A devout Christian social worker is suing a care firm for rescinding his job offer of £25,000 per year due to his views on homosexuality. The Mail has more.
Felix Ngole, 46, was thrown off a social worker training course at Sheffield University following his Facebook post which quoted passages from the Bible about same-sex marriage.
But in a major victory for free speech, he was allowed to return to his training when the Court of Appeal ruled in 2019 that Mr. Ngole would “never discriminate against anyone” because of his personal views. …
Mr. Ngole had initially been offered the role as a mental health support worker in 2022 after performing well at the interview, but the offer was rescinded weeks later when the firm discovered he had been involved in a previous landmark free speech case. …
Mr. Ngole claims that when Touchstone found out about the case, he was called to a second interview where he was questioned about his beliefs.
He claims he was told that the job offer would be rescinded unless he could prove how he would “embrace and promote homosexual rights”.
Mr. Ngole was also allegedly told that his beliefs did not “align” with Touchstone’s ethos as an “inclusive employer” and that he risked damaging the firm’s reputation.
Despite the Christian worker trying to convince Touchstone he had never been accused of forcing his beliefs on anyone or discriminating anybody, the offer was eventually withdrawn.
He is now launching claims of direct discrimination, harassment and breaches of the Equality Act 2010 against Touchstone.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Just like ancient Rome, Britain has criminalised Christianity.
Just like ancient Rome, the true Church thrives and grows under pressure.
I’ve read the end of the Book and know how the story ends. On this day, when most in the UK get a days HOLYday because Jesus rose from the dead, Christians shouldn’t fear but rejoice.
A burning desire to get illegitimate access to tax breaks intended to support families with children doesn’t make a lifestyle. And neither does having sex with someone or something. The first is just possibly legitimized fraud (most recent attempt at diverting public money intended for this to LGBT self-care in Ireland failed in a referendum) the second is everyone’s private business and pretty much a definition of that. This means two things
That’s incompatible with Pride-‘lifestyle’ but exhibitionism has never been legal and there’s no reason why it should be legal as it’s non-consensual.
“embrace and promote homosexual rights”
The obvious questions to ask are
1) What are “homosexual rights”?
2) Why do they need to be “promoted”? Are “rights” enjoyed by “homosexuals” under threat?
3) What is a “right”?
4) What “rights” do “homosexuals” enjoy or should they enjoy that are not enjoyed by non-homosexuals, and vice-versa?
It’s yet another cuddly phrase that no-one could object to, surely? I mean, taking away or denying people’s rights is horrid, isn’t it? What you or I would define as a “homosexual right” might be something like homosexual conduct not being illegal – well I never it’s NOT illegal, hasn’t been for ages, and is unlikely to be made illegal. But it seems to me that “homosexual rights” to the people that promote them is something like the right not to be criticised for their homosexuality – a “right” most certainly NOT enjoyed by heterosexuals (nor should it be). A grey area might be around adoption – should homosexuals be able to adopt? Is it reasonable to say that it’s much better to have a man and a woman as an adopting couple? That would seem intuitively to be the obvious likely case, but is there evidence for it? Could you say that favouring male-female couples is nothing to do their sexuality but providing balance within the family unit.
Excellent comment tof
And I
agree.
It does seem reasonable to have adoptive parents of both sexes as this is closer to what nature intended. The idea that nature does not know best sometimes invites all manner of biological, environmental and pharma horrors.
I think it’s totally unreasonable to stop people from adopting children just because they have some sexual habits and not others. Mixed sex couples getting children in the natural way someone else needs to take care of because they either can’t or won’t occurs regularly enough that there’s a whole bunch of public instituation just to handle that. Bottom-line is heterosexuality doesn’t guarantee that someone makes a good or even only tolerably bad parent. So, why discriminate against others in this respect just because they cannot ever get children naturally? Insofar this causes problems in specific cases, these need to be dealt with, just as they already being dealt with.
Expanding on this a little: Let’s assume it would be considered desirable to ban ‘homosexuals’ from adopting children, how is this to be practically accomplished? This would need a legal definition of homosexual and public officials sifting through other people’s private lifes (how far back?) in order to determine if the definition has been met. And there would be court cases about this in order to establish if some public officials assessment that Mr Soandso “is homosexual” (and thus, banned from adopting children) is actually correct. Etc. How’s that compatible with not discriminating against people because of their sexual habits? Should someone’s private life really be a business of the state in this detail?
In my opinion, the answer to the first question is “Not at all” and to the second “no” — this absolutely shouldn’t be the business of the state. I certainly don’t want to pay people for investigating other people’s non criminal “sex lifes.”
