Job discrimination and religion

doctoremma

I'd like to rejuvenate a point I found interesting on one of the gay threads that was subsumed into the megathread...

Onesimus proposed reasonable employment criteria for someone working in a Christian bookshop, namely that employees should be Christian and that if they were openly homosexual, it would indicate to customers that they were not able to correctly pass on the teachings of Christianity (Onesimus, please correct if necessary, I'm not trying to misrepresent you in any way).

I argued that as long as someone is completely up to scratch in the teachings of Christianity, they should not be discriminated against in employment terms, whether they are Christians or not.

I never established whether there was recourse in Irish law to legally discriminate on this basis. Does anyone have any input? I'm pretty sure it would not be allowed in UK law but will have a look.

I also wondered how this principle might extend in the opposite direction. If it is legal to discriminate on religious belief in order to further religious teachings, should it be legal to discriminate against religious belief, where you suspect it would compromise someone's capacity to do a job. As a really easy example, could you legally discriminate against a YEC applying for a job teaching evolutionary biology (assuming they could, and were willing, to teach evolutionary theory in a perfectly competent manner)?

Note: this could easily go onto the A&A forum but as the original point was raised here, I've gone with it here.

Onesimus

Onesimus proposed reasonable employment criteria for someone working in a Christian bookshop, namely that employees should be Christian and that if they were openly homosexual, it would indicate to customers that they were not able to correctly pass on the teachings of Christianity (Onesimus, please correct if necessary, I'm not trying to misrepresent you in any way).

Yes you have completely misrepresented me on that one.

I said that they don't have to be Christian to work at the ''Catholic'' bookshop. They can be homosexual or non-believers but must have a firm and full grasp of Catholic doctrine and that includes the Catholic doctrine that explains Homosexual acts to be sinful and all the rest.

Anyone can work at a Catholic bookshop but they must meet the requirements for employment at the Catholic bookshop but don't have to be Catholic.

Now that I've cleared that up . . . proceed

muppeteer

doctoremma wrote: »

I'd like to rejuvenate a point I found interesting on one of the gay threads that was subsumed into the megathread...

Onesimus proposed reasonable employment criteria for someone working in a Christian bookshop, namely that employees should be Christian and that if they were openly homosexual, it would indicate to customers that they were not able to correctly pass on the teachings of Christianity (Onesimus, please correct if necessary, I'm not trying to misrepresent you in any way).

I argued that as long as someone is completely up to scratch in the teachings of Christianity, they should not be discriminated against in employment terms, whether they are Christians or not.

I never established whether there was recourse in Irish law to legally discriminate on this basis. Does anyone have any input? I'm pretty sure it would not be allowed in UK law but will have a look.

I also wondered how this principle might extend in the opposite direction. If it is legal to discriminate on religious belief in order to further religious teachings, should it be legal to discriminate against religious belief, where you suspect it would compromise someone's capacity to do a job. As a really easy example, could you legally discriminate against a YEC applying for a job teaching evolutionary biology (assuming they could, and were willing, to teach evolutionary theory in a perfectly competent manner)?

Note: this could easily go onto the A&A forum but as the original point was raised here, I've gone with it here.

From this article it appears you are correct, at least in relation to schools in Ireland. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/education/2012/0327/1224313956760.html

1998 Employment Equality Act. Section 37.1(b) which states: “A religious, educational or medical institution which is under the direction or control of a body established for religious purposes or whose objectives include the provision of services in an environment which promotes certain religious values shall not be taken to discriminate against a person for the purposes of this Part or Part II if . . . (b) it takes action which is reasonably necessary to prevent an employee or a prospective employee from undermining the religious ethos of the institution.”

Essentially, an institution that operates within a religious ethos – 98 per cent of primary schools in Ireland fall into this category – has a right to take action if an employee is seen to undermine the religious ethos of that institution. Gay teachers are not the only group that could be affected by this but they are particularly vulnerable.

“It’s a legal allowance for discrimination,” Kilroy says. “Getting rid of it would be a catalyst for further change.”

