Should Public Prayers Be Allowed on Planes?

silverharp

magicbastarder wrote: »

your caveat at the end is the important bit.
an airplane is not a private space in the same way that your living room is, for example. it's a privately owned space whose very existence depends on allowing paying members of the public into it, and is thus subject to laws which don't apply in strictly private spaces.

I think people get what a private space is depending on the situation, you tend not to have freedom of speech, a restaurant could kick you out if you don't wear a tie if its in their conditions and an airline could restrain you if you were drunk etc.
you have no more right to publicly pray on a plane anymore then you would have to start singing in a library.

magicbastarder

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Finally prayer is often thinly disguised extremely offensive hate speech

getting back to this - examples?
you may not like prayer, but saying it's 'often offensive hate speech' requires a little more explanation.

magicbastarder

silverharp wrote: »

you have no more right to publicly pray on a plane anymore then you would have to start singing in a library.

everyone knows that libraries are quiet spaces. making noise in a library is generally frowned on for functional reasons. i fail to see any sense in your linking of the two activities.

Drumpot

I wish people whining about "that thing you do that I don't like but choose to let it offend/annoy me" was banned.

If people focused more on being decent to others and their own behaviour instead of bitching about other peoples subjectively pereceived ignorance, this world would be much less intolerant.

silverharp

magicbastarder wrote: »

everyone knows that libraries are quiet spaces. making noise in a library is generally frowned on for functional reasons. i fail to see any sense in your linking of the two activities.

a plane is an enclosed space where you are a "captive", one recognises that there is going to be chatter , babies crying etc. But I wouldn't expect to be subject to someone's aerobics routine , poetry recital , an impromptu mass or other religious display outside of something reasonably quiet and sitting down.

Stealthfins

It's like saying anyone who supports Kilkenny shouldn't be allowed in Waterford with a Kilkenny Jersey.

The op shows us that some Atheists can be as intolerant as some religious people.

Michael OBrien

magicbastarder wrote: »

your caveat at the end is the important bit.
an airplane is not a private space in the same way that your living room is, for example. it's a privately owned space whose very existence depends on allowing paying members of the public into it, and is thus subject to laws which don't apply in strictly private spaces.

The issue does not ban people or even private prayer. Just the volume that the prayer is being expressed in, or disruptive behaviour that may be linked with prayer (prayer mats, washing body parts in public).

For me, if you remove the religious element of the act and view it JUST as an activity in that space, is it a problem. If it is, then stop it. If it is not a problem, allow it. Religion does not get a special exemption.

silverharp

Stealthfins wrote: »

It's like saying anyone who supports Kilkenny shouldn't be allowed in Waterford with a Kilkenny Jersey.

The op shows us that some Atheists can be as intolerant as some religious people.

I think you are building a fine strawman there. Religious people tended to use the force of the state to enforce their lack of tolerance. suggesting that airlines might compete on this where some might allow it and some night not is far more tolerant.

Michael OBrien

magicbastarder wrote: »

getting back to this - examples?
you may not like prayer, but saying it's 'often offensive hate speech' requires a little more explanation.

Prayer involves lots of claims about their god/subject of prayer and their believers, usually exclusionary claims, often with punishments or condemnations mixed into it directly or indirectly.
I find the mentality often abusive (to oneself and others), discriminatory, morally questionable and sometimes perverse.
I am sure some prayers are innocuous enough, but believers are often oblivious to how awful their religion actually is, and their prayers express that mentality with blissful ignorance to others.

magicbastarder

i'm still struggling to understand why this is not being debated as 'excessively noisy talk on airplanes' should be banned instead of 'excessively noisy prayer should be banned'.
i don't see why there's so much focus on prayer. i've never been on any form of shared or public transport where people prayed out loud in unison. i've been on public transport where there was singing/chanting, and i have never heard any clamour to specifically ban that. as discussed, on airplanes, the staff are auhorised to clamp down on any antisocial or disruptive behaviour.

this talk of banning prayer is a solution in search of a problem.

Michael OBrien

Stealthfins wrote: »

It's like saying anyone who supports Kilkenny shouldn't be allowed in Waterford with a Kilkenny Jersey.

