Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars like this on HN. The further they get to the right of the page, the nastier and more repetitive they get, and curiosity has been lost long ago.
You guys have been going at it in other subthreads too. That's not what this site is for. In the future, please take a step back and refrain.
Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars like this on HN. The further they get to the right of the page, the nastier and more repetitive they get, and curiosity has been lost long ago.
You guys have been going at it in other subthreads too. That's not what this site is for. In the future, please take a step back and refrain.
You've said a few times that "No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone", but the case you quote does argue that point explicitly.
He knew his stance would cause offence and even harm. His argument was that his employers should ignore that because of his convention rights to religious freedom.
> It is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech
For one thing this isn't anything like the first case where the courts have found that a company hasn't done something wrong for firing an employee for not saying what the company wants them to say.
The judgment is saying that when you're a doctor employed by a government department you'll have to obey the law and the government department's policies. Note that the judgment doesn't force this doctor to use any particular pronoun, it only says that the government department can fire him.
And, in this particular context, everything about the meetings the doctor had with service users was "compelled" speech -- there's literally a template the doctor has to read from.
His legal team didn't attempt a freedom of speech defence. They tried to use a discrimination against religious beliefs defence, and that failed because...
> It was confirmed by the representatives at the start of the hearing that it was agreed that Dr Mackereth did not assert that he was treated less favourably than a person who, for reasons unrelated to Christianity or other belief refused to comply with the DWP’s gender reassignment or equal opportunities policy
> You've said a few times that "No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone", but the case you quote does argue that point explicitly.
> He knew his stance would cause offence and even harm. His argument was that his employers should ignore that because of his convention rights to religious freedom.
Knowing that what you say may be offensive is not the same as arguing for the disrespect of someone. The judgement also does not contain the word disrepect and it is not part of his defence that it is his intention to disrespect anyone. Much as I disagree with why he's doing it, he is being compelled. Again, to compel has a well worn definition, if you will be fired unless you do certain things you are being compelled, so I disagree with your description.
So your argument is that being offensive to someone isn't the same as being disrespectful? Like, I am genuinely curious about how you're justifying this to yourself.
It's not contentious that you should show people you're in discussion with respect, nor that you have not shown said respect.