Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Christian council worker sues after being sacked for homophobic email

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. She sent this email out of concern?! No, she didn’t send it out of any such compassionate reason whatsoever. Good luck with suing your council missy, and don’t forget to pay your legal fees on your way out the door.

  2. David North 7 Oct 2009, 3:26pm

    “She sent this email out of concern?”

    The only concern this bigot is showing by stating such drivel, is for herself

  3. She hasn’t a leg to stand on, and I hope the court has the sense to see it.

  4. The Christian Legal Centre lose virtually every case that comes their way.

    Good riddance to scum like this, sending such e-mails from the workplace. There should be no room for hate fuelled bigotry in the workplace.

  5. Disgusting. “the wages of sin is death”? That sounds like a threat to me. The fact she also allegedly mentions the “last days” reminds me of those ‘can’t wait for Armageddon’ nutters. The only person who should be “ashamed” is her. What the hell is she doing sending unpleasant and judging emails to anybody?

    Once again, I’m sick of so-called Christians claiming they’re being ‘victimised’ because they’re not allowed to express bigoted, offensive views that most decent people find abhorrent.

  6. Her email was full of death and damnation – I hope this matter has been passed onto the police for investigation as a hate crime.

    What a vile stupid person you are Denise. You then have the cheek to sue –you make me vomit. There you are peddling your hatred and then crying when caught. I’m not interested if it was working hours or not, you misused the councils email system.

  7. she sent it at 4:59 and she used her work address – she’s stupid and homophobic
    she’ll lose

  8. She used a @LewishamCouncil.gov.uk email address to express her homophobic views. She therefore misrepresented the views of Lewisham council, her sacking was appropriate.

  9. Once again, that pointless, reactionary rag, The Voice, puts it’s own spin on the issue. There’s no mention of Rev Sharon Ferguson’s quotes & sides with the oppressed sistah. This is nothing new. The first time Buju Banton was prevented from playing at the MOBO’s, they gave him unequivoval support. I showed the article to the head librarian at my local library (Southwark) & asked if stocking this edition of The Voice was at odds with their equality code. She seemed to think it wasn’t & nothing happened.

  10. Har Davids 7 Oct 2009, 4:13pm

    Another messenger from ‘god’ who’s concerned about other people’s lives, how sweet. This woman deserved to be sacked and to remain so.

  11. Jennifer Hynes 7 Oct 2009, 4:18pm

    Can people stop calling these people Christian please? It gives the millions of queer Christians (like me) a really bad name. They are legalists, not followers of the Christ, they follow the Levitical and Deuteronomic laws, and think St Pauls personal views, a expressed in his epistles, are Gods own word. If they paid any attention to the New Testament they would realise they have fallen into the same reliance on rules and judgements that second Temple pre-Rabbincal Judaism did.

    Again, Denise Haye may believe she is a Christian, but her faith is based upon very human legal texts. And Christians know what Jesus and Paul thought about that.

  12. Silly cow. Not only homophobic but as usually dragging Christianity down with it. As I have said before, I am a Christian. I believe in a God of love who cares for us all equally and doesn’t judge by such narrow criteria as these so-called Christians espouse. But every time one of these petty meannesses occurs, to say nothing of the huge monumental cruelties of the Vatican, it makes it so much harder to be both Christian and part of THIS community. And even though I’ve always held the principle that fence sitting gives you a sore backside and you have to nail your colours firmly to one mast or another, I don’t want to have to choose.

    BTW, Is there more than one religious newspaper called The Voice? I know there is one that I see in my local church and even the Parish Priest suggests taking it home in case the cat basket needs lining. But this sounds like a more vocal Voice than that.

  13. The Halcyon 7 Oct 2009, 4:27pm

    Sacking was a bit harsh – most of us are guilty of sending questionable emails at one time or another and an oral or written warning would have been more appropriate than a sacking. Looking at the above comments, how many of those could be interpreted as anti-Christian/anti-religious and how many were posed during office time with office machines?

  14. “Not only homophobic but as usually dragging Christianity down with it”

    Well expressed, Rose. And that started me wondering if that’s half the point. Do some of these ‘christian’ groups actually hope to stir up hatred? I wouldn’t put it past them. Sadly, it’s these all-too-vocal people that we hear about rather than the moderate ones, so it’s nice to see Christians like yourself on Pink News. I’m an agnostic, but I do try to respect others’ views as long as they’re reasonable and not discriminatory – and that includes things like discrimination against women as much as anything. Would this lady like to have received an email telling her she was a ‘sinner’ because she was a woman and working? I don’t think so, but some people think that.

  15. Oh, and that wasn’t a pun on The Voice :D

  16. Brian Burton 7 Oct 2009, 4:50pm

    Halcyon,
    We will have to see how much more you disagree with us?