The op shows us that some Atheists can be as intolerant as some religious people.

Nonsense. This is a strawman. What religious want is privilage, not rights. I would equally oppose an atheist standing up and loudly reading Dawkin's books in an airplane, or a pastafarian (not sure how you spell that) seeking some elaborate procedure where they dance up and down the isle with a pasta strainer on their head waiving pasta around.

Its rude. End of.

Thoie

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm still struggling to understand why this is not being debated as 'excessively noisy talk on airplanes' should be banned instead of 'excessively noisy prayer should be banned'.
i don't see why there's so much focus on prayer. i've never been on any form of shared or public transport where people prayed out loud in unison. i've been on public transport where there was singing/chanting, and i have never heard any clamour to specifically ban that. as discussed, on airplanes, the staff are auhorised to clamp down on any antisocial or disruptive behaviour.

this talk of banning prayer is a solution in search of a problem.

*raises hand* That's what I've been saying. And for the record, I was once subjected to singing/chanting on public transport, and complained about it to the proper people at the time. If you want to have a private party, don't do it on public transport. I don't give a hoot (or anything less polite) if "your" team has just won, or if it's "your" birthday/hen/stag/diarrhea day, you don't get to disturb everyone else.

magicbastarder

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Prayer involves lots of claims about their god/subject of prayer and their believers, usually exclusionary claims, often with punishments or condemnations mixed into it directly or indirectly.
I find the mentality often abusive (to oneself and others), discriminatory, morally questionable and sometimes perverse.
I am sure some prayers are innocuous enough, but believers are often oblivious to how awful their religion actually is, and their prayers express that mentality with blissful ignorance to others.

you described prayer as 'often thinly disguised extremely offensive hate speech'. do you have examples?
'religion is bad mmmkay' does not make prayer offensive hate speech.

Michael OBrien

magicbastarder wrote: »

you described prayer as 'often thinly disguised extremely offensive hate speech'. do you have examples?
'religion is bad mmmkay' does not make prayer offensive hate speech.

Put it this way, if someone decides to start praying on a crowded plane with an unwilling audience, it is usually a doom and gloom prayer, full of judgement. If it is anything like a street preacher, his/her choices are not going to be benign.
How often do you hear speeches against homosexuality by preachers? That is hate speech. Prayers/speeches can incorporate some awful themes.
I never said ALL prayers are hate speech. Just to be clear. But the type of people that need to pray on public transport TO UNWILLING listeners usually have an agenda.

silverharp

Michael OBrien wrote: »

Put it this way, if someone decides to start praying on a crowded plane with an unwilling audience, it is usually a doom and gloom prayer, full of judgement. If it is anything like a street preacher, his/her choices are not going to be benign.
How often do you hear speeches against homosexuality by preachers? That is hate speech. Prayers/speeches can incorporate some awful themes.
I never said ALL prayers are hate speech. Just to be clear. But the type of people that need to pray on public transport TO UNWILLING listeners usually have an agenda.

I would give the benefit of the doubt to the individual that they would probably prefer if you didn't listen in and they are not really looking for an audience. Technically you might be correct about the hate speech, for instance a Muslim can read parts of the Quran in this situation so the individual might well be reading something about slaughtering the unbeliever but its kind of a mute point unless there happens to be an ex muslim sitting beside him who might know what he is actually saying.

magicbastarder

Michael OBrien wrote: »

If it is anything like a street preacher, his/her choices are not going to be benign.
How often do you hear speeches against homosexuality by preachers? That is hate speech. Prayers/speeches can incorporate some awful themes.

i'm getting tired of having to follow these goalposts around. it's quite clear that prayer would very, very rarely fall into the category of hate speech. the notion of someone standing up on an airplane to mimic the likes of a street preacher is farcical, and would not be allowed.

Michael OBrien

silverharp wrote: »

I would give the benefit of the doubt to the individual that they would probably prefer if you didn't listen in and they are not really looking for an audience. Technically you might be correct about the hate speech, for instance a Muslim can read parts of the Quran in this situation so the individual might well be reading something about slaughtering the unbeliever but its kind of a mute point unless there happens to be an ex muslim sitting beside him who might know what he is actually saying.

