Earlier quoted context omitted.
So do you believe they're absurd?
Do I believe what are absurd? I've already had enough equivocation for one thread, please be specific when you post. I looked at the first two lists of gender identities my search returned and there were plenty of absurd categories (like Maverique and Novigender ). In addition, the idea that public policy and law should revolve around people choosing their identities on a day to day basis is, I believe, unworkable, i…
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.
But also that judgment isn't saying anything of the sort. You're quoting an extremist Christian organisation who bring futile cases to court in order to make political points. https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/04/on-the-naughty-step-the-qu...
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
Here's the judgment: https://christianconcern.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CC-R...