Fianna Fáil Senator Averil Power recently published the Employment Equality (Amendment) Bill 2012, which aims to remedy the matter. At the time, Power explained, “If the Bill is enacted, schools will still be entitled to insist that staff members demonstrate respect towards the school’s ethos and not actively seek to undermine it.

However, they will not be permitted to treat staff members differently simply because of their sexual orientation or civil status.” If passed, the Bill will be a start, but the difficulties facing gay teachers will not disappear overnight.

“Homophobia is alive and kicking in the Irish education system,” Houlihan says. “Getting rid of Section 37.1 would herald a new era for gay people but it wouldn’t mean that there isn’t a lot more to do. I hope that we can start moving forward for everyone's sake.”

And as we have seen in the US at least, the CC does have the desire to remove gay teachers.



As regards having legal discrimination running against religious people I think I would prefer if legalised religious discrimination such as above was removed altogether, rather than have tit for tat discrimination rules.


An interesting question does arise from similar cases, not just religious ones, where teachers/employees are being sanctioned for their personal views becoming public views through facebook/overt religious symbols etc. I'm usually of the opinion that it is fairly obvious that when using facebook you are wearing your personal views hat. I would think that the employer should have no right to sanction an employee provided it is clear enough that the view is not that of the employer. Though setting that line is easier said than done.

MrPudding

muppeteer wrote: »

An interesting question does arise from similar cases, not just religious ones, where teachers/employees are being sanctioned for their personal views becoming public views through facebook/overt religious symbols etc. I'm usually of the opinion that it is fairly obvious that when using facebook you are wearing your personal views hat. I would think that the employer should have no right to sanction an employee provided it is clear enough that the view is not that of the employer. Though setting that line is easier said than done.

A lot of the cases around the use of facebook happen when the employee, typically against company policy, makes it clear from their profile who they work for.

In general people are not disciplined for having a particular opinion out side work, but they can be when they espouse a particular opinion, which is potentially damaging to their employer, and it is possible to make a connection between them and their employer.

With respect to the religious side of things, here in the UK religious organisations are also allowed to discriminate on the grounds of religion. I don't know what the definition of a religious organisation is though... Not sire if a bookshop would attract the pretection.

MrP

doctoremma

Onesimus wrote: »

Yes you have completely misrepresented me on that one.

Apologies, as I say, genuinely not my intention.

I was working from the last exchange, where you stated that an employee working in a Catholic bookshop would have to

"be in agreement with the core tenets of the faith".

I responded to ask whether agreement within the work place (i.e. a "mock" agreement) would be sufficient for them to meet the job criteria.

And then it got closed!

Onesimus wrote: »

I said that they don't have to be Christian to work at the ''Catholic'' bookshop. They can be homosexual or non-believers but must have a firm and full grasp of Catholic doctrine and that includes the Catholic doctrine that explains Homosexual acts to be sinful and all the rest.

Anyone can work at a Catholic bookshop but they must meet the requirements for employment at the Catholic bookshop but don't have to be Catholic.

Now that I've cleared that up . . . proceed

Your position is much clearer (and less discriminatory), thanks!

doctoremma

MrPudding wrote: »

A lot of the cases around the use of facebook happen when the employee, typically against company policy, makes it clear from their profile who they work for....In general people are not disciplined for having a particular opinion out side work, but they can be when they espouse a particular opinion, which is potentially damaging to their employer, and it is possible to make a connection between them and their employer.

I have received much training on how to manage my public profile in respect of my employer. My FB is angelic, my Twitter feed professional-only, we are "discouraged" from flaming internet forums Apart from showing respect to my employer, I'm more aware that prospective employers might use things like this to assess candidates.

MrPudding wrote: »

With respect to the religious side of things, here in the UK religious organisations are also allowed to discriminate on the grounds of religion. I don't know what the definition of a religious organisation is though... Not sire if a bookshop would attract the pretection.