If someone is quietly praying to themselves that is not an issue. I was lead to believe we were discussing people who stand up and make a public demonstration of their religious prayers, either by praying loudly or seeking special privileges to incorporate the isle in their prayers.
My view is that they are making a public show for other reasons than just seeking personal comfort from prayers. That public show is not benign.

Michael OBrien

magicbastarder wrote: »

... the notion of someone standing up on an airplane to mimic the likes of a street preacher is farcical, and would not be allowed.

Glad you agree that such prayer should not be allowed.

magicbastarder

street preaching =/= prayer.

Michael OBrien

magicbastarder wrote: »

street preaching =/= prayer.

that depends on the phrasing. Anything can be a prayer if you want it to.
All it takes is for someone to beseech their god for something or to praise god for his judgements or to incorporate parts of the bible in thanking god. It's not hard.

silverharp

Michael OBrien wrote: »

If someone is quietly praying to themselves that is not an issue. I was lead to believe we were discussing people who stand up and make a public demonstration of their religious prayers, either by praying loudly or seeking special privileges to incorporate the isle in their prayers.
My view is that they are making a public show for other reasons than just seeking personal comfort from prayers. That public show is not benign.

you could say they are following rules designed for a prior age. if the rule is you must pray 5 times a day and you are on an 8 hour flight you have a conundrum but that's their problem. Of course they shouldn't get extra rights and I think blocking an isle or even finding another free spot on the plane is out of order.

Michael OBrien

silverharp wrote: »

you could say they are following rules designed for a prior age. if the rule is you must pray 5 times a day and you are on an 8 hour flight you have a conundrum but that's their problem. Of course they shouldn't get extra rights and I think blocking an isle or even finding another free spot on the plane is out of order.

They can still pray, just in their seat quietly. I don't support banning prayer, I support not giving special privileges to religious folk simply BECAUSE their religious. Same rules apply to everyone. I would equally object to any other form of loud or intrusive behaviour on a plane. I suffer from mild claustrophobia, making plane trips difficult, I don't need someone making it harder on me unnecessarily.

starshine1234

Silent praying,, or other silent activities might also be a problem.

Non religious people doing gym exercises in the aisles for example. Star jumps would be fairly invasive and off putting to others but what about enthusiastic stretching?

Silent praying of the type where a person stands up, then lowers themselves to their knees, then lowers their bum to their heels, then lowers their chest to the ground to kiss the ground, and repeat. This would be annoying.


So any activity which increases general stress levels can be controlled by the airline staff. I agree that in cases of religious praying the staff are probably concerned they might be labelled as bad people by some liberals.


But religions are often exclusive and pretty hateful.


The problem is different cultures in the same space. If only we didn't have to live in a multicultural world. It is the cause of many problems.
I feel societies and shared spaces are only peaceful when the vast majority share the same culture and values. Once different and incompatable cultures and beliefs are forced to share the same spaces these problems will arise.
Allowing expression of different cultures may well lead to conflict. The airline staff can really only act on a case by case basis, with the ultimmate aim of ensuring the safest and most peaceful flight for the majority of its passengers.
If there's a majority of football fans on the flight does that mean that the fans should be accommodated? After all, they are in a majority. What about a majority of Muslims?


Airline staff can choose not to intervene in a particular case if they feel it's not possible to intervene safely.

magicbastarder

starshine1234 wrote: »

Silent praying of the type where a person stands up, then lowers themselves to their knees, then lowers their bum to their heels, then lowers their chest to the ground to kiss the ground, and repeat. This would be annoying.

have you been on say, an A320? how is the above even worth considering?

starshine1234

I'm not sure what an A320 is like. Is it big? What was your point?

I'm talking about the visual intrusion of having to observe someone clearly engaged in religious activity. I did also raise the issue of someone stretching enthusiastically in the aisles.

Deep vein thrombosis is a real issue caused or aggravated by sitting for long periods. Stretching helps to prevent it. But can the airline allow large numbers of people to stretch in the aisles?

