BF2S Forums I love the way this article is twisted...

lowing wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

But regardless, this does open the door to removing people form positions based on thought. A dangerous precedent I think.

Not thought, lack of unbiased action.
They can be as bigoted as they like, so long as they keep it out of their professional lives.

Would it be acceptable to have christian firefighter who refused to save the houses of heathens?
Think not.

yer askin' the wrong perosn that question.

DO you honestly believe you know ANYONE that has no opinions on ANYTHING? WHat am I saying, you live in that same fantasy land as ghettoperson.

Not at all, it's called being professional. You're not supposed to bring your personal life into work regardless of the job.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Oh of course, I agree. A high school counsellor is the last person that should harbour bigoted views.

Yes because before they were a guidance counsellor, they had no life experiences to base opinions on and no views on any issues.

Your post is a perfect example of the fantasy land on which most of you think you live.

Uh...  prejudice is one thing...  bigotry is another.

Oh well then by all means, tell me which one is acceptable for a guidance counsellor

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

She was refusing to service people who were homosexuals because she has a moral opposition to their lifestyle.

I read that, but could she not have done so because she knew she could not be unbiased regarding the issue, so she recused herself from it. An argument could be made that she was being responsible in recognizing she could not provide the needs that that particular student was looking for.

But regardless, this does open the door to removing people form positions based on thought. A dangerous precedent I think.

No, it just makes certain people unfit to fill certain jobs. You wouldn't want a 4'11" 80 lb female working as a cop or as a construction worker, or a mentally retarded person working as an air traffic controller. Certain people have limitations and aren't really meant to perform certain jobs. Her rigid religious views and intolerance makes her a liability. Is the school district supposed to hire a second guidance counselor simply because she refuses to offer any potential homosexual students her services? Don't you think the homo kids already go through enough shit without having to deal with someone in authority openly demeaning them? She doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I agree, just playing devils advocate. My only heart ache comes from the possiblities this decision may open up.

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

I read that, but could she not have done so because she knew she could not be unbiased regarding the issue, so she recused herself from it. An argument could be made that she was being responsible in recognizing she could not provide the needs that that particular student was looking for.

But regardless, this does open the door to removing people form positions based on thought. A dangerous precedent I think.

No, it just makes certain people unfit to fill certain jobs. You wouldn't want a 4'11" 80 lb female working as a cop or as a construction worker, or a mentally retarded person working as an air traffic controller. Certain people have limitations and aren't really meant to perform certain jobs. Her rigid religious views and intolerance makes her a liability. Is the school district supposed to hire a second guidance counselor simply because she refuses to offer any potential homosexual students her services? Don't you think the homo kids already go through enough shit without having to deal with someone in authority openly demeaning them? She doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I agree, just playing devils advocate. My only heart ache comes from the possiblities this decision may open up.

I think it opens up the wonderful possibility that we might actually be able to deny people for jobs they are unfit for without having the spectre of a civil lawsuit hanging over our heads. Imagine that.

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

yer askin' the wrong perosn that question.

DO you honestly believe you know ANYONE that has no opinions on ANYTHING? WHat am I saying, you live in that same fantasy land as ghettoperson.

Not at all, it's called being professional. You're not supposed to bring your personal life into work regardless of the job.

Is it not professional to know your not fit to address a certain issue?

If an air traffic controller felt over-whelmed in a situation and asked for relief from it, does this mean he should be fired, in lieu of additional training? Was he not being responsible?

Right, but she's refusing the training and Fox is spinning it like they're trying to brainwash her. Total crap.

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

No, it just makes certain people unfit to fill certain jobs. You wouldn't want a 4'11" 80 lb female working as a cop or as a construction worker, or a mentally retarded person working as an air traffic controller. Certain people have limitations and aren't really meant to perform certain jobs. Her rigid religious views and intolerance makes her a liability. Is the school district supposed to hire a second guidance counselor simply because she refuses to offer any potential homosexual students her services? Don't you think the homo kids already go through enough shit without having to deal with someone in authority openly demeaning them? She doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I agree, just playing devils advocate. My only heart ache comes from the possiblities this decision may open up.

I think it opens up the wonderful possibility that we might actually be able to deny people for jobs they are unfit for without having the spectre of a civil lawsuit hanging over our heads. Imagine that.

Sounds good really, but then we get to those that are making those decisions. Let me guess, they will be unbiased, and immune to prejudice and bigotry.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Not at all, it's called being professional. You're not supposed to bring your personal life into work regardless of the job.

Is it not professional to know your not fit to address a certain issue?

If an air traffic controller felt over-whelmed in a situation and asked for relief from it, does this mean he should be fired, in lieu of additional training? Was he not being responsible?

I see where you're coming from, but it doesn't remove the fact that someone with that strong of a feeling against homosexuals shouldn't be in that position.

The only way she could be fully functional in her role would involve working at a school that doesn't allow homosexuals as students.  Considering the fact that homosexuality is often something found more commonly among youth while they explore their sexuality, this makes having a counselor with this prejudice impractical.

