myata Posted October 5, 2006 Report Posted October 5, 2006 Should deeply and firmly held individual beliefs fall under protection of the freedom of religion clause in the Charter? Including e.g. atheism? E.g. if someone had a firm belief that wearing a tie is morally wrong, shouldn't the bank they're employed at find reasonable accommodation for that? If not, why? Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Hicksey Posted October 5, 2006 Report Posted October 5, 2006 Should deeply and firmly held individual beliefs fall under protection of the freedom of religion clause in the Charter? Including e.g. atheism?E.g. if someone had a firm belief that wearing a tie is morally wrong, shouldn't the bank they're employed at find reasonable accommodation for that? If not, why? Because there needs to be a singular set of morals from which people are judged equally. How is that possible if everyone just decides for themselves what is right and wrong? At your bank, they should be able to reprimand everyone not adhering to company policy except your guy simply because he has decided it is wrong? What is there to stop people from simply making things up as they go to avoid punishment? Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
myata Posted October 5, 2006 Author Report Posted October 5, 2006 OK, but would that change if several people sharing this "belief" came together and established "a church"? I'd like to understand what exactly differentiates a religion from any essential personal belief to allow it to qualify for additional freedoms that everyone else isn't entitled to? Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Remiel Posted October 5, 2006 Report Posted October 5, 2006 Religions have more to do with belief about the essential nature and existence of reality. I do not know how they determine the validity of religions though, like if their is actually a believer quota or whatnot. Quote
Figleaf Posted October 5, 2006 Report Posted October 5, 2006 (edited) k Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf Quote
jbg Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 Should deeply and firmly held individual beliefs fall under protection of the freedom of religion clause in the Charter? Including e.g. atheism?E.g. if someone had a firm belief that wearing a tie is morally wrong, shouldn't the bank they're employed at find reasonable accommodation for that? If not, why? Atheism should be protected. Membership in a death cult masquerading as a religion should probably not be. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bradco Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 Should deeply and firmly held individual beliefs fall under protection of the freedom of religion clause in the Charter? Including e.g. atheism? E.g. if someone had a firm belief that wearing a tie is morally wrong, shouldn't the bank they're employed at find reasonable accommodation for that? If not, why? Because there needs to be a singular set of morals from which what is right and wrong? people are judged equally. How is that possible if everyone just decides for themselves At your bank, they should be able to reprimand everyone not adhering to company policy except your guy simply because he has decided it is wrong? What is there to stop people from simply making things up as they go to avoid punishment? People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else or society at large. People cant avoid punishment if they have harmed someone else under this principle. It isnt practical or possible to find one set of morals and beliefs that will be, or should be, acceptable to everyone. There are so many variables that form peoples morals/beliefs such as religion, culture, upbringing, their environment etc. Humans are not robots that are all wired the same. We're all different so why have one set of morals and beliefs for us all. That being said the bank has no obligation to accomodate someone who doesnt believe in wearing ties. The company has the right to set a dress code for what they deem necessary for working with them. Or put another way...the company has the right to assert its beliefs. If the tie hating guy doesnt like it he is FREE to find another bank which doesnt have such a policy. The banks freedom to set a tie policy would appear to be in conflict though with our tie hater. But is the tie hater truly "harmed" by the policy. Possible harm would be lack of work but the tie hater is free to work elsewhere. Opposing morals/beliefs is the one area where the harm principle has conflict. As long as both morals/beliefs are allowed though nobody is harmed. As long as the bank is allowed to set policies that they believe to be right and tie wearing guy is allowed to choose to work elsewhere I think all is fair. or to use a little more realistic example: as long as churches are allowed to choose who they marry and gay people are allowed to find another church that does choose to marry them I think all is fair Quote