If the airline allows streching does it also need to allow silent religious praying?


Religion is an expression of culture and it is for that reason that it should be restriced on planes. Any expression of culture, which can include clothing, can lead to unrest and stress. The airline is seeking to minimise stress.


Therefore, the airline can ban or restrict praying, and silent praying which is accompanied by actions, even if the airline allows enthusiastic stretching.

magicbastarder

starshine1234 wrote: »

I'm talking about the visual intrusion of having to observe someone clearly engaged in religious activity.

are you serious?

i'm amazed at the straw-manning going on.
people doing full on stretch out praying is not an issue on airplanes. you're tying yourself in logical knots trying to justify banning a nonexistent practice, simply because you don't like it.

starshine1234

I've no idea what your point is.

I haven't made any straw men.

Can you make your point again please if you have one?

magicbastarder

here's one way of phrasing it: you are looking to ban something which is not a problem.
Michael OBrien would like to ban street preachers from planes.
i would like to ban people milking cows on planes. we can all agree that milking a cow on a plane would be A Bad Thing, so an explicit ban would be logical.

silverharp

magicbastarder wrote: »

here's one way of phrasing it: you are looking to ban something which is not a problem.
Michael OBrien would like to ban street preachers from planes.
i would like to ban people milking cows on planes. we can all agree that milking a cow on a plane would be A Bad Thing, so an explicit ban would be logical.

if you can do it in your seat the cow might be a bit more relaxed after

starshine1234

magicbastarder wrote: »

here's one way of phrasing it: you are looking to ban something which is not a problem.
Michael OBrien would like to ban street preachers from planes.
i would like to ban people milking cows on planes. we can all agree that milking a cow on a plane would be A Bad Thing, so an explicit ban would be logical.

This isn't debate. You come across as somewhat hysterical.

I feel my posts are quite clear. I don't understand your points or your objections.

Praying should be banned or restricted on planes if the airline feels its appropriate. The airline can easily justify the ban or restriction.

Michael OBrien

magicbastarder wrote: »

Michael OBrien would like to ban street preachers from planes.

I never once said that I want to ban street preachERS. Just the kind of retoric that comes from someone LIKE street preachers, that feels he/she needs an audience for his/her religious mumbling.
If a street preacher sits quitely, reading his/her bible to himself/herself. I have zero problem with that person and would defend his/her right to be there.

As far as medical issues that require stretching, I don't put my discomfort over the actual HEALTH of others. If someone is in pain and needs to stretch, that is ok. Same with babies crying, I don't seek any ban on babies (although parents should not just ignore the child crying either and try to stop that activity).

What exact type of activity are YOU talking about? As I said multiple times, praying to oneself quietly or silently, without obstruction to others, is not something I object to.

Maybe I posted erroneously if I misunderstood the topic of this thread.

magicbastarder

Michael OBrien wrote: »

I never once said that I want to ban street preachERS. Just the kind of retoric that comes from someone LIKE street preachers, that feels he/she needs an audience for his/her religious mumbling.
If a street preacher sits quitely, reading his/her bible to himself/herself. I have zero problem with that person and would defend his/her right to be there.

that came up in the context of your comment that prayer is 'often offensive hate speech'. which it is not, and you used the behaviour of street preaching as a example as the sort of stuff which should be banned.

which would already be prevented by airline staff. no new ban required.

magicbastarder

the thing is, any regulation which explicitly listed prayer as to be banned would be (rightly) seen as extremely illiberal, and if you asks me, it imbues prayer with a power it does not and should not have. and if the ban was somehow associated with 'the atheist movement' would be damaging and make them/us look like humourless killjoys.

any behaviour which is disruptive or impedes the staff on an airplane, or is otherwise antisocial, is already disallowed. i was talking to a chap i know a year or so back who is a pilot for an airline; the only issue he'd ever had with a passenger being disruptive was someone who refused to put his macbook away for takeoff. i suspect he'd laugh like a drain if you suggested that we need an explicit regulation to prevent someone prostrating themselves in worhsip of their god, on the cabin floor.

