No hijabs need apply.

54and56

end of the road wrote: »

it is illegal to refuse to hire someone on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, gender, and so on. that is correct and just.

I agree with the exception of religion. I see absolutely no reason why an employer cannot avoid hiring someone who believes in an imaginary being whether the label applied is "loch ness monster" or "god". The fact that some imaginary beings have been grouped together and called "religion" and that label has been given special status is in itself discriminatory and without justification.

For the record I don't advocate discriminating against one or some religions, I advocate that you should be perfectly entitled to avoid hiring anyone who believes in any imaginary beings regardless of label. If that narrows the pool of potential employees to 14% of 5m that'll do just fine. I don't need that many and prefer quality over quantity

Is putting any application which ticks any of the following boxes in the bin discrimination?

D0NNELLY

Stheno wrote: »

I don't actually, I'm atheist, and dislike having any religion causing people to dress or adorn themselves in a way that causes their identity to be suborned by the religious iconograghy they wear, or how they dress.

I'd happily see all religious related dress forbidden

What if they want to wear it? You don't want to, grand, your choice.

Samaris

There is a bit of a difference between believing in a God, like millions of other people around the world, or believing in the Loch Ness Monster, which is believed in by approximately two people. Sure, that millions believe it doesn't actually add or detract one iota from its truth (and I'm inclined not to believe in any of them), but those who have been brought up to believe in a god and have been surrounded their whole lives by believers are very likely to believe. That is just how humans work and we may as well accept that.

Believing in the LNM takes a lot more bloody-minded faith than mainstream religions, even if they are both the same level of fact.

I have no bones to pick with religious people, especially religious people who allow it to influence them to act better towards other people. I would be rather bemused by getting a form demanding to know beliefs irrelevant to the job at hand though.

Graces7

222233 wrote: »

Covers a significant portion of the head, it's pretty much the same as wearing a beanie.

So? Hats are grand. I make them for chemo folk who also wear headscarves etc. I feel the cold so cover my head indoors too .

54and56

Samaris wrote: »

There is a bit of a difference between believing in a God, like millions of other people around the world, or believing in the Loch Ness Monster, which is believed in by approximately two people. Sure, that millions believe it doesn't actually add or detract one iota from its truth (and I'm inclined not to believe in any of them), but those who have been brought up to believe in a god and have been surrounded their whole lives by believers are very likely to believe. That is just how humans work and we may as well accept that.

And several hundred years ago the same statement would have been made about the world being flat and the sun orbiting the earth. Thankfully some people didn't take the easy option and actually critiqued what was otherwise accepted and we are all better for it.

Samaris wrote: »

I have no bones to pick with religious people, especially religious people who allow it to influence them to act better towards other people. I would be rather bemused by getting a form demanding to know beliefs irrelevant to the job at hand though.

Good decision making and the ability to think logically and independently is relevant to most jobs that I can think of.

Graces7

222233 wrote: »

I don't imagine it would be "traumatic", I didn't find it traumatic when I had to take off my coat in school.



It's not really dictating what women can and can't where though, it's enforcing a dress code that may or may not permit a headscarf or any clotting item for that matter. It's like saying there is something wrong with making school children wear a uniform, there has to be rules sometimes. For instance in hospital it could be potentially unhygienic. No one is telling them what they can or can't wear in the privacy of their own home or out and about.

Interesting idea. For me considering my hair or lack thereof status it would be degrading and traumatic.

And a head covering is far more hygienic than free floating hair. Nurses used to wear headcoverings..

Makes me deeply thankful I am retired and can do as I like

Samaris

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

And several hundred years ago the same statement would have been made about the world being flat and the sun orbiting the earth. Thankfully some people didn't take the easy option and actually critiqued what was otherwise accepted and we are all better for it.



Good decision making and the ability to think logically and independently is relevant to most jobs that I can think of.

Yes, but people weren't -punished- for believing just what everyone else did. Sure, it takes original minds to come up with something outside the accepted norm, and even more original minds to be -right- about it, but one cannot judge a people by the most exceptional (or exceptionally bloody-minded) and rate everyone else as failing to meet those standards.