Again you are 100% correct. but where do we draw the line, and who decides? THe very slippery slope of which I speak

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Oh well then by all means, tell me which one is acceptable for a guidance counsellor

Bigotry normally implies strong prejudice -- like racism.  You can have reservations about a given group but still deal with them professionally.  If you actually hate a particular group or feel a strong disgust toward them, you shouldn't be a counselor.  This is a position that requires strong willpower and a balanced viewpoint.

I doubt it, if you have mere reservations about inter-racial marriage, explain how you can council a mixed race couple without interjecting some bias.

If councilors never interjected opinion, bias, prejudice, etc........then they all would say the exact same thing from one to another. They don't, and there can only be one reason. They are human and their personal feelings about shit comes into play regardless if they mean for them to or not.

But there are varying degrees of prejudice.  Not every Christian is as disturbed by homosexuals as this woman must be.  Plenty of Christians can handle counseling homosexuals without any significant problems.  I know plenty of liberal Christians that befriend many homosexuals.  I'm not saying you have to be liberal to suitably counsel a homosexual, but there is a certain level of tolerance required.  Clearly, this woman lacked that.  So, on the one hand, she was responsible for admitting her bias, but the level of bias itself is a significant problem because of the nature of her position.

That being said, yes, counselors are still human.  I don't think management expects them to be perfect.

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Bigotry normally implies strong prejudice -- like racism.  You can have reservations about a given group but still deal with them professionally.  If you actually hate a particular group or feel a strong disgust toward them, you shouldn't be a counselor.  This is a position that requires strong willpower and a balanced viewpoint.

I doubt it, if you have mere reservations about inter-racial marriage, explain how you can council a mixed race couple without interjecting some bias.

If councilors never interjected opinion, bias, prejudice, etc........then they all would say the exact same thing from one to another. They don't, and there can only be one reason. They are human and their personal feelings about shit comes into play regardless if they mean for them to or not.

But there are varying degrees of prejudice.  Not every Christian is as disturbed by homosexuals as this woman must be.  Plenty of Christians can handle counseling homosexuals without any significant problems.  I know plenty of liberal Christians that befriend many homosexuals.  I'm not saying you have to be liberal to suitably counsel a homosexual, but there is a certain level of tolerance required.  Clearly, this woman lacked that.  So, on the one hand, she was responsible for admitting her bias, but the level of bias itself is a significant problem because of the nature of her position.

That being said, yes, counselors are still human.  I don't think management expects them to be perfect.

Actually I think it probably makes her more of a professional and more responsible than most councellors who would probably say fuck it and just "wing it".

yes and being human means you have personal opinions and feelings which might get in the way of guiding a person looking for help. Should that mean automatic termination?

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

But there are varying degrees of prejudice.  Not every Christian is as disturbed by homosexuals as this woman must be.  Plenty of Christians can handle counseling homosexuals without any significant problems.  I know plenty of liberal Christians that befriend many homosexuals.  I'm not saying you have to be liberal to suitably counsel a homosexual, but there is a certain level of tolerance required.  Clearly, this woman lacked that.  So, on the one hand, she was responsible for admitting her bias, but the level of bias itself is a significant problem because of the nature of her position.

That being said, yes, counselors are still human.  I don't think management expects them to be perfect.

Actually I think it probably makes her more of a professional and more responsible than most councellors who would probably say fuck it and just "wing it".

yes and being human means you have personal opinions and feelings which might get in the way of guiding a person looking for help. Should that mean automatic termination?

True...  on the surface, termination does seem a bit severe, but I'm guessing there might be more to this story than what is mentioned in the article.  If it really was just a matter of her recusing herself, then maybe they went overboard with the firing.

Well, again I am just playing devils advocate. I can not prove that to be the case.
Just making an argument

CameronPoe wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Not at all, it's called being professional. You're not supposed to bring your personal life into work regardless of the job.

QFT. I've had to shake hands with people I politically despise in my job. It's part of my job. If I hadn't, I should have been sidelined/fired.

Shaking hands is a far cry from counselling.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

QFT. I've had to shake hands with people I politically despise in my job. It's part of my job. If I hadn't, I should have been sidelined/fired.

Shaking hands is a far cry from counselling.

If shaking hands and counselling are component parts of a job then the same applies. It depends on where you believe the limits of a private enterprises permission to discriminate starts and ends. You may view that permission to be full and free and others may view otherwise. Ultimately everyone will have a personal individual view on the matter. I personally don't want to live in a society that permits discrimination on the basis of creed, race or sexuality. But that's just me.

Umm I don't either, but  I can not lie, I am having a hard time figuring out where you stand on this issue. Can you clarify?

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

If shaking hands and counselling are component parts of a job then the same applies. It depends on where you believe the limits of a private enterprises permission to discriminate starts and ends. You may view that permission to be full and free and others may view otherwise. Ultimately everyone will have a personal individual view on the matter. I personally don't want to live in a society that permits discrimination on the basis of creed, race or sexuality. But that's just me.

Umm I don't either, but  I can not lie, I am having a hard time figuring out where you stand on this issue. Can you clarify?

I had a waferthin scan over the OP and the thread. So perhaps the several Duvel I drank from way earlier to about 2.34am Irish time is taking its toll...

lol well enjoy your buzz