Well, it seems pretty simple to me. It depends on whether you’re prioritising the parents or the child. Of course there’s no guarantee that a heterosexual couple will prove to be good parents, the same can be said of any couple adopting, but you can guarantee that a same-sex couple will not provide the balance of masculinity and femininity. You can guarantee that a child adopted by a same-sex couple will be nurtured in an environment that normalises same-sex relationships. You can guarantee that a child adopted by same-sex parents will be subject to LGBTUAGDBRITJRHEGGYTTN”:*;&+ propaganda. It’s not a question of what guarantee’s can’t be made, it’s about what guarantee’s can be made.
I think the whole “why shouldn’t a same-sex couple have a child” is a sad reflection of a society that has used victimhood to calibrate its moral compass. The question isn’t “why shouldn’t a homosexual/lesbian couple have a child”, it’s “why shouldn’t a child have a homosexual/lesbian couple as parents”
Well, it seems pretty simple to me.
That’s because you didn’t really think about it. Unmarried people, including singles, may adopt children. Unmarried people also have sex lives. Do you want the state to monitor these 24×7 to ensure that they’re in line with acceptable sex lives of people who adopted children, however defined. Or what other option do you propose?
I didn’t think about it? Your comment is just a silly knee jerk reaction to someone that’s disagreed with you. When a child is adopted the priority consideration should be that of the child, not the adult. So, unless there are exceptional circumstances, that means giving the child the best possible opportunity of becoming a well balanced individual, which means placing the child with a heterosexual couple. Quite why you struggle so much with that very simple concept is beyond me. You seem to have got bizarrely obsessed with what the parents would be doing in their bedrooms, which should be irrelevant for a child. The parents attitudes, however, are shaped by the their sexual preference and will, therefore, be relevant for the child. Understand?
Yes. You’re totally oblivious to any counterarguments and keep presenting a fictional scenario, namely “couples adopting children”. But couples don’t, people do. These may be in all kinds of more-or-less permanent relationships over the course of the child reaching legal maturity and there is no cut-and-dried solution beyond the traditional “outlaw same-sex relationships” and turn a blind eye to the fact that this cannot be enforced.
That you perhaps don’t know people who’ve gone through a series of same and mixed-sex relationsships doesn’t mean they don’t exist. And law still needs to be universal.
Where did I mention any form of prohibition, or any mention that mixed sex couples make good parents? Even single parent families can still be stigmatised so perhaps there’s bigger social issues to address about the importance placed on parenting in-general?
However, there is also the consideration that the traditional family is being destroyed to make it easier for the State to take control of the children.
Nature intends for orphans to die unless they’re already old enough to care for themselves. Or actually, nature doesn’t intend anything, that’s just going to happen when small children aren’t being cared for: They’ll die. Adoption is something invented by man to thwart nature. No adoption is ever natural, hence, this cannot be used as an argument here. That some people end up torturing their natural children to death is also an argument against nature knows best, at least if it’s accepted that it’s better when children are not being tortured to death by their natural parents.
Regardless of that, it’s still impossibe to define homosexual in some legally watertight way in a society where same-sex relationships are being tolerated and as impossible to guarantee that someone isn’t one unless by total supervision. Hence, that’s not a criterion adoption decision can be based on.
Lastly, if there’s any right to privacy at all, privacy of people’s legal sex lives should certainly exist: This is no business of the state. End of.
All of this together makes adoption a singularly bad choice for treating (however defined) homosexuals different than people who are not.
Without both sexes, the children would not exist. I said “closer to what nature intended” as it is the scenario that might normally be expected but perhaps less-so nowadays in parts of the world which promote certain beliefs. There are any amount of other factors that can turn parents into abusers or murderers whether same sex or not.
Of course there is the Cukoo in the nest!
This is exceedingly simple: People like Leo Varadkar badly want public money intended to support familiies with children aka “gay marriage”. And that’s all of it.
I’m single. Can I marry myself and get some of this money, too? After all, am I worth less than others just because I don’t habitually have sex with them? If not, why should I indirectly subsidize gay people just because they have sex with other gay people? It’s not that this would be useful to anyone except themselves.
I’m getting deja vu. Hasn’t this case already been covered by the DS? Anyway, to your point, I’m pig sick of people banging on about ”rights” this, ”rights” that. In other parts of the world, yes, people suffer and have their basic human rights abused left, right and centre and equality for all is non-existent in many countries. Here in the so-called civilized, democratic West everybody already enjoys all of their human rights being respected. Women’s rights are human rights, men’s rights are human rights, gays’ rights are human rights, disabled people’s rights are human rights, trans rights are human rights, every colour of the rainbow you get human rights and every religion ( or none at all ) you get human rights.
Unfortunately, TPTB can remove, abuse or manipulate our rights whenever they damn well feel like it. The Scamdemic years and what’s now happening in Scotland being just two obvious examples.
Indeed. They don’t mean rights, they mean special privileges, special treatment, special recognition, immunity from criticism, attention, money.