So, I do wonder if you can refuse to employ someone because of their religious beliefs then (if they are contrary to your company/institute ethos)? If a biology teacher posts on Facebook about Noah's Ark and how evolution is rubbish. is that grounds for dismissal? Wasn't there a registrar "sacked" (encouraged to resign?) a few years after she refused to perform civil ceremonies as a matter of religious conscience? And those nurses in Glasgow who objected to terminations being performed in their ward?

Bannasidhe

I know from discussions with friends who are primary school teachers in Ireland re: setting up an LGBT caucus within the INTO that they felt their position was very insecure. The reality for them is that over 90% of State funded national schools are under the patronage of the RCC. This means that most have no option but to work for a religious organisation which is legally allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

Now, I have no issue with religious organisations being allowed to adhere to their ethos when it comes to employing people. Provided those organisations are private and receive no funding from central government.

My bugbear is when, as in the case of Irish Primary schools, these 'organisations' are religious by default as the State abdicated responsibility for education provision back in the 1920s, the State funds these organisations and still provides absolutely no non-religious alternatives.

No organisation which receives funding from the State should be exempt from any aspect of Equality legislation for any reason.

As I said in another thread, all citizens must be seen to be equal in the eyes of the State.

antiskeptic

doctoremma wrote: »

Onesimus proposed reasonable employment criteria for someone working in a Christian bookshop, namely that employees should be Christian and that if they were openly homosexual, it would indicate to customers that they were not able to correctly pass on the teachings of Christianity (Onesimus, please correct if necessary, I'm not trying to misrepresent you in any way).

I argued that as long as someone is completely up to scratch in the teachings of Christianity, they should not be discriminated against in employment terms, whether they are Christians or not.

A question arises as to whether a non-Christian could, in principle, be 'up to scratch' on the teachings of Christianity.

If Christianity is true, and it's truths are part-discerned in a way (i.e. spiritually) that is closed to the non-Christian (who are biblically-speaking, spiritually 'dead' or undiscerning) then the non-Christian could never be up to scratch.

At least not in a way that would suffice for the peculiarity that is (or could/should well be) the Christian bookshop, where there is the element of spiritual inquiry on the part of the customer which could not be effectively served by one with no notion of such things.

It stands to reason that the spiritual maturity of an experienced Christian could be expected to help point that way to those further back on the path.

Here as any area of life: I'd much prefer to receive sales advice from someone who truly intimate with the field.

I also wondered how this principle might extend in the opposite direction. If it is legal to discriminate on religious belief in order to further religious teachings, should it be legal to discriminate against religious belief, where you suspect it would compromise someone's capacity to do a job. As a really easy example, could you legally discriminate against a YEC applying for a job teaching evolutionary biology (assuming they could, and were willing, to teach evolutionary theory in a perfectly competent manner)?

Since there is nothing potentially insurmountable in the YEC obtaining to the same degree of expertise as the Evo it would be discriminatory to restrict recruitment on the basis of worldview alone.

Suffice to say, you'd have to ensure the YEC-er was prepared to act in good er .. faith.

homer911

http://www.equality.ie/Files/Your-Employment-Equality-Rights-Explained-Easy-to-read-version-pdf.pdf

"You are entitled to equal treatment at work no matter what your
religious beliefs are or even if you hold no religious beliefs"

"Under the Acts, certain religious, educational and medical

institutions can give different treatment on the religion
ground. Certain employees or job applicants might receive
favourable treatment if it were necessary to maintain the
religious ethos of the institution.
These institutions can also take action against an employee if
they work against the established standards and traditions.
These institutions can also reserve places on certain
teaching and nursing courses if the education and health
authorities consider this necessary to keep up the numbers

of teachers and nurses."

I guess the answer to doctoremma's question is no, you can't flip the rule in the opposite direction, unless the employer has a religous ethos

MrPudding

doctoremma wrote: »

So, I do wonder if you can refuse to employ someone because of their religious beliefs then (if they are contrary to your company/institute ethos)? If a biology teacher posts on Facebook about Noah's Ark and how evolution is rubbish. is that grounds for dismissal? Wasn't there a registrar "sacked" (encouraged to resign?) a few years after she refused to perform civil ceremonies as a matter of religious conscience? And those nurses in Glasgow who objected to terminations being performed in their ward?

