Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs

stevevw said:

So you would deny that a Catholic church can have the right to only employ a Catholic priest to do their masses. You would insist that they open the applicants up to atheists and other religions.

Click to expand...

Well, we have been hearing how terrible it is for employers to restrict their employees' freedom of religion, after all. If that's an absolute protection, then yes, the Catholic church shouldn't be able to get around it.
On the other hand, if having a strong opinion about the views expressed running counter to those of the goals of the organization is enough to prevent someone from being employed by that organization, it seems unfair that only some organizations have that ability.

Larnievc said:

Ah sorry. I thought you meant that the Bible had legislative authority as opposed to being legal to own.

Click to expand...

No worries

KCfromNC said:

Those people are then free to hire him. But it doesn't change the fact that they people signing his paycheck have the right to stop doing so if he acts in a manner counter to the goals of the organization.

Click to expand...

That doesn't mean RA are right though. It is their subjective perception that Folau was targeting gays. But to Folau he was just quoting a bible verse about all sinners and the need to repent otherwise they would be punished. He was expressing his belief. That is a fundamental truism for those who believe to express for 100's of years.

KCfromNC said:

Well, we have been hearing how terrible it is for employers to restrict their employees' freedom of religion, after all. If that's an absolute protection, then yes, the Catholic church shouldn't be able to get around it.
On the other hand, if having a strong opinion about the views expressed running counter to those of the goals of the organization is enough to prevent someone from being employed by that organization, it seems unfair that only some organizations have that ability.

Click to expand...

There is good reason why religious organisations, cultural groups and other groups with certain long held and deep seated beliefs are allowed to discriminate. This has been determined by the UN Human Rights commission. Are you saying their determination is wrong.

The same right to discriminate is allowed by some non religious groups as well. As someone mentioned women belonging to a refuge for rape victims can discriminate against men being the support worker by insisting that a women get the job. Are you going to deny this right as well.

KCfromNC said:

Not always, but in my hypothetical they were. So now what? Do employers who claim their religious beliefs lead them to fire certain employees have the absolute right to do so because it is protected under their right to express their religious beliefs?


As in it is asserted quite a bit but I haven't seen any reason to believe that assertion lines up with actual employment law.

Click to expand...

You need to read the UN article on when and where exceptions to the discrimination laws can be applied. It isn't as simple as an employer sacking someone just because they think they can. There has to be a good reason which overrides the law IE

A difference in treatment may be lawful in employment situations if:

• belonging to a particular religion is essential for the job: this is called an occupational requirement. For example: a prison chaplain serving Methodist prisoners may need to be a member of that faith
• an organization is taking positive action to encourage or develop a group of people with a religion or belief that is under-represented or disadvantaged in a role or activity
• a faith school appoints some of their teaching staff on the basis of their religion
• an organization with an ethos based on religion or belief is restricting a job opportunity to people of their religion or belief. For example, a Humanist organization which promotes Humanist principles and beliefs could specify that their Chief Executive must be a Humanist. However restricting a job opportunity to people of a certain religion or belief is not lawful unless the nature or context of the work demands it
• the circumstances fall under one of the other exceptions to the Equality Act that allow employers to provide different treatment or services based on religion or belief

Words and terms used in the Equality Act | Equality and Human Rights Commission

Otherwise if an employer wants to discriminate for non religious reasons can through the positive objective justification but they must qualify the reason and it cannot be just because they don't like someone, for convenience or want to save money.

To prove objective justification:

• the aim must be a real, objective consideration, and not in itself discriminatory (for example, ensuring the health and safety of others would be a legitimate aim)
• if the aim is simply to reduce costs because it is cheaper to discriminate, this will not be legitimate
• working out whether the means is ‘proportionate’ is a balancing exercise: does the importance of the aim outweigh any discriminatory effects of the unfavorable treatment?
• there must be no alternative measures available that would meet the aim without too much difficulty and would avoid such a discriminatory effect: if proportionate alternative steps could have been taken, there is unlikely to be a good reason for the policy or age-based rule

Words and terms used in the Equality Act | Equality and Human Rights Commission

Otherwise the worker can have a case to take to the Human Rights Commission. But these exceptions have been determined by the UN Human Rights as reasonable and fair so if you disagree then you would have to take it up with the UN. But considering that they have been ratified by most member nations it is a majority agreement that these exceptions are fair enough and needed.

stevevw said:

So what happens if you are wrongly dismissed and you end up with no income stream and your family suffers.

Click to expand...