And while that is so, the ability to accept that people are different and private beliefs have no impact on the job done makes for a much more successful workplace.

Graces7

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But Mike, they do have a choice.
They can choose to live in a place where their religious attire is tolerated, encouraged, or discouraged.
They can choose to apply for a job that will enable them to dress as they wish, or a job that will impose a dress code.

They have a choice !

Just like I have a choice to live in a country where my children have to wear a uniform going to school, and have to attend religious education in school. These two things jar with me, as I grew up in a different situation.
But it's my choice to remain. All things considered, I'm happy to remain, and make a life in Ireland with my family.

I had to work in Eason's for a while, we used to have to wear these awful skirts and shirts. God I hate skirts. I took the job at the time anyway. No one forced me in, and no one had to force me out because I didn't refuse to wear the skirt.

You take a job as it comes. The job, and whoever owns the company, get to decide what they think is appropriate, and that's what the judgement confirmed.

It's not at all taking away a choice, in fact, it's putting them in a situation where they have to choose.

That's ok. That's grown up life. We make choices depending on our convictions, our aspirations, in all aspects of life.

There is no reason why the attachment to a garment connected to your religious beliefs should have the power to change the rest of society.

How does it do that! Really? I wear a crucifix openly. How does that "change the rest of society" ?

Ditto even face covering women doing their shopping?

Graces7

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I don't understand what you're trying to say and I've read it several times.

I do and I wish I didn't :eek:

seamus

mike_ie wrote: »

If the aim of this ruling is truly neutrality in the workplace, I'm curious what will happen to the first business who, after implementing this rule, decides to put up a Christmas tree in the office...

Nothing?

The ruling is not that companies can ban religion, is that they're not required to accommodate religious dress in their dress codes.

Putting up a Xmas tree is a separate matter, and isn't necessarily a religious thing anyway. For most people the Xmas tree is no more religious than wearing a green hat on paddy's day or going trick-or-treating on Halloween.

Widdershins

Graces7 wrote: »

How does it do that! Really? I wear a crucifix openly. How does that "change the rest of society" ?

Ditto even face covering women doing their shopping?

Ask an Iranian woman! Or indeed the women in regions recently liberated from isis control. Or the Gaza strip where Hamas banned womens day (the palestinian authority were 'for' womens day) and have been getting stricter about women covering up. Or Egypt!

54and56

Samaris wrote: »

Yes, but people weren't -punished- for believing just what everyone else did. Sure, it takes original minds to come up with something outside the accepted norm, and even more original minds to be -right- about it, but one cannot judge a people by the most exceptional (or exceptionally bloody-minded) and rate everyone else as failing to meet those standards.

And while that is so, the ability to accept that people are different and private beliefs have no impact on the job done makes for a much more successful workplace.

So if I want to set "independent and logical thinking" as a key criteria in people I hire it is ok to avoid hiring someone who believes in the loch ness monster because not many people believe in that unsubstantiated craziness but I cannot apply the same standard to someone believing in an equally unsubstantiated being who lives somewhere in the sky called god and the only reason for distinguishing between the two scenarios is that because more people believe in the latter it's somehow discriminatory to apply the same criteria to them?

Really?

RandomName2

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I don't understand what you're trying to say and I've read it several times.

If there is a contentious issue a Liberal will weigh up the parties involved, ascribing a value based upon the kind of persons involved. In the case that a Liberal has to decide between a position that could be considered discriminatory against women against what could be considered discriminatory against religion, then nine times out of ten the Liberal will be against whatever is considered discriminatory against religion. Not that it applies in this case.

Samaris wrote: »

There is a bit of a difference between believing in a God, like millions of other people around the world, or believing in the Loch Ness Monster, which is believed in by approximately two people. Sure, that millions believe it doesn't actually add or detract one iota from its truth (and I'm inclined not to believe in any of them), but those who have been brought up to believe in a god and have been surrounded their whole lives by believers are very likely to believe. That is just how humans work and we may as well accept that.

