Religion at work

[Ginger Yellow]

So the whole religion vs responsibilities at work debate has come to Britain. Unlike the US, however, it didn't come from pharmacists and contraception but from a registrar refusing to perform gay marriages. Personally I think if your job requires you to do something (within the law, of course) and you don't feel you can do it, then you should quit or or attempt to get your union to negotiate a change in the contract, but I can see that there are labour rights and to a certain degree religious freedom issues here. Clearly, gay people have a legal and (in my opinion) moral right to get married and they deserve to have those rights upheld by public servants. That said, I'd be interested to hear from the lawyers what they think the legal situation is here, given that we don't have an explicit constitutional right to free exercise of religion. Does she have a leg to stand on, legally? Should she? Does the fact that she's in the public sector, rather than in the private sector like the American pharmacists, change anything?

[Brandenburger Toro]

Religion at work

Part of the problem here is that "the terms of the contract" are often quite nebulous - it's rarely clear, for instance, that a doctor in ordinary practice is required to perform abortions, and attempting to construe it within the broad outlines of the job description can tend to presuppose the morals of the issue, which the government isn't supposed to be in.

I'm not sure, in this case, whether the registrar's contract and terms of work have not been - in effect - changed after the fact by the new legislation. And in that case, it looks like the government and, indeed, the public may be in breach of contract here

[Ginger Yellow]

Religion at work

Well, like I say, I think it's significant that it's a registrar involved here, not a more general purpose employee. I mean, I haven't seen a registrar's contract, but I'm pretty sure it requires them to marry people who qualify under the law. That is pretty much all they do, after all.

[Gerontophile]

Religion at work

If it were me getting hitched to a guy, I certainly wouldnt want someone doing the service (or whatever its called), who doesnt want to be there.

[evilC]

Religion at work

"This is me and Barry outside the registry office; this is us with our respective parents (the scowling person waving the bible in the background is the registrar); this is us having moved to a different part of the grounds to continue the 'photoshoot'; this is my Mum and the registrar being separated by the police once they'd arrived; this is..."

[Wyatt Earp]

Religion at work

gerontofiel wrote:

If it were me getting hitched to a guy, I certainly wouldnt want someone doing the service (or whatever its called), who doesnt want to be there.

Nah, fuck him, he's getting paid.

[Ball Comrade]

Religion at work

Isn't abortion a speciality? They don't just get any old GP to do it do they?

[Stumpy Pepys]

Religion at work

There are several things doctors can opt out on moral grounds by virtue of having a very powerful trade union. (They also managed an opt out of out-of-hours provision in the last GP contract, which many of them did.)

The lower down the food chain you are in terms of work, the less choice you'll get.

[G-Man]

Religion at work

Yeah, he should just follow orders.

Actually, I was in Wyatt's camp* right up to the point when he posted his considered opinion.

* pun not intended, but instantly recognised

[Mumpo]

Religion at work

If it was me getting hitched to a guy, I would insist on having a registrar that had a religious objection to performing the ceremony.

[Duncan Gardner]

Religion at work

Ginger & Stumpy: could be it a question of scale, in practical terms? If one marriage in a hundred offends her morals, somebody else can do it. If one in five or ten, then she should look for a new job. In a local authority, she could retrain for a different role with the same employer. Registrar's aren't that specialist, surely?

Toro: as you suggest, employment contract terms are predominantly implied and often vague. You get a one page contract, but clearly there is a much longer list of workplace 'rules'. But in this case, I don't think the terms have been effectively changed by the new law. As GY said, the term was and is that you marry anyone who legally qualifies. The registrar's work routine doesn't change, and as above she can be 'hidden' for the occasional ceremony.

Gerontofiel & Wyatt: I'm with GF on this one. On your special day, why would ye want to wreck someone else's?

[Ginger Yellow]

Religion at work

DG: if there are other people who can take over on a rare occasion, then it's obviously less of an issue. But surely in some places there's only going to be the one registrar.

[Stumpy Pepys]

Religion at work

DG: I agree — I think that's the pragmatic answer.

[Wyatt Earp]

Religion at work

Pan Tau wrote:

Actually, I was in Wyatt's camp* right up to the point when he posted his considered opinion.

Tough crowd.

(Is there an emoticon for "tough crowd"? I'm starting to overuse the phrase, especially now I'm on G-Man's permanent "We are not amused" list.)

There was a serious-ish point behind it, though, which is that while I'd be distressed at the idea of any of my guests heartily wishing themselves elsewhere, I'd be less concerned to learn of that feeling on the part of the caterer, the photographer or the registrar. Bad days at the office happen to us all.

