Does anyone else think that religion is a bit of an odd protected characteristic?

[ADHDPI]

I may be way off the mark here as it is only a thought that has popped into my head just now.

As an atheist, I have quite strong feelings about religion and find it all quite bizarre and absurd. However, if I said that to someone religious in my office I could potentially be sacked due to criticism of their protected characteristic.

I just don't feel it is the same as saying a similar comment about disability, ethnicity, sex etc. Of course I don't think anyone should be actively discriminated against because of their religion, but no more so than because of the colour of someone's eyes. It doesn't effect anyone else. It's more the fact that I as an atheist cannot voice my opinion about religion without insulting a protected characteristic and vice versa.... Yet its generally OK to believe that God doesn't exist. Odd!

Thoughts? Have I missed something? Am I being far too black and white here?

I think it's a crucial part of the Equality Act! It protects your atheism just as much as anyone's religion. So your employer can't refuse to employ atheists, shops can't insist they only serve those who practise their own religion, a library can't refuse entry to atheists - but if you want to organise a membership organisation or a group exclusively for atheists then you are free to do so.

Globally and historically people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs (or absence of religious beliefs), and that often starts with the things the Equality Act controls, which relate to discrimination by employers, service providers etc. Sorry to Godwin the thread but look at 1930s Germany. Look at the treatment of Christians in Pakistan, or of Bahai in Iran, or anyone who isn't Orthodox in Eritrea. Think about what your job prospects - or life prospects - would be like as an atheist in Afghanistan. Persecution begins with state sponsored or state tolerated discrimination; globally speaking religious persecution is popular; and the Equality Act serves to nip it in the bud before it develops. I know we think we're above this sort of thing in the UK but I am absolutely certain there are some employers or services who would refuse to employ or work with Muslims if they thought they could get away with it

You can't be fired for saying you think religion is absurd, although you could be fired for harassing someone at work due to their religious beliefs. Equally they can't be fired for saying they believe atheists are going to hell, but can be fired for harassing you due to your non-belief. Where the line falls between expressing your opinion and harassing your colleagues is an issue to keep the employment lawyers busy.

Pregnancy and being on maternity leave is a protected characteristic and is a choice, as is being married/in a civil partnership

Is being an atheist a protected characteristic?
I thought it was just being religious that was protected.

Of course, not, that would be discriminatory. Just as sex discrimination applies to both women and men.

It's 'religion and belief', which includes any seriously held philosophical belief - including atheism.

Unless you’re an Islamophobic or anti-Semitic, being an athetise is not the same as being racist.

You’re either being obtuse or goady right now.

Imagine being so fragile in your views that you need the law to control other people's speech around you

No belief system should be protected from scrutiny or criticism. Particularly not when one considers the damage organised religion has done, and continues to do.

Imagine being so fragile in your views that you need the law to control other people's speech around you

Imagine getting substandard care in hospital as the staff didn't like your religion?

Yes it happens.

Great post

As others have said, it would be possible, and was historically possible without any legal redress, to prevent someone being hired, or use particular services, or get somewhere to live, on the basis of their religion.

It would be possible, and was historically possible, to be fired from a job on this basis (or as the 'real' reason) too.

I am not an HR expert but there has been a recent case where a precedent of the way religious convictions are included in the Equality Act (and philosophical definitions that also have relevance for other areas) led to a debate about whether veganism should be regarded in a comparable way when a dispute came up about that:
europeanacademyofreligionandsociety.com/news/is-veganism-a-religion/

So although you might want to consign it to the past, it's still relevant, useful, and there would not be a foregone conclusion of the end result if legal cases came up that required these or comparable issues being tested in case law.

A lot of people on this thread (OP included) don’t seem to recognise the legal distinction between a belief and an opinion. Your beliefs are protected (religious or not) but your opinions are not to the same extent. Your opinions are protected under freedom of expression in the HRA, not protected under the EA. This means, in very simplified terms, you’re entitled to hold your beliefs and express them regardless of whether they conflict or offend others. You’re entitled to hold and express your opinions but only if doing so does not undermine the protection of someone else’s belief.

A belief is above an opinion. It’s more innately engrained, it’s higher stakes, it is a core value for who you are. It applies to religion but also a range of other beliefs too. An opinion is more changeable, or external to yourself or lower stakes.

Whose speech am I trying to control? My point was YOU think ‘religion is preposterous’ doesn’t make it true or OK to ridicule.

You’re upset you can’t ridicule groups of people, many of which ARE vulnerable.

Tell us please who you’re so eager to ridicule? Is it Jews?

