Religious right

[norwaysaint]

This will be interesting.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19472438

 

My own view is that religious rights are pandered to too much. people choose to take on a religion, but the world around them shouldn't have to bend to make it easier for them. people shouldn't get different treatment in work or in prison because of their religious views. Anybody can claim any religious view and demand they are respected, but it can't and shouldn't have to work that way. If your beliefs make a certain type of work difficult for you, you either have to accept that challenge and be suffer with it, or you have to choose a way of life that makes your practice possible.

 

So what do others think?

[saint si]

Playing the discrimination card in an attempt to gain the legal right to discriminate against other groups is DFCSB-like in its ambition and hypocrisy. Not to mention somewhat un-Christian...

[Manuel]

However, the National Secular Society - which campaigns against "religious privilege" - said a European court ruling in favour of the quartet would undermine UK equality law.

 

Two different situations here, as I see it. As above, I don't really see there's an argument that someone is benefiting from "religious privilege" by wearing a cross or a badge. Of course people should be able to wear these things should they want. I'd be unhappy with a society that banned them.

 

This however:

 

Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate after saying he had a conscientious objection to giving relationship advice to gay people

 

.... is different. Personally I am glad he was sacked. Fine, if you don't want to talk to gay people, then don't talk to them. If it's part of your job then you can expect to be sacked. To suggest that because it's your religion you are entitled to bring these prejudices into society and we all have to accept them.....no. By all means keep the thoughts to yourselves or talk amongst your religious friends, but don't try to force society to legitimise them.

[Minty]

Agree with Manuel above, although I would add that uniform guidelines are in place at a great many employers and whilst I may or may not agree with them, they are not discriminatory against any particular kind of religion or faith, rather they usually specify jewellery in general. So if another member of staff is not allowed to wear, for example, a locket with a picture of a child or loved one, then that should be applied equally across the workforce to religious crosses and all jewellery.

[buctootim]

Of course people should be able to wear these things should they want. I'd be unhappy with a society that banned them.

 

This however: Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate after saying he had a conscientious objection to giving relationship advice to gay people

 

.... is different. Personally I am glad he was sacked. Fine, if you don't want to talk to gay people, then don't talk to them. If it's part of your job then you can expect to be sacked. To suggest that because it's your religion you are entitled to bring these prejudices into society and we all have to accept them.....no. By all means keep the thoughts to yourselves or talk amongst your religious friends, but don't try to force society to legitimise them.

 

Exactly this. If hijabs and turbans are acceptable then Christian paraphenalia should be too. If however something is part of your job, either do it or find a different one.

[CB Saint]

What I don't understand is why they couldn't wear their crosses under their top out of sight. Why display it openly? I would have thought that a nurse would not be allowed to where any kind of necklace.

[Minty]

The Royal College of Nursing's own guidelines state:

 

Staff should not wear jewellery (note plain wedding bands are acceptable); fingernails should be short and free of nail varnish (false nails are unacceptable) and hair should be worn neatly in a style that does not require frequent re-adjustment (Pratt et al., 2007). It is the responsibility of individual organisations to determine a local definition of what constitutes ‘jewellery’ and what is acceptable, taking into account religious, cultural and infection control needs.

[Minty]

This was a decision made in line with a uniform policy, and would apply to anyone wearing any kind of chain around their neck. The key point therefore is that this decision was NOT made based on her religion or religious beliefs, but on the consistent application of a uniform policy.

[GenevaSaint]

However, the National Secular Society - which campaigns against "religious privilege" - said a European court ruling in favour of the quartet would undermine UK equality law.

 

Two different situations here, as I see it. As above, I don't really see there's an argument that someone is benefiting from "religious privilege" by wearing a cross or a badge. Of course people should be able to wear these things should they want. I'd be unhappy with a society that banned them.

 

This however:

 

Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate after saying he had a conscientious objection to giving relationship advice to gay people

 

.... is different. Personally I am glad he was sacked. Fine, if you don't want to talk to gay people, then don't talk to them. If it's part of your job then you can expect to be sacked. To suggest that because it's your religion you are entitled to bring these prejudices into society and we all have to accept them.....no. By all means keep the thoughts to yourselves or talk amongst your religious friends, but don't try to force society to legitimise them.

