(no subject)
May. 11th, 2003 11:00 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
coalescentHow is this allowed?
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.
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.