gc1765 Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else or society at large. People cant avoid punishment if they have harmed someone else under this principle. It isnt practical or possible to find one set of morals and beliefs that will be, or should be, acceptable to everyone. There are so many variables that form peoples morals/beliefs such as religion, culture, upbringing, their environment etc. Humans are not robots that are all wired the same. We're all different so why have one set of morals and beliefs for us all. That being said the bank has no obligation to accomodate someone who doesnt believe in wearing ties. The company has the right to set a dress code for what they deem necessary for working with them. Or put another way...the company has the right to assert its beliefs. If the tie hating guy doesnt like it he is FREE to find another bank which doesnt have such a policy. The banks freedom to set a tie policy would appear to be in conflict though with our tie hater. But is the tie hater truly "harmed" by the policy. Possible harm would be lack of work but the tie hater is free to work elsewhere. Opposing morals/beliefs is the one area where the harm principle has conflict. As long as both morals/beliefs are allowed though nobody is harmed. As long as the bank is allowed to set policies that they believe to be right and tie wearing guy is allowed to choose to work elsewhere I think all is fair. or to use a little more realistic example: as long as churches are allowed to choose who they marry and gay people are allowed to find another church that does choose to marry them I think all is fair Excellent post. I agree. Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
bk59 Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else or society at large. People cant avoid punishment if they have harmed someone else under this principle. It isnt practical or possible to find one set of morals and beliefs that will be, or should be, acceptable to everyone. There are so many variables that form peoples morals/beliefs such as religion, culture, upbringing, their environment etc. Humans are not robots that are all wired the same. We're all different so why have one set of morals and beliefs for us all. That being said the bank has no obligation to accomodate someone who doesnt believe in wearing ties. The company has the right to set a dress code for what they deem necessary for working with them. Or put another way...the company has the right to assert its beliefs. If the tie hating guy doesnt like it he is FREE to find another bank which doesnt have such a policy. The banks freedom to set a tie policy would appear to be in conflict though with our tie hater. But is the tie hater truly "harmed" by the policy. Possible harm would be lack of work but the tie hater is free to work elsewhere. Opposing morals/beliefs is the one area where the harm principle has conflict. As long as both morals/beliefs are allowed though nobody is harmed. As long as the bank is allowed to set policies that they believe to be right and tie wearing guy is allowed to choose to work elsewhere I think all is fair. or to use a little more realistic example: as long as churches are allowed to choose who they marry and gay people are allowed to find another church that does choose to marry them I think all is fair I agree with the whole "no harm, no foul" approach. Which means that I just have to throw in a monkey wrench... Let's say that instead of ties, the bank requires that no headwear of any kind be worn. A Sikh then applies to work at the bank. As an article of faith his hair will be uncut and so he wears a turban. In this case, which belief takes "priority"? Does the bank have the right to say "no, you can't work here" simply because of the turban, or does the Sikh have the right to say "you cannot prevent me from working here simply because of my turban"? The courts have obviously ruled on this type of issue, but I'm more curious to see what people have to say about it from a first principles approach. I'd throw my two cents in, but it's getting late & I'm tired... so I'll just throw the question out there for now and post again later. Quote
Hicksey Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 Should deeply and firmly held individual beliefs fall under protection of the freedom of religion clause in the Charter? Including e.g. atheism? E.g. if someone had a firm belief that wearing a tie is morally wrong, shouldn't the bank they're employed at find reasonable accommodation for that? If not, why? Because there needs to be a singular set of morals from which what is right and wrong? people are judged equally. How is that possible if everyone just decides for themselves At your bank, they should be able to reprimand everyone not adhering to company policy except your guy simply because he has decided it is wrong? What is there to stop people from simply making things up as they go to avoid punishment? People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else or society at large. People cant avoid punishment if they have harmed someone else under this principle. It isnt practical or possible to find one set of morals and beliefs that will be, or should be, acceptable to everyone. There are so many variables that form peoples morals/beliefs such as religion, culture, upbringing, their environment etc. Humans are not robots that are all wired the same. We're all different so why have one set of morals and beliefs for us all. That being said the bank has no obligation to accomodate someone who doesnt believe in wearing ties. The company has the right to set a dress code for what they deem necessary for working with them. Or put another way...the company has the right to assert its beliefs. If the tie hating guy doesnt like it he is FREE to find another bank which doesnt have such a policy. The banks freedom to set a tie policy would appear to be in conflict though with our tie hater. But is the tie hater truly "harmed" by the policy. Possible harm would be lack of work but the tie hater is free to work elsewhere. Opposing morals/beliefs is the one area where the harm principle has conflict. As long as both morals/beliefs are allowed though nobody is harmed. As long as the bank is allowed to set policies that they believe to be right and tie wearing guy is allowed to choose to work elsewhere I think all is fair. or to use a little more realistic example: as long as churches are allowed to choose who they marry and gay people are allowed to find another church that does choose to marry them I think all is fair Explain how everyone can be treated equally under that premise. Please. How do you deem who gets punished for what? How do you determine it is ok to punish one man for a crime and not another because he thinks it is not wrong? We don't choose one set of morals to exclude, we choose one set to make equality a manageable concept. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
