Bad law Ron?

...I'm not saying which one (as I've not done a comparative study) but it does happen.

Also, I think Sikh's may have been considered a race rather than a religion when the hard hat legislation was drafted.

Ron

Discussed previously.

See my posting at http://forum.iosh.co.uk/...aspx?g=posts&t=84455

Interesting - the search facility doesn't allow less than five letters, so I had to remember that the original discussion on old forum had the word "curly" in the title!

Regards, Peter

From a simple angle of categorisation of 'discrimination' as compared to other kinds of actions, your bafflement is understandable. There is ambivalence.

The difference between the examples you cite rests on the difference between transactional and non-transactional acts.

A direct consequence of the refusal of the counsellor to conduct counselling transactions with 'gay' clients was to deny them fair access to the service he was employed by Relate to deliver to clients (who may also have been Sikhs wearing turbans!)

The adoption or not of a turban by a Sikh is a non-transactional act which doesn't have direct consequences for other third parties.

A practical consequence in cases of ambvalence is the need for safety practitioners to conduct tranactions with H R practitioners or to develop the double identity themselves

Keiran, I'm still floundering here, and unfortunately I don't subscribe to the lawnet link kindly provided by ahoskins.
I'm not looking at this from the "non-transactional act" of wearing/not wearing turbans, more from what appears to me to be a dichotomy of law which on the one hand makes specific provision on the basis of religion/belief, whereas the counsellor has been told the law cannot be used to take account of his religious belief.
Keiran, I kind of "get" what your saying- I think. The action taken by the employer was not discriminatory?
Peter, thanks for the link back to previous post.
I think I'll away and read the Acas guide on this.

Ron, I came into this thread after it seems to have finished, but on ahoskins link provided above, please note the paragraph below, with especial attention to the final sentence. If you are not a member of Workplace Law Network you may have been blocked from seeing the information below.

'Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, gave a witness statement in support of Mr McFarlane’s claim, seeking to compare the treatment that should be accorded to someone with religious views in contrast to a 'bigot' i.e. a person with an irrational dislike of homosexuals, making the point that Christian views are “worthy of respect in a democratic society”. Lord Justice Laws said these observations were misplaced. The Courts have not equated Christian views on homosexuality with homophobia or likened Christians to bigots. He makes clear that in cases of indirect discrimination, the law forbids discriminatory conduct not by reference to the actor’s motives but by reference to the outcome of his or her acts or omissions. It does not follow that if conduct is accepted as discriminatory it falls to be condemned as disreputable or bigoted'

I thought we were going to let us down and and not see any book recommendations, in the normal style of K's postings.

But no, you slipped them in right at the end!!

In the UK there has long been a tradition of worshipping anything you want at home and whatever temple you attend, and seperating that from work, which has worked well in the past. Those with some issues such as not being allowed to eat or handle pork as a requirement of their religion always need to state this prior to a role being offered: if not it results in a seventies jokey argument - csn't do that mate it's against my religion. Also then becomes a contractual issue. There is a Tesco case where a worker stated that he refused to handle alcohol, who was then dismissed, and lost the ET as it was said that he was told in advance what the job would entail and did not at the time state any objection.
Also, the problems kick in when society changes such as when same sex civil partnerships become legal, and those already in the role of registrar find that their faith or religion will not in their opinion allow this. Tough. Vote with your feet and find another job. Once the law changes and you say 'I am prepared to do some of my job but not that bit as I am a believer in X or Y, but never told you this before', society will not take a retrograde step to accommodate personal beliefs to allow discrimination; the casleaw is building up, such as the nurse who would not take off her cross, even though she was in an infection control area which demanded no jewellery due to that risk. Christians are not required to wear a cross, but she refused to bend and it seems that she was dealing well with the Trust until an interest group intervened - then suddenly photographers have her photo all over the media. Funny that.
Best to try to keep religion seperate from work unless you work in a church/mosque/temple etc. The two are seperate and should remain that way. I am happy to respect any religious belief and all of those who have their beliefs, although I do not share their beliefs. But if after five years working somewhere they say that they can no longer do their job as they have an imaginary friend, they can give a valid reason or get their coat. Then they will claim unfair dismissal and will lose.

I know Ron, it bugs me. Those who have religion and have conflict when work and their religion clash, normally find some way in which to negotiate a way forward. It is when a religious interest group gets involved, such as what happened with the nurse whom I referred to, that results at times in the person losing their claim and the interest group walking away without a thought for the person who they have used. Their intent was publicity despite the resultant loss incurred by the person who they used to make their point.
I cannot really state my feelings towards religion as I would seem churlish, and it is not relevant in many ways to a H&S forum. But anyone who resides in a palace eg Lambeth and preaches the virtues of poverty and does not see the irony?