  17. Stephen Jones 7 Oct 2009, 5:00pm

    First time I’ve been proud to live in Lewisham!!

  18. Sister Mary Clarence 7 Oct 2009, 5:09pm

    Absolutely Stephen, but it does seem that local authorities are getting a bit more backbone in this area – Islington notably and then council in the South West that removed the marriage licence from someone for example.

  19. Rev. Caroline 7 Oct 2009, 5:15pm

    So who shows the “love and compassion” ?

  20. Ian Charles 7 Oct 2009, 5:37pm

    Sent from a work address is a nono – no matter what time.

  21. Stephen Jones 7 Oct 2009, 5:49pm

    Can everyone please email Lewisham with a message of support for the stand they are taking? They have a feedback form http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/CouncilAndDemocracy/HavingYourSay/CommentsComplaintsAndCompliments/

  22. Sacking was completely appropriate. It was hate mail, pure and simple and nothing to do with work. And for the record, Halcyon, no, I’ve never used the office mail to send anything non-work related to anyone, not even a birthday greeting to somebody in the same office. I have my laptop with me for personal business, using my own email accounts and I use it when I’m officially on a break, as I am right now, catching up with Pink friends all over the world.

  23. “Speaking to The Voice, Haye admitted she had used her work email address but said she did not realise her name would be visible and claimed she had sent the message out of working hours.”

    She did not realise her name would be visible??? Some people don’t deserve email. The stupid. It burns!

  24. Amazing, she probably has sympathetic bible-loving bros and sistahs there who will try to help her get her job back behind the scenes. Horrible thing is that I reckon she stands at least a chance of some kind of compensation for (ironically) being persecuted by the council for her faith etc. Madness! I hope the council stay strong and continue to eradicate hate-mongers who are paid from the public purse.

  25. davewhack 7 Oct 2009, 7:41pm

    Thank God she has been found out! I wonder how many homphobic emails she has sent previously. The police should investigate and look at her computer. If someone is this homphobic it wont be the first time.

  26. Sorry Halcyon disagree with your view -she probably would have run out the door thinking an oral was a blow job – it was right to sack her she was homophobic. This time she was caught. i don’t believe for one moment this is the first time she would have express homophobic views. I have no idea what her role was within the council lets hope no gay suffered a lack of services because of her homophobia.

  27. Well done Lewisham. Lets hope they continue to stand up to her and all other religious nutcases, maintaining a zero tolerance policy towards homophobia, as Islington council did with the homophobic registrar. The way these people hide behind religion to justify their bigotry disgusts me.

  28. Is she allowed to send hate-mail using the Council’s equipment and time? Oh, I suppose the voices in her head told her to do it. Another nutter.

  29. Stewart Cowan 8 Oct 2009, 12:03am

    Hello. I’ve written about this post and some of the comments on my blog: The ‘gay Christian’: an oxymoron

  30. It says here: “It is wholly disproportionate to end someone’s working career for the mere expression of orthodox Christian beliefs.”

    But her career hasn’t been terminated, merely this particular employment. And she should have known to keep her personal faith-based beliefs out of council correspondence.

    It’s clear she acted maliciously. Her defence is lame in the extreme: (1) if she “didn’t realise her name would be visible”, then she’s just trying to give the impression she’s plain stupid; (2) an e-mail sent at 4.59 pm is not sent outside working hours.

    Anyway, why do these religionists have to shove their faith down other people’s throats? I don’t mind what they get up to in the privacy of their own homes, but flaunting it in public is really unsavoury.

  31. Article:- “Haye admitted she had used her work email address but said she did and claimed she had sent the message out of working hours.”

    Not realise her name would be visible??? What an idiot. Who’s name did she think would appear?

    Again, proof that the more religious you are, generally the stupider you become.

  32. Hello, Stewart Cowan. Funny how I predicted what your blog would say on this matter before I clicked on it… You say “The very fact that so many now view homosexuality as normal is a sign that we are in the last days.”

    Did you realise this is what people said in the US when interracial marriage was being discussed? And probably when women were given more rights too. The world didn’t end after Loving v. Virginia, and it won’t end now.

    Everyone’s entitled to their beliefs, but this need to point the finger at other people, as done by this lady, suggests huge insecurity to me.

    And what is this total obsession with homosexuality among you people??

  33. Well said Iris, there is more in the bible about not eating certain foods or wearing mixed cottons, then anything about homosexuality, and maybe you should god look what the translations mean, man on man is a very bad translation, its actually closer to a young gigolo. So it’s not saying don’t sleep with other men but maybe not random people for you own well-being!

  34. Will the Scouser 8 Oct 2009, 10:13am

    Hi, Stewart Cowan. I’ve just read what you said on your blog, and the following stands out as a brilliant jewel:

    “What Denise Haye did was out of love. I know, because that is also my motivation.”