myata Posted October 6, 2006 Author Report Posted October 6, 2006 I believe it was SC (Supreme Court not Sec Council) that put forward a concept of "reasonable accommodation" which, as far as I understand it, means that a requirement of a religious belief should be allowed as long as there's no reasonable expectation of harm resulting from it. I wonder if the same would apply to the concsientous individual belief. I'm not sure if / what coursts have decided with respect to various dress codes dictated by religions. But to me it would appear logical, in the line of one of the previous posts, to extend this protection to any conscientous belief, whether of a formal religion or not. From that point of view, not wearing a tie should be absolutely equivalent to wearing a turban, burka, or any other religion dictated gear, as long as it can be demonstrated that it's a deeply held conscientous belief rather than a prank. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
bradco Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 Should deeply and firmly held individual beliefs fall under protection of the freedom of religion clause in the Charter? Including e.g. atheism? E.g. if someone had a firm belief that wearing a tie is morally wrong, shouldn't the bank they're employed at find reasonable accommodation for that? If not, why? Because there needs to be a singular set of morals from which what is right and wrong? people are judged equally. How is that possible if everyone just decides for themselves At your bank, they should be able to reprimand everyone not adhering to company policy except your guy simply because he has decided it is wrong? What is there to stop people from simply making things up as they go to avoid punishment? People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else or society at large. People cant avoid punishment if they have harmed someone else under this principle. It isnt practical or possible to find one set of morals and beliefs that will be, or should be, acceptable to everyone. There are so many variables that form peoples morals/beliefs such as religion, culture, upbringing, their environment etc. Humans are not robots that are all wired the same. We're all different so why have one set of morals and beliefs for us all. That being said the bank has no obligation to accomodate someone who doesnt believe in wearing ties. The company has the right to set a dress code for what they deem necessary for working with them. Or put another way...the company has the right to assert its beliefs. If the tie hating guy doesnt like it he is FREE to find another bank which doesnt have such a policy. The banks freedom to set a tie policy would appear to be in conflict though with our tie hater. But is the tie hater truly "harmed" by the policy. Possible harm would be lack of work but the tie hater is free to work elsewhere. Opposing morals/beliefs is the one area where the harm principle has conflict. As long as both morals/beliefs are allowed though nobody is harmed. As long as the bank is allowed to set policies that they believe to be right and tie wearing guy is allowed to choose to work elsewhere I think all is fair. or to use a little more realistic example: as long as churches are allowed to choose who they marry and gay people are allowed to find another church that does choose to marry them I think all is fair Explain how everyone can be treated equally under that premise. Please. How do you deem who gets punished for what? How do you determine it is ok to punish one man for a crime and not another because he thinks it is not wrong? We don't choose one set of morals to exclude, we choose one set to make equality a manageable concept. When you say punishment you must mean the criminal code etc. Everything I can think of we punish for because some harm has been done to another which clearly fits into my definition. Find me an example of something we punish for that doesnt fit into what Im saying. Quote
Rue Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 Should deeply and firmly held individual beliefs fall under protection of the freedom of religion clause in the Charter? Including e.g. atheism?E.g. if someone had a firm belief that wearing a tie is morally wrong, shouldn't the bank they're employed at find reasonable accommodation for that? If not, why? For the simple reason that your example is so subjective and so general, it could not be enforced. Quote
bradco Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 Should deeply and firmly held individual beliefs fall under protection of the freedom of religion clause in the Charter? Including e.g. atheism? E.g. if someone had a firm belief that wearing a tie is morally wrong, shouldn't the bank they're employed at find reasonable accommodation for that? If not, why? For the simple reason that your example is so subjective and so general, it could not be enforced. But it is interesting how you could subsititute something in that is in fact the exact same argument. Ie homosexual marriage. Thinking about it with a silly example as wearing ties takes away the religious, political, moral side of things which would plague such a debate. It is an interesting excerise in how to balance morals and beliefs without the politics that relate to reallife examples. Quote
