Should discriminating against the religious ever be accepted?

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of course not no.

So it's ok to discriminate against vegetarians, but not against Muslims?

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

So it's ok to discriminate against vegetarians, but not against Muslims?

Where did that come from? I don't discriminate against anyone. That's why I'd hire the Jewish chef

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Where did that come from? I don't discriminate against anyone. That's why I'd hire the Jewish chef

You said you wouldn't blame McDonald's for not hiring a fry cook who refuses to touch the burgers....

So which is it to be, now?

drkpower

What if its a Ribs place and they only have a couple of non-pork based menu items? Change their business model to suit their chef's sensibilities?

This is fun!

AudreyHepburn

Let me answer all your scenarios by saying, I'd assume most restaurants are equal oppertunities employers and so would I be were I in the line business so I won't not hire a chef on the basis of his religion.

I'd try to find a way of working around it, what that way would be would depend on the scenario.

Shenshen

drkpower wrote: »

What if its a Ribs place and they only have a couple of non-pork based menu items? Change their business model to suit their chef's sensibilities?

This is fun!

What if he has to work during Ramadan and can't taste the food before it's sent out?
You can ruin a restaurants reputation easily enough with a few oversalted plates.

Endless possibilities

robindch

Folks -- banter is good, but please remember that AudreyHepburn's on her own here, so please try to avoid ganging up.

There you are, now, good boys

c_man

drkpower wrote: »

What if its a Ribs place and they only have a couple of non-pork based menu items?

Getting hungry now!

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Let me answer all your scenarios by saying, I'd assume most restaurants are equal oppertunities employers and so would I be were I in the line business so I won't not hire a chef on the basis of his religion.

I'd try to find a way of working around it, what that way would be would depend on the scenario.

"Equal opportunities" only kicks in when you have more than one applicant with the same qualifications.
Not being willing to handle pork when working for a restaurant specialising in ribs and Irish breakfasts would in my eyes most certainly make you less qualified to work there.
Same goes for applying at a job at an off license and refusing to sell alcohol, while we're at it.

AudreyHepburn

robindch wrote: »

Folks -- banter is good, but please remember that AudreyHepburn's on her own here, so please try to avoid ganging up.

There you are, now, good boys

It's ok Rob I'm well used to it by now! Happens everytime I open mouth here;)

drkpower

Or if you run Shanahan's and your chef wont touch beef for some ethical reason.

Customer: I'll have your 28 ounce porterhouse with a bernaise sauce mmmmmm ......... drool........ mmmmm......
Shanahan's waiter: Sorry, our chef doesnt dig on beef, we have a nice filllet of salmon or a chickpea salad though.
Customer: Wtf?

Edit: sorry Robindch, couldnt resist....

Zombrex

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I really wouldn't advocate discriminating based on religious views jobswise because you wouldn't discriminate if some-one was black or gay or because of their gender. You wouldn't even think about it.

So why feel you can do it for religion?

You would if it got in the way of the job. For example if you are trying to hire a female actor for a role of a female you would discriminate against all males since being male is contrary to the job position.

It goes even further with religion since religion is a choice, it is a set of beliefs. You wouldn't hire someone who thinks all women should be in the home minding the kids to be the chairman of a women in business group.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

You would if it got in the way of the job. For example if you are trying to hire a female actor for a role of a female you would discriminate against all males since being male is contrary to the job position.

Isn't it funny they cast Starbuck female in a male role in the BSG remake? She got a lot of trouble for it at the start I think

dvpower

Wicknight wrote: »

As an atheist I wouldn't expect to get a job as a priest. Equally I wouldn't expect a Young Earth Creationist to get a job as a science teacher.

... or as a teacher in a catholic primary school?

zynaps

Shenshen wrote: »

"Equal opportunities" only kicks in when you have more than one applicant with the same qualifications.
Not being willing to handle pork when working for a restaurant specialising in ribs and Irish breakfasts would in my eyes most certainly make you less qualified to work there.
Same goes for applying at a job at an off license and refusing to sell alcohol, while we're at it.

It comes down to a judgement call. The phrase "equal opportunities employer" makes little sense in any context other than "equal opportunities provided equal ability and willingness to do the required tasks".

Unfortunately a popular interpretation of "equal opportunities" is that contentious subjects like the applicant's religion, sex, age or possible disabilities are completely taboo and to discriminate for or against a candidate on any of those issues would be unfair. Note that even the word discrimination is often seen as bad in itself, which is silly - whenever you choose between multiple possibilities you are discriminating; it's an essential part of behaviour.

