ICC Note: Adrian Smith, Trafford Housing Trust employee in Britain, was demoted from his managerial position, received a large pay cut, and was warned multiple times he would be fired for a Facebook post he wrote on his personal page after hours. The post stated simply that gay weddings in churches were “an equality too far.” A court has recently awarded Adrian a small victory by declaring that he was not guilty of any misconduct, though it is unclear if he will regain his former position or be awarded anything beyond the “token” damages of 158 U.S. dollars. His case is one of many where Christians in Britain face discrimination for their views. 
11/17/2012 Britain (FMT) – A British Christian who was demoted by his employer over comments he made on Facebook opposing gay marriage in churches won a High Court case for breach of contract yesterday.
Judges in London found that Adrian Smith, who works for a local government social housing body, had not been guilty of any misconduct and awarded him token damages of less than £100 (US$158, 125 euros).
Smith, 55, lost his managerial status, had his salary cut by 40 percent and was handed a final written warning after posting on Facebook that gay weddings in churches were “an equality too far”.
Although the remarks were not visible to the public and were posted outside work time, Smith’s Manchester-based employer, Trafford Housing Trust, said he had broken its code of conduct by voicing religious or political views that could upset his colleagues.
Judge Michael Briggs ruled that the trust had no right to demote Smith and had breached its contract with him, while the Facebook posts did not constitute misconduct.
The judge said Smith could have won far more in damages if he had launched proceedings for unfair dismissal at the employment tribunal.
“The breach of contract which the trust… committed was serious and repudiatory,” Briggs said.
Smith said in a statement after the ruling: “The judge exonerated me and made clear that my comments about marriage were in no way ‘misconduct’.
“My award of damages has been limited to less than £100 – but that is for technical legal reasons.
“But I didn’t do this for the money, I did this because there is an important principle at stake.
“Britain is a free country where people have freedom of speech, and I am pleased that the judge’s ruling underlines that important principle.”
…
[Full Story]