Hicksey Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 Should deeply and firmly held individual beliefs fall under protection of the freedom of religion clause in the Charter? Including e.g. atheism? E.g. if someone had a firm belief that wearing a tie is morally wrong, shouldn't the bank they're employed at find reasonable accommodation for that? If not, why? Because there needs to be a singular set of morals from which what is right and wrong? people are judged equally. How is that possible if everyone just decides for themselves At your bank, they should be able to reprimand everyone not adhering to company policy except your guy simply because he has decided it is wrong? What is there to stop people from simply making things up as they go to avoid punishment? People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else or society at large. People cant avoid punishment if they have harmed someone else under this principle. It isnt practical or possible to find one set of morals and beliefs that will be, or should be, acceptable to everyone. There are so many variables that form peoples morals/beliefs such as religion, culture, upbringing, their environment etc. Humans are not robots that are all wired the same. We're all different so why have one set of morals and beliefs for us all. That being said the bank has no obligation to accomodate someone who doesnt believe in wearing ties. The company has the right to set a dress code for what they deem necessary for working with them. Or put another way...the company has the right to assert its beliefs. If the tie hating guy doesnt like it he is FREE to find another bank which doesnt have such a policy. The banks freedom to set a tie policy would appear to be in conflict though with our tie hater. But is the tie hater truly "harmed" by the policy. Possible harm would be lack of work but the tie hater is free to work elsewhere. Opposing morals/beliefs is the one area where the harm principle has conflict. As long as both morals/beliefs are allowed though nobody is harmed. As long as the bank is allowed to set policies that they believe to be right and tie wearing guy is allowed to choose to work elsewhere I think all is fair. or to use a little more realistic example: as long as churches are allowed to choose who they marry and gay people are allowed to find another church that does choose to marry them I think all is fair Explain how everyone can be treated equally under that premise. Please. How do you deem who gets punished for what? How do you determine it is ok to punish one man for a crime and not another because he thinks it is not wrong? We don't choose one set of morals to exclude, we choose one set to make equality a manageable concept. When you say punishment you must mean the criminal code etc. Everything I can think of we punish for because some harm has been done to another which clearly fits into my definition. Find me an example of something we punish for that doesnt fit into what Im saying. No, I do not mean just the criminal code. Rules and structure continue down from there through about every part of our lives. Who is to say that a business cannot make rules and tell you if you don't like them or they don't meet your moral standards to find another? Instead, people sue and demand they be able to do what they want. I submit that we should disallow it. In the instance of a business, I am putting my own money at risk. I should be the sole dictator, beyond basic human rights of course, of what is allowed or disallowed there. If you don't like that get another job. If I tell you a tie is a part of the uniform and you refuse, start packing. Simple as that. If I do not treat people well I will not be able to keep them. Much like pay structures, people consider how they are treated when they choose a job. Let them find one that suits them if they don't like the rules of the one I have provided. Those who are invested should be protected first. As the generations pass each gets to be more like a spoiled brat, expecting everyone cater to them. Discipline seems to be more elusive to each new generation. We need to stop catering to people. When you keep giving in to people they come to expect it. There comes a point where doing these things in the name of progress hurts society more than it helps. IMO we have already passed that point. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
bradco Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 Should deeply and firmly held individual beliefs fall under protection of the freedom of religion clause in the Charter? Including e.g. atheism? E.g. if someone had a firm belief that wearing a tie is morally wrong, shouldn't the bank they're employed at find reasonable accommodation for that? If not, why? Because there needs to be a singular set of morals from which what is right and wrong? people are judged equally. How is that possible if everyone just decides for themselves At your bank, they should be able to reprimand everyone not adhering to company policy except your guy simply because he has decided it is wrong? What is there to stop people from simply making things up as they go to avoid punishment? People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else or society at large. People cant avoid punishment if they have harmed someone else under this principle. It isnt practical or possible to find one set of morals and beliefs that will be, or should be, acceptable to everyone. There are so many variables that form peoples morals/beliefs such as religion, culture, upbringing, their environment etc. Humans are not robots that are all wired the same. We're all different so why have one set of morals and beliefs for us all. That being said the bank has no obligation to accomodate someone who doesnt believe in wearing ties. The company has the right to set a dress code for what they deem necessary for working with them. Or put another way...the