 

I thought the counsellor went as he didn't want to give help with the couples sex life, which in my eyes is totally acceptable. That's wha was on the radio this morning.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I would agree with the points above but the danger is when people interpret the rules so they persecute those with a strong faith.

[suewhistle]

As far as I know the wearing of a cross is not an obligation on any Christian but a personal preference. A stupid point on which to make a stand, and there are far too many people who want to take offense or feel discriminated against - I think they feel it validates them or something. Nor does Christianity say you can't deal with gay people in your work.

 

I know a CofE vicar who on his desk has a sign saying: "The Christian Right is neither"!

[alpine_saint]

So all of you pontificating that Christians shouldnt have the right to display symbols of their faith without fear of discimination are going to run down the Luton High Road ripping off the headpieces of burkas, are you ?

 

Neither displaying crosses or wearing burkas are obligatory elements of the respective faiths.

 

I have no sympathy with those individuals of the 4 who are refusing to deal with homosexuals on an equal basis, however.

[alpine_saint]

However, the National Secular Society - which campaigns against "religious privilege" - said a European court ruling in favour of the quartet would undermine UK equality law.

 

Two different situations here, as I see it. As above, I don't really see there's an argument that someone is benefiting from "religious privilege" by wearing a cross or a badge. Of course people should be able to wear these things should they want. I'd be unhappy with a society that banned them.

 

This however:

 

Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate after saying he had a conscientious objection to giving relationship advice to gay people

 

.... is different. Personally I am glad he was sacked. Fine, if you don't want to talk to gay people, then don't talk to them. If it's part of your job then you can expect to be sacked. To suggest that because it's your religion you are entitled to bring these prejudices into society and we all have to accept them.....no. By all means keep the thoughts to yourselves or talk amongst your religious friends, but don't try to force society to legitimise them.

 

Can you sack a Muslim canteen cook for refusing to prepare, cook and serve a bacon sandwich ?

 

Thought not.

 

For those of us capable of not suprimposing our own value sets on this, the law is an ass, biased towards minorities.

[bridge too far]

I think you're missing the point with your first sentence, Alpine.

 

I don't think anyone would deny the right of anyone of faith to wear a symbol of that faith - provided it doesn't run counter to the uniform code of any organisation that employs that person. Someone has already posted that, for example, nurses shouldn't wear ANY form of jewellery apart from a wedding ring because of the risk to that nurse's safety or because of a potential compromise of infection control.

[alpine_saint]

I think you're missing the point with your first sentence, Alpine.

 

I don't think anyone would deny the right of anyone of faith to wear a symbol of that faith - provided it doesn't run counter to the uniform code of any organisation that employs that person. Someone has already posted that, for example, nurses shouldn't wear ANY form of jewellery apart from a wedding ring because of the risk to that nurse's safety or because of a potential compromise of infection control.

 

I seem to recall the world governing body for judo, a sport involving grabbing hold of clothing attempting to defeat your opponent by any permissible means including half-throttling, has just been bullied into allowing a head covering into the Olympics. Dont give me the HSE moody. That BA baggage handler wasnt endangering her or anyone else's safety.

[bridge too far]

I seem to recall the world governing body for judo, a sport involving grabbing hold of clothing attempting to defeat your opponent by any permissible means including half-throttling, has just been bullied into allowing a head covering into the Olympics. Dont give me the HSE moody. That BA baggage handler wasnt endangering her or anyone else's safety.

 

No, she wasn't - but displaying the crucifix was against BA's code of dress. I was, of course, referring to the nurse also cited in the case as is clear from my reference to 'nurses'.

[Manuel]

Can you sack a Muslim canteen cook for refusing to prepare, cook and serve a bacon sandwich ?

 

Thought not.

Actually I expect you could. If the canteen routinely served pork meat products then I doubt employment there would realistically be viable for the Muslim. I'm sure in restaurants with a wider range of foods it is accepted that Muslim employees are permitted not to have to deal with specific foods, but for protection I would expect that to be written into their contract.

 

I don't know the detail of the case of this councellor, but I don't really see this as a religious issue. First and foremost it seems to me an employment law issue. I'm no expert but most sensible employers that I've worked for have been lenient towards religious requests, even for time off at certain times to pray. But as far as I'm aware the religious can't demand that right, it's at the employer's discretion.

