What happes when two different protected characteristics come into conflict?

[Comefromaway]

Apologies for putting this here as it isn't really a feminist issue but I thought it held some parallels with trans issues.

In the theatre world at the moment there is a big controversy over an acress who was cast in The Colour Purple theatre production. She is the daughter of an evangelist preacher and someone dug up some social media posts from a few years ago where she stated that she did not believe that homosexuality was right despite it being legal. According to reports she was offered the chance to redact her statement, refused and has now been sacked. She intends to sue for religious discrimination.

Has there been such a legal precedent before. I knwo there have been cases where courts have (rightly) found that it is discrimination to refuse services on religious grounds to gay people (eg bed and breakfast and gay wedding cake) but I'm wondering how this will all play out. As far as I am aware the actress hasn't tried to stir up hatred or refused to work with any gay colleagues (though I only know what has been reported. Everyone is saying she is homophobic but is simply holding those (religious) views and publishing them on social media a grounds for dismissal?

Hold on a minute.

So if a man in my workplace says he doesn't believe women should work
Or that he doesn't believe Jewish people should be living in the UK
That's OK?

If the first man works for a feminist org and the second for a Jewish charity

That's OK????

Not OK.

You can think what you like but when it comes to work you need to watch yourself.
There was a man who expressed far right sentiments in USA, just remember it vaguely, he was sacked.

I'm fine with that.

The use of "witchhunt" is interesting.

Again, the idea that

Because GC feminists are getting loads of shit including calls to have them sacked,
Should mean all bets are off
Is not right
It throws the baby out with the bathwater

And that is what I love about this board.

I can write something inept such as Lots of different things will come into play here.

And someone will come along and explain it really eloquently. Thank you RedToothBrush

My old workplace had a "bring your whole self to work" thing

My feeling was that while certain things which were (are) hidden should not have to be so eg having a same sex partner,
Or to be honest things like having children

Other things I don't want to know colleagues "whole selves"

I don't want to know about their sex lives, for example

There used to be a saying about never discuss religion or politics

In the workplace I still think that's a v good idea TBH

Was she employed by the people who sacked her at the time she posted that? What was their social media policy?

No, the post was 5 years ago. CAsting for the Colour Purple was only announced a few weeks ago, not sure if rehearsals have started yet. (I've just googled and realised she's been in productions with three different people I know one of whom is gay). She's also done Spring Awakening which is all about teenage pre-marital sex and sexual abuse.

If the first man works for a feminist org and the second for a Jewish charity

Easy to argue that its not OK as the job explicitly would have a description stating that it's aims were to promote feminism or Jewish causes and if you are not OK with that because of your freedom of conscious then you are taking the piss in applying.

You would have your case thrown out of court because it would be easy to argue your intent in taking the job would be malicious and discriminatory in nature.

It's worth reflecting in this context why attempts to redefine feminism and woman are just so controversial, as its easy to argue they could be used deliberately to undermine equality law in a malicious fashion against certain organisations.

Of course.

That would never happen...

There is a difference between "I believe X which is legal, is morally wrong" and "I contend that all people to which X relates should be flogged/punished/imprisoned etc"

People hold conflicting beliefs.
I hear frequently people expressing anti-abortion views and haven't yet heard of calls for such people to be made unemployable because they work with women who may have had abortions.

We need to tolerate differing beliefs, expressed in a civil way outside of a workplace, even if they are offensive to us.

The reality is that many Christians like that suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance - they are perfectly kind and pleasant to people "outside the fold" - but believe that ultimately they are going to hell.

My friend's mother sends her love to their gay BF and husband - who she thinks are lovely people - but when you talk to her about them she's terribly sad that they won't go to heaven - because she would really like them to. She was very upset that her own dc left their church, that the GC are not baptised etc. Because she honestly believes they can't join her in heaven .....

What we really desperately need is the ability to understand that different people have different beliefs, and that is fine, as long as they treat people decently. I won't inquire into your precise theological stance, it's not my business, just as what I do or don't get up to in bed and who with is none of yours.......

I like this.

Thanks, this is an interesting and respectful discussion, which can be hard to come by when talking about religious beliefs

One of the biggest takeaways from this story (and the many others like it) is what a mistake social media has been.

It's not a great idea to broadcast all our inner thoughts or be able to read those of others.

I am not religious and don't share her beliefs but I don't think she should be sacked for holding them without evidence of discrimination in action e.g she is actively discriminating against gay people in some way - Westbro style pickets or preaching bible passages at people in the workplace.

It sounds like she has worked with numerous gay people in the past and presumably realises that many gay people work in the theatre world, her career of choice.

I do wonder though what made someone wade through 5 years of social media to find this post. It suggests that someone wanted her fired either for her beliefs (which they must have had an idea about) or for other reasons and this was a convenient way to do it.

what a mistake social media has been.

Couldn't agree more.

Religious belief is a protected characteristic. She is entitled to hold those beliefs and the people who asked her to recant are breaching equalities legislation. Her treatment sounds awful. Do we really want to rout everyone we disagree with from employment?