company has the right to assert its beliefs. If the tie hating guy doesnt like it he is FREE to find another bank which doesnt have such a policy. The banks freedom to set a tie policy would appear to be in conflict though with our tie hater. But is the tie hater truly "harmed" by the policy. Possible harm would be lack of work but the tie hater is free to work elsewhere. Opposing morals/beliefs is the one area where the harm principle has conflict. As long as both morals/beliefs are allowed though nobody is harmed. As long as the bank is allowed to set policies that they believe to be right and tie wearing guy is allowed to choose to work elsewhere I think all is fair. or to use a little more realistic example: as long as churches are allowed to choose who they marry and gay people are allowed to find another church that does choose to marry them I think all is fair Explain how everyone can be treated equally under that premise. Please. How do you deem who gets punished for what? How do you determine it is ok to punish one man for a crime and not another because he thinks it is not wrong? We don't choose one set of morals to exclude, we choose one set to make equality a manageable concept. When you say punishment you must mean the criminal code etc. Everything I can think of we punish for because some harm has been done to another which clearly fits into my definition. Find me an example of something we punish for that doesnt fit into what Im saying. No, I do not mean just the criminal code. Rules and structure continue down from there through about every part of our lives. Who is to say that a business cannot make rules and tell you if you don't like them or they don't meet your moral standards to find another? Instead, people sue and demand they be able to do what they want. I submit that we should disallow it. In the instance of a business, I am putting my own money at risk. I should be the sole dictator, beyond basic human rights of course, of what is allowed or disallowed there. If you don't like that get another job. If I tell you a tie is a part of the uniform and you refuse, start packing. Simple as that. If I do not treat people well I will not be able to keep them. Much like pay structures, people consider how they are treated when they choose a job. Let them find one that suits them if they don't like the rules of the one I have provided. Those who are invested should be protected first. As the generations pass each gets to be more like a spoiled brat, expecting everyone cater to them. Discipline seems to be more elusive to each new generation. We need to stop catering to people. When you keep giving in to people they come to expect it. There comes a point where doing these things in the name of progress hurts society more than it helps. IMO we have already passed that point. I dont think what your saying goes against what Im saying though. I fully agree that a business should be able to set their policies. I explained that it doesnt harm people. I see no conflict yet with using a harm principle for allowing people to have their own morals and beliefs. Quote
Hicksey Posted October 6, 2006 Report Posted October 6, 2006 Should deeply and firmly held individual beliefs fall under protection of the freedom of religion clause in the Charter? Including e.g. atheism? E.g. if someone had a firm belief that wearing a tie is morally wrong, shouldn't the bank they're employed at find reasonable accommodation for that? If not, why? Because there needs to be a singular set of morals from which what is right and wrong? people are judged equally. How is that possible if everyone just decides for themselves At your bank, they should be able to reprimand everyone not adhering to company policy except your guy simply because he has decided it is wrong? What is there to stop people from simply making things up as they go to avoid punishment? People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else or society at large. People cant avoid punishment if they have harmed someone else under this principle. It isnt practical or possible to find one set of morals and beliefs that will be, or should be, acceptable to everyone. There are so many variables that form peoples morals/beliefs such as religion, culture, upbringing, their environment etc. Humans are not robots that are all wired the same. We're all different so why have one set of morals and beliefs for us all. That being said the bank has no obligation to accomodate someone who doesnt believe in wearing ties. The company has the right to set a dress code for what they deem necessary for working with them. Or put another way...the company has the right to assert its beliefs. If the tie hating guy doesnt like it he is FREE to find another bank which doesnt have such a policy. The banks freedom to set a tie policy would appear to be in conflict though with our tie hater. But is the tie hater truly "harmed" by the policy. Possible harm would be lack of work but the tie hater is free to work elsewhere. Opposing morals/beliefs is the one area where the harm principle has conflict. As long as both morals/beliefs are allowed though nobody is harmed. As long as the bank is allowed to set policies that they believe to be right and tie wearing guy is allowed to choose to work elsewhere I think all is fair. or to use a little more realistic example: as long as churches are allowed to choose who they marry and gay people are allowed to find another church that does choose to marry them I think all is fair Explain how everyone can be treated equally under that premise. Please. How do you deem who gets punished for what? How do you determine it is ok to punish one man for a crime and not another because he thinks it is not wrong? We don't choose one set of morals to exclude, we choose one