Really? I mean the Loch Ness monster isn't a great example as believing in him is not a religion (as the Loch Ness moster doesn't have any god-like abilities, unlike let's say the FSM, and only seems to want a loan of three-fiddy), but I'm not sure that it makes sense to base the merit of a religion upon the number of believers. While you could say that you would be less concerned about offending people who believe in Nessy than Shiva, simply because there are more Hindus than Nessyites, that would simply mean that majority faith wins, which does not make a huge deal of sense (in my opinion)

Graces7

Widdershins wrote: »

Ask an Iranian woman! Or indeed the women in regions recently liberated from isis control. Or the Gaza strip where Hamas banned womens day (the palestinian authority were 'for' womens day) and have been getting stricter about women covering up. Or Egypt!

I am of course talking about here and now. OK? OK!!!

Widdershins

Graces7 wrote: »

I am of course talking about here and now. OK? OK!!!

Still, for just a bit of cloth, it can change societies. Those societies and those womens lives were not unlike ours before things got more strict over there.

end of the road

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I agree with the exception of religion. I see absolutely no reason why an employer cannot avoid hiring someone who believes in an imaginary being whether the label applied is "loch ness monster" or "god".

religion is part of anti-discrimination law for good reason. one of those reasons being, that religion can be used as a form of discrimination on the basis of race. while religion itself isn't a race, it can be used as a way to discriminate on the basis of skin colour. islam and brown people for example. with your idea, people could simply try and get out of hiring brown people because they will assume they are muslim.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

The fact that some imaginary beings have been grouped together and called "religion" and that label has been given special status is in itself discriminatory and without justification.

just as discriminatory as believing employers should be able to use religion as a reason not to hire people because.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

For the record I don't advocate discriminating against one or some religions, I advocate that you should be perfectly entitled to avoid hiring anyone who believes in any imaginary beings regardless of label.

no but you advocate discriminating against religion full stop, which is as bad.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

If that narrows the pool of potential employees to 14% of 5m that'll do just fine.

no it won't as it will mean extra taxation for the rest of us to pay for it.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I don't need that many and prefer quality over quantity

good for you. but as the existing laws have no effect on you, you have no argument. quality over quantity my backside.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

So if I want to set "independent and logical thinking" as a key criteria in people I hire it is ok to avoid hiring someone who believes in the loch ness monster because not many people believe in that unsubstantiated craziness but I cannot apply the same standard to someone believing in an equally unsubstantiated being who lives somewhere in the sky called god and the only reason for distinguishing between the two scenarios is that because more people believe in the latter it's somehow discriminatory to apply the same criteria to them?

Really?

absolutely and rightly so. if you don't like it, you can always shut up shop and work for someone rather then yourself.

54and56

end of the road wrote: »

religion is part of anti-discrimination law for good reason. one of those reasons being, that religion can be used as a form of discrimination on the basis of race. while religion itself isn't a race, it can be used as a way to discriminate on the basis of skin colour. islam and brown people for example. with your idea, people could simply try and get out of hiring brown people because they will assume they are muslim.



just as discriminatory as believing employers should be able to use religion as a reason not to hire people because.



no but you advocate discriminating against religion full stop, which is as bad.



no it won't as it will mean extra taxation for the rest of us to pay for it.



good for you. but as the existing laws have no effect on you, you have no argument. quality over quantity my backside.



absolutely and rightly so. if you don't like it, you can always shut up shop and work for someone rather then yourself.

Your response is entirely without merit.

I reserve the right to positively discriminate in favour of people who do not believe in imaginary beings and i do not distinguish between or even recognise different categories of imaginary beings.

I judge people on their individual merit, nothing more and nothing less. I couldn't give a toss what colour their skin is or where they are from. I'm only interested in their skills and experience and where they are going career wise.

osarusan

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I reserve the right to positively discriminate in favour of people who do not believe in imaginary beings and i do not distinguish between or even recognise different categories of imaginary beings.

