Um, she was asked her opinion on the issue by a colleague. Whom then proceeded to go whine about what she said to their manager. If her colleague didn't want to hear her opinion, then she shouldn't have asked about it. It's not like the woman was yelling "GOD HATES FAGS" in her colleague's face or anything. What was the woman supposed to do? Lie about her beliefs?

I'm gonna need a source that isn't from christiantoday

Any source is biased to some degree. Be careful you're not just looking for one that agrees with your own opinion.

Slyguy270:
She could have simply not answered, or said that she prefer to not answer.
You don't have to answer a question when asked, just as she doesn't have to say it unprompted. It just wasn't the smartest decision to say it, even if someone else asked her about her stance on a divisive issue. I would have just kept my mouth shut and say that I prefer not to answer. It's the professional response to deflect delicate questions.

Now, whether or not it was her fault, the colleague of hers was just being a jerk.

True, she could have just kept quiet. I believe that civilized communication about issues, (even sensitive ones), is more productive than cowardly silence however. If I were asked my opinion on an issue, I would tell it. I'd expect anyone else to do the same. I don't think we can know enough about the circumstances of this particular situation to judge properly though.

The only thing is that you need to watch who you tell it to.
You can be outspoken about your beliefs, but you also need to watch out for potential fallout. I may hate my supervisor's clothing or attitude or any minor thing, but saying it to someone like a colleague is just plain stupid, because it could lead to a string of events that leads to termination. The idea, which I think we both understand well, is that unfortunately, there are other people in control of our jobs, and we need to understand that our place in society may not be secure if we say certain things.

Now of course, this is a rather simple example. The nurse's case is a bit more complex, as one would not expect to be fired because a colleague told your superiors.

But 100% agree with you, Slyguy270. There's no way to judge. It may be wrongful termination for all we know, but we just don't know.

Firstly the sacked worker didn't get sacked for holding a belief. She got sacked for vocalising that belief. She has the right to appeal that decision and, I'm guessing she will be successful. What we'll be left with is another story of how people of faith are discriminated against. They are not. They are allowed to believe anything they like, just as holocaust deniers can believe the holocaust didn't exist, or some members of this forum believe in the spaghetti monster. If however, an employee (any employee) breaks the condition of a contract, that contract can be terminated. If the contract stipulates that homophobic language is a sackable offence, the employee gets sacked. A court will then decide on the meaning of 'homophobic language', and as I say earlier, she will win her appeal.

I doubt the lesbian reporting was surprised that some people of faith believe that gay sex is a sin. She should develop a thicker skin, I was going to say she should grow a pair but maybe that isn't appropriate.

It REALLY bothers me that you put belief in Christianity on the same level as those beliefs. Belief in Christianity is based on solid logical evidence, a multitude of eyewitness accounts, and arguably the most impressive book ever written. Any real belief that the Holocaust didn't happen, or that the flying-spaghetti-dude is real, is based purely on stupidity.

On another note, what if the woman's religion was that of the flying-spaghetti-monster church? What if that religion taught her that being gay was the worst offense one could ever commit? Would her colleague still be offended or would she just laugh at her silly beliefs? And when the colleague went and complained to her manager, what would the manager have done then?

They fired her for voicing homophobic opinions to a colleague that complained. They didn't fire her for bible-thumping. The fact that her homophobic comments originated from bible-thumping doesn't seem to play any significant role as to the reason for her firing, although this particular article presents the story in a careful way to make you think that to get Christians riled up.

What would happen if a Christian-run business fired one of their employees for voicing pro-gay opinions? I'm pretty sure their would be an outrage...

What were her homophobic comments, y2kjbk?

@Slyguy,

"What would happen if a Christian-run business fired one of their employees for voicing pro-gay opinions? I'm pretty sure their would be an outrage..."

That's actually happened, and it's legal in many states...I know seems wrong doesn't it.

