What would jesus say? That'll be €70K

Tabnabs

So now born again christians are protected under law from any disciplining when proselytising in the workplace (or anywhere else during work hours)?

Surely I have the right not to be lied spoken to about a foreign belief system?

Tax payer picks up the tab on this one, I'd say his colleagues and bosses consider it a victory on their part also.

A born-again Christian who was fired from South Tipperary County Council has been awarded €70,000 compensation after the Equality Tribunal found he was discriminated against over his religion.

According to the council, John McAteer was dismissed after repeatedly failing to comply with senior staff members who told him to stop speaking about his faith to workers and members of the public during office hours.

Mr McAteer said the tenets of his religion require him to speak to people about Jesus and share the Gospel with them.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/born-again-christian-awarded-70-000-in-discrimination-case-1.1873468

shruikan2553

What a gob****e.

If he wants to tell everyone about Jesus he can get a job where it is a part of it.

swampgas

Tabnabs wrote: »

So now born again christians are protected under law from any disciplining when proselytising in the workplace (or anywhere else during work hours)?

Surely I have the right not to be lied spoken to about a foreign belief system?

Tax payer picks up the tab on this one, I'd say his colleagues and bosses consider it a victory on their part also.



http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/born-again-christian-awarded-70-000-in-discrimination-case-1.1873468

What a ridiculous judgement.

The equality officer Marian Duffy noted that European charters on human rights and freedoms protect a right to manifest one’s religion and, therefore, the manifestation of religion is covered within the Employment Equality Acts.

I really can't see how this makes sense. Surely being allowed to "manifest one's religion" doesn't imply that you can inflict it on others - your customers and colleagues are a captive audience. If you can't go a day without evangelising, give up the day job.

endacl

Were his colleagues allowed to respond with 'stop talking that bollocks to me'?

robindch

endacl wrote: »

Were his colleagues allowed to respond with 'stop talking that bollocks to me'?

Probably not, as that would be religious persecution.

Cabaal

So if I join a religion where it's ethos includes putting down women and claiming they should not be working beside men my employer can't stop my telling female employees they are lower then men?

Crazy judgement to allow this person preach his brainwashing on his employers time/pay.

robindch

I wonder how things would pan out if somebody set up a religion, one of whose manifestations was a refusal to pay tax.

yopy

Well done Marian Duffy.

Before we know it we will have Islamic extremists bringing their employers to court because they can't treat women as second class citizens!

Frank Lee Midere

Ludicrous. Can this be overturned.

Think of the precedent here. A gay man and a born again Christian in the same office. The gay man will feel harassed ( rightly) and can take a case to the equality tribunal if he continues to be harassed by people who dislike his lifestyle.

Who could harass him? One option is a born again Christian who tries to convert him to see homosexuality as a sin. Apparantly he has that right to preach.

But where did that right come from? How did the equality agency garner the right to prolethyise in work - a form of harassment - from any Irish or European law? The ECHR has allowed companies to ban crucifixes. That's a quiet enough position of faith. But prolethysing at work? How can that be a "right".

yopy

robindch wrote: »

I wonder how things would pan out if somebody set up a religion, one of whose manifestations was a refusal to pay tax.

If you set this up, I will call you God!

swampgas

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Ludicrous. Can this be overturned?

My first thought. It's an unsustainable position. Marian Duffy has really dropped the ball on this one, and set a very poor precedent.

It will be interesting to see how many other "copycat" cases emerge ...

Frank Lee Midere

swampgas wrote: »

My first thought. It's an unsustainable position. Marian Duffy has really dropped the ball on this one, and set a very poor precedent.

It will be interesting to see how many other "copycat" cases emerge ...

What "European law" is she citing?

The ECHR recently agreed that the burka ban is not illegal. Wearing a burka is not pushing your faith in the same way as prolethyising.

South Tipp or the Irish government need to appeal to normal courts. it just can't be precedent ( even in that parallel system the equality agency runs).

wexie

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Think of the precedent here. A gay man and a born again Christian in the same office. The gay man will be harassed ( rightly) and can take a case to the equality tribunal if he continues to be harassed by people who dislike his lifestyle.

I'm pretty sure you're not saying it's right to harass gay men....but eh....what?

Do you mean the gay man 'will rightly feel he is being harassed by the born again christians preaching?

Czarcasm

She said the ban placed on him from sharing his faith between 9am and 5pm impacted disproportionately on people of his religious fate.

Freudian slip by the IT?

I cannot see how an equality officer would think this man's actions would not contravene other people's right to freedom from religion?

What he was engaging in was harassment of the public, and he had been disciplined on numerous occasions prior to his dismissal from his position as a Civil Engineer.

