The line between discriminating and looking after your business

[Cavegirl]

to me that means that in a job focussing on evidence based logic would be exempt.

 

A cashier's till relies upon evidence based logic- do you think religious people should be prevented from working as cashiers?

 

It doesn't matter how much more technical the job becomes religious people who are trained in the profession are just as capable of recording and interpreting data as required as anybody else.

[RootsBooster]

Just remember that this isn't some ideological game you're playing-

How does ideology come into it?

 

by denying this person work based upon their beliefs you're removing their ability to make a living and potentially house, feed and clothe their children at a standard that their previous work and study determines them able.

By employing them I would risk the business, which would leave both myself and all employees unable to make a living and house, feed and clothe our children

 

You'd best be absolutely sure that this is about their ability to do the work and not about your own distate at their beliefs and if you can't be sure I'd defer the decision to someone who can.

 

Religious belief or lack of is a 'protected characteristic' legally, I'd seek legal advice if you want to actively discriminate against someone on this basis.

Just so you know, this is just a hypothetical situation, purely for discussion/debate. There is no vacant position and there are no candidates.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2013 at 15:06 ----------

 

A cashier's till relies upon evidence based logic- do you think religious people should be prevented from working as cashiers?

 

It doesn't matter how much more technical the job becomes religious people who are trained in the profession are just as capable of recording and interpreting data as required as anybody else.

 

I'm not talking simply about religious people, as I pointed out in the original post. L00b payed attention...

I think many posters disagreeing with the OP are missing the 'strong', 'extreme' etc. qualifiers in the OP:

There is undoubtedly a line IMHO, and that line separates conventional beliefs (maybe illogical, e.g. deities, but non-objectionable by social standards/norms of the time, and as codified in non-discriminatory legislation) from extreme/irrational beliefs (which may be so extreme/irrational as to bring public order or even anti-terrorism legislation into play).

[quisquose]

Whilst it might be illegal the pass somebody over for a job based on their religion, it certainly isn't illegal to do so for the way they dress or for holding crackpot ideas.

 

I would certainly think it would be legal to ignore a creationist for a science teaching job, or a job in the Natural History Museum. It has been tested in law and found to be okay to turn down an applicant if they wear a burqa.

 

As L00b said, it's all about extremes. I would guess that most of us hold some strange illogical ideas, but if they are so important to you that they could interfere with your ability to do the job, then don't expect the state to protect you just because it is your "religion".

[llamatron]

A cashier's till relies upon evidence based logic- do you think religious people should be prevented from working as cashiers?

 

It doesn't matter how much more technical the job becomes religious people who are trained in the profession are just as capable of recording and interpreting data as required as anybody else.

 

I don't think that scanning a clothes tag is an example of evidence based logic to be honest. It's also not another way of saying a "technical job".

 

What about interpreting data as "god did it" for example when discussing evolution.

 

Obviously in real life you just avoid that particular reason and go with the better candidate answer.

 

likewise you would hope any kind of extremist would at least hide it during an interview.

[L00b]

<...>

I would certainly think it would be legal to ignore a creationist for a science teaching job, or a job in the Natural History Museum. It has been tested in law and found to be okay to turn down an applicant if they wear a burqa.

<...>

Oooh, the b word has been outed...

 

I'll be watching this thread unfold with interest

[Cavegirl]

How does ideology come into it?

 

 

By employing them I would risk the business, which would leave both myself and all employees unable to make a living and house, feed and clothe our children

 

 

Just so you know, this is just a hypothetical situation, purely for discussion/debate. There is no vacant position and there are no candidates.

 

---------- Post added 03-05-2013 at 15:06 ----------

 

 

I'm not talking simply about religious people, as I pointed out in the original post. L00b payed attention...

 

This is a local case, similar to the hypothesis that you underlined, that you might find interesting:

 

http://www.employmentlawwatch.com/tags/farrell-v-south-yorkshire-poli/

 

It covers the case of an Intelligence data analyst from SY Police who began to believe, during the course of his work, that 9/11 and 7/7 were carried out by the New World Order and was subsequently dismissed. He tried to use the legal system as a claim for unfair dismissal, but when his views were analysed at the tribunal they were considered insufficiently cogent or cohesive (point 4 below) to be justified as a philosophical belief.

 

His claims were tested using these criteria:

 

1 The belief must be genuinely held.

2 It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.

3 It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.

4 It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

5 It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

 

Had he expressed this belief during the interview stage it would have been legally allowed for SY Police not to employ him I think because of the direct connection between sensitive government data and a belief that holds the government in disdain.

 

So I guess that answers your question- if an employee or prospective employee can justify their beliefs according to these 5 criteria they're protected by law, if they can't then they can be dismissed/ not taken on if the company owner decides that's the action they want to take.

[RootsBooster]

This is a local case, similar to the hypothesis that you underlined, that you might find interesting:

 

http://www.employmentlawwatch.com/tags/farrell-v-south-yorkshire-poli/

 

It covers the case of an Intelligence data analyst from SY Police who began to believe, during the course of his work, that 9/11 and 7/7 were carried out by the New World Order and was subsequently dismissed. He tried to use the legal system as a claim for unfair dismissal, but when his views were analysed at the tribunal they were considered insufficiently cogent or cohesive (point 4 below) to be justified as a philosophical belief.

 

His claims were tested using these criteria:

 

1 The belief must be genuinely held.

2 It must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.

3 It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.

4 It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

5 It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

 

Had he expressed this belief during the interview stage it would have been legally allowed for SY Police not to employ him I think because of the direct connection between sensitive government data and a belief that holds the government in disdain.

 

So I guess that answers your question- if an employee or prospective employee can justify their beliefs according to these 5 criteria they're protected by law, if they can't then they can be dismissed/ not taken on if the company owner decides that's the action they want to take.

That's very interesting, but I'm not talking about an employee/potential employee justifying their belief(s), I'm talking about rejecting them on the grounds that their belief(s) would render them unsuitable for the job's requirements

[tinfoilhat]

That's very interesting, but I'm not talking about an employee/potential employee justifying their belief(s), I'm talking about rejecting them on the grounds that their belief(s) would render them unsuitable for the job's requirements

 

As l00b put it, it boils down to extremes - on the whole. Can a devote Christian work a Sunday shift at asda? Devout Muslim on the tills scanning bacon or booze at any time? The galactic monster thing crosses the line from belief to a mental health issue. What about football supporters - someone who truly believes Sheffield utd/Wednesday (delete as appropriate) are by far the greatest team, the world has ever seen. They also have a season ticket, so I can't work every other Saturday. If you think all religion crosses that line you might be better of not employing anyone.

[RootsBooster]

As l00b put it, it boils down to extremes - on the whole. Can a devote Christian work a Sunday shift at asda? Devout Muslim on the tills scanning bacon or booze at any time? The galactic monster thing crosses the line from belief to a mental health issue. What about football supporters - someone who truly believes Sheffield utd/Wednesday (delete as appropriate) are by far the greatest team, the world has ever seen. They also have a season ticket, so I can't work every other Saturday. If you think all religion crosses that line you might be better of not employing anyone.

 

I don't think all religion crosses that line, I've said from the start that we're talking about extremes and not just regarding religion

[tinfoilhat]

I don't think all religion crosses that line, I've said from the start thart we're talking about extremes and not just regarding religion

 

If you're using extremes are you really talking about someone's mental health rather than rational/conventional beliefs?