 

Personally I can't see them getting anywhere with it.

[alpine_saint]

No, she wasn't - but displaying the crucifix was against BA's code of dress. I was, of course, referring to the nurse also cited in the case as is clear from my reference to 'nurses'.

 

Then their code of dress was discriminatory.

 

Can another company write "no burkas" in their code of dress ?

[Minty]

Then their code of dress was discriminatory.

 

Can another company write "no burkas" in their code of dress ?

Read the whole thread alps, and especially my posts.

 

The uniform codes in question talk about not wearing any jewellery, they do NOT discriminate about what jewellery that may be... as I suggested earlier, a locket containing a picture of a loved-one is prohibited just the same as a cross.

[bridge too far]

Then their code of dress was discriminatory.

 

Can another company write "no burkas" in their code of dress ?

 

And BA changed their code after she left work in protest at what was the code in force at the time. She returned to work after they changed the code and then decided to sue them for discrimination. So they didn't sack her and, in spite of losing her claim, she appealed - again unsuccessfully.

 

Here are the backgrounds of all four cases

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19467554

[dinger]

Then their code of dress was discriminatory.

 

Can another company write "no burkas" in their code of dress ?

 

A company can easily and justifiably specify no jewellery, as they had on this occasion. It's called a uniform and she will have signed a contract giving details. If there is discrimination at work here, it is discrimination against the wearing of jewellery. Jewellery wearers are not a protected minority under law. However, best practice would caution against indirect discrimination, which is where this falls.

 

CiPD website says "If a dress code contains a generally applied provision which puts persons of a particular religion or belief at a disadvantage then it will be actionable discrimination unless the dress requirement is proven to be ‘a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’."

 

So to parallel your burka question, a Muslim teaching assistant was required to remove her veil as this was deemed to interfere with the 'legitimate aim' of interacting with kids. Whereas a muslim hairdresser won her case against discrimination over wearing a head scarf, as the claim that all employees should advertise the business with their hair was not deemed to be proportionate or legitimate when weighed against this aspect of her religious freedoms. (source: http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/employment-law-faqs/religious-discrimination-dress-code.aspx)

[dinger]

In answer to Norway's question though, I don't generally agree with people of faith being given dispensation not to carry out part of their contracted duties. I think if you have a strong moral conviction then you have to stand by it not in the sense of forcing other people to accomodate you, but by accepting that there are some things you are unable to do. I have strong opinions that mean I have chosen to avoid air travel or driving a car. This has often restricted my career choices, but they're my scruples; I don't ask to be excused the travel requirements of a particular role, I just have to swallow my morals or take a different job.

 

The tricky case appears to be the Lillian Ladele one, as it looks like the conditions of her employment may have changed while she was in post, so she may have a case.

[bridge too far]

........

 

The tricky case appears to be the Lillian Ladele one, as it looks like the conditions of her employment may have changed while she was in post, so she may have a case.

 

I think her case hinges on the right (probably enshrined in contract as is usually the case with local government / NHS / Civil Service) to change the terms and conditions of employment. Also it seems she was previously working on a 'freelance basis' and this would, I think, afford her few employment rights.

[dinger]

I think her case hinges on the right (probably enshrined in contract as is usually the case with local government / NHS / Civil Service) to change the terms and conditions of employment. Also it seems she was previously working on a 'freelance basis' and this would, I think, afford her few employment rights.

 

 

Yeah, I'd probably agree with that.

[Ken Tone]

the 4 cases ,listed as 'tests' do seem quite different from each other.

eg "Registrar Lilian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London"

 

...seems to me to have a weak case, since if she believes so strongly in the christian marriage, she surely should not be happy marrying anyone outside of a religious ceremony? Her whole job is against her beliefs surely?

[pap]

Mixed feelings on this one. In the case of the Relate officer, I think the employer should be able to reasonably assume that a new hire would be available to assist in any of the cases they handle.

 

I can also live with jewellery being banned in certain professions when there are practical reasons for doing so (the nursing example).

 

That all said, I do feel as if employers have an increasing expectation that their staff should be emotionless robots. That certainly can't be good either.

[Torres]

That all said, I do feel as if employers have an increasing expectation that their staff should be emotionless robots.

