It’s a revolting and hypocritical lie, that any “discourse” in favor of perpetuating sexual orientation apartheid is “civil.” If this is that woman’s notion of being a diversity officer in a school, then she should transfer to a countryside convent and beg the mother superior for forgiveness on her knees when she breaks their diversity rules in there.
Such a hypocrite! She wants the University to “right a wrong” (reinstate and compensate her for emotional pain because… despite it being wrong she clearly feels rightly empowered to deny people of diversity “rights”. now that is rich! (and painful!)
I hope she pays compensation to those whom she seems determined to stop from being equal members of society.
Her protests seem a bit rich coming from an African-American to boot.
After all the fighting for equality throughout her own 23yrs of earning her PhD and other positions and qualifications. I’m surprised she doesn’t even understand our position on her dismissal… It’s mind boggling – she SHOULD know better.
Comma instead of full stop, sorry.
Yeah, and I bet if some diversity officer elsewhere had signed a petition asking for a vote on whether deaf people should be allowed to marry she’d be frothing with outrage.
Dr Angela McCaskill, dig deeper, much much deeper, but instead of digging into your pockets, dig into your reasons for signing that petition. I’m sure you can explain why you think gay rights should be exposed to a popular vote.
Equal rights are not a referendum issue. It’s simple logic Angela. I hope you and your religion have a happy life together.
“Dr McCaskill took the decision to sign the petition. She said the fact that she signed it did not indicate that she was opposed to equal marriage, and that she wanted to exercise her right to participate in civil discourse on the issue”.
The fact that she signed the petition indicates clearly to me that she is against equal marriage. If she wasn’t she would not have signed the petition in the first place. It is hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Yes, and she seems to be unable to understand that human rights shouldn’t be up for discussion. Hardly admirable in a diversity officer.
there’s always room for discussion with people who don’t believe in equality for all.
a “popular vote”? most definitely NOT.
The attorney’s statement, that she signed the petition right after a god-bothering session (about Marriage, of all things) should say more than anything about what was going through her head at the time.
If she can be so quickly enamored by the clergy as to do it’s bidding, what does that say for her other commitments that are contrary to the church’s position?
This woman’s views are just sooo heterosexual.
Cardinal, please stop, two wrongs don’t make a right.
A Diveristy Officer at a univeristy displaying contempt for the very Diversity she was hired to promote! Only in America as well as many countries in Africa do people ‘promote’ this sort of ‘diveristy’! As an American, I am continuously ashamed of the outrageous hate-speech that is allowed under the umbrella of ‘civil discourse’ that my countrymen spout daily…..it is beyond belief….and ALL caused by individual ‘religious’ beliefs (that are, oddly, against their own stated ‘beliefs’)….this is how bigotry works…..shameful in the extreme…..
Peter Tatchell hasn’t yet pronouinced on this case as he did with the recent case in the UK of the housing manager who was demoted after a facebook comment.
In any case (on this issue) I have come round to his way of thinking.
The focus should be on is someone capable of doing the job they’re employed to do without discrimination. People should be free to enter into discussion in the public domain, provided they do so in a restrained manner.
I think people should be free to sign petitions (in this case a part of passing laws as they are subject to petition before taking effect). In that sense she is correct – she hasn’t necessarily spoken against equal marriage, merely acted to bring the matter to a referendum.
Of course I profoundly disagree with her actions but if everyone who pronounces a view we dislike gets disciplined or suspended then a)it’s disproportionate and b)will just provide our enemies with ‘martyrs’ they can use in their arguments against equal marriage.
Can a General in the US military, on his own time sign petitions calling for “Ban the Bomb”.
How would you feel visiting a GP who, in his own time “signed a petition” calling for eradication of a gene that caused predisposition to homosexual children.
If I were her employer and found out that she is of the opinion, as espoused via her Church, that she had signed such a document, then I would seriously reconsider why she was employed in a position meant to promote and sustain diversity.
There are so many stories of historical suffrage which proves that peoples rights should NOT be up to the vote of others.
The very fact that this woman thinks act as OK, proves her inability to be in her position and indeed her incapability to understand this further underlines it.
she was suspended on full pay, she hasn’t lost anything to need to be compensated – suck it up bitch and learn next time to be more careful with what you say and do.
What a shocker, this all happened because a tax-exempt church had a petition near the door and that just happened to be the topic of the weekly sermon. Organized religion is the gift that keeps on taking.