That's separate from whether any of those jobs should have a "conscience clause". I can't see it, myself. Rightly or wrongly, a canapes waiter who struck the same attitude would be out on his ear, unless he could quietly arrange for a colleague to cover. And what's the difference? This is just registrars giving themselves airs. I mean, I wasn't allowed to duck out of shaking hands with the horsy one out of the Royal Family. Sauce for the goose.

[Ginger Yellow]

Religion at work

"the horsy one out of the Royal Family"

That doesn't really narrow it down.

[Andy C]

Religion at work

There's special pleading going on here. "I refuse to perform civil partnerships for gay couples because of my religious sensibilities", and everybody's agonising about it, trying to find an accomodation. But if it were "...because I'm just a bigot", the reaction would be rather different.

[Wyatt Earp]

Religion at work

That's true. If it was "I won't conduct racially mixed marriages," for example, this conversation wouldn't have got off the ground.

Pan Tau's invocation of the famously unsound Nuremberg defence bears thinking about, of course, but I don't think it gets us that far. It certainly doesn't license any general right to refuse to carry out instructions, on grounds of conscience, with impunity.

I'd be very surprised, pace Toro, if there was anything in the registrar's contract that excludes civil partnerships. Indeed, my guess is that there's almost certainly an "and such reasonable duties as may from time to time arise from changes in the law" clause. Very badly drafted contract if not.

[Ginger Yellow]

Religion at work

I'm not really agonising, Andy. My instincts are firmly on the "tough luck" side. But I'm curious as to how it will play out here given the different legal and cultural context, and I'm also interested in the issue of restraints on liberty of conscience. I found this recent NYRB article very thought provoking, and it touches on a lot of the same questions.

[G-Man]

Religion at work

Pan Tau's invocation of the famously unsound Nuremberg defence bears thinking about, of course, but I don't think it gets us that far. It certainly doesn't license any general right to refuse to carry out instructions, on grounds of conscience, with impunity.

Oh, I totally agree. As you say, tough crowd.

[Guy Profumo]

Religion at work

What if it's the clients or customers that object on religious grounds?

http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Sex-swap-driving-teacher-fury.4099748.jp

[Eggchaser]

Religion at work

This is typical Sheffield Star reporting of late. It (The Star) concentrates on forstering hate between residents of this city rather than finding a way of bringing about understanding. This case looks like a misunderstanding (some may argue it was a deliberate ploy by the driving school) but the driving school is not totally free from blame here.

If someone is born male (and it is obvious) then one has the 'freedom' to lable him as such. If one wants a female driving instructor, he should be entitled to a 'female' (ie born female) driving instructore.

This is just a publicity stunt by the driving school.

Pretty drastic publicity stunt.

"Barry, we need to get our name in the press. Cut your knackers off and put this dress on would you?"

[Felicity, I guess so]

Religion at work

I've been on the 'receiving end' as it were:

couple of years back 1st year student tells me he can't attend the majority of the classes/screenings because the content of the films would offend his religious beliefs.

I argued the toss with him without getting angry/insisting he see all the films but surprise, surprise he felt he didn't need to see Goodfellas, Blade Runner, La Haine, The Conversation etc etc to KNOW that they were violent/sexually explicit/offensive.

I think I left him to decide how many/few to attend, but with the obvious warning that he'd be cutting down his assignment options etc, running the risk of failing.

Wish I'd been harder in hindsight, as he has been spotted pestering a couple of vulnerable overseas students to attend his particular sect's prayer group, and has also, now he's a final year, refused to attend a load of classes on a Screenwriting module, cos he just KNOWS that x or y student's script is gonna be violent/sexually explicit/offensive to his beliefs etc

[Ball Comrade]

Religion at work

If this was a deliberate ploy by the driving school then good on em.I hate muslims they ought to be exterminated every last one of them.They think this country owes them a favour.

Looks like the publicity stunt worked. Fucking Sheffield Star.

[Reed John]

Religion at work

Oh for Christ's sake....

You should explain to him that part of getting an education is learning about the unpleasant aspects of life, i.e. being offended now and again. If he can't deal with that, he shouldn't be studying film. If he thinks The Godfather promotes an immoral lifestyle then he's welcome to defend that position in a review.

It comes down to this. If you're going to insist on inserting your religion into your interactions with other people - and asking them to give you special dispensation for your religion certainly counts as such an insertion - then you have to be willing to defend your religious ideas and beliefs as you would any other idea or belief.

The religious right wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be able to talk about religion whenever and wherever, but they also want it to be protected from anyone criticizing it.

[Gerontophile]

Religion at work

is there such a thing as the religious left? (That is a general enquiry... I dont know)