(no subject)

[coalescent]

How is this allowed?

One key clause inserted into the regulations states that an exemption applies when an employer acts "so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion - "or so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers".

[...]

Other major changes to the original draft, allowing discrimination against atheists or others who do not share the religious beliefs of their employer, were made following strong lobbying from evangelical groups. One of the biggest loopholes allows an employer to dismiss or fail to hire an individual if he is "not satisfied" that they fit his own "ethos based on religion or belief".

The only possible amelioration of this is that the article suggests the powers are limited to 'religious employers'; you couldn't be sacked under this legislation if you were, for example, an investment banker with an evangelical boss. That doesn't make it justifiable, but it does restrict the harm. It's still a seriously depressing piece of legislation, though - particularly given that it was originally intended to protect groups such as Muslims and gays.

Comments

[snowking.livejournal.com]

FUCKING HELL!

[hawleygriffen.livejournal.com]

*shakes head in disgust* I can't believe this is for real. I only wish it were April 1st. And what exactly is a "religious employer"? Seems an awful vague term. This legislation is unnecessary and potentially damaging.

Well...

[applez.livejournal.com]

you couldn't be sacked under this legislation if you were, for example, an investment banker with an evangelical boss

Chillingly, I would add the word 'yet.'

---

Incidentally, this has some precedent, albeit with American variants of that recent sexual discrimination case that Job Centre guy brought forth in the UK concerning formal dress. There is an acceptable practice that states some level of consistency can be required within a business if it fits into that business' mission.

Makes a patchwork, and a loophole for abuse, but there we have it.

Re: Well...

[applez.livejournal.com]

Umm...or indeed that Job Centre example since this is a refinement of UK law...

---

[fba.livejournal.com]

It is a typical piece of New Labour fudging. They try to make things better, but don't want to upset anyone, so in the process make it worse.

The new sexual offenses bill suffers from pretty much the same problem....

[(Anonymous)]

I imagine that the idea of a religious employer would include faith-based schools, religious organisations, various charities that are religion specific (e.g. Christian Aid) but "any employer with an ethos based on religion or belief" is much too vague, I agree. Perhaps it should list allowed categories specifically to make things clearer, e.g. could this be applied to print workers of companies publishing only religious books? And how far should this go - could/should it include the cleaning staff for buildings occupied by these companies?

However, the principle is sound, and it does protect minority groups (and I'd also like to point out that church-going Christians are in the minority in the UK, no matter what the dodgy census figures suggest); it's stupid if a church trying to hire a youth-worker can't choose a Christian over an atheist without being accused of unfair discrimination, or an Islamic school can't select a Muslim teacher in preference to a Christian.

Gail