Those are very interesting cases, and there is another one where a woman was dismissed for refusing to work on Sunday. For the registrar, the nurses and the care worker I mentioned it kind of comes down to a conflict of rights... In the registrar case, and a similar one involving a relate counsellor, it was their right to hold a particular religious belief which was in conflict with a gay couple or person's right not to be discriminated against. The result was the courts effectively saying they will protect your right to hold a particular beleif, but they will not protect the contents of that belief, particularly where it would lead to discrimination.

So, the registrar was perfectly entitle to be christian, was perfectly entitled to believe whatever she wanted about gay people or civil partnerships, but she was not entitled to take those beliefs and manifest them as discrimination.

The other cases are similar conflict of rights cases. The issue is the UK, as in Ireland, specifically allows for discrimination on the basis of religious belief in connection with education and church jobs. This discrimination can easily be extended to sexual matters as they are likely to fall into the old favorite catch all "ethos."

antiskeptic wrote: »

Since there is nothing potentially insurmountable in the YEC obtaining to the same degree of expertise as the Evo it would be discriminatory to restrict recruitment on the basis of worldview alone.

Suffice to say, you'd have to ensure the YEC-er was prepared to act in good er .. faith.

Sauce for the goose and all that. I think it would be perfectly justifiable, ethically and legally, to not hire a YEC for certain positions. A bit of a no brainer really.

MrP

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

Sauce for the goose and all that. I think it would be perfectly justifiable, ethically and legally, to not hire a YEC for certain positions. A bit of a no brainer really.

MrP

The one under consideration was teaching evolutionary biology. If you think not then perhaps you could show your work

skooterblue2

TIf we are going to start witch hunting homosexuals in the Catholic church ......where to begin..... The church has bigger issue than misplaced layworker to deal with

To quote the bible, take the plank out of your own, eye before you take the splinter out of mine. Thanks be to God the Pope isnt gay, apparently he has a son back in the Fatherland.

Juza1973

In my company they raised funds for gay initiatives. As for religion in my PERSONAL ASSESSMENT I was asked what drives me in life. I wrote "religion" (just religion!) and my manager discouraged me from divulging this "too much". He did not prevent me but still it was a question about MY personal motivators. This year I wrote "to be free" instead. And no, I don't work in an atheist gay pub, I don't have anybody under me nor I am request to give any judgement on the work of people inside the company. But I digress...

I read a case of a Protestant school who was having issues with its teacher. They were not willing to discriminate based on beliefs, the problem was that the teacher was supposed to be a member of the community where the applicants considered sufficient to "do their job". Anti-discrimination laws act on the principle that it is what you do and not what you are (what you believe, how you live your life outside your job) that counts. It is an easily applicable principle if your job is to make sandwiches, but the more your job has an impact as low as it can be on society the more this principle is tricky to apply. As for facebook I ran the risk of cancelling our my currently working friends and now I am much more selective on who can enter on my page. You can still see my religion even if you are not a friend because I set that as a limit for my dignity. I will not lie on this, people in the world die to support Christ!

MrPudding

antiskeptic wrote: »

The one under consideration was teaching evolutionary biology. If you think not then perhaps you could show your work

If a person hold the belief of a YEC creationist one must question their ability to be a science / biology teacher. The beliefs held do not stack up with what is require to teach actual science.

That said, I would guess that it is feasible that such a person could potentially maintain the façade of a "normal" person and pretend that they believed the things they were teaching, but I have to say I would think it difficult for them to do so. I am quite happy to be corrected on this, should you have any examples to show me.

Assuming that such a person was unable to hide their true belief is genuinely believe it would call into question their ability to do their job. There are ground which allow for fair dismissal, and ability to actually do the job is one of them.

MrP

byhookorbycrook

Have never heard of a gay teacher being discriminated against, likewise single parents but I work in primary.The only case I am aware of was the Eileen Flynn case in Wexford,that was a secondary, iirc.

skooterblue2

@MrPudding,
That is a head wrecking thought, a science teacher trying to creationism? I would go off my rocker or have utter contempt for my surroundings.