    Yeah. We know all about that kind of love. The best reply to it is a line in Molière’s play, “Le Sicilien, ou l’Amour peintre”:

    “If that’s your way of loving, please be so kind as to hate me.”

  35. Why does that moron Stewart Cowan repeatidly try to hock his insane blog here? I mean, he looks like he should be in re-hab, so what makes him think any of us would possible be impressed by a lunatic rant of religious dogma from the likes of him?

    As Iris quite rightly pointed out, he’s way too obsessed with us for his own good….

  36. The Halcyon 8 Oct 2009, 10:35am

    Brian Burton – I was playing devil’s advocate, who the hell is “us”?
    Rose – Get down off your cross, someone needs the wood.

  37. 21stCenturySpirituality 8 Oct 2009, 10:38am

    Stewart Cowan. Why cant you see that what this women did was a totally inappropriate use of tax payers money. She was not being paid to promote or impose her religious views on others. The fact that she is now sueing is symptomatic of her total disregard for the community she was employed to serve, that she is prepared not only to use taxpayers money to spread religious hatred and prejudice but also to try and profit when she has, through her own stupidity, ignorance and intolerance, rightly been removed from such a position of responsibility.

    When I am at work I do not use the work e-mail system for personal reasons because that is not what I am being paid for. I keep my work and my personal life seperate and so should she have done.

  38. theotherone 8 Oct 2009, 12:22pm

    ‘she did not realise her name would be visible’

    *blinks rapidly*

    what a Religious Idiot.

  39. Robert, ex-pat Brit 8 Oct 2009, 12:49pm

    Why doesn’t this silly bitch find a job in her local place of worship? I’m sure they need cleaners and flower arrangers, she’d be a lot happier there I think. Religious cultism has absolutely no business in the workplace, I’m all for banning it. Its also time to disestablish state religion altogether, it serves NO purpose and is totally irrelevant in modern society, nor should it be meddling in the political process either.

  40. “It wasn’t with any malicious intent and it wasn’t with any hatred, it was out of sheer concern.”
    Saying that all gay people are sinners and will die for being gay sounds malicious to me
    This woman shouldn’t be working for the council if she can’t treat people equally and with respect

    It’s shamefull she is not suing for being sacked!
    My wages paid yours bitch!

  41. Well her email address did show and the sly nasty bitch was caught out. And now she’s blatently lying and trying for a payout.
    I’m sure the baby Jesus would not aprove of her greed and nastiness.
    hypocrites the lot of them!

  42. Stewart Cowan 8 Oct 2009, 8:14pm

    21stCentury – I’m not saying she should have sent the email in her working hours (if indeed she did), but I’m sure she wouldn’t have been suspended had her email been about anything else.

  43. “but I’m sure she wouldn’t have been suspended had her email been about anything else.”

    Yeah, well duh! If it was about her job and what she was supposed to be doing, then she wouldn’t have been fired. But no, she decided to be a hateful little bitch when she was supposed to be working… utilising company resources and company time, not to mention damaging the reputation of her employers, and now she is all boo-hoo because she got what she deserved? Dumb cow. And you’re a dumber f*** for supporting the petty bitch.

  44. 21stCenturySpirituality 8 Oct 2009, 9:22pm

    Stewart Cowan, if she had sent a racist e-mail she would have been fired, and rightly so. If she had sent a sexist e-mail, she would have been fired, and rightly so. She sent an e-mail expressing prejudice towards a gay person which would have been just as contrary to the standard equality policy of most employers nowadays. The fact that she used council property to do so could potentially have bought the council into disrepute. The irony of all this is that she was working in the legal department which implies that she should have been fully aware of employment equality law as it now stands. She only has herself to blame as far as im concerned. She should chalk it down to experience and move on.

  45. Sister Mary Clarence 8 Oct 2009, 11:17pm

    Following on from J Carter’s point – I’m sure the baby Jesus would have something to say about this snivelling little bigot now lying through her teeth to saw her skin – hardly very Godly is it.

  46. I read more about this story yesterday. Apparently, the lady in question claims she didn’t realise she was on a lesbian and gay site. Hmmm…. Take a look at their home page:

    http://www.lgcm.org.uk/

    And with the mention of ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’ or ‘homosexuality’ on pratically every page, you have to wonder about her eyesight…

  47. Iris, her eyesight of her closet sexuality…. the lady is, quite literally, protesting too much.

  48. True, Will. The more I read about this case, the stranger it sounds. For a start, why didn’t she use the contact form on the website? Is part of her job in the legal dept looking for churches, as it’s been reported she was doing when she came across this site? And how on earth can she claim that telling a complete stranger that they should be “ashamed” of themselves and that they’re “not normal”, was done out of concern?

    In general, there are so many of these cases recently, I wouldn’t be surprised if ‘Christians’ are doing this on purpose – provoking action then claiming that their faith has been discriminated against.

