What would jesus say? That'll be €70K

Tabnabs · 21-07-2014 03:54PM #1

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 · 21-07-2014 04:01PM

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 · 21-07-2014 04:07PM

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 · 21-07-2014 04:09PM

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

robindch · 21-07-2014 04:10PM

endacl wrote: »

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

Probably not, as that would be religious persecution.

Cabaal · 21-07-2014 04:11PM

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 · 21-07-2014 04:17PM

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

yopy · 21-07-2014 04:17PM

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 · 21-07-2014 04:17PM

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 · 21-07-2014 04:18PM

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 · 21-07-2014 04:21PM

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 · 21-07-2014 04:25PM

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 · 21-07-2014 04:25PM

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 · 21-07-2014 04:26PM

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 · 21-07-2014 04:31PM

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.

21-07-2014 04:33PM

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 · 21-07-2014 04:38PM

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 · 21-07-2014 04:54PM

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 · 21-07-2014 04:58PM

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 · 21-07-2014 05:00PM

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 · 21-07-2014 05:03PM

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 · 21-07-2014 05:04PM

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 · 21-07-2014 05:06PM

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 · 21-07-2014 05:07PM

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 · 21-07-2014 05:14PM

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 · 21-07-2014 05:17PM

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 · 21-07-2014 05:28PM

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 · 21-07-2014 05:42PM

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 · 21-07-2014 05:54PM

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 · 21-07-2014 05:56PM

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 · 21-07-2014 06:26PM

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.

What would jesus say? That'll be €70K

Comments