Something very odd about that decision, it doesn't make sense at all!

Frank Lee Midere

wexie wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you're not saying it's right to harass gay men....but eh....what?

Do you mean the gay man 'will rightly feel he is being harassed by the born again christians preaching?

That's what being harrassed means. It's a personal feeling. My position is pretty clear from the rest of my post.

This kind of petty misquoting is just ludicrous.

EDIT: I've changed be harassed to feel harassed in my comment to stop any ambiguity, however slight.

wexie

wexie wrote: »

I'm pretty sure you're not saying it's right to harass gay men....but eh....what?

Do you mean the gay man 'will rightly feel he is being harassed by the born again christians preaching?

He's pointing out that the precedent "allows" the bac to preach towards (which could be seen as pestering, which could be viewed as harassment) their homosexual colleague.

I don't think he means that that's the right thing to do.

wexie

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

That's what being harrassed means. It's a personal feeling. My position is pretty clear from the rest of my post.

This kind of petty misquoting is just ludicrous.

Geez Frank don't get your knickers in a twist, I was asking for clarification and quite politely at that.

PopePalpatine

yopy wrote: »

Well done Marian Duffy.

Before we know it we will have Islamic extremists bringing their employers to court because they can't treat women as second class citizens!

I'm thinking more along the lines of a certain group based on Merrion Square.

Custardpi

Czarcasm wrote: »

Freudian slip by the IT?

I cannot see how an equality officer would think this man's actions would not contravene other people's right to freedom from religion?

Does such a right exist under existing Irish/European law? I agree that being forced to listen to "The Good News" in work every day would be a pain but is there actual legal protection from it? How far would that extend?

Manach

Just rather amused that AA is upset by a state agency whose raisin d'être is part of a push for an inclusive republic were the commonalities of a previously shared past have been overturned in pursuit of all manner of individualizations, overseen by the Equality authority.

PopePalpatine

Manach wrote: »

Just rather amused that AA is upset by a state agency whose raisin d'être is part of a push for an inclusive republic were the commonalities of a previously shared past have been overturned in pursuit of all manner of individualizations, overseen by the Equality authority.

"Commonalities" overturned "in pursuit of all manner of individualisations"?

I'd rather not return to those "commonalities" under the iron fist of the RCC, thank you very much.

EDIT: This is just another hit-and-run post, I'm guessing. Gods forbid that you actually engage in a discussion and rethink your reactionary views.

Czarcasm

Manach wrote: »

Just rather amused that AA is upset by a state agency whose raisin d'être is part of a push for an inclusive republic were the commonalities of a previously shared past have been overturned in pursuit of all manner of individualizations, overseen by the Equality authority.

What this man was doing could not be considered inclusive. It was inappropriate in his position with the Council to be harassing members of the public with his religious fundamentalism.

The rest of your post I really have no idea what you're driving at.

robindch

Manach wrote: »

Just rather amused that AA is upset by a state agency whose raisin d'être is part of a push for an inclusive republic were the commonalities of a previously shared past have been overturned in pursuit of all manner of individualizations, overseen by the Equality authority.

The EA has asserted that one guy's right to proselytize his religion at his employer's expense overrides everybody else's right to be free of his religion and for his employer to fire him for not doing his job. And people here aren't all that impressed with the judgement, at least as far as I understand it.

I don't quite see what's ironically amusing about that - can you help out here?

PopePalpatine

Czarcasm wrote: »

What this man was doing could not be considered inclusive. It was inappropriate in his position with the Council to be harassing members of the public with his religious fundamentalism.

The rest of your post I really have no idea what you're driving at.

This may be a clue: http://bocktherobber.com/2010/05/post-modernism-generator/

wexie

Custardpi wrote: »

Does such a right exist under existing Irish/European law? I agree that being forced to listen to "The Good News" in work every day would be a pain but is there actual legal protection from it? How far would that extend?

Would that not be covered by the freedom of religion as well?

Dangel4x4

According to the council, John McAteer was dismissed after repeatedly failing to comply with senior staff members who told him to stop speaking about his faith to workers and members of the public during office hours.

Stupid council. They should have modified his work assignment to take him out of contact with the public and work colleagues.

Something like those Japanese 'banishment' rooms, or Milton in 'Office Space' being moved to the basement... :p

Custardpi

wexie wrote: »

Would that not be covered by the freedom of religion as well?

Doesn't appear to, at least not going on this judgement. Freedom of "religious expression" seems to be an established legal right. The right to freedom from religion, which would obviously compete against this doesn't seem to carry as much weight in considerations.