Michael OBrien

magicbastarder wrote: »

that came up in the context of your comment that prayer is 'often offensive hate speech'. which it is not, and you used the behaviour of street preaching as a example as the sort of stuff which should be banned.

which would already be prevented by airline staff. no new ban required.

The context actually was referring to the type of praying that people with the mentality of street preaching would choose. If people decide they need to make their prayers loud enough to disturb others, they may fall into that category.

Michael OBrien

magicbastarder wrote: »

the thing is, any regulation which explicitly listed prayer as to be banned would be (rightly) seen as extremely illiberal, and if you asks me, it imbues prayer with a power it does not and should not have. and if the ban was somehow associated with 'the atheist movement' would be damaging and make them/us look like humourless killjoys.

any behaviour which is disruptive or impedes the staff on an airplane, or is otherwise antisocial, is already disallowed. i was talking to a chap i know a year or so back who is a pilot for an airline; the only issue he'd ever had with a passenger being disruptive was someone who refused to put his macbook away for takeoff. i suspect he'd laugh like a drain if you suggested that we need an explicit regulation to prevent someone prostrating themselves in worhsip of their god, on the cabin floor.

As stated, it is the intrusiveness of the activity that I object to, not the idea in general. I said I would not support a ban on prayer.
Until this thread I honestly was surprised the topic came up as I would agree that such anti-social behaviour was already something not condoned.
I recognise that staff might not be happy shutting down loud praying as it might be seen as offensive to the person praying, more so than a football chant.

starshine1234

Religious people can be very entitled. In other words, they can act as if they have an entitlement to carry out their religions in various situations.

As there is legislation banning discrimination on religious grounds it might be difficult in some cases to restrict religious activity if it is similar to non-religious activity.

Some types of praying may be very similar to some types of stretching. Stretching may actually be required to prevent deep vein thrombosis but praying canot be said to be required.

If a religious person sees someone stretching they might think that they can pray silently while kissing the ground, as both activities are similar.

My point is that although the activities are similar they are being done for wildly different reasons, and therefore, the airline can explicitily ban one while allowing the other.

magicbastarder

Your continuing insistence that airlines explicitly ban something which does not happen is farcical.

magicbastarder

starshine1234 wrote: »

If a religious person sees someone stretching they might think that they can pray silently while kissing the ground, as both activities are similar.

Actually, sod the explicit ban. It'd be hilarious to see someone trying to do this on an airplane mid flight.

starshine1234

There are trolls in real life too, not just online.

An example would be slow drivers in the middle lane of the M50 doing 70Km/h. In some cases, not all, those drivers are deliberately trolling other road users. They want to cause chaos and giggle at the outcome.


Some people on planes will also try to push boundaries for the laugh. I'd imagine that there have been cases of people lying down in aircraft aisles. I can't explain it but I expect it has happened.

It could easily happen that people try to pray while kissing the ground on a plane just to be provocative. Just to get a reaction. How should the air crew respond?

What if it's a hidden camera show?

The world is growing stranger every day. It's a result of the internet and forced mixing of different and of incompatable cultures and beliefs. Its very hard to solve, except by not allowing multiple cultures to exist in the first place.

magicbastarder

starshine1234 wrote: »

What if it's a hidden camera show?

I'm beginning to think this thread is a hidden camera show.

starshine1234

It doesn't have to be an official hidden camera show. It just has to be someone with a camera.

If the airline acts incorrectly they could be sued, or face major public relations issues.

Everyone in the west is walking on eggshells for fear of being policitically incorrect or being labelled a racist. This is very dangerous as peoples fear can be exploited by trolls or by criminals, or by hidden camera show producers.

People are afraid to criticise Islam. People tend to appease islamists when they make demands. This might be a mistake.

The only real reason I can think of for someone to pray in an exhibionist way on a plane is that that person wants to be provocative. In other words, they're a troll.

Peregrinus

starshine1234 wrote: »

The only real reason I can think of for someone to pray in an exhibionist way on a plane is that that person wants to be provocative. In other words, they're a troll.