set to make equality a manageable concept. When you say punishment you must mean the criminal code etc. Everything I can think of we punish for because some harm has been done to another which clearly fits into my definition. Find me an example of something we punish for that doesnt fit into what Im saying. No, I do not mean just the criminal code. Rules and structure continue down from there through about every part of our lives. Who is to say that a business cannot make rules and tell you if you don't like them or they don't meet your moral standards to find another? Instead, people sue and demand they be able to do what they want. I submit that we should disallow it. In the instance of a business, I am putting my own money at risk. I should be the sole dictator, beyond basic human rights of course, of what is allowed or disallowed there. If you don't like that get another job. If I tell you a tie is a part of the uniform and you refuse, start packing. Simple as that. If I do not treat people well I will not be able to keep them. Much like pay structures, people consider how they are treated when they choose a job. Let them find one that suits them if they don't like the rules of the one I have provided. Those who are invested should be protected first. As the generations pass each gets to be more like a spoiled brat, expecting everyone cater to them. Discipline seems to be more elusive to each new generation. We need to stop catering to people. When you keep giving in to people they come to expect it. There comes a point where doing these things in the name of progress hurts society more than it helps. IMO we have already passed that point. I dont think what your saying goes against what Im saying though. I fully agree that a business should be able to set their policies. I explained that it doesnt harm people. I see no conflict yet with using a harm principle for allowing people to have their own morals and beliefs. I have rules, you obey them. As long as you work for me, thats how it goes. If you do not, you are deemed insubbordinate and released. Like I said, if I am going to put everything I own at risk to create your job, it is only right I should get to make the rules. How I am to keep order if everyone gets to decide which rules they want to obey and which they do not? How do I justify to the others when I reprimand everyone else for not following our exemplary dress code and not our guy who has decided he thinks it is wrong? In my workplace, as long as you come to work and follow the rules, I don't care if you are black, white, blue or purple as long as you do what is asked of you in the manner you are asked to do it. If you have a problem with doing things the way I have asked then it time for you to move on. There are consequences to EVERYTHING in your life. If you are averse to wearing a tie you ought not seek work in an office environment. The office should not be required to bow to you. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
myata Posted October 7, 2006 Author Report Posted October 7, 2006 I actually agree with you and yet ... it's probably way more likely that an employer, all other factors equal, would accommodate a religious belief much more readily than an equivalent individual one. Maybe we aren't just there yet. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
bradco Posted October 7, 2006 Report Posted October 7, 2006 Should deeply and firmly held individual beliefs fall under protection of the freedom of religion clause in the Charter? Including e.g. atheism? E.g. if someone had a firm belief that wearing a tie is morally wrong, shouldn't the bank they're employed at find reasonable accommodation for that? If not, why? Because there needs to be a singular set of morals from which what is right and wrong? people are judged equally. How is that possible if everyone just decides for themselves At your bank, they should be able to reprimand everyone not adhering to company policy except your guy simply because he has decided it is wrong? What is there to stop people from simply making things up as they go to avoid punishment? People should be free to do as they wish as long as they do not harm anyone else or society at large. People cant avoid punishment if they have harmed someone else under this principle. It isnt practical or possible to find one set of morals and beliefs that will be, or should be, acceptable to everyone. There are so many variables that form peoples morals/beliefs such as religion, culture, upbringing, their environment etc. Humans are not robots that are all wired the same. We're all different so why have one set of morals and beliefs for us all. That being said the bank has no obligation to accomodate someone who doesnt believe in wearing ties. The company has the right to set a dress code for what they deem necessary for working with them. Or put another way...the company has the right to assert its beliefs. If the tie hating guy doesnt like it he is FREE to find another bank which doesnt have such a policy. The banks freedom to set a tie policy would appear to be in conflict though with our tie hater. But is the tie hater truly "harmed" by the policy. Possible harm would be lack of work but the tie hater is free to work elsewhere. Opposing morals/beliefs is the one area where the harm principle has conflict. As long as both morals/beliefs are allowed though nobody is harmed. As long as the bank is allowed to set policies that they believe to be right and tie wearing guy is allowed to choose to work elsewhere I think all is fair. or to use a little more realistic example: as long as churches are allowed to choose who they marry and gay people are allowed to find another church that does choose to marry them I think all is fair Explain how everyone can be treated