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?

The thing is, you're just as protected in stating your belief as religious people are to state theirs!

What you can't do however, is persecute them for what they believe rather than just simply stating what you believe.

No belief system should be protected from scrutiny or criticism.

And nothing in the Equality Act prevents either. You can scrutinise and criticise to your heart's content. You just can't use it as a reason to victimise, harass, or discriminate against an individual or group of people.

I think it's really important, otherwise you'll have schools feeding Muslims pork and Hindus beef, employers refusing to employ Jews, Muslims or Sikhs, or refusing for them to wear their religious head coverings or refusing them positions unless they don't wear them. Just because you don't believe in something, doesn't mean other people shouldn't and their rights to do so shouldn't be protected and them protected from discrimination. Also the idea that religion is chosen is erroneous in that for any people their religion is their default and what they have known all their lives, the choice would be to leave their religion and often community as well. People have short memories of why it is so important to protect religious freedoms and for religion and belief to be protected characteristics.

wildhunt.org/2021/03/scottish-pagan-federation-to-release-results-of-discrimination-survey.html

I think religious tolerance (and tolerance in general!) is incredibly important. I am religious and have experienced discrimination. I suppose if you haven’t experienced it, it might seem as though it doesn’t happen. I absolutely don’t mind people having a different viewpoint to me about faith/belief but I do mind being verbally and/ or physically attacked because of it.

That’s why I think posts like this can stray in to dangerous territory.

I completely agree with you, but I would say we're not a secular country really, we are a secular population. The head of state is supreme head of the Church of England and so must be a member of that faith. All schools have to have broadly Christian assemblies daily (unless that ridiculous law has been repelled). If we were truly secular, then there would be a clear division between Church and State.

I have left the Catholic faith (100%) but if someone in a position of power came along and said that for the purposes of their laws anyone baptised Catholic is still Catholic, I couldn't change that.

In the U.K., now, the protection of your belief guards against this scenario.

I may be wrong but I've heard German ex-Catholics can find it hard to get out of the church tax, maybe that's the sort of thing you're thinking of?

You're so uncertain about the basis for your pro-abortion views that you want it to be illegal to have those views challenged?

I don't think you have a right to interrogate or ridicule people at work for any reason. You are supposed to be working.

It's a shame that things have be legislated for in order to be given the respect they deserve.
The right to follow your chosen beliefs is at the core of humanity IMO, be that a religion, atheism or agnosticism.
These should all be respected. The Govt's British Values state that peoples religions, or no religion, should be respected and tolerated.
Your view that it is absurd etc is your right, but no one has the right to use that belief to discriminate in the workplace. Hence the law.
It works for you as well.

Yes, I'm not saying discrimination doesn't happen, obviously it does, just as discrimination happens against other religions/beliefs, and other protected characteristics.

But it is protected under religion or belief and it is possible for people to bring discrimination cases on those grounds.

You can be an atheist and not a dick.

I'm happy with people having rights and respect even if I don't think the same way they do. I don't find it threatening at all.

This is interesting on Jediism:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/578931/Temple_of_the_Jedi_Order_FINAL_DECISION.pdf

The Temple of the Jedi Order applied for charitable status for the purposes of the advancement of religion and/or the promotion of moral and ethical
improvement for the benefit of the public. The Charity Commission refused their application.

It's not the same as a discrimination case because the Jediists had to prove it was a religion, which is a narrower definition than 'religion or belief' in the EA.

In their decision the Charity Commission said,

... the Commission is not satisfied that the observance of the Force within Jediism is characterised by a belief in one or more gods or spiritual or non-secular principles or things which is an essential requirement for a religion in charity law.

That would not preclude Jediism from being protected as a belief under the EA, however the Charity Commission did also look at the Grainger test and concluded that it failed the fourth requirement:

(iv) It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

As far as I know there was no attempt to appeal this decision.

There is interesting discussion of this case here, including whether the Charity Commission set too high a bar for cogency/coherence:

www.farrer.co.uk/news-and-insights/charity-commission-decision-the-temple-of-the-jedi-order/

If a Jediist was discriminated against in the workplace, provision of goods and services, education etc. it would be up to them to bring a case under the EA. The defendant would probably cite the Charity Commission decision but there are good arguments for a court or tribunal to not follow the Charity Commission on this point. As far as I know, Charity Commission decisions do not create legal precedent.

Exactly.

Same like I am happy my belief god doesn't exist is protected and I can't be fired etc (unless the job has x religion as GOR) for not believing. It works both ways.

@LangClegsInSpace interesting! How are pastafarians doing?

The free expression of beliefs is not absolute. It can be restricted when it interferes with the rights of others. E.g. you may have a religion based belief that homosexuals are going to hell. You have the right to believe that, you also have the right to say it, e.g. in a discussion about religion you could say, 'I believe homosexuals go to hell when they die', but at a certain point, this would cross over into unlawful harassment, e.g. saying to a gay colleague, 'you're going to hell.'

Similarly, it's fine for a RC to say, 'I believe abortion is a terrible sin' but not to harass a colleague who is seeking or has had an abortion.

As a PP has noted, where exactly the line is keeps employment lawyers busy. This is why it's generally a bad idea to have these kinds of discussions in the workplace.

I don't think single sex swimming sessions are the same kind of thing because it's not a case of imposing those beliefs on others. There may be e.g. women and girls from strict Muslim families who would prefer mixed sex swimming sessions and are prevented from attending by family members, but the EA does not cover what goes on in families anyway. A leisure centre would not be allowed to prevent them from attending a mixed sex session.

Not great. They also seem to be failing Grainger (iv) 😞

www.theargus.co.uk/news/12889221.pastafarian-to-protest-as-dvla-still-reject-photo-of-him-wearing-religious-colander/

The DVLA’s operational driver investigation team manager said the body was required to abide by the Equality Act 2010 which defines religion and belief.

The letter said: “In order to be protected by the act, a religion or belief must be recognised as being cogent, serious, cohesive and compatible with human dignity.

“Your religion is not included in this definition and consequently neither is the head wear you have provided in the photograph.”

It's not even a very nice colander tbf.

Well your lack of belief is also a protected characteristic so YABU I think

plus look how much discrimination and hatred comes from religion. Of course people need protection from that

Absolutely, well said. And there is also the ethnic element - many, although not all, Jews see Judaism as an ethnicity as well as a religion. David Baddiel put it well: his atheist uncle couldn’t opt out of being shot for being Jewish just because he didn’t believe in God. His family, where he lived, where he went to school, where his family came from, what he looked like maybe - that all made him Jewish enough to be killed for it.

Another well said post.

You don’t seem to understand the term ‘discrimination’

Where exactly where I've mentioned discrimination has it not made sense?

Thanks everyone, this is massively eye opening. I have learnt a lot and amazingly for AIBU people have been pretty polite and have been really willing to help me understand! I hope I haven't offended anyone.

It would be a perfectly ordinary topic of conversation in my office. Politics, religion, football, we do the lot.