This probably tell us more about the limits of your imagination, though, than it does about their motivation. If you can't or don't understand the reasons for his behaviour that\'s your problem, not his, and I can't see that the proper response is to restrict his behaviour.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't know why non-religious people in particular would have such a right. Are non-religious people some kind of superior being, such that they have rights that are denied to others?

Reframe the question in a less unfortunate way: do people have a right not to have public displays of religion foisted on them?

It's very hard to argue that they do, really. Most conceptions of human rights include rights to freedom of expression/free speech, and to freedom of belief/religious practice. Obviously any ban on manifestations of religion in a a public place would infringe these rights, and so would require some fairly powerful justification. I'm not saying that there couldn't be a justification; just that we need to produce one, we can't assume it. And that it needs to be a pretty convincing one.


Of course, this goes to the question of whether the law or could should ban public displays of religion on planes, buses and trains. We could ask a different question; could such a ban be imposed by airlines, bus operators, railway companies as part of the conditions of carriage? Don't they have rights too, and don't their rights include the right to control/limit/regulate the behaviour of passengers through the terms of their contracts with the passengers?

We could sidestep the question in a couple of ways. One, such a ban is totally impractical. (If I'm chanting loudly in a language that might be Hebrew but on the other hand might be Icelandic, how confident are you that I'm engaged in a public display of religion, or just giving an off-key version of the B-side of Iceland's Eurovision entry for 1994?) Two, it's unlikely that airlines, etc, would choose to impose such a ban, since it would attract controversy and almost certainly cause them more commercial damage than is caused by the (I suspect, fairly infrequent) phenomenon of public expression of religion on public conveyances of one kind or another.

But let's not sidestep the question. If, say, a private bus operator were to impose such a ban, would it be lawful? Obviously if it was a ban that was imposed on, say, just Muslims, that would be unlawful discrimination on the basis of religion. If it was a ban that targetted all religious expressions, there's a fairly strong argument that it would still be unlawful discrimination on the basis of religious belief, if expressions of belief which were otherwise similar but were not of religious belief were not banned. But a ban on disruptive, attention-seeking speech or behaviour? I think you're good to go with that one.

But the problem here is both the rights to freedom of speech and the right of freedom of religion are qualified rights. In the later, this is particularly the case for manifestations of religion which are, in fact, not protected at all, as a string of employment tribunal cases has shown. In addition to this, it is widely held that the freedom of religion extends to freedom from religion. So this would mean there is a conflict between one's right to shove one's religiosity in the face of everyone within range and the right of those within range to have peaceful enjoyment of whatever activity they happen to be attempting. I am not sure the religious would win this one. Perhaps you can point out where in the bible it says one has to stand up on an aeroplane and pray loudly?

But leaving all the aside, the religious aspect, as others have pointed out, is pretty irrelevant. Anyone standing during a flight loudly shouting anything, be excerpts from Harry Potter, an impromptu performance of the Vagina Monologues, quoteS from <INSERT PREFERRED HOLY BOOK> or off the hoof prayers should be told to sit down and shut up. Any policies to stop this kind of behaviour could, and should, be applied to any of behaviour of this nature, be it religious or otherwise. The religious have no greater right to inflict their beliefs on other as a Harry Potter fanboy has to shout out his favourite passages.

Anyone on a flight, particularly considering the lack of ability to move away from any nuisance has a reasonable expectation that they will have peaceful enjoyment of the service they have purchased. If you have an overwhelming urge to loudly pray and show everyone how super religious and holy you are, become a pastor and tell it to people that care.

MrP

magicbastarder

MrPudding wrote: »

In addition to this, it is widely held that the freedom of religion extends to freedom from religion.

'freedom from religion' does not mean you have a right to be free from being reminded other religions exist; it means that your rights should not be curtailed on the basis of beliefs or practices of other religions. not that you have a say in whether people can pray out loud.

plus, the concept of freedom of speech or freedom of religion is not illuminated by employment tribunal cases, and employment law should not inform us regarding those rights. i have freedom of speech to call politician Y a wanker, or claim that god is great - but my employer may legitimately bar me from expressing these thoughts to customers if i am a waiter in a restaurant.
in this case, you could not sensibly argue that my freedom of speech or religion is being curtailed, or that it's an example of the limits of those rights.