 

Employers have an expectation that their employees carry out all the reasonable duties that their job role entails. In 2 of these cases the employees refused to do so. I have no problem with them doing that, but they cannot reasonably expect to remain in employment having done so.

[derry]

There should be no religous special concessions for ANY religion. All should conform with the law and company rules but no exceptions. If there is a concession for one, there should be no restrictions on ANY religion.

[scotty]

What I don't understand is why they couldn't wear their crosses under their top out of sight. Why display it openly? I would have thought that a nurse would not be allowed to where any kind of necklace.

 

This.

 

Based on the Carry On films I've seen, most nurses wear sexy stockings and suspenders under their outerwear, so why not a cross as well?

[dinger]

There should be no religous special concessions for ANY religion. All should conform with the law and company rules but no exceptions. If there is a concession for one, there should be no restrictions on ANY religion.

 

Surely that leaves the door wide open for companies to actively pursue a discriminatory policy without fear of prosecution? So a company could, without any real justification, ban head coverings on its premises, and thus prevent themselves ever having to consider employing people of certain faiths.

[Minty]

I may be wrong, but I doubt derry is suggesting developing specific new discriminatory policies that relate to specific items of religious significance, more that any existing and lawful policies which exist should be able to be applied without fear of being challenged on these kinds of grounds.

[dinger]

I may be wrong, but I doubt derry is suggesting developing specific new discriminatory policies that relate to specific items of religious significance, more that any existing and lawful policies which exist should be able to be applied without fear of being challenged on these kinds of grounds.

 

I realise that. But the notion of 'lawful policies' is subject to constant refinement, due to the concept of indirect discrimination. I may have read him wrong, but he appeared to suggest that no exceptions should be made, thus ending the process of that refinement. Meaning that any future challenge would be turned down flat; the implicit assumption being that the law is perfect as it currently exists. Why should people not be able to challenge this? Whether you think someone has a case or not, the courts will settle it. If we were to base all of our opinions on the subject on these particular 4 cases, I'd see where derry was coming from, but these are not the only 4 cases.

[Viking Warrior]

The problem is that there is no consistency re interpreting the law . The nhs in some areas did ban the cross because it could offend others however when the word religious discrimination came up the nhs side stepped the issue by sayi g it was actual more to do with h&s and dress regulations . But did not stop Hindu or Muslim items from being used . So no consistency was established . It's the same with body piercing in some care holes and hospitals it is allowed . The issue re crash helmets and turbans was another major case that went in favour of the Sikh despite the argument on health and safety but there was a subsequent compromise agreed between both parties

[pap]

Employers have an expectation that their employees carry out all the reasonable duties that their job role entails. In 2 of these cases the employees refused to do so. I have no problem with them doing that, but they cannot reasonably expect to remain in employment having done so.

 

That's fine up to a point.

 

However, I'd like to challenge the notion that people must be okay with it because they signed a contract, for two reasons really. First, it's not really a choice for a lot of people. Need money. Find job. Sign contract. Quibbling really not a good move at this point. Second, even if you are 100% fine with the initial contract you sign and your responsibilities when taking the job, HR departments and sweeping company policy changes can change your role to the point where it is quite literally not what you signed up for.

[scotty]

iirc, there was a time when hindus were exempt from the crash helmet law on motorbikes as it wouldnt fit over their turbans. Ancient history now.

[JPTCount]

the bottom line for me is if u have a uniform, and management say u can't wear a cross, u do it, or loose ur job.

 

used to have a few groups if Muslims girls at uni who wore full burkha shiz, I always found it slightly creepy only ever seeing thier eyes.

 

I mean should Sikhs be allowed to carry knives everywhere because it's in n thier set of rules but against our own laws?

[Clapham Saint]

iirc, there was a time when hindus were exempt from the crash helmet law on motorbikes as it wouldnt fit over their turbans. Ancient history now.

 

Why would a hindu want to wear a turban?

[Thedelldays]

Why would a hindu want to wear a turban?

because some do..?

[alpine_saint]

the bottom line for me is if u have a uniform, and management say u can't wear a cross, u do it, or loose ur job.

 

 

Its not the bottom line if the policy is discrimnatory. The bottom line is a tribunal over the employee and a court case over the policy.

[Clapham Saint]

because some do..?

 

Really?