The extreme examples given by Shenshen and others are useful in that they show that it would be reasonable for McDonalds not to hire (as a burger flipper) a strict vegetarian who refuses to handle meat. Handling meat is a primary (perhaps the only responsibility in such a job.
Similarly, hiring someone to sell alcohol in an off-licence who refuses to sell alcohol on religious grounds.
(And on another "equal opportunities" tack, a lumberjacking firm would probably not hire a woodcutter with no arms)

If it's reasonable to discriminate against an applicant on the grounds above, then it may be reasonable to discriminate in less extreme cases (i.e. not the ridiculous examples we have here ). It's certainly a grey area!

Dades

Personally, I find these "what if you were opening a pork-only sausage restaurant in a strip bar and a Muslim applied" type hypothetical questions a bit pointless.

This debate only has any real application where scenarios are possible, or even likely (imo ).

Shenshen

Dades wrote: »

Personally, I find these "what if you were opening a pork-only sausage restaurant in a strip bar and a Muslim applied" type hypothetical questions a bit pointless.

This debate only has any real application where scenarios are possible, or even likely (imo ).

Well, there is that case of a doctor refusing to do his job for religious reasons just in this other thread on this very forum.... not very hypothetical.

And I do remember a case of an airline stewardess actually getting into trouble with her employer for religious discrimination because their dress code would not allow her to display a crucifix on a necklace while working.


Wasn't there someone sueing a college in Georgia quite recently because the course to become a counselor required to treat homosexuals as "normal", which was against her religion?



I'm all with you that people who might have problems arranging their religious feelings with their jobs maybe should not apply for those jobs in the first place, but reality begs to differ it would seem.

AudreyHepburn

Dades wrote: »

Personally, I find these "what if you were opening a pork-only sausage restaurant in a strip bar and a Muslim applied" type hypothetical questions a bit pointless.

This debate only has any real application where scenarios are possible, or even likely (imo ).

+ 1.

Obviously in some of the scenarios mentioned, if they ever happened, it would be hard to hire the chef but the likelyhood of such scenarios is small IMO.

For instance I very much a vegetarian would look for work in somewhere like McDonnells.

dvpower

Dades wrote: »

Personally, I find these "what if you were opening a pork-only sausage restaurant in a strip bar and a Muslim applied" type hypothetical questions a bit pointless.

This debate only has any real application where scenarios are possible, or even likely (imo ).

Some possible scenarios:
A large supermarket chain hires sales assistants. One of the roles of the job would be to sell alcohol. A devout muslim applicant says it is against his religion to sell alcohol but he is willing to carry out all other aspects of the job.

The supermarket also sells condoms. Another applicant, a devout christian says it is against his religion to sell condoms.

A large department store sells alcohol in their food hall. The devout muslim applies for a position in their drapery department. It's part of the standard contract that staff can be moved between departments and there is a slim chance that the muslim may be called upon to sell alcohol.

It's a grey area imo. I'd be uncomfortable discriminating against a devout muslim in the 3rd sceanario, although I'm sure there are lots of very similar circumstances where I'd be OK with it. I don't know what the current test is, likely something around reasonableness, a subjective measure.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

+ 1.

Obviously in some of the scenarios mentioned, if they ever happened, it would be hard to hire the chef but the likelyhood of such scenarios is small IMO.

For instance I very much a vegetarian would look for work in somewhere like McDonnells.

Well, then what about the stewardess refusing to comply with the dress code?
What about the student refusing to conform to the requirements of the college she chose to attend?
What about the doctor who refused medical treatment on religious grounds?

Will I go look for more real-life examples?

I would agree with you that if somebody's religion will stand in the way of them doing a particular kind of job, they should not go for the job.
But what do you do with those who still do?

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, then what about the stewardess refusing to comply with the dress code?
What about the student refusing to conform to the requirements of the college she chose to attend?
What about the doctor who refused medical treatment on religious grounds?

Will I go look for more real-life examples?

You don't have to just disregard them straight off either IMO.

Though obviously those scenarios above require careful and proper thought.

I meant extreme scenarios like opeing a pork only restauraunt in deepest Germany.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well obviously those require careful and proper thought.

I meant extreme scenarios like opeing a pork only restauraunt in deepest Germany.

At what point in time, though?
When you hire them, or when they refuse to treat patients or sue you over enforcing a dress code they dislike?

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

At what point in time, though?
When you hire them, or when they refuse to treat patients or sue you over enforcing a dress code they dislike?

Before would be best. Maybe you could say something like (for example) well I can't allow you to wear the head-to-two Burkha because it's not company policy but I can let you a headscarf if you want.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Before would be best. Maybe you could say something like (for example) well I can't allow you to wear the head-to-two Burkha because it's not company policy but I can let you a headscarf if you want.

What if they claim that they can't because of their religious convictions?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Like everyone else so long as they are willing to go against their beliefs or traditions if the job requires it is fine.

Wicknight did you watch the recent dawkins show? "faith school meance" Basically your Christian anti-evolution character in Islamic form was shown defending how she teaches. Blood boiling stuff.