There's no such thing as unfair dismissal for priests. I hold the Archbishop's licence and serve at his pleasure; he can revoke that licence at any time, for any reason, and I would have no recourse.

stevevw said:

What protections do you have if you are subject to unsafe work conditions.

Click to expand...

Churches are required to make sure their premises are safe, and I suppose if they refused to do so, I could make some sort of complaint.

But I am not an employee, and my position is not governed by the usual workplace laws. This was tested a while back by a Catholic priest who brought a minimum wage claim against the church; his case was dismissed as he was not an employee. And there have been other similar findings along the way.

stevevw said:

I think that may be because some priests are classed as self employed or maybe contractors. There are different ways of classing a priests for work purposes in Australia. But certainly some can be regarded as employees and come under the standard employment contract.
clergy employment status – Law and Religion Australia

Click to expand...

https://lawandreligionaustralia.blog/category/clergy-employment-status/

Not all clergy are priests. I know some smaller churches do employ their clergy using contracts. But as that link itself explains, some of us are considered to be holders of an office, not employees (and not self employed or contractors), and that pertains to Anglican clergy in Australia, and to the best of my knowledge, to the other denominations which have priests as well.

stevevw said:

But that is neither here nor there regarding the point I was trying to make. Priests will still come under the governance of the church that they represent and therefore that Church can decide who becomes a priest. Put it this way can those who decide who can be a priest in your church have the right to deny a Muslim to be a priest. Does a priest have to be of the same faith as the church they are priests for.

Click to expand...

As I noted above, all priests serve at their bishop's or archbishop's pleasure. He (or she) can decide that on any terms they wish.

The point about employment is important for other reasons, though, so it's worth being clear about our situation.

What I find interesting about the direction of this thread is that it doesn't ask:
Was it ethical for the player to sign a code of ethics contract when he knew he wasn't going to follow it?
Did he violate the contract?
Should employers have the right to fire you by what you put on social media?
What was the purpose of quoting that scripture? Does he think we have never heard it?
How would that apply to nonChristians who are gay?

In this video, Justin looks at both sides, the translation, the culture and the context, and has good support for why he doesn't believe that the text is not condemning loving same-sex relationships.

So, the player may be in error.

I'm just unclear what his need was to put that out there on social media in violation of his contract. Yes, we've heard it before, too often to count, to the point one wonders why this is such an obsession of the church.
Personally, after about 40 years of researching it, reading books about the subject, listening to both sides debate, even Side A/B (loving gay relationships aren't condemned/celibacy only), have prayed about this for countless hours, and don't believe it is a sin, and most clobber passages are misused.

So again, I have to ask, what was the intention or purpose? And why did he need to focus on it?

And to give an example of how this is received, I could claim to be spreading the truth and love of Jesus by going up to coworkers, asking them if they are Christian, then telling them they are going to hell if they don't repent and turn to Jesus, but if someone did that to me, I would say, "I'm good. I'm not buying what you are selling," because I would feel judged, and always think that as I passed you on the floor.

Is it Ethical to be fired for stating Christian beliefs
This question is disingenuous and deceitful. Folau wasn't sacked for stating his religious beliefs he was sacked for breaking his contract.

Paidiske said:

There's no such thing as unfair dismissal for priests. I hold the Archbishop's licence and serve at his pleasure; he can revoke that licence at any time, for any reason, and I would have no recourse.

Click to expand...

Wow there would have to be a lot of trust.

Churches are required to make sure their premises are safe, and I suppose if they refused to do so, I could make some sort of complaint.

Click to expand...

That would take even more trust.

But I am not an employee, and my position is not governed by the usual workplace laws. This was tested a while back by a Catholic priest who brought a minimum wage claim against the church; his case was dismissed as he was not an employee. And there have been other similar findings along the way.
Not all clergy are priests. I know some smaller churches do employ their clergy using contracts. But as that link itself explains, some of us are considered to be holders of an office, not employees (and not self employed or contractors), and that pertains to Anglican clergy in Australia, and to the best of my knowledge, to the other denominations which have priests as well.

Click to expand...

Yeah it appears there are different status depending on what you do. But some are classed as employees for tax purposes.
Are Pastors Employees or Self-Employed Contractors?

As I noted above, all priests serve at their bishop's or archbishop's pleasure. He (or she) can decide that on any terms they wish.

The point about employment is important for other reasons, though, so it's worth being clear about our situation.

Click to expand...