Person 1: "Being gay is bad".
Person 2: "I'm offended!"
I can think of a number of people, gay or not, that would justifiably take offense being Person 2.

Person 1: "Being gay is good."
Person 2: "I'm offended!"
When does that make sense as a justifiable response? Is Person 1 infringing on Person 2's right to hate/fear homosexuality by claiming that being gay is fine? What would justify firing the individual?

Her homophobic comments were "I believe the Bible and the Bible tells me that homosexuality is a sin, so I believe homosexuality is a sin". Or somewhat along those lines after being asked enough times by her coworker.

Ummm, that is not homophobic. That word is really overused.

K, what word should I use instead? It's definitely an aversion to homosexuality, I understand it's not necessarily a fear as homo'phobic' would imply.

"Whom then proceeded to go whine"
Seriously dude? Hypercorrect much?

"It REALLY bothers me that you put belief in Christianity on the same level as those beliefs. Belief in Christianity is based on solid logical evidence"
I don't want to get into an argument over the validity of Christianity, but I don't see how you can't realize that any belief system based on faith and lacking verifiable proof cannot be said to be based on solid logical evidence. It's a belief that she holds and others don't, and it offends people. That's all there is to it.

Hanging is too good for her... tickle her toes with a feather until she wets herself
Are there any mainstream religions that openly embrace homosexuality?
If Jesus were alive today would he be a homophobe ??
Too much hypocrisy in this world, too many two-faced pious and sanctimonious arseholes

Gay-negative is more accurate.

Both sides need to learn how to have a civil conversation with one another. Yelling at each other, or just ignoring the issue, only makes it worse. There is absolutely nothing wrong with expressing your opinion on an issue unless it is done in a hateful way. Merely saying you disagree with someone does NOT qualify as a "hateful" act. We as a society have let ourselves grow into a bunch of pansies.

Just because people don't support homosexuality doesn't mean they are homophobic or fearful of gay people. It just means they don't see that choice as moral, usually stemming from biblical beliefs. The main issue is violation of freedom of speech. She could have been allowed to have and express any viewpoint or belief, and it shouldn't have resulted in her firing unless it was illegal or against the policy of the hospital which it wasn't.

Yes, gay-negative is more accurate. There doesn't really have to be a term for it. They just simply disagree.

Jesus had a girlfriend who was a prostitute and he hung about with Jews so I think he would definitely like gays ..... maybe not in a sexual way but he seemed to like all of inferior people with psychological hang-ups so why not Hispanics and Blacks too.
Jesus would be cool, not a white supremacist, I would not be surprised if he was actually an atheist .....

@ghug Yes that was a "hypercorrection" and actually gramaticly incorrect. My apologies, blame it on my OCD tendencies. (That or possibly my phone's autocorrect.) It takes me forever to write since I'm constantly rechecking things.That's actually why I write on these forums: to make myself a better and more efficient writer. So thanks for the help. :)

@NigeeBaby Lol you must be trolling, but if you're not you have some serious misconceptions of Jesus and his stances.

OK KK ..... you're all white ..... sorry I mean all right :-)

p.s. I think she was a prossie though, or is that just a rumour ??

KoreanKid - This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. There is no freedom of speech in the workplace unless your workplace is a government agency. And even then, it doesn't grant government employees the right to espouse their beliefs. Freedom.of speech is only about government stifling private citizens through the law. What a private employer allows or doesn't has nothing to do with freedom of speech or of religion or of the right to bear arms or any other constitutional amendment. Private business is not governed by those first several amendments

It is freedom of speech, because she had the right to voice her opinion. She was fired for voicing her opinion, which is discrimination based on her view. Saying she should have just kept her mouth shut, is saying she should have just given up her freedom of speech in that instance.