That is a kin to the a Jewish teacher give a lesson on how the holocaust was a whole fabrication. I dont think Creationism has any danger of getting a foothold in this country. Any signs of it being taught as a science should be stamped out. I have no problem with Genesis in religion class.

Bannasidhe

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

Have never heard of a gay teacher being discriminated against, likewise single parents but I work in primary.The only case I am aware of was the Eileen Flynn case in Wexford,that was a secondary, iirc.

I don't think it has happened. But the fact that the potential is there and is legal is a worry.

Actor

Why would someone of homosexual inclination want to teach in a Catholic school??? Unless of course they were looking to cause trouble and cry "human rights" when people don't approve of their actions.

Bannasidhe

Actor wrote: »

Why would someone of homosexual inclination want to teach in a Catholic school??? Unless of course they were looking to cause trouble and cry "human rights" when people don't approve of their actions.

Not much alternative when over 90% of State funded National Schools are 'Catholic'.

Wiggles88

Actor wrote: »

Why would someone of homosexual inclination want to teach in a Catholic school??? Unless of course they were looking to cause trouble and cry "human rights" when people don't approve of their actions.

Perhaps because 90+% of irish schools are catholic so a teacher in ireland has little choice.

Edit: grrr Bannasidhe you got there before me :P

Actor

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not much alternative when over 90% of State funded National Schools are 'Catholic'.

Factually incorrect.

Anyway, are you trying to claim that 90% of the population is homosexual?

Wiggles88

Actor wrote: »

Factually incorrect.

Anyway, are you trying to claim that 90% of the population is homosexual?

No....what has that have to do with anything? And what does a teachers sexuality have to do with his/her ability to teach english/irish/maths etc?

Bannasidhe

Actor wrote: »

Factually incorrect.

Anyway, are you trying to claim that 90% of the population is homosexual?

A: Factually absolutely correct

The Catholic church controls about 90 percent of the State’s 3,200 primary schools.

Read more: http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Catholic-church-to-lose-stronghold-on-Irish-education-system-118832599.html#ixzz22tRvEJP3

B: Don't be absurd.

C: Sexual orientation has nothing to do with ability to teach.

byhookorbycrook

Actor wrote: »

Why would someone of homosexual inclination want to teach in a Catholic school??? Unless of course they were looking to cause trouble and cry "human rights" when people don't approve of their actions.

" homosexual inclination ???????"
Anyhow, I know plenty of gay teachers and damn good teachers most of them are.

Actor

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

" homosexual inclination ???????"
Anyhow, I know plenty of gay teachers and damn good teachers most of them are.

I'm sure if they're qualified; they're grand in the classroom. But that's not the point - what they do outside the classroom is where the problem is. The Church have lots of experience of dealing with sexual deviancy and it's simply not something they're prepared to have to deal with again. *edit - this is not to say that homosexuals are predatorial in their behavioiur*

As long as they're celibate; there's no problem. Same goes for single persons.

Bannasidhe

Actor wrote: »

I'm sure if they're qualified; they're grand in the classroom. But that's not the point - what they do outside the classroom is where the problem is. The Church have lots of experience of dealing with sexual deviancy and it's simply not something they're prepared to have to deal with again.

As long as they're celibate; there's no problem. Same goes for single persons.

The Church should clean up it's own house and mind it's own business about what consenting adults do in their private lives.

Actor

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Church should clean up it's own house and mind it's own business about what consenting adults do in their private lives.

Except when it comes to incest of course...

byhookorbycrook

It's called a "private life", because that's what it is.

Actor

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

It's called a "private life", because that's what it is.

Teaching is a vocation, not a job. There's a reason there are many inappropriate things teachers can do - such as having a relationship with a student, or being friends with them on Facebook.

Sonics2k

Actor wrote: »

I'm sure if they're qualified; they're grand in the classroom. But that's not the point - what they do outside the classroom is where the problem is. The Church have lots of experience of dealing with sexual deviancy and it's simply not something they're prepared to have to deal with again.

