as a Christian, had to.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To Zaac,

And frankly,this is religious discrimination. Unless Relate told him before they hired him that he had to provide services for everyone no matter what, then they are in trouble.

Exactly! Yet gay rights trump all other rights as we have seen even when it comes to children and the RC adoption agencies.
Never mind, its out trust and faith in Jesus Christ that matters.

 

[HaloHope]

I don't know about the UK, but sexual orientation does not have protected status in the United States with the exception of some local and state governments. Those laws don't extend to private companies.

In the UK it is illegal to refuse both employment and services on the basis of orientation and I think (although im not sure) its illegal to refuse someone rental of a property/room etc..

 

[*Starlight*]

It's crazy cause you said that. I didn't.

The job McFarlane was hired to do was to deal with couples with sexual problems. And as a Christian, couples are men and women. And if Relate did not say you have to counsel homosexual couples on their sex problems, then they can't rightly fire him because he did not.

He wasn't just supposed to "deal with couples with sexual problems" in any way he wanted to, but he had to deal with them based on some standards, which I suppose were based on official psychology. And official psychology is incompatible with the idea that homosexuality is something bad, just like it's incompatible with Dianetics.

 

[brightmorningstar]

Sorry but the only sexual advise to same sex partners is dont do perversion. God didnt create man to have sex with man, but woman to have sex with man. Gen 2, Matt 9, Eph 5.
And Halohope and *Starlight* please do not give us worldly morals and thinking as somehow we are supposed to accept them, we dont, thats why the guy has lost his job. This is a Christian forum and God's purpose is for man and woman in union and sex within that union, as you see from the Biblical references whch have been explained to you. You need to realise Christians will believe what God's word says not what governments say. If you want a government that outlaws same sex unions try Islamic countries, however neither are they Christian.

 

[KCKID]

Huh? How am I dangerous?

Because you regard homosexuals as being lesser than human as well as regarding them as being tools of the devil. I don't know you personally but I respond to your posts as being 'you'. Jesus spoke often against people with the kinds of views that you espouse. The same Person never said anything about homosexuality/homosexuals.

 

[Forgiven_and_Redeemed]

Because you regard homosexuals as being lesser than human

WHERE are you getting that? I never said anything of the sort. Please try not to bear false witnesses... unless your stance on the 10 commandments is as liberal as your stance on sodomy?

Jesus spoke often against people with the kinds of views that you espouse.

As far as I'm aware, he in fact did not.

The same Person never said anything about homosexuality/homosexuals.

But God the father Himself had PLENTY to say about the topic.

 

[*Starlight*]

Sorry but the only sexual advise to same sex partners is dont do perversion. God didnt create man to have sex with man, but woman to have sex with man. Gen 2, Matt 9, Eph 5.
And Halohope and *Starlight* please do not give us worldly morals and thinking as somehow we are supposed to accept them, we dont, thats why the guy has lost his job. This is a Christian forum and God's purpose is for man and woman in union and sex within that union, as you see from the Biblical references whch have been explained to you. You need to realise Christians will believe what God's word says not what governments say. If you want a government that outlaws same sex unions try Islamic countries, however neither are they Christian.

This thread isn't about whether homosexuality is right or not. It's about whether a person who refused to do his job could be fired.

 

[brightmorningstar]

To KCKID,

Jesus spoke often against people with the kinds of views that you espouse. The same Person never said anything about homosexuality/homosexuals.

My question to you is why would anyone listen to you about what Jesus spoke about when you dont when it comes to same sex unions? Jesus did speak about same sex unions, His NT teaching excluded and condemned them as Gen 2, Matt 19, Mark 10, Eph 5, 1 Cor 6-7, 1 Tim 1, Romans 1 etc)
Please dont keep offering empty and baseless views without first justifying them with some evidence and reasoning.

 

[KCKID]

Forgiven, don't even worry about his assessment. He doesn't think you represent Christ because your by the "Word of God" response doesn't mesh with his liberal, "be tolerant, make sin into unsin" desired response.

Somwhere down the road, even though you have said nothing mean or hateful, you will be called mean and hateful because you stand on the words that proceedeth out of the mouth of God and not sinful man's opinions.

So you press on in Christ. The Pharisees and the Sadducces thought he was dangerous too because he was usurping what they thought was their power and authority.

The sad thing I see going on here is that some people who claim to speak for Jesus ARE, in fact, the very Pharisees and the Sadducees they speak against. The fact is that they are too self-righteous and self-absorbed to even consider this as a possibility. All who are not as 'righteous' as they believe themselves to be are obviously 'tools of the devil'.

You're a hypocrite ...right Zaac?

So am I.