Should people in religious groups be able to opt out of clauses in their W-contracts

November 18, 2007, 3:12 PM

This thread is about whether people in religious organisations being able to opt out of certain things in their job contracts. Examples of these, if this description is unclear, are incidences like Sikh workers on building sites refusing to wear helmets because of the turbans they wear. Also Islamic employees at supermarkets refusing to sell people alcohol or Christian workers at adoption centers refusing to give children to homosexual couples. Should they be allowed to do this?

November 18, 2007, 6:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Phantarch

incidences like Sikh workers on building sites refusing to wear helmets because of the turbans they wear.

With the case of Sikhs on building sites, I think that they should wear helmets because if something were to happen to them then the company would be sued for not ensuring that they are wearing the correct safety equipment. If the sikhs object to this, then I think that it should be their responsibility if anything happens, not the companies. And if they won't take responsibility or wear a helmet, then it should be that they don't get the job anyway, because they should have to take the safety precautions.

Quote:

Also Islamic employees at supermarkets refusing to sell people alcohol or Christian workers at adoption centers refusing to give children to homosexual couples. Should they be allowed to do this?

I think with these cases it should be upto the consumer or the parents, and the morals/religion of the employee or worker shouldn't have anything to do with it. If they object to it but it is perfectly within the law, then that is their problem and they shouldn't try to enforce their beliefs on others.

November 19, 2007, 7:39 AM

So overall, yes or no?

November 19, 2007, 8:05 AM

It really does depend, because you think these people might have the intellengence to avoid such jobs, but I'm tossing up between the two, erm... I Think that they should, becasue they agreed to the working conditions, so they should agree to the cricumstances. (sorry if I have a few typos, I'm practicing my touch typing)

November 19, 2007, 8:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Princess Aighurhmnw

I think with these cases it should be upto the consumer or the parents, and the morals/religion of the employee or worker shouldn't have anything to do with it. If they object to it but it is perfectly within the law, then that is their problem and they shouldn't try to enforce their beliefs on others.

Exactly!!! I once went to a hamburger place that was owned by some foreigners and ordered a bacon cheeseburger. Because their religion forbids bacon in their diets, bacon wasn't even on the menu. I was appalled and eventually ate somewhere else.

But in cases of the Sikhs, if they want to wear a turban instead of a hardhat on the jobsite, then I would say send them home. If they don't want to work under the laws of safety, then they shouldn't be allowed to work at all. They are putting their lives at risk. Their families could sue the company for the death of their loved ones.

I also don't think that christain adoption agencies should deny a potential adoption to a gay couple solely on the basis of the relationship status. While I don't think that gay couples should adopt, I also believe that the adoption agency should base their decision on the home life of the couple, and if it's a healthy home and a good environment for growing and learning, then gay couples should have the same rights as everyone else. It may sound a bit contradictory but homosexuals have just as much a right to be here as all the rest of us.

November 19, 2007, 6:02 PM

Overall, I would say no probably. With cases like the ones above anyhoo. As always though, there are bound to be some smaller incidents in which religious beliefs should come first, but in general I would say no.

November 19, 2007, 6:31 PM

I agree. Overall if the people have agreed to the job then any and all aspects of it are their responsibility. To behave contrary should be a violation of contract and end in immediate dismissal.

November 19, 2007, 7:46 PM

If a person is objecting to an integral part of their job on grounds of their religion, then they shouldn't work there (as in the cases listed above). But if their religion doesn't interfere with the standard job, then by all means allow it. Basically, if you ask them to do something outside their job description that they cannot do because of their religion, then find someone else to do it. I don't know how clear that is...end of my shift and I'm tired...

My Character Profiles · November 19, 2007, 11:56 PM

The answer is simple. The rules of enlistment at a specific workplace are entirely up to the company owner.
If the owner of a construction company enforces a rule in which all employees must wear hard hats, then the Sikh are just shit out of luck; and they can also opt to work at a job where they don't have to make an obnoxious proclamation of their beliefs. If you ask me, that's the same as pushing your religion on someone who isn't welcome to the idea.
If the owner of the supermarket is Islamic and refuses to sell alcohol at his store, then it's his own legitimate decision. If he works at the register and refuses to sell alcohol; again making an obnoxious declaration of his beliefs; he deserves to be fired.

Religion does not belong in the workplace.

And as for not giving adoptive children to homosexual couples...any organization that singles out families based on their sexual orientation is no worse than giving unfair treatment to someone of a different race.