For KRonn: British Judge Climate Change Religion Thing

[Malthus]

How in the world is one to differentiate between "... a belief" and "... an opinion or view based on the present state of information available"?

Sounds like a "belief" is a position you hold without evidence (like "God doesn't want me to eat oysters, so I'll take a pass on them") rather than an opinion based on information ("three people have gotten sick eating oysters this week; I think I'll take a pass on them").   Apparently, uninformed beliefs are protected but informed opinions are not! 

So for this guy, his "environmentalism" is some sort of uninformed knee-jerk reaction ... but if he'd carefully studied the issues and came to the rational, reasoned conclusion that the environment ought to be protected, he'd be shit out of luck?

[Sheilbh]

Sounds like a "belief" is a position you hold without evidence (like "God doesn't want me to eat oysters, so I'll take a pass on them") rather than an opinion based on information ("three people have gotten sick eating oysters this week; I think I'll take a pass on them").   Apparently, uninformed beliefs are protected but informed opinions are not! 

Here's the judge's list of what constitutes a religion or philosophical belief:

In his written judgment, Mr Justice Burton outlined five tests to determine whether a philosophical belief could come under employment regulations on religious discrimination

• The belief must be genuinely held.

• It must be a belief and not an opinion or view based on the present state of information available.

• It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life.

• It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.

• It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Humanism was given as an example meeting the criteria, while belief in a political party or the supreme nature of Jedi knights, from the Star Wars movies, were offered as ones that do not.

So, by point two I think you're right

[Malthus]

I don't think this is a good analogy. I understand the guy was fired for refusing to take a plane and bring the Blackberry to his boss. In your analogy it would be a guy asking his Jewish assistant to prepare a ham sandwich for him.

The story doesn't tell us what the guy who was fired was asked to do. All we know is that he reacted to his boss's "contempt" in having a guy personally deliver his blackberry, among other things. We also don't know what form his reaction took, but it would appear that he communicated in some manner his distaste for such behaviour, and presumably was let go for that.

The "blackberry incident" was cited in the article (and allegedly in the court case) as an example of the "contempt" his boss allegedly had for his beliefs.

In short, merely eating the ham sandwich yourself could, by analogy, be "evidence of contempt" for an employees' Jewish beliefs.

That goes well beyond any sort of reasonable accomodation for an employees' personal beliefs. It is one thing not to force employees to do things against their concience. It is another to allow employees some sort of veto power over the actions of others.

[Sheilbh]

To be clear he's not won against his employer yet

[Berkut]

In short, merely eating the ham sandwich yourself could, by analogy, be "evidence of contempt" for an employees' Jewish beliefs.

That goes well beyond any sort of reasonable accomodation for an employees' personal beliefs. It is one thing not to force employees to do things against their concience. It is another to allow employees some sort of veto power over the actions of others.

However, isn't the guy arguing that the issue is that the company presumably had a policy that disallowed ham sandwhiches, and yet his boss insisted on eating them anyway?

I don't know that that matters in the case of a case like this - would in fact going against company policy, even if that policy were voluntary on the part of the business, figure into a employees right to not expect to be fired for supporting that policy?

[Malthus]

To be clear he's not won against his employer yet

I know. As I said above, this "victory" could be purely pyrric - the matter still must go before an adminstrative panel.

[Malthus]

In short, merely eating the ham sandwich yourself could, by analogy, be "evidence of contempt" for an employees' Jewish beliefs.

That goes well beyond any sort of reasonable accomodation for an employees' personal beliefs. It is one thing not to force employees to do things against their concience. It is another to allow employees some sort of veto power over the actions of others.

However, isn't the guy arguing that the issue is that the company presumably had a policy that disallowed ham sandwhiches, and yet his boss insisted on eating them anyway?

I don't know that that matters in the case of a case like this - would in fact going against company policy, even if that policy were voluntary on the part of the business, figure into a employees right to not expect to be fired for supporting that policy?

If the allegation is that he's being fired for being a whistle-blower on internal company wrong-doing, that's a very different thing from being fired "...for his beliefs".

If he's really a whistle-blower, his personal beliefs are basically irrelevant. He can eat ham sandwiches himself all day long, belong to the ham lover's club, and still "blow the whistle" on his boss violating the workplace anti-ham policy.