That's the kind of person who shouldn't be allowed to teach, not a reasonable person who happens to be religious. Though I suspect it is school policy rather than her opinion to be honest.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

What if they claim that they can't because of their religious convictions?

Well then yes I would have to think twice about hiring them.

Out of curiosity Shenshen in all the scenarios mentioned, what would do?

zynaps

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Before would be best. Maybe you could say something like (for example) well I can't allow you to wear the head-to-two Burkha because it's not company policy but I can let you a headscarf if you want.

So you think it's okay to ask about someone's religious and personal beliefs in an interview then?

It shouldn't be necessary though. If I was hiring people to sell condoms (or give blood transfusions, or sell alcohol) I'd simply ask if there were any parts of the job that they were uncomfortable with or couldn't do. I'm sure there are plenty of Catholics who have sold or used condoms, so whether someone is a Catholic or Muslim etc would probably not be an accurate indicator of their performance on a job. Better to ask job-specific questions than to draw assumptions from the broad label of their religious belief.

Of course, if they answered by saying they had no problems with the job description, then refused to carry out important job duties after being hired, it would be a problem.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Well then yes I would have to think twice about hiring them.

Out of curiosity Shenshen in all the scenarios mentioned, what would do?

I would go with the requirements of the job... If I found out during the hiring or interviewing process that the applicant was not willing to meet the requirements, I would not hire them.

To make it clear, I wouldn't consider it discrimination on religious grounds, as I said I would go with the same in the scenario with the vegetarian at McDonalds. To me, it would simply mean that the applicant is not able/willing to meet the requirements, so I would discard the application.

I think the real question here would be, which questions would you ask and would they be different if the person was religious or not?
And yes, if I had the feeling that a person's religious feelings might cause them to not do the job I need them to do, I would ask. I'm not sure how legal or illegal that would be, however...

zynaps

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Wicknight did you watch the recent dawkins show? "faith school meance" Basically your Christian anti-evolution character in Islamic form was shown defending how she teaches. Blood boiling stuff.

That's the kind of person who shouldn't be allowed to teach, not a reasonable person who happens to be religious. Though I suspect it is school policy rather than her opinion to be honest.

Yes it was indeed blood-boiling stuff. All the more disturbing since I want to get my daughter into a (preferably religion-free) primary school in Dublin and it seems that the vast majority of them are Catholic schools (a principal of one of them pointed out to me that their first and foremost goal is furthering the Catholic ethos, and all other concerns including education come second - I wasn't too impressed).
The majority of our government-funded schools are faith schools...

What was interesting about that particular school on the documentary was that it was the only school which allowed Dawkins to view classes and openly talk to the teacher and students. It was disturbing though when every single one of the students "happened" not to believe in evolution, and then the teacher gave nervous and quite poor answers to his questions on the topic.

There was a very interesting bit towards the end suggesting that children are susceptible to explanation and purpose-based theories of everything (e.g. the water in the lake is cold because animals like to cool off there), perhaps more so in an age where children are completely surrounded by man-made artifacts which each are designed for a logical purpose, which makes it easier for religions and faith schools to imprint beliefs upon them.

Dades

Some of those example scenarios given are good. In most of them I'd always favour a candidate with non-contentious beliefs. No problem.

I'm almost more interested people's take on situations where the applicants religion has no apparent conflicts with the job required, but where that candidate comes across as somewhat zealous about their faith.

drkpower

Dades wrote: »

I'm almost more interested people's take on situations where the applicants religion has no apparent conflicts with the job required, but where that candidate comes across as somewhat zealous about their faith.

I wouldnt hire them, but nor would i hire someone who was zealous about conspiracy theories or man utd and decided that it was a good idea to bring it up at interview. Of course, the reasons I would document for not giving them a job would be 'poor judgment' rather than 'religious'......;)

dvpower

Dades wrote: »

I'm almost more interested people's take on situations where the applicants religion has no apparent conflicts with the job required, but where that candidate comes across as somewhat zealous about their faith.

Zealousness extends outside of the religious sphere. If someone I was interviewing went out of their way to tell me how great Man. Utd are, I'd probably question their suitability too. But I wouldn't discriminate just on the basis of them being devout or zealous.

Obviously, Liverpool fans would be stopped by security at reception.


Edit: freaky!

drkpower

Ha! To the conspiracy theorists, that would be evidence of an anti-Man Utd conspiracy at Power City; pretty compelling evidence too:D

Shenshen

Dades wrote: »

Some of those example scenarios given are good. In most of them I'd always favour a candidate with non-contentious beliefs. No problem.

I'm almost more interested people's take on situations where the applicants religion has no apparent conflicts with the job required, but where that candidate comes across as somewhat zealous about their faith.

I think it would depend on how over the top they are, actually.
But I think someone mentioning their religion in a job interview (without being asked, obviously) would ring warning bells... same as someone telling me about the time she was abducted by aliens.

