There seem to be more and more cases where religious people are claiming that their faith prevents them from doing their job. If they are then asked to continue doing the job that they were employed to do, some are claiming that they are facing religious discrimination.
In recent months I have been aware of:
- an employee in a hairdressing salon being sacked after refusing to remove her headgear and thus failing to comply with the policy of staff dressing to promote the image of the salon;
- supermarket staff wanting to refuse to sell certain products that they find offensive;
- bus drivers refusing to drive buses that carried adverts that apparently offended their religion;
- a nurse claiming that she should be allowed to pray with patients as part of her working life;
- hospital staff refusing to wear more hygienic clothes that would help prevent infection but would expose their arms;
- and more recently, of Theresa Davies, the Christian registrar at Islington Council, who was demoted because she refused to perform gay marriages.
Theresa Davies has cited her faith as the reason she could not officiate over civil partnerships for same-sex couples. Her employers have now given her work in the role of receptionist, and she has taken her case to the House of Lords.
Theresa Davies is not being persecuted because of her faith, neither is she being shown any intolerance because of her faith. She has simply been demoted for not doing her job, which was to perform services on behalf of Islington Council, in line with her duties as a public employee.
If I had a firm conviction that using washing machines and washing powder was evil and that I could not support such activities in anyway it would be foolish of me to seek employment as a lauderette attendant. If I obtained such a post and then turned round to my employer and said: “I don’t do washing machines or washing powder - it’s against my religion,” I wouldn’t really expect too much sympathy or understanding from my employer. I might legitimately hope that he would respect my right to hold my views, but I have no real right to expect her or him to continue to employ me.
And just suppose that I had republican and anti-monarchist convictions, I would have to think hard before accepting a job as part of the Royal Household, for example. If those convictions were strong, but not so rigid that there was no room for manoeuvre, I might be able to accept an insignificant post and live with the apparent discrepancy. However, if the job changed and required me to do something legal and reasonable within my function, but which I personally could not reconcile with my beliefs, the honourable and sensible thing to do would be to resign. It would be dishonourable and absurd to claim that my beliefs had priority over my employer’s desire to carry out a legal function, sanctioned by society, which could reasonably be expected of anyone else doing my job.
I think the hairdresser should never have accepted employment at that salon, and that the supermarket employees, the bus drivers, the health workers and the registrar should all resign and seek jobs more suited to their religious convictions. What do you think?
Yes, I agree with you. I have a certain amount of support for the registrar in that I presume the nature of her job has changed since she took it up? ie that when she was first doing it, gay marriages were not allowed so she applied for the job thinking it was one she would be happy to do.
But yes, clearly people must be prepared to carry out the duties associated with the jobs for which they applied, and observe h&s regulations and be prepared to accept change when it comes along. If you do not like the changes, you look for a new job.
Obviously I believe that religion should be a private matter and you should not take it out into the wider world and let it affect the way you interact with others or the way you do a job of work. But obviously I am not religious and clearly others cannot separate it, take it off like a hat, when they arrive at work.
The view you express is sensible and logical and I concur with it.
Unfortunately, the people giving rise the cases you cite (and many others) do not behave in a sensible and logical way. Neither do they think in a sensible and logical way but in a way distorted by the illogical and far from sensible “faith” that they profess.
I think too that at least some of these court cases are mischievous, i.e. that the litigants know perfectly well that they don’t have a case but hope to win something because of the current confusion and fear people feel when accusations of intolerance are bandied about.
The people who behave in this way don’t bother me. They are self-created idiots and should be treated as such. The people who bother me are the courts, the councils and the employers who give into them rather than facing up to the problem. Every time a tribunal finds in favour of one of these litigants, not only does English law become weakened but so does the very concept of equality which it is supposed to be protecting.
By giving in to silly people who claim “their feelings have been hurt”, the courts are making a rod for their - and our - backs. It’s high time this nonsense was brought to an end.
Agree with what you’all said. By giving in to this case, the message is being given that religious doctrines are really kosher and in tune with the universe. If the woman had been given the sack, or at least warned, she would at least start to wonder if there’s something wrong with her religion. By giving in to her, she will start applying more and more of her religion into every part of her life.
Though I do not blame her for being this way, she’s just being principled and sticking to her guns, of what religion has taught her. The universe needs to start teaching her something different, or she’ll never learn. And she and society will suffer for her not learning.
Come to think of it, it’s like giving in to spoilt children. It’ll never end.
Reluctant Blogger
You are right, of course, the woman does deserve perhaps more understanding for the fact that her job has changed beyond recognition. However, I still feel she hasn’t a leg to stand on given that she is being asked to do something legal that everyone else in a similar job would be expected to do.
Interesting comment about religion being a private matter. I think the problem is that it can never, ever be. If it is real, if influences your values, and you take your values everywhere, so at some point, it inevitably becomes public.
Silver Tiger
I agree with you on both your points about mischieviousness and about appeasement. The former is costing money, and as you rightly point out, the latter is in danger of costing something far more important.
Temaskian
I agree that the perception of reality behind the religious view is one that many of us would see as distorted. Interesting point that something ‘jolting’ needs to be done to challenge that reality.
The House of Lords is going to have fun with this one.
There seems to be a fine line between rolling over and dying when encountering adversity at work and standing up for one’s rights. Where the line lies I am not clear about.
Maybe some sort of standard should be set. For instance, are your human rights being violated? Or, as you point out, a law should be passed stating that if your belief system stops you from performing your duties, your employer has the right to replace you.
After all, the business and government institutions are performing law abiding activities. If what they’re doing were illegal, it would be a different story.
The religious play their religion as if it were the trump card. They’ve got it wrong (as usual) - reality is the trump card. Those of us on the side of reality have got to stop letting the religious bluff us with their weaker hand and counter their plays with our stronger hand. Otherwise, we’re no better than the parent who keeps allowing the child to win the game so that his or her feelings won’t get hurt. Children need to be taught how to handle hurt feelings in mature, sociable ways.
Lorena
I agree with you. For me the key issue is: “Are they being asked to do something illegal or something which is legal, and something which anyone else in their position could reasonably be expected to do?”
the chaplain
Love the concept of reality being the trump card. Can see myself wanting to use that argument again and again.
In one word agreed on all of this, with one small addition. The health worker should carry on but not try to impose her faith on others with prayer or discussion. Then I see no reason why she/he could not continue with that position.
All the rest. Yes. A very well thought out and logical blog.
It’s a symptom of the fragmentation of modern society. We are all freer to do our own thing, go our own way. There is less pressure to conform to a general norm of behaviour or belief.
Generally that is good but, as in all things, there can be a downside.
Like the sort of things you describe.
First time I’ve visited your blog and it’s good.