You may 'reserve the right' but if you make your decision-making process known, you could and probably would be sued under discrimination laws.

In your case, it might be a bit different as you are not targeting a particular religion, but I still think you'd lose the case, regardless of what you consider to be the validity of your argument.

Widdershins

How does the law differentiate between an acceptable religious belief and one whose adherents aren't entitled to legal protections. Apart from the vintage of the cult/religion.

seamus

Widdershins wrote: »

How does the law differentiate between an acceptable religious belief and one whose adherents aren't entitled to legal protections. Apart from the vintage of the cult/religion.

In terms of the equal status act, there is effectively no differential. It is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis they are or are not part of any religion, be that actually adhering to that belief or being from that background or sharing the outlook even if not a formal member of the religion.

In the event of a court case - imagine someone was fired for being "Jedi" - once the court was satisfied that the religious belief was genuine then it's likely that a discrimination case could be upheld.

Widdershins

seamus wrote: »

In terms of the equal status act, there is effectively no differential. It is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis they are or are not part of any religion, be that actually adhering to that belief or being from that background or sharing the outlook even if not a formal member of the religion.

In the event of a court case - imagine someone was fired for being "Jedi" - once the court was satisfied that the religious belief was genuine then it's likely that a discrimination case could be upheld.

That's part of what I'm wondering. How can they establish the belief is genuinely held. I'd imagine someone with a religious belief in something as modern as that would be considered mentally ill. Which is not a reason to discriminate against them, either. Obviously.

osarusan

seamus wrote: »

In the event of a court case - imagine someone was fired for being "Jedi" - once the court was satisfied that the religious belief was genuine then it's likely that a discrimination case could be upheld.

I don't know about that - can it be argued that 'Jedi' is any more a religion than belief in the Loch Ness Monster. If an employer discriminated against Chelsea fans because they thought Chelsea fans were less intelligent than those who are not Chelsea fans, their genuine support of Chelsea wouldn't be protected under discrimination law, would it?

But, the court doesn't want to enter the murky waters of discussing what constitutes a religion either.

The only other thing I'd add is that the less 'mainstream' the religion, it's possible that courts will be less likely to consider the belief in it to be genuine.

end of the road

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Your response is entirely without merit.

incorrect. it's completely accurate and you have effectively admitted you can't argue against it.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I reserve the right to positively discriminate in favour of people who do not believe in imaginary beings and i do not distinguish between or even recognise different categories of imaginary beings.

not on the basis of following a religion you don't.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I judge people on their individual merit, nothing more and nothing less. I couldn't give a toss what colour their skin is or where they are from. I'm only interested in their skills and experience and where they are going career wise.

good for you. but the fact is removing the religious discrimination laws allows a loop hole for discrimination on the basis of race.

Widdershins

osarusan wrote: »

I don't know about that - can it be argued that 'Jedi' is any more a religion than belief in the Loch Ness Monster. If an employer discriminated against Chelsea fans because they thought Chelsea fans were less intelligent than those who are not Chelsea fans, their genuine support of Chelsea wouldn't be protected under discrimination law, would it?

But, the court doesn't want to enter the murky waters of discussing what constitutes a religion either.

The only other thing I'd add is that the less 'mainstream' the religion, it's possible that courts will be less likely to consider the belief in it to be genuine.

Wading into ''what constitutes a religion'' might mean wading into what religions do and encourage their followers to do. I actually think that might be a good thing, thought complicated and maybe too interfering.

Samaris

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Your response is entirely without merit.

I reserve the right to positively discriminate in favour of people who do not believe in imaginary beings and i do not distinguish between or even recognise different categories of imaginary beings.

I judge people on their individual merit, nothing more and nothing less. I couldn't give a toss what colour their skin is or where they are from. I'm only interested in their skills and experience and where they are going career wise.

Only interested in their skills, experience, where they're going career-wise and what their private beliefs are, you mean surely?