  49. Poison pen letters and their authors rarely bring anything good into this world.

  50. Will the Scouser 9 Oct 2009, 6:47pm

    This is how I see it:

    This woman was perfectly entitled to have homophobic views. She was NOT entitled to use either work time OR her work e-mail address to clobber anyone else with them. If, as she says, she really didn’t think that her name would show up on the e-mail when it was received, then her intention was obviously to hide behind her work e-mail address to sent anonymous hate mail. What a profoundly Christian thing to do – I don’t think.

    Whether or not she should have been sacked, she should certainly have been severely disciplined. The decision to sack her was made by Lewisham Council, not by Sharon Ferguson, who very properly complained.

    These “Christian” homophobics are not infrequently cowards. She’s just one of them.

  51. A scriptural message for Denise Haye.
    Romans 2:1: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”

  52. Melora Roberts 11 Oct 2009, 1:52pm

    Haye got what she deserved and good riddance. Ironic that she mentioned the “wages of sin” because she won’t be getting any wages anymore!

  53. Those of you who have left comments regarding this case already if you had any brains you would get the full story first. Denise did not send a personal email to LGCM she responded to the feedback enquiry page and LGCM breached her confidentiality when talebaring to Lewisham Council to spitefully get her sacked. Secondly she did it in her own time. Thirdly nothing in the message was homophobic but it was based on biblical scripture not her own opinions. Not out of hatred, malice or homophobia but out of concern that LGCM actually think homosexuality is good practice accoding to scripture. she witnessed the faith to them out of love concerned that the punishment for homosexual practice according to scripute is not heaven but hell.why cant you people see that. if anyones the one stiring up hatred its LGCM not densie. her fight is against the council not against LGCM they can do what they want, the council are the ones who have discrimnated against denise. you cant call a person homophobic becasue they dont agree with the practice based on the faith of the gospel thats labelling and its wrong. LGCM are the ones discriminating against anyone who doesnt agree with them..thats the truth

  54. This article whcih LGCM have placed in the Pink News stirs up hatred against Denise. She stood up for rightiousness. Anyway God is coming back soon to judge the rightious and the wicked accoding to their works.

  55. The bible is homophobic. It advocates death to homosexuals. That’s a hate crime.

  56. Denise Haye totally deserved the sack and I pray to God that the court decides in favour of Lewisham Council.

    Sadly I have to say that local authorities like Southwark and Lewisham are infested with Christian extremists, generally belonging to the Black community. This is utterly not a racist remark, being proud myself of my mixed background. However, people with such homophobic hatred should not be allowed to occupy key council positions whereby their decision might affect people’s lives.

    I know what I am talking about because a couple of years ago I urgently needed Southwark council’s help and support. Being a victim of domestic violence, I was advised by the likes of Stonewall to seek immediate assistance from my council in terms of housing as I was unemployed at that time.

    Life was hell with my then boyfriend who became extremely violent – both verbally and physically – soon after he lost his job. I met a council advisor to whom I had to tell my whole story. She seemed to be quite welcoming at first but when I came to the bit where I had to mention the word boyfriend, I could clearly discern how her attitude shifted dramatically. She even asked me to confirm whether I actually meant boyfriend. Immediately after that, she swiftly went through the long questionnaire as though she wanted to get rid of me as quickly as possible. It was as if I was someone she had just discovered was carrying some lethal infectious disease. It was an awful feeling. That wasn’t all. At the end of that very first interview, she seemed to expedite my case by concluding that at first sight, she did not think I would get much help from the council as the list of people who deserved that support – those with children, for instance – was exhaustive.

    And the coup de grâce was yet to come: I shouldn’t try and get in touch with the department if I wasn’t to hear anything afterwards, she ordered. Anything, I didn’t hear after that appalling treatment, as you would have guessed. I decided not to take the case further on the grounds of sexual discrimination insofar as I didn’t have solid evidence.

    But the most important thing for me was to devote my time and energy to sorting out my situation – something I eventually succeeded in doing on my own.

    That is the reason why I believe these people – who always pretend to be victimised because of their strong Christian faith – should come straight at the very outset and say they don’t accept homosexuality during the interview process for such sensitive roles with any council.

    The irony is that these people are the first to take to the streets to protest against racial discrimination but, at the same time, they tend to be amongst the first to practise gay bashing.

    All the progress achieved in terms of equal rights for the gay community is being hampered and put in peril by such people full of hatred. I just hope they won’t have the last word.

  57. How ridiculous to make such a fuss about this employee. I am born again and gay, by the way. Romans 6:23 says “the wages of sin is death.”. Who didn’t know that? Deal with it. That’s what the lady was saying.It’s not talking about killing someone here on earth and she didn’t mean that; it means that anyone who rejects Christ as Saviour will go to hell when they die.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all