Rate this!
janet burton
Member - 49 posts
Someone may have the right to hold any beliefs, but they do not have the right to either discriminate because of their beliefs or bully and harass someone because of their beliefs.
So 'manifesting' religious beliefs is harassment or discrimination at work where it interferes with other peoples freedom to have their own beliefs. The law agrees on this: 'Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.'
So anyone trying to opt out of serving any part of the community is discriminating, whatever their job. Living in this country you have to accept other people live by their beliefs, not necessarily yours.
It is quite simple - if you want the freedom to celebrate your faith, and live by your beliefs, you must give others the same freedom, and work within that frame. Any faith is accepted in this country, but those of all faiths must accept this country's laws - so do not discriminate or harass others at work because they have different beliefs to yours.
Rate this!
Mike Coles
Member - 1 post
Your work should not force you to take part in any aspect of life many feel is repugnant but are too afraid to say it in this "free" society.
It is reasonable to ask for some form of "life evidence" so that less scrupulous employees don't just lead their employer a merry dance, but that isn't too difficult for a reasonable and objective person to establish fairly quickly and easily.
Respect cuts both ways. Tolerance cuts both ways.
Rate this!
Andrew Auty
Member - 10 posts
An employment rights lawyer once stated the following after a successful day in court:
“It seems likely to me, based on my sketchy understanding of life the universe and everything, that everything a person does or says is conditioned to varying degrees by what they know and what they believe.
Only rarely are we acutely aware of the central role of beliefs and the limits of our knowledge. These occasions are frequently the result of clashes with the person next to us, our masters and our servants. If we can develop enough detachment on these occasions we have a chance to learn what our beliefs are and then we have a real choice about them.
More often than not we respond, probably unwittingly, so as to reassure ourselves that what we already believe, is in fact, the right choice. Revelations are few. We seem to have a gift for behaving this way.
So then, we need an inviolable source of revealed truth to help us see the way to making the right choices.
In our democratic system we have chosen to follow a course where manifest intolerance is intolerable. Further, the law tells us which manifest intolerances are intolerable.
It is my job to insist that intolerance of the intolerance of manifest intolerance is not tolerated.”
After this speech I felt certain, that we were in good hands. I rarely return to that pub.
Rate this!
n mo
Member - 1 post
I certainly do not agree with Adam Turner's assessment. The Ladele case was not about religious freedom it was about personnel management. The law is clear about discrimination. The fact that an individual who is acting in a discriminatory way is also part of a group who are more likely to experience discrimination themselves is neither here nor there. There is no heirachy of discrimination from acceptable to unnacceptable. If discrimination occurs it is not the intent that should be questioned, it is not about finding an excuse for the behaviour or the instigator. The Catholic Church is obliged to ensure that it can support same sex parents in adoption otherwise it is breaking the law. Islington Council has to provide civil partnerships if it refuses to (like the Western Isles) it is breaking the law. If a member of staff in a public body discriminates in their work against someone from an equality group they are in breach of their terms of employment because they are stopping the organisation from meeting their public legislative duties, no change to contract required. The Legislation and guidance is simple, complication only appears to arise as we use obsolete and unhelpful political correctness to try and justify society's underlying bias and prejudice.
0 (0)