Fleawuss

osarusan wrote: »

You may 'reserve the right' but if you make your decision-making process known, you could and probably would be sued under discrimination laws.

In your case, it might be a bit different as you are not targeting a particular religion, but I still think you'd lose the case, regardless of what you consider to be the validity of your argument.

Interesting legal point. Anyone with any knowledge of law and legal decisions would recognize that legal points aren't always reasonable or even sensible. But to the legal point: a case taken in the US against the phrase "in god we trust" failed precisely because of the lack of specificity in the term "God". In other words, no one religion was being promoted. There may be a case to be made for a decision making process that rejects all religions to be beyond the scope of anti discrimination legislation on the same grounds as the US case. The only people to gain from all this is of course the lawyers.

Fleawuss

Samaris wrote: »

Only interested in their skills, experience, where they're going career-wise and what their private beliefs are, you mean surely?

There is of course the Achilles heel of religion. They aren't about just private beliefs: they want to put it out in the public sphere by ringing bells, having muezzins singing over speakers, deciding who can and cannot get married, who can and cannot access child care and birth control, what is acceptable sexually, what days public houses may open, what ethics apply in hospital, whose child should be buried in "consecrated" ground and whose thrown into a pit, and on and on and on.

If religion remained in the private sphere then no one would really give a damn about prayers to Allah, Jedi or Jesus. But dear me they do insist on chopping the rejectionists to pieces, killing apostates and trying to control those who want nothing to do with them. Anti discriminatory legislation isn't there to protect religions from atheists; it's there because religions have persecuted each other.

54and56

osarusan wrote: »

You may 'reserve the right' but if you make your decision-making process known, you could and probably would be sued under discrimination laws.

In your case, it might be a bit different as you are not targeting a particular religion, but I still think you'd lose the case, regardless of what you consider to be the validity of your argument.

If I thought my legal fees would be picked up by the state I'd love the opportunity to defend my right to avoid hiring people who believe in imaginary beings.

Samaris

Fleawuss wrote: »

There is of course the Achilles heel of religion. They aren't about just private beliefs: they want to put it out in the public sphere by ringing bells, having muezzins singing over speakers, deciding who can and cannot get married, who can and cannot access child care and birth control, what is acceptable sexually, what days public houses may open, what ethics apply in hospital, whose child should be buried in "consecrated" ground and whose thrown into a pit, and on and on and on.

If religion remained in the private sphere then no one would really give a damn about prayers to Allah, Jedi or Jesus. But dear me they do insist on chopping the rejectionists to pieces, killing apostates and trying to control those who want nothing to do with them. Anti discriminatory legislation isn't there to protect religions from atheists; it's there because religions have persecuted each other.

I am all for religions being entirely private choices that are kept out of schools, workplaces and public as much as possible (I'm fine with churches and mosques being around the place). And definitely kept out of laws. I'd be pretty good with children not being allowed to become official members of a religion until they reach 13 or some other age of understanding what it's all about (this is impractical, mind).

But the person I'm responding to would want to be able to ask people to fill out a form saying if they believe in anything he dislikes the notion of so he can discriminate against them based on it. He literally is attacking private beliefs, not public show of them. That is nonsense and he doesn't get to play reasonable "I only care about their skills and work experience" on the heels of it.

Fleawuss

Samaris wrote: »

I am all for religions being entirely private choices that are kept out of schools, workplaces and public as much as possible (I'm fine with churches and mosques being around the place). And definitely kept out of laws. I'd be pretty good with children not being allowed to become official members of a religion until they reach 13 or some other age of understanding what it's all about (this is impractical, mind).

But the person I'm responding to would want to be able to ask people to fill out a form saying if they believe in anything he dislikes the notion of so he can discriminate against them based on it. He literally is attacking private beliefs, not public show of them. That is nonsense and he doesn't get to play reasonable "I only care about their skills and work experience" on the heels of it.

You don't seem to get it: there is no "private belief" in religion. It must be confessed publicly, it demands control of the public space.