What would "freedom from religion" actually mean in a workplace scenario? If for instance a workplace's subsidised canteen started only serving halal meat in line with the owner's beliefs? Would employees who objecte to religiously sanctified meat have a right to object?

To consider another example if in a factory the radio is played throughout the day, including the Angelus would a non-religious person have the right to demand that the workplace radio be turned off at that time if everyone else wanted to hear it?

wexie

Custardpi wrote: »

Doesn't appear to, at least not going on this judgement. Freedom of "religious expression" seems to be an established legal right. The right to freedom from religion, which would obviously compete against this doesn't seem to carry as much weight in considerations.

What would "freedom from religion" actually mean in a workplace scenario? If for instance a workplace's subsidised canteen started only serving halal meat in line with the owner's beliefs? Would employees who objecte to religiously sanctified meat have a right to object?

To consider another example if in a factory the radio is played throughout the day, including the Angelus would a non-religious person have the right to demand that the workplace radio be turned off at that time if everyone else wanted to hear it?

........if you start looking at it in that light it's a right quagmire isn't it?

challengemaster

I wonder who's going to be the first one to use this as a precedent to wear a colander whilst meeting high-profile clients

Immanuel

Regarding the OP

I've seen local authorities refuse to discipline well connected employees in any way for much much worse, never mind dismiss them. Lack of consistency not withstanding, if the case has been reported correctly, an employer would be correct to dismiss Mr McAteer for such relentless and persistent evangelistation at work while he should be working.

Personally, I suspect the equality officer and/or office could be on some twist here, and attempting to use this case in order to make a mockery of religious discrimination law and/or employment law, for whatever reason, perhaps in order to stir up demand to get the law altered. Or perhaps the complainants were suspected of being Catholics and the Office is on some mission to disproportionately protect minority Protestant employees. Either way, if the story has been reported accurately, and who knows these days, perhaps the equality officer and/or office be dismissed in future as well for the lack of judgement.

Frank Lee Midere

So the equality officer is basing her decision on European law. The final arbitrar of that law is the ECHR which backed both Frances ban on the Burka anywhere, and French schools rights to ban crufixies etc. Clearly wearing a crucifix is less in your face than prolethysing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10937868/European-Court-of-Human-Rights-upholds-French-burka-ban.html

It seems the Irish equality agency is intent on creating its own body of precedent running parallel to normal law.

Custardpi

Would be interesting if his employer decided to appeal. Doubt they will though, probably just cut their losses at this point.

Piliger

This MUST be appealed ! What an absolutely shocking piece of utter nonsense.

Frank Lee Midere

Custardpi wrote: »

Would be interesting if his employer decided to appeal. Doubt they will though, probably just cut their losses at this point.

I think they have to. It's a local council so hopefully they can get government support.

Custardpi

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I think they have to. It's a local council so hopefully they can get government support.

I know, that's why I would have thought they wouldn't appeal. Given that one, the decision was made by a state funded body & two that there's the potential for them to be even more out of pocket should an appeal fail at a higher level I can't see them being enthusiastic about such a prospect given the cash-strapped status of local government at present.

uck51js9zml2yt

Feel like Daniel among the lions here, but here goes....
I've no problem sharing my faith with people if an opportunity arises and they are open to a discussion.
When I'm working I'm paid to do a job, an opportunity might arise in the course of conversation but I'm primarily there to work. If I spend all day talking about my faith and not doing my job it's a poor testimony and my words won't mean very much.

We don't know how often this guy spoke to people or in what context so we can't judge it from soundbites in the papers.
if a member of staff made it clear he didn't want to discuss religion and he persisted then he was wrong in his persistence.
From what I've read a complaint was made by a third party about him speaking to a client while on the road. We don't know the clients response. There's no indication he made the complaint which got the guy sacked.
What I do see wrong is him being forbidden while on his breaks. As I said, if he's meant to be working and not performing in his job, that's another story and worthy of discipline.
,
As a note, a lot of comments here are speculative as we don't know the full story and my opinion is based on generalities and based on 30 years experience.

Frank Lee Midere

Jade Fluffy Sugar wrote: »

Feel like Daniel among the lions here, but here goes....
I've no problem sharing my faith with people if an opportunity arises and they are open to a discussion.
When I'm working I'm paid to do a job, an opportunity might arise in the course of conversation but I'm primarily there to work. If I spend all day talking about my faith and not doing my job it's a poor testimony and my words won't mean very much.

