DEMOTED For Not Backing Gay Marriage

A housing manager has been demoted, and his salary slashed, after he criticised a controversial new gay rights law.

Adrian Smith, a Christian, was found guilty of gross misconduct by his publicly funded housing association for saying that allowing gay weddings in churches was ‘an equality too far’.

He posted the comment in his own time, on his personal page on the Facebook website, which could not be read by the general public.
But after a disciplinary hearing, he was downgraded from his £35,000-a-year managerial job to a much less senior £21,000 post – and avoided the sack only because of his long service.

Mr Smith, 54, is now taking the association to court, arguing that his punishment was out of proportion and his right to free speech was ignored. Friends said last night the father of two had been ‘shocked and distressed’ by his treatment and would now face financial hardship.

Campaigners attacked the housing association’s decision – the latest in a series of cases in which Christians have clashed with employers – as a ‘complete over-reaction’ by an organisation ‘drenched in political correctness’.

Mr Smith has worked for 18 years for Trafford Council and Trafford Housing Trust, which manages more than 9,000 homes in Sale, Greater Manchester.

But he now finds his career in tatters over a comment he wrote on his personal Facebook page one Sunday morning in response to a BBC story headlined ‘Gay church “marriages” get go-ahead’. The story referred to Government plans to lift the ban on homosexual couples holding civil partnerships in churches and other religious settings.

A few hours later, one of his Facebook friends, a work colleague whose identity is not known to The Mail on Sunday, posted: ‘Does this mean you don’t approve?’

The following evening after work, Mr Smith, who attends an evangelical church in Bolton, responded: ‘No, not really. I don’t understand why people who have no faith and don’t believe in Christ would want to get hitched in church.

‘The Bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women. If the State wants to offer civil marriages to the same sex then that is up to the State; but the State shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.’

Lawyers for Mr Smith, whom friends describe as affable and non-confrontational, say his comments were merely expressing an ‘honest belief’ based on his Christian faith.

‘The Bible is quite specific that marriage is for men and women. If the State wants to offer civil marriages to the same sex then that is up to the State; but the State shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.’

The point is that he works for a public body. As such, anything he says under his own name online is associated with that public body. This is nothing new - it's the same reason why teachers shouldn't put photos from drunken nights out on Facebook or why militant fascists would probably be better off not mentioning this in the 'political views' section if they also happen to run nurseries.

It is illegal for a public body in the UK to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation, and as an extension of this, if you say anything discriminatory while representing that public body (which, rightly or wrongly, you do when posting on your own personal Facebook account), you are doing something similar. How many gay people would feel comfortable applying for council housing in this area knowing that someone in charge of its allotment had a problem with them? Whatever his private views are, he has a duty to uphold the values of the people he works for in public - and because this is a public sector organisation, where's 'public' and where's 'private' becomes a bit more blurred.

can't say I give a **** if some christian **** suffers for his irrational views.

Debbie Gorman, a neighbourhood manager at the association, said the comment could be viewed as homophobic and had interpreted the comment as “gay people are not as equal as people who are not gay,” the Daily Mail reports.

It's irrelevant whether or not you agree with his views. He is still entitled to have them and still entitled to express them. So long as his views did not get in the way of him doing his job properly I see no reason why he should have been punished for them. And yes there is the issue that he does work for a public body as others have pointed out, although I can't help but think that the demoting of this guy for whatever he said in private would show the public body in an equally bad light.

If the State wants to offer civil marriages to the same sex then that is up to the State; but the State shouldn’t impose its rules on places of faith and conscience.

The point is that he works for a public body. As such, anything he says under his own name online is associated with that public body. This is nothing new - it's the same reason why teachers shouldn't put photos from drunken nights out on Facebook or why militant fascists would probably be better off not mentioning this in the 'political views' section if they also happen to run nurseries.

It is illegal for a public body in the UK to discriminate against someone on the basis of sexual orientation, and as an extension of this, if you say anything discriminatory while representing that public body (which, rightly or wrongly, you do when posting on your own personal Facebook account), you are doing something similar. How many gay people would feel comfortable applying for council housing in this area knowing that someone in charge of its allotment had a problem with them? Whatever his private views are, he has a duty to uphold the values of the people he works for in public - and because this is a public sector organisation, where's 'public' and where's 'private' becomes a bit more blurred.

Obviously he's completely misunderstood the situation, but he is entitled to an opinion, no matter how unpopular it is. I suppose I'd agree more with the demotion if he'd been expressing his views at work where it's neither relevant nor professional, but on his own Facebook, out of work hours? Now more than ever people need the money they're earning, and it's unfair that his employer is penalising him for something that really shouldn't be any of their business.