No, she didn't have the right. Go read the constitution and learn something before you embarrass yourself further.

http://xkcd.com/1357/

Korean kid, there's a movement on college campuses to not tolerate politically incorrect speech, Bill of Rights notwithstanding. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education fights each instance of liberals OR conservatives being disciplined for stating their opinions. I remember learning in high school how in Germany it's illegal to say that the Nazis were correct, and we in our U.S. high school were all smug about our superior free speech rights--but now those rights are being threatened. If someone wants to say they're a Nazi, they have that right. If someone wants to say that the Bible considers homosexuality a sin (as it also considers overeating a sin btw), then they have that right. Granted, people who represent corporations to the public are not allowed to express their personal opinions publicly because it makes it seem that the corporation is promoting that position--but on their own time they are free to do so. Now people can sign contracts agreeing to refrain from exercising their rights, usually in return for money, like nondisclosure agreements with an employer, but I don't think that's the case here. It will be interesting to learn more about this case.

Asking someone what their beliefs are, and then complaining to a superior when you don't like the answer, is definitely a massively jerkish move. While it's true that the nurse in question technically had the option to not respond, it makes no sense to expect her not to, because it's unreasonable to expect to be fired for answering a personal question about your beliefs.

And to all those saying "she wasn't fired for holding the belief, but rather for expressing it": she was asked to share her beliefs, and when someone asks you that sort of question, there's a strong unspoken assumption that expressing your beliefs, whatever they may be, would be looked upon favourably. It's clearly the content - that is, the actual belief - that she's getting in trouble for, not the act of expression. While her "offense" may [i]technically[/i] be the fact that she expressed her belief, I'm pretty sure that a reasonable judge or jury would consider this a case of being fired for your beliefs, which may or may not be illegal (I don't really know).

Of course, this article could also be hiding important information that changes the situation significantly.

I may say to a colleage : i like you. And it will be just fine.
But what happens if I'll say it everyday and many times during the day?
And what about the tone?
We can't be sure if was fired because of her beliefs or because of her attitude.

Do you really believe as she says that the lesbian asked her in several occasions time and again after knowing exactly what she believed?
Usually if someone shares their opinion about you and you find it offencive,you won't talk about it again,and if it was the case she wouldn't be fired.

@Mujus, most companies have a harassment policy. In the large majority of these policies making a comment about someones sexual partner or the way they perform sex is enough to be in violation of these terms. I'm not saying that this case falls directly under that hospitals policy, but it could easily.

@all, I am amazed at how many people seem ignorant of what should be common sense in workplace etiquette. You simply don't say things to coworkers that you know, or even suspect, might be offensive to them. Even if pressed, you just don't go into it. I have been asked a few times what my religion is, or what political party I identify with. My reply is simple "Oh, I prefer to keep my personal views to myself, thank you for understanding", quick smile and change the subject. It is on almost every article you can find about proper work etiquette, YOU DO NOT TALK ABOUT POLITICS OR RELIGION. If you do, then you risk this exact type of situation arising.

As for the exact circumstances of this situation, the simple truth is you don't know enough to speculate. Two situations I can think of:

1) The gay worker may have heard from other coworkers that this particular nurse was talking bad about her being gay. She could have easily overheard insulting conversations, etc and confronted the nurse to see if they where true. Just because someone is religious doesn't mean they are inherently a nice person.

2) The gay worker could be an absolute jerk and demanded an answer from this nurse with the intent of getting her to say something stupid.

Completely opposite situations, those and about a million others are possible, turning this into a debate about a hospital being a fault without knowing the details just makes you look ignorant and is proving even to this day that the founding fathers where right to limit the power of the ignorant masses.

@slyguy - In one sense I was putting all beliefs together to make a point that if we treat all people (believers and non-believers) equally there is no discrimination. I didn't mean to offend Christians or ridicule their beliefs.

I would very much like to see what an article that isn't written by "Christiantoday" has to say about the facts of this case. It seems clear that, from the facts presented, the woman didn't do anything wrong, but I seriously doubt we're getting all of the information that the "hopelessly one-sided" hearing got. There's more to this story.