MrPudding

magicbastarder wrote: »

'freedom from religion' does not mean you have a right to be free from being reminded other religions exist; it means that your rights should not be curtailed on the basis of beliefs or practices of other religions. not that you have a say in whether people can pray out loud.

Agreed, but then I never said one has a right not to be reminded religion exists. I would argue that someone loudly praying where one does not really have any way to get away from it goes way beyond simply being reminded of the existence of religion.

People do have other rights that can be infringed by such behaviour, in simple contract terms, if you buy a flight, a service, you have an implied right to quiet and peaceful enjoyment. Some @sshole, and yes, someone that behaves like this is an asshole, same as anyone that does any of the other things I mentioned above, praying loudly is breaching that right.

magicbastarder wrote: »

plus, the concept of freedom of speech or freedom of religion is not illuminated by employment tribunal cases, and employment law should not inform us regarding those rights. i have freedom of speech to call politician Y a wanker, or claim that god is great - but my employer may legitimately bar me from expressing these thoughts to customers if i am a waiter in a restaurant.
in this case, you could not sensibly argue that my freedom of speech or religion is being curtailed, or that it's an example of the limits of those rights.

Actually, I would disagree on the lack of illumination offered by employment tribunal cases. The fact that it is employment law is not the salient or relevant point. In coming to the decision they did the judges in those cases had to look at where the rights overlapped, the right to manifest one's religion and that right not to have such manifestations foisted upon oneself. And that has an application beyond employment law. Employment law is not informing us about those rights, the analysis carried out by the judges to determine exactly what the rights were, how far they went and how they worked with other party's rights, all before employment law was applied or considered, is what informs us.

If you haven't already I would highly recommend you read some of the cases.

MrP

magicbastarder

i would guess - without having read the cases mentioned - that it's the intersection between employment law and the neutral provision of services which is the salient point.
i.e. it's not about curtailing the rights of the employee, it's about respecting the rights of the customer, and the employee is part of the delivery of the service which must respect those rights.

MrPudding

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would guess - without having read the cases mentioned - that it's the intersection between employment law and the neutral provision of services which is the salient point.
i.e. it's not about curtailing the rights of the employee, it's about respecting the rights of the customer, and the employee is part of the delivery of the service which must respect those rights.

Sort of... Where the right is qualified they look to understand how far that right goes and why it might be qualified, in that particular case. This would include where the exercising of one person's right might infringe on the same, or a different, right of another person. This is usually carried out as a kind of pure analysis of the particular right, rather than how it intersects with, for example, employment law. So, for example, if you look at the cases one of the key points that came out of that was the right to hold a particular belief was what was protected, and the manifestations of that belief, particularly where those manifestations might breach someone else's rights, did not attract protection.

All this is just about the rights, they have not looked at actual employment law yet. And this is why I think these cases are useful, as they usually contain a pretty good analysis of the various rights, how far they go, where they conflict and what the priorities are. Of course, they then look at the employment law side of things, as they must. I would suggest that even this is informative. Yes, it is employment law, but certain principles apply that probably transfer. Discrimination, under certain circumstances, is allowed. They key principle is that the discrimination is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end. The discrimination is only as much as is necessary to achieve a certain goal, and that goal is legitimate. Also, the use of comparators is informative in trying to understand is a particular act was discriminatory. Again this is an employment law tool, but can really help in analysing the situation.

So in this particular case would telling the guy to sit down and shut up be a proportional act to achieve a legitimate end? You could also use a comparator, would a person without the guys protected characteristic (his religiousness), doing the same thing also be told to sit down and shut up?

MrP

pauldla

Matthew 6:5-6

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Let them do it in the lavvy, so. Is there a Mile High Club for praying?

Qs

starshine1234 wrote: »

Everyone in the west is walking on eggshells for fear of being policitically incorrect or being labelled a racist.

Speak for yourself. I find it very easy not to be labelled a racist.

starshine1234

By not speaking is it?