We don't know how often this guy spoke to people or in what context so we can't judge it from soundbites in the papers.
if a member of staff made it clear he didn't want to discuss religion and he persisted then he was wrong in his persistence.
From what I've read a complaint was made by a third party about him speaking to a client while on the road. We don't know the clients response. There's no indication he made the complaint which got the guy sacked.
What I do see wrong is him being forbidden while on his breaks. As I said, if he's meant to be working and not performing in his job, that's another story and worthy of discipline.
,
As a note, a lot of comments here are speculative as we don't know the full story and my opinion is based on generalities and over 30 experience.

We do know the facts as presented to the equality agency. He was disciplined over 3 years. Not one incident.

Piliger

Jade Fluffy Sugar wrote: »

,
As a note, a lot of comments here are speculative as we don't know the full story and my opinion is based on generalities and based on 30 years experience.

The background and statement of judgement is covered at length in the press.

swampgas

From the IT article, Ms Duffy is quoted as saying:

She said the ban placed on him from sharing his faith between 9am and 5pm impacted disproportionately on people of his religious faith.

(My bold)

What is curious to me is that she considers that he must be allowed to share his faith - in other words, that others must listen, or at least cooperate, in his prosletyzing to them. Frankly, I find this imposition on everyone else rather bizarre.

Immanuel

swampgas wrote: »

From the IT article, Ms Duffy is quoted as saying:

(My bold)

What is curious to me is that she considers that he must be allowed to share his faith - in other words, that others must listen, or at least cooperate, in his prosletyzing to them. Frankly, I find this imposition on everyone else rather bizarre.

If you replace the word faith with opinion, it's an interesting take

In my experience, public sector management in Ireland actively discourages and coerce members of staff from voicing their opinion concerning malpractice and inefficiency in the public service, its punished far quicker than actual malpractice and inefficiency, so perhaps it stems from that mentality.

shruikan2553

Immanuel wrote: »

If you replace the word faith with opinion, it's an interesting take

This is what I was thinking. His faith is just his opinion. Its no different then me annoying people telling them my mother thinks they are annoying and should listen to me. If I replace mother with a religious book it all of a sudden become acceptable.

Piliger

shruikan2553 wrote: »

This is what I was thinking. His faith is just his opinion. Its no different then me annoying people telling them my mother thinks they are annoying and should listen to me. If I replace mother with a religious book it all of a sudden become acceptable.

Yes, but it isn't. It is proselytising his religion and carrying out what effectively is a religious campaign while he is in work.

€70K to be rid of him was probably cheaper than shuffling him into a back office.

swampgas

Immanuel wrote: »

If you replace the word faith with opinion, it's an interesting take.

It's rather more than him expressing his opinion though - he said himself (in as many words) that he feels compelled to evangelise to others while at work. At minimum, it's very unprofessional, grounds enough in my view for dismissal after repeated warnings to desist.

Immanuel

swampgas wrote: »

It's rather more than him expressing his opinion though - he said himself (in as many words) that he feels compelled to evangelise to others while at work. At minimum, it's very unprofessional, grounds enough in my view for dismissal after repeated warnings to desist.

Sure, but as I say, I've seen employees in the public sector do far far worse and not even receive any disciplinary action, never mind dismissal of any sort, so maybe there is more to the story than is being reported. A lot of people seem to feel compelled to continually repeat their opinions at work, and it might as well be evagelisation.

Custardpi

An interesting point. I suppose if it could be shown that previous incidents in the council where other employees say canvassed for political parties or causes repeatedly & did not receive any sanction that would be an argument for discrimination against the evangelist having occurred.

swampgas

Custardpi wrote: »

An interesting point. I suppose if it could be shown that previous incidents in the council where other employees say canvassed for political parties or causes repeatedly & did not receive any sanction that would be an argument for discrimination against the evangelist having occurred.

However that was not the argument made by his counsel, nor was it the case made by Ms. Duffy of the equality commission. Her judgement was based on her interpretation that an employee must be accommodated in sharing his religion in the workplace.

Custardpi

I know, it was more of a reply to the issues raised in post #45 than the judgement itself. That said I would be very surprised if either his counsel or Ms Duffy would have taken the same line if he had been "evangelising" on behalf of a political party on the council's time. Religion getting special privileges again it would seem.

Tim Robbins

What you make of this? Some Judge awards a Evangelical Christian 70,000 for before dismissed "unfairly" from work. Apparently, he had a right to Bible bash aka share his faith during work.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/born-again-christian-awarded-70-000-in-discrimination-case-1.1873468

Mods:
This can be deleted. Just saw other thread. Sorry.

Greenmachine

Speak to people about your faith during your personal time. Customer don't want to be lectured.

Hotblack Desiato

So an employer must prevent sexual harrassment from occurring in the workplace, but must facilitate religious harrassment?

Bat-doodoo insane decision.