As long as they're celibate; there's no problem. Same goes for single persons.

I had this old English teacher. Quiet man, his two kids were in the same year as me. He'd been teaching there for some 30 years or so.

I was standing outside a bar in Cork a few months after finishing school, and who do I see but this same teacher. He was wandering out of a sex-shop with a bag full of B&D items, a gimp mask and yes, the cliché feather dusters.

Oh how I laughed. But he was still a great teacher, really broadened my horizons in literature and encouraged a wonderful thought process in our own work.

So yeah, what exactly does someones hobbies outside of work have to do with a career?

Actor

Sonics2k wrote: »

I had this old English teacher. Quiet man, his two kids were in the same year as me. He'd been teaching there for some 30 years or so.

I was standing outside a bar in Cork a few months after finishing school, and who do I see but this same teacher. He was wandering out of a sex-shop with a bag full of B&D items, a gimp mask and yes, the cliché feather dusters.

Oh how I laughed. But he was still a great teacher, really broadened my horizons in literature and encouraged a wonderful thought process in our own work.

So yeah, what exactly does someones hobbies outside of work have to do with a career?

Cool "story" bro. But yes, your surprise is merited. He's not exactly an appropriate person to be teaching if that's the way this hypothetical person carries on.

Bannasidhe

Actor wrote: »

Except when it comes to incest of course...

Just thought you'd throw that out there yeah?

Bannasidhe

Actor wrote: »

Cool "story" bro. But yes, your surprise is merited. He's not exactly an appropriate person to be teaching if that's the way this hypothetical person carries on.

What he does in private is his own business. He's not breaking any laws by buying whatever he wants in what ever shop he wants. Nothing to do with his teaching ability.
Would you think a teacher who buys a slab of beer is also being 'inappropriate'?

Sonics2k

Actor wrote: »

Cool "story" bro. But yes, your surprise is merited. He's not exactly an appropriate person to be teaching if that's the way this hypothetical person carries on.

Why?

Actor

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Just thought you'd throw that out there yeah?

If you don't want to deal with the exception to your "rule", then don't.

Bannasidhe

Actor wrote: »

If you don't want to deal with the exception to your "rule", then don't.

What are you on about? Apart from going on a muddy the waters exercise that is...

skooterblue2

Actor wrote: »

Except when it comes to incest of course...

"To enjoy oneself and to lie carnally with women or with boys is no more of a sin than rubbing one's hands together" Pope Boniface VIII

Actor

skooterblue2 wrote: »

"To enjoy oneself and to lie carnally with women or with boys is no more of a sin than rubbing one's hands together" Pope Boniface VIII

Where did you pick up that quote from? Was he speaking ex cathedra?

Also, there were good popes and bad popes down through the ages.

And besides, what do you care what a pope says?

skooterblue2

Actor wrote: »

Where did you pick up that quote from? Was he speaking ex cathedra?

Also, there were good popes and bad popes down through the ages.

And besides, what do you care what a pope says?

Doesnt matter whether it was said in a Cathedral or in the pub it was said.

Apart from pope Gregory giving us the Gregorian calender, not many. Anyones that had any potential ended up being poisoned.

I am supposedly a subject of the Pope. being baptised a RC

skooterblue2

Sonics2k wrote: »

I had this old English teacher. Quiet man, his two kids were in the same year as me. He'd been teaching there for some 30 years or so.

I was standing outside a bar in Cork a few months after finishing school, and who do I see but this same teacher. He was wandering out of a sex-shop with a bag full of B&D items, a gimp mask and yes, the cliché feather dusters.

Oh how I laughed. But he was still a great teacher, really broadened my horizons in literature and encouraged a wonderful thought process in our own work.

So yeah, what exactly does someones hobbies outside of work have to do with a career?

Similar story ... Had a teacher who got snapped in a ladies swim suit. I got to college found lecturers that knew their stuff but not how to "Teach". The Further I go in education the more I worry this skill is being lost. Lets not lose any more of these great characters.