Zombrex

dvpower wrote: »

... or as a teacher in a catholic primary school?

Depends on the school I guess and how "Catholic" the position is. Certainly not if I let it be known that I had strong anti-Catholic beliefs that I would impart on the children.

zynaps

Wicknight wrote: »

Depends on the school I guess and how "Catholic" the position is. Certainly not if I let it be known that I had strong anti-Catholic beliefs that I would impart on the children.

What if all, or the vast majority of government-funded primary schools were Catholic schools? Would you still certainly not teach in one?

Zombrex

zynaps wrote: »

What if all, or the vast majority of government-funded primary schools were Catholic schools? Would you still certainly not teach in one?

That wasn't the question. The question was would I expect to get a job in one as an atheist. I wouldn't. Which is why I think it is a very bad idea to have the vast majority of government-funded schools as Catholic private schools.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

I'm almost more interested people's take on situations where the applicants religion has no apparent conflicts with the job required, but where that candidate comes across as somewhat zealous about their faith.

Having interviewed quite a few people, one of the things one has to consider is how they're going to get on with the rest of the people in the company. If somebody's red hot for Jesus and brings this up in the interview (never met anybody who did, and can't imagine why they would) then I'd certainly be concerned that they wouldn't fit in. That said, if they brought up their belief that the moon landings were a hoax, that the world was run by a secret jewish conspiracy, or that FDR shot JFK, I'd be thinking exactly the same thing.

But then again, I'm working in a company that produces software systems that tests other people's software + systems. This environment is one in which woolly thinkers do not thrive, so perhaps that's one reason why religion has never come up.

zynaps

Wicknight wrote: »

That wasn't the question. The question was would I expect to get a job in one as an atheist. I wouldn't. Which is why I think it is a very bad idea to have the vast majority of government-funded schools as Catholic private schools.

Yes, apologies for redirecting the question, but I'm interested in the topic - I'm sure many atheists apply for teaching jobs in Catholic schools currently because there isn't much else there for children, and similarly many schools hire teachers who they know or suspect not to be Catholic. I also feel, as you do, that the current scheme is a very bad idea and wish for a less medieval situation.

dvpower

Wicknight wrote: »

That wasn't the question. The question was would I expect to get a job in one as an atheist. I wouldn't. Which is why I think it is a very bad idea to have the vast majority of government-funded schools as Catholic private schools.

I can't see any strong reason to refuse an atheist teacher a job in a catholic school so long as they were willing to teach the curriculum.

Similarily, a guard who didn't agree with drugs policy or a civil servant who didn't agree with the area of government policy they were adminstrating.

antiskeptic

drkpower wrote: »

Or if you run Shanahan's and your chef wont touch beef for some ethical reason.

Customer: I'll have your 28 ounce porterhouse with a bernaise sauce mmmmmm ......... drool........ mmmmm......

Shanahan's waiter: Sorry, our chef doesnt dig on beef, we have a nice filllet of salmon or a chickpea salad though.

Customer: Wtf?

The customer should have said "it's an emergency!"

drkpower

antiskeptic wrote: »

The customer should have said "it's an emergency!"

...you mean 'emergency circumstances'.......;)

zynaps

drkpower wrote: »

...you mean 'emergency circumstances'.......;)

"...because I am like so starving I could eat a horse! Or a pig! Just like that - nyom!"

krudler

There was a great interview with Matt Damon in the run up to the last US election where (i'm parahprasing) he said "There are things I want to know about Sarah Palin, like if she really believes dinosaurs didnt exist, because that kind of stuff is important when you've got your hands on the nuclear launch codes"

its on youtube somewhere, cant access it at work right now, but he has a point, why are people so terrified of having athiest leaders? Bush was a Christian president, the war in Afghanistan was a "mission from God" according to him, and the American midwest bible belt types lapped it up, does anyone else find it wrong that the one person who can cause armageddon is the one who believes its an eventuality?

Shenshen

krudler wrote: »

There was a great interview with Matt Damon in the run up to the last US election where (i'm parahprasing) he said "There are things I want to know about Sarah Palin, like if she really believes dinosaurs didnt exist, because that kind of stuff is important when you've got your hands on the nuclear launch codes"

its on youtube somewhere, cant access it at work right now, but he has a point, why are people so terrified of having athiest leaders? Bush was a Christian president, the war in Afghanistan was a "mission from God" according to him, and the American midwest bible belt types lapped it up, does anyone else find it wrong that the one person who can cause armageddon is the one who believes its an eventuality?

I have to guess that they agreed with him there.... worrying as that thought may be.

That's the one big problem I tend to have with democracy : What kind of world is the majority creating and forcing the minorities/individuals to live in?

I don't want to pursue this thought, it keeps me awake at night