That is of course assuming that there is some sort of whistle-blower protection in the applicable laws or policies - and there usually is.

[Berkut]

In short, merely eating the ham sandwich yourself could, by analogy, be "evidence of contempt" for an employees' Jewish beliefs.

That goes well beyond any sort of reasonable accomodation for an employees' personal beliefs. It is one thing not to force employees to do things against their concience. It is another to allow employees some sort of veto power over the actions of others.

However, isn't the guy arguing that the issue is that the company presumably had a policy that disallowed ham sandwhiches, and yet his boss insisted on eating them anyway?

I don't know that that matters in the case of a case like this - would in fact going against company policy, even if that policy were voluntary on the part of the business, figure into a employees right to not expect to be fired for supporting that policy?

If the allegation is that he's being fired for being a whistle-blower on internal company wrong-doing, that's a very different thing from being fired "...for his beliefs".

If he's really a whistle-blower, his personal beliefs are basically irrelevant. He can eat ham sandwiches himself all day long, belong to the ham lover's club, and still "blow the whistle" on his boss violating the workplace anti-ham policy.

That is of course assuming that there is some sort of whistle-blower protection in the applicable laws or policies - and there usually is.

But he isn't claiming to be a whistle blower - he is just saying that the company has a policy, his bosses routinely ignore it, he made it clear he found that not cool, and got fired for it. Not really wrong-doing, per se, but still not ok (in his mind) given the supposed policy.

Obviously there is plenty of room in their policy for his boss to say that their actions were not in violation of it anyway.

Not really rising to the level of "whistle blower", but does it have to rise to that level to provide him some protection from being fired? I really don't know - this isn't criminal or even a civil suit, really?

[Malthus]

But he isn't claiming to be a whistle blower - he is just saying that the company has a policy, his bosses routinely ignore it, he made it clear he found that not cool, and got fired for it. Not really wrong-doing, per se, but still not ok (in his mind) given the supposed policy.

Obviously there is plenty of room in their policy for his boss to say that their actions were not in violation of it anyway.

Not really rising to the level of "whistle blower", but does it have to rise to that level to provide him some protection from being fired? I really don't know - this isn't criminal or even a civil suit, really?

To my mind, either he can claim to be a whistle-blower or he can't. That's the appropriate level of protection.

Again, he is either being fired for having his beliefs - or he's not. I agree that he should not be fired merely for having his personal beliefs.

What seems to be happening is that he's falling between these two stools.

If he's being fired because his beliefs cause him to want to "enforce" company policy above and beyond the level which would get him whistle-blower protection - in effect, playing junior policy cop to the irritation of his bosses - I see no reason why that sort of thing should be protected (at any rate, protected any *more* than it would otherwise be because he's got Judge Approved "Beliefs" that are motivating him). 

[Admiral Yi]

If the allegation is that he's being fired for being a whistle-blower on internal company wrong-doing, that's a very different thing from being fired "...for his beliefs".

If he's really a whistle-blower, his personal beliefs are basically irrelevant. He can eat ham sandwiches himself all day long, belong to the ham lover's club, and still "blow the whistle" on his boss violating the workplace anti-ham policy.

That is of course assuming that there is some sort of whistle-blower protection in the applicable laws or policies - and there usually is.

How can you get whistle blower protection over internal company policy?  Something like a mission statement can't possibly have the force of law.

[MadImmortalMan]

I think it's fair to say that any set of beliefs or philosophical position, whether based on facts or belief only, can be elevated to the status of a religious approach by the person holding the belief. It becomes a religious thing not by the nature of the position held, but by the way in which the holder holds it.

[Malthus]

If the allegation is that he's being fired for being a whistle-blower on internal company wrong-doing, that's a very different thing from being fired "...for his beliefs".

If he's really a whistle-blower, his personal beliefs are basically irrelevant. He can eat ham sandwiches himself all day long, belong to the ham lover's club, and still "blow the whistle" on his boss violating the workplace anti-ham policy.

That is of course assuming that there is some sort of whistle-blower protection in the applicable laws or policies - and there usually is.

How can you get whistle blower protection over internal company policy?  Something like a mission statement can't possibly have the force of law.

Then being an ass about it to the boss entitles one to no protection.