 

That's me looking like an ill-educated chump then...

[JPTCount]

Its not the bottom line if the policy is discrimnatory. The bottom line is a tribunal over the employee and a court case over the policy.

 

if all jewelery is banned, or all religious apparel, then how is that discrimination?

 

obviously if the company has one rule for Christians, and another for Muslims, then it is. even so this is an aggressive approach imo.

 

if the company I work for says I cant wear trainers, but then allow those who jog in to wear them, it is discrimination, but should I wear trainers until some drastic change takes place, or should I take it up with HR?

 

dont good Christians just turn the other cheek...?

Edited 6 September, 2012 by JPTCount

[manji]

I support the persecution of ALL Religions. For a belief that has a much basis in fact as a fairy tale to have so much influence on peoples lives is a travesty.

[Frank's cousin]

I support the persecution of ALL Religions. For a belief that has a much basis in fact as a fairy tale to have so much influence on peoples lives is a travesty.

 

Agreed, but such a statement need to come with the caveat that we are talking about religions, not individuals - and thats where it gets tricky - as soon as you start banning religious iconography, clothing, jewellary etc, the repsonse is that it is the indviduals 'rights' are effected, and despite my 'faith' being that that they are all gullable fairy story believers, I guess we need to find ways within the law that does protect those rights to be gullable, and prevents discrimination by stealth - especially where working conditions do not require a stricter H+S policy - the things is, some might argue that the wearing of crosses etc in the work place is offensive to us atheists - but I am actually all for anything like crosses and car fish stickers to help me identify them and avoid them like the plague

[JPTCount]

I support the persecution of ALL Religions. For a belief that has a much basis in fact as a fairy tale to have so much influence on peoples lives is a travesty.

 

religion is not all bad, many have given thier lives up to help others because of it. and many ppl use it to just get through in life.

 

and if we all adhered to the ten commandments the world would be a better place.

[alpine_saint]

I support the persecution of ALL Religions. For a belief that has a much basis in fact as a fairy tale to have so much influence on peoples lives is a travesty.

 

All persecution is wrong.

[derry]

My position is that there should be no concessions on religious grounds in the workplace. If one group is given a concession then all the other groups can use religion as a legitimate reason for their particular point. I don't see the first point as discriminatory as there would be no religous grounds, everybody conforms with the rules in place or go somewhere where the rules are suited to their customs. Christians want to wear crosses go where it's allowed, Sikhs wear crash helmets or don't ride motorbikes, Muslims don't wear their choice of clothes or go where it is allowed. It is not discrimination, the law shouldn't have exceptions on religious grounds.

 

I also think that if common sense was used by all involved there would be no need for these court cases. Provided everybody would accept a degree of compromise there would be no issues on either side. It is the zealots that spoil it for everybody, and as far as I am concerned when that occurrs rule one should apply.

[badgerx16]

and if we all adhered to the ten commandments the world would be a better place.

 

Or just follow Bill & Ted - 'be excellent to each other'.

[scotty]

Why would a hindu want to wear a turban?

 

because some do..?

 

Really?

 

That's me looking like an ill-educated chump then...

 

No idea, I suppose I should have said "Indians" but that somehow sounded borderline racist. I do remember clearly when I was a kid and the motorcycle crash-helmet laws were introduced, the only blokes you would see not wearing helmets on bikes were Indian guys with turbans on, and they were definitely exempted from the new law. I dont know which religious sect they followed as I have no interest in organised religion.

 

 

edit, apparently it was sikhs. http://www.sikhmissionarysociety.org/sms/smspublications/theturbanvictory/chapter1/

Edited 7 September, 2012 by scotty

[Frank's cousin]

religion is not all bad, many have given thier lives up to help others because of it. and many ppl use it to just get through in life.

 

and if we all adhered to the ten commandments the world would be a better place.

 

Especially if we all adhered to teh the one that sates ' thou shalt not worship false gods' - which is kinda all of them

[Baj]

If hijabs and turbans are acceptable then Christian paraphenalia should be too.

Hijab isn't religious 'paraphernalia', it's to protect the girls/womans from desirable stares, as well as to keep themself modest. There is nothing about hijab that carries symbols of Islam. People shouldn't confuse Hijab with wearing religious symbols (which I, for the record, think everyone should have the freedom to do)