equally under that premise. Please. How do you deem who gets punished for what? How do you determine it is ok to punish one man for a crime and not another because he thinks it is not wrong? We don't choose one set of morals to exclude, we choose one set to make equality a manageable concept. When you say punishment you must mean the criminal code etc. Everything I can think of we punish for because some harm has been done to another which clearly fits into my definition. Find me an example of something we punish for that doesnt fit into what Im saying. No, I do not mean just the criminal code. Rules and structure continue down from there through about every part of our lives. Who is to say that a business cannot make rules and tell you if you don't like them or they don't meet your moral standards to find another? Instead, people sue and demand they be able to do what they want. I submit that we should disallow it. In the instance of a business, I am putting my own money at risk. I should be the sole dictator, beyond basic human rights of course, of what is allowed or disallowed there. If you don't like that get another job. If I tell you a tie is a part of the uniform and you refuse, start packing. Simple as that. If I do not treat people well I will not be able to keep them. Much like pay structures, people consider how they are treated when they choose a job. Let them find one that suits them if they don't like the rules of the one I have provided. Those who are invested should be protected first. As the generations pass each gets to be more like a spoiled brat, expecting everyone cater to them. Discipline seems to be more elusive to each new generation. We need to stop catering to people. When you keep giving in to people they come to expect it. There comes a point where doing these things in the name of progress hurts society more than it helps. IMO we have already passed that point. I dont think what your saying goes against what Im saying though. I fully agree that a business should be able to set their policies. I explained that it doesnt harm people. I see no conflict yet with using a harm principle for allowing people to have their own morals and beliefs. I have rules, you obey them. As long as you work for me, thats how it goes. If you do not, you are deemed insubbordinate and released. Like I said, if I am going to put everything I own at risk to create your job, it is only right I should get to make the rules. How I am to keep order if everyone gets to decide which rules they want to obey and which they do not? How do I justify to the others when I reprimand everyone else for not following our exemplary dress code and not our guy who has decided he thinks it is wrong? In my workplace, as long as you come to work and follow the rules, I don't care if you are black, white, blue or purple as long as you do what is asked of you in the manner you are asked to do it. If you have a problem with doing things the way I have asked then it time for you to move on. There are consequences to EVERYTHING in your life. If you are averse to wearing a tie you ought not seek work in an office environment. The office should not be required to bow to you. Dont go too hard on your employees now though or your going to wake up and realize that none are left. You may put everything you own at risk to create the jobs.....but your not creating jobs for anything but your own profit. Ill give you some business advice: happier, respected workers produce more profit. Quote
Hicksey Posted October 7, 2006 Report Posted October 7, 2006 I have rules, you obey them. As long as you work for me, thats how it goes. If you do not, you are deemed insubbordinate and released. Like I said, if I am going to put everything I own at risk to create your job, it is only right I should get to make the rules. How I am to keep order if everyone gets to decide which rules they want to obey and which they do not? How do I justify to the others when I reprimand everyone else for not following our exemplary dress code and not our guy who has decided he thinks it is wrong? In my workplace, as long as you come to work and follow the rules, I don't care if you are black, white, blue or purple as long as you do what is asked of you in the manner you are asked to do it. If you have a problem with doing things the way I have asked then it time for you to move on. There are consequences to EVERYTHING in your life. If you are averse to wearing a tie you ought not seek work in an office environment. The office should not be required to bow to you. Dont go too hard on your employees now though or your going to wake up and realize that none are left. You may put everything you own at risk to create the jobs.....but your not creating jobs for anything but your own profit. Ill give you some business advice: happier, respected workers produce more profit. I would pay my workers well unlike most people. Well paid workers usually stay on. I would not be a disciplinarian to the point of being a militant boss. And I am smart enough to know that it is every bit as important to let people know when they do things right as it is to provide enforced boundaries so they know when they have done something wrong. I also believe in profit sharing. There are many ways to keep employees that they will view as much more important than just a mere tie. If the tie remains that important and becomes a problem, I would likely dispose of that employee before their probationary period ended. Quote "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society." - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell - “In many respects, the government needs fewer rules, but rules that are consistently applied.” - Sheila Fraser, Former Auditor General.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.