Yes exactly. For example, I’m well aware that when the rainbow-haired, screaming banshees are bawling ”Trans rights are human rights”, what they really mean is that they expect everybody else to play along with their delusion of being the opposite sex, enable their fetishes and give legitimacy to their fantasies. Ergo, what this means in practice is that they wish to invade female spaces ( and sports ) and trample all over female sex-based rights. In other words; in their messed up heads, their psychopathic narcissism trumps women’s human rights.
And then we have the male sexual predators whose sole aim is to exploit the loophole in the law for their own sick and twisted ends, but we know all about that aspect by now.
We kick up an almighty stink if you swear at a “minority” in this country but then we all fly off to watch Football, or Motor Racing or Boxing in Saudi Arabia and no one bats an eyelid. We spit fury and throw tomato soup at anything connected with fossil fuels but buy stuff from China all made using the same fuels. —–There is no end of hypocrisy in everything pertaining to the Liberal Progressive agenda’s of Equality Diversity Race Gender and Climate.
“…throw tomato soup…”
Probably made with Dutch tomatoes grown on hydroponic fertilizers and growing medium made from fossil fuels, grown in greenhouses heated by fossil fuels, with added CO2 for growth from the flues of the fossil fuel heaters.
Climate Policies only apply to the suckers in the prosperous west who are not noticing their prosperity being removed bit by bit, while China, India Malasia, Brazil etc keep using the fuels that work —coal and gas.
A grey area might be around adoption – should homosexuals be able to adopt? Is it reasonable to say that it’s much better to have a man and a woman as an adopting couple?
It’s perfectly legal for singles to adopt children and it’s perfectly possible for two heterosexual men to be married to each other while being in a continuous, sexual relationship with two equally heterosexual women (each with one of them) also married to each other. There’s simply no grey area here: It’s basically impossible to decide if someone is or isn’t “homosexual” in the general case unless the state conducts a detailed investigation into his past private live based on some set criteria which would need to defined for this purpose. Laws must apply to all cases and not just the ‘easy’ obvious ones.
I think there’s a significant overlap between same sex couples and homosexuals and mixed sex couples and heterosexuals.
Very probably. But that’s not good enough because it is – if it’s true, which I believe but don’t really know – just the common case. But a set of legal rules regarding who may or may not adopt children must apply to all cases. And that’s a real can of worms. Lets say someone adopts a child while she is single and after some years, starts a same-sex relationship with another a woman. Should the child now be stripped of its mother? That sounds exceedingy cruel to me. Let’s spin the story for a while: The same-sex relationship limps for a few years and then, the woman who originally the adopted child meets a man and marries him. Stuff like this happens. Assuming the child was taken from her, may she and her man now adopt another as she’s not that “homosexual” after all?
And there’s the other elephant in the room: Under which circumstances are people to be compelled to provide the state with a detailed account of their past sex partners in order to be judged by them? That’s a monstrous privacy invasion.
My point is that it’s arguably defensible to say that same sex couples should not be allowed to adopt – I’m not saying that this is what I believe but it’s plausible. A “homosexual rights” advocate might say that this is discrimination against homosexuals because most same sex couples are homosexual.
That you keep ignoring the facts that singles may adopt children and the that some people’s relationship status wrt permanence and orientation changes over time doesn’t make either of them go away.
I perfectly understand the sentiment behind same sex couples shouldn’t … — this feels very icky to me. OTOH, it’s simply impossible to define a general set of just rules here and it’s also impossible to enforce these without putting state-monitored CCTV in every bedroom or other location where people could conceivably have sex, say, a confessional in a Catholic church, an office usually used for lawyer – client contacts or a prayer room¹.
(Prejudiced) people can come up with reasons for that is not the same as defensible and when something’s at all impossible, it doesn’t matter if it’s defensible or not.
¹ According to some past Private Eye a prayer room at the offices of a national paper was mainly used for mixed-sex ceremonies during which only women usually kneel down.
It was merely a hypothetical example of a “right” that might not be enjoyed by homosexuals.
Adoption is undoubtedly a very difficult business.
I wish Mr Ngole every success in his latest fight against nonsense. And he isn’t playing the race card, either, so top marks from me so far.
Never mind he can always apply to NHS Scotland for a job. ———Yes, I was ofcourse joking.
Excellent, DIE being used against those that allegedly promote it. I hope he wins the case, it’ll be another nail in the ESG coffin.
It’s strange but this “equality” business seems to mean that only certain “special people” are “equal” and everyone else is subordinate to their “equality.”
So it’s not equality; it’s two-tier. And if you’re not a “special person” you’re in the lower tier.
That will teach them!
Would Touchstone condone a bank job applicant to “embrace and promote theft”? That is the equivalent.