The other side (including most/many of my friends) are calling her homophobic, saying she deserves to be sacked & some are now saying the casting director shouidcnow be ostracised from the profession because they defended her.

So it’s quite refreshing to have a balanced discussion here.

The rights of different protected groups clash all the time, often with very practical ramifications. For example, many Muslims don't want to interact with dogs, citing their religious beliefs. Blind people (and certain other groups) depend for their quality of life on highly trained assistance dogs. Many taxi drivers are Muslim, and try to wriggle out of their obligation to carry a blind person and dog. The law does a decent job of weighing these competing rights.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/08/guide-dog-taxis-uber-illegal-drivers

@Lancelottie I'm friends with someone with the same views. For her, being homosexual isn't a sin but acting on it is.

She adds that she also thinks everyone sins, as no one is perfect, and she doesn't see homosexual acts as bigger sins than other everyday sins . She doesn't see why she should judge anyone for their sins, unless they involve harming others. She wouldn't treat anyone differently because of their sexuality (and has argued with the minority in her church that would). She treats everyone with kindness and respect.

She accepts those are her personal views and doesn't expect anyone else to agree. She doesn't think the law should agree with her either as she sees the law and religious beliefs as separate.

I don't agree with her but I also don't think I'd call her homophobic.

I would.

She will put up with gay people as long as they remain chaste.

Grim.

We're getting too close to a society which only permits orthodox views for my liking. Disagreeing with someone's view is fine -punishing them for holding that view isn't. Holding an unorthodox view is fine using that view to attack or discriminate isn't. Without tolerance we're going somewhere very dark.

She doesn't "put up with them". Being a sinner, in her eyes, doesn't make someone undeserving of love, respect, compassion, etc. She doesn't really care what people do in their own relationships. She sees herself as a sinner too, just different sins (gluttony, envy, sex before marriage ...). If she only "put up with" anyone who committed a sin, well, she'd have to be that way with everyone. Including herself. That's her whole point. She's far more tolerant and open-minded than many people I know.

The actor in the case could just as well have been a gender critical woman. Here's how it plays out:

Someone goes through her tweets and see that she has liked and retweeted statments by Kathleen Stock, Sharon Davies and Julie BIndel. She is sacked from her job.

There have been no complaints from trans individuals and no evidence that any trans person has been affected by her private beliefs that transwomen are men. Instead, her thoughts and beliefs are being used as grounds to treat her unfairly and remove her livelihood.

I can't see any difference between the actor who has views on homosexuality and the woman who has views on self i/d.

Has there been such a legal precedent before. I knwo there have been cases where courts have (rightly) found that it is discrimination to refuse services on religious grounds to gay people (eg bed and breakfast and gay wedding cake

I think you have the wrong end of the stick re the gay wedding case. The final decision , rightly upheld the bakery's decision to refuse to write a slogan which promoted gay marriage.

Hobsbawm, your friend reminds me of a born again Christian I knew about 20 years ago.

He had similar views; he was very much "we are all sinners" but "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

It's not the way I would choose to live my life but he had every right to live by that ethos. He was actually in favour of gay marriage, argued that it was also a secular institution and his religious beliefs should not impose on others.

This man wasn't a bigot, there was no hate and no judgement.

There have been a few employment cases on these sorts of issues. The one I recall was a registrar who refused to officiate gay weddings. She was fairly dismissed because she was refusing to carry out her job. I don’t think she would have lost had she just said she disagreed with same sex marriage because of her religious beliefs, and it was t part of her job

what a mistake social media has been.
Couldn't agree more.

We're on a form of social media right now. It's a useful place to trade information and ideas, especially now that media has pretty much dropped its responsibility to do that. I get the difference between facebook and a moderated discussion forum: it might be wise to start drawing that distinction before we get a blanket ban of all of it.

discrimination to refuse services on religious grounds to gay people (eg bed and breakfast and gay wedding cake

I know that this has been mentioned upthread but I wanted to clarify: the bakery in question did NOT refuse to serve a gay man. In fact, he had been a customer before. What the bakery refused to do was to ice a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage. The fact that the customer is gay was irrelevant.

The bakery were happy to provide the cake and even offered to provide the material to ice the cake but refused to put a slogan on the cake that went against the owners' beliefs.

I am not religious and don't share her beliefs but I don't think she should be sacked for holding them without evidence of discrimination in action e.g she is actively discriminating against gay people in some way

That pretty much sums up how I feel: I am not at all religious, don't give a toss if you're gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, trysexual, whatever so I don't agree with the woman's views. However, I don't believe that she should be sacked for expressing those views.

As far as I can tell, she hasn't discriminated against anyone and that should be the acid test.

The case mentioned upthread of the registrar who refused to carry out a wedding for a gay couple is entirely different as she refused them a service on the grounds of her religious beliefs. I agree that she was wrong to refuse and was quite rightly sacked.