To think this sets a dangerous precedent? Ethical veganism is philosophical belief and is protected by law.

[AlternativePerspective]

Ethical veganism is 'philosophical belief' www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359

Now, I’m not saying that how someone lives their life shouldn’t be protected. But in this instance the man was dismissed because he found out the pension funds his employers invested in supported animal testing, and then started to spread the word about them.

That was why he was dismissed and that shouldn’t be supported.

After all where does it end? Someone who is a philosophical vegan objects to workmates eating ham sandwiches at their desks so their belief trumps others’ right? Should they be able to demand that someone who needs an assistance dog not be allowed to bring it into work on the basis their beliefs state that it is unethical to keep any animal for any purpose?

Isn’t it just time people lived out their own beliefs for themselves without feeling they should have the right to make others compensate for their beliefs? And I would apply that to any kind of belief system....

I don’t think anyone should be dismissed for questioning pension fund investments

Neither do I, but as said I suspect (though can't know) that it wasn't so much the questioning as how it was done

As an aside... it's also interesting that suddenly write ups are talking about "ethical veganism" as opposed to "dietary veganism".

The British vegan society makes no such distinction, they imply that the word vegan can only be used in extremely narrow situations.

I couldn't believe this when I read it. Seriously?

Maya Forstater lost her case, because it wasn't a protected thing.

But this is?

Eh?

I don’t want a religious pharmacist refusing to dispense contraception, which is where I see this going

I thought pharmacists could already refuse to give out the MAP, if it went against their conscience because, since it acts start fertilisation, it can be seen as an abortion.

Just like pro-life doctors can refuse to refer patients for abortions.

WeWork, a co-working space, has a vegan boss who announced that when the company's employees are abroad on business they're not allowed to expense meals that contain meat.

Vegans are nuts. (No pun intended)

www.nytimes.com/2018/07/20/business/wework-vegetarian.html

His beliefs affect much of his everyday life. He will, for instance, walk rather than take a bus to avoid accidental crashes with insects or birds

What the hell? Does he worry about stepping on an ant or a spider? What if a bird flies into the window of his house?

The guy needs psychological help!

If religious beliefs are protected then I think it's just showing consistency for non-religious philosophies to be given equal protection.

I'll bet they're glad to get rid of him.

What I don't understand about this case is that he was never dismissed for being a vegan- but for his conduct with regards to his pension possibly being gross misconduct.

If I'm sacked for stealing from my company I can't get out of it by saying I'm a woman or disabled or any other protected characteristic. That isn't the law.

Also he's obviously crackers and not very bright or logical. If the bus is already driving whether he is on it or not makes no difference and only means he adds the risk that he would step on an ant while walking that would have been saved had he been on the bus.

It seems right to me. Why should ethical beliefs involving supernatural elements (one or more gods) be protected and not other ethical belief systems?

And this passage:
The judge Robin Postle ruled that ethical veganism qualifies as a philosophical belief under the Equality Act 2010 by satisfying several tests - including that it is worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others.
ought to allay some of the concerns expressed by other posters.

Also he's obviously crackers and not very bright or logical. If the bus is already driving whether he is on it or not makes no difference and only means he adds the risk that he would step on an ant while walking that would have been saved had he been on the bus.

Similar arguments around whether watching illegal porn is wrong, or whether a vegan can eat sausages which will otherwise be chucked in the bin

I think it's great news.

@Equanimitas thanks. It is now hypothetical for me but it is interesting that it doesn't form any part of the admissions code.

If religious beliefs are protected then I think it's just showing consistency for non-religious philosophies to be given equal protection

I agree as long as protection doesn't extend to those beliefs impinging on the rights of others who don't hold them. I say that as an ethical vegan.

I'll bet they're glad to get rid of him

He sounds like the colleague from hell and, going by his statement outside the court, will only get worse:

He added: "There will definitely be a positive outcome beyond me... It will help the promotion of veganism as a lifestyle because vegans who might be afraid about talking about their belief, that might be feeling that they are not welcome, they will feel empowered now.

"They will believe that their belief is now a protected belief... That will give them power and that means they will be more expressive."

I have a strong ethical belief that my colleagues shouldn't preach to me about anything

When I'm stuck 35 hours per week with them, preaching becomes oppressive

WeWork, a co-working space, has a vegan boss who announced that when the company's employees are abroad on business they're not allowed to expense meals that contain meat

That is not unusual in US companies although more commonly the company owners are imposing religious beliefs on staff and using their position to block women's access to reproductive care.

If the guy signed a standard business confidentiality contract then I'd assume that is what he was sacked for and the question would be as to whether its justifiable whistleblowing or the cited gross misconduct.

I'd be more bothered about the use of the word expense as a verb

just read this 'So, for example, could a worker on a supermarket checkout refuse to put a meat product through the till?'

my worry is the extremist vegans from this.they have set fires to farmers homes.sent hate and violant threats to anmials producer or retailers.his speach outside fuels these people.we saw what they did in london on the trains etc.

The legal profession will be happy about this it will open a whole new can of worms for them. A solicitor said to us that this case will be used in and he used the example of dispatching foxes. If it is your ethical belief that foxes need shooting then you will not be successfully prosecuted.

It was in the news recently that a pharmacist refused to dispense the morning after pill because of their beliefs.

just read this 'So, for example, could a worker on a supermarket checkout refuse to put a meat product through the till?'

I don't think so - it would be too disruptive for reasonable adjustment to made by the employer. It would be like a muslim working in an off licence.

A solicitor said to us that this case will be used in and he used the example of dispatching foxes. If it is your ethical belief that foxes need shooting then you will not be successfully prosecuted.

Not a very good solicitor! The Equality Act does not provide a defence to criminal offences.

This thread is becoming like the more hysterical political-correctness-gone-mad parts of the Daily Mail.

As an aside, does this mean that employers will now collect data on whether employees are vegan or not?

What I don't understand about this case is that he was never dismissed for being a vegan- but for his conduct with regards to his pension possibly being gross misconduct.

They haven't made any finding yet as to whether the dismissal was fair. This was simply tried first as a preliminary issue