I as an atheist cannot voice my opinion about religion without insulting a protected characteristic

But there's a difference between an insult or threat, and a discussion. The EA doesn't exist to stifle discussion.

@RandomCatGenerator

The law protects people from Islamophobia and Anti-semitism both of which are on the rise in the U.K. and across Europe

and anti Christianity- rife in some countries which we don’t always see here.

There are also some faiths you can’t leave - Islam and now Catholicism so you are of that faith often due to where you or your parents were born in the world.

But I think religion has been used as a pretext to discriminate against poor people and immigrants in general.

I agree and I have definitely learnt this today.

Great post @Chubbernut

Technically, and I’m being pedantic, it would be illegal to say “no Catholics” if your intention to prevent Polish/Irish employees even if religion weren’t protected. This is because there’s protection against indirect discrimination, to avoid the loophole you mentioned. For example, if I wanted to hire a waitress but couldn’t say “no men” because it’s protected, I couldn’t say “no short hair” and use that to filter out the vast majority of men. Because short hair is disproportionately worn by men, excluding people because of their length of hair is indirectly discriminatory and is also illegal. This has happened even when it’s unintentional. In London, there were issues with supporting London taxis over Uber because taxi drivers were disproportionately white and Uber drivers were disproportionately non-white.

There are also some faiths you can’t leave - Islam and now Catholicism so you are of that faith often due to where you or your parents were born in the world.

Well... of course people can leave the faith even if the organization says they can't. Our protected belief characteristic should help protect apostates.

I don't think you would be reprimanded for saying that you have no faith and that you are not interested in religion (that is a personal choice). However you would be if you treated somebody differently based purely on the grounds of their religion, like if you made fun of a colleague for being Muslim/Catholic etc (as you should be).

Malaysia 😁

I think you're being a bit disingenuous OP.

I'm an atheist, perfectly happy being vocal about that if I'm asked, and I can see that there is clearly a gulf between religious people expecting the right not to be offended, which is nonsense and doesn't exist, and the right not to be discriminated against because of their chosen belief.

Where I do agree that there is a bizarre element to protecting religious belief, is that there is a blatant degree of hypocrisy and duplicitousness over what exactly constitutes a genuinely held religious belief. Nobody questions that Christianity is a recognised religion, and as such Christians are afforded the protection of the act, yet if you, in all sincerity, follow the Jedi code, you will not be taken seriously if you contend that you were discriminated against because of your Jedi adherence. It begs the question why not? It can not be the simple fact that the UK does not formally recognise Jediism as a legitimate religion, because there are plenty of minority religions that are also not formally recognised, but their adherents would be taken perfectly seriously should they claim that they had been the victim of discrimination because of of their faith.

In essence, I don't understand how the law can regard one 'faith' based in nothing evidential as credible, but disregard others on the back of them being less than credulous.

I think you might have misunderstood the equality act. It doesn't prevent anyone being insulted. You are allowed to insult people as long as you don't incite hatred. It prevents discrimination, and although I concede your point that religion is a choice, so is marital status and pregnancy (some would also argue so is sexuality) and I don't think anyone would agree it's ok to discriminate against someone on the basis of being pregnant.

That could be caught by indirect discrimination. Eg height isn't a protected characteristic but if you randomly decide you're only hiring people over six foot then that's probably going to be found to be race and sex discrimination.

It's protected because it's something that people are commonly discriminated against because of.

As I believe the atheist position is one which is not my worldview then I would think it my right of free speech to share that opinion. However in terms of politeness when working with someone who is an atheist I would not tell them their opinion is bizarre and absurd even if I thought it. I think we ought to be able to discuss things as mature adults without being offensive about it and if we can’t then we stay off the subject for the sake of peace. I have worked with many people of different world views and discuss matters with them without offending them and I would expect them to do the same with me which most of them do

What I find bizarre is that we still allow and indeed pay for faith schools which are allowed to give preference to children of particular faiths. That seems inherently discriminatory and really needs to stop.

PMSL at "Is it Jews?" - are you quite well?

Personally, I tend to direct my ridicule at the brand of extremist Christian fundamentalism that, to my mind, is doing the most active damage to the society I live in - homophobic, transphobic, misogynistic, right-wing, repressive and cruel. The kind of literal Bible-believing fundamentalists who genuinely believe that a woman wearing trousers is "defrauding" men, and publish helpful manuals on how best to beat your infant without leaving a mark.

I'm not going to stop ridiculing, criticising and openly despising those churches and the damage they do, and I won't support a law that protects their right to go on destroying people's lives.

So, no. It isn't "Jews". FFS.