I appreciate that but for the point of an organisation being able to discriminate as to who they have represent them which is what we are talking about in relation to the right to discriminate as an exception it isn't.

stevevw said:

Wow there would have to be a lot of trust.

Click to expand...

I'm realistic enough to know that the church sometimes treats its clergy very badly. Like most of my colleagues, I think, I'm here because I believe God wants me to be; and I accept the risk of being treated badly is just part of the deal.

"Employee" status would be a two-edged sword, imo. It would give us more protections in some ways, and in some ways would open us up to more exploitation.

stevevw said:

I appreciate that but for the point of an organisation being able to discriminate as to who they have represent them which is what we are talking about in relation to the right to discriminate as an exception it isn't.

Click to expand...

I think it sort of is different, though. A nurse in a church run hospital or a teacher in a church run school are in a very different sort of situation with regard to how they do or don't represent the faith.

It's difficult because on the one hand, I do agree that faith communities have the right to run their own affairs, (including things like schools), and require their staff to adhere to their ethos. But when those faith communities become some of our society's biggest employers (as the Catholic school and hospital systems are) there are questions of whether the way that power is used is always fair to people who aren't part of the in-group in that community.

Paidiske said:

I'm realistic enough to know that the church sometimes treats its clergy very badly. Like most of my colleagues, I think, I'm here because I believe God wants me to be; and I accept the risk of being treated badly is just part of the deal.

"Employee" status would be a two-edged sword, imo. It would give us more protections in some ways, and in some ways would open us up to more exploitation.

Click to expand...

Fair enough

I think it sort of is different, though. A nurse in a church run hospital or a teacher in a church run school are in a very different sort of situation with regard to how they do or don't represent the faith.

It's difficult because on the one hand, I do agree that faith communities have the right to run their own affairs, (including things like schools), and require their staff to adhere to their ethos. But when those faith communities become some of our society's biggest employers (as the Catholic school and hospital systems are) there are questions of whether the way that power is used is always fair to people who aren't part of the in-group in that community.

Click to expand...

I think in the case of a school it is not just about teaching Math. For a faith based school it is about teaching young people about values in life as well. There is a lot of interaction going on between staff and kids which is about role models as young people are very impressionable. So church based schools are also teaching the kids morals and a particular way of life. That is why parents choose to send their kids to religious schools as opposed to public schools because they know they will also get schooled in a particular faith based worldview. So the teachers need to be on the same page when it comes to their faith and moral standings.

stevevw said:

Fair enough



I think in the case of a school it is not just about teaching Math. For a faith based school it is about teaching young people about values in life as well. There is a lot of interaction going on between staff and kids which is about role models as young people are very impressionable. So church based schools are also teaching the kids morals and a particular way of life. That is why parents choose to send their kids to religious schools as opposed to public schools because they know they will also get schooled in a particular faith based worldview. So the teachers need to be on the same page when it comes to their faith and moral standings.

Click to expand...

The Church and morals certainly don't go together, the Bible and morals are an oxymoron!

stevevw said:

I think in the case of a school it is not just about teaching Math. For a faith based school it is about teaching young people about values in life as well. There is a lot of interaction going on between staff and kids which is about role models as young people are very impressionable. So church based schools are also teaching the kids morals and a particular way of life. That is why parents choose to send their kids to religious schools as opposed to public schools because they know they will also get schooled in a particular faith based worldview. So the teachers need to be on the same page when it comes to their faith and moral standings.

Click to expand...

Well, this is true to a degree.

But the reality also is that there simply aren't enough practising members of any religion to adequately staff all the church run schools. So if church schools are prepared to employ people who aren't practising members of their faith, (which most have to do to operate), then I think we have to allow a certain degree of latitude.

It's one thing, for example, to expect your staff to be respectfully quiet during school-run worship services. It's another thing to police what your staff do when they're not working.

And, frankly, part of being a person of faith is learning to live and work alongside those who don't share you faith, and school is as good a place as any to get a foundation in that, too.

stevevw said:

That doesn't mean RA are right though.It is their subjective perception that Folau was targeting gays.

Click to expand...

And since they're the ones signing his paycheck, it is their subjective opinion which is the one which matters.

But to Folau he was just quoting a bible verse about all sinners and the need to repent otherwise they would be punished. He was expressing his belief. That is a fundamental truism for those who believe to express for 100's of years.

Click to expand...

And he's perfectly free to do so. Just like his employer is perfectly free to stop paying him to represent them if they find that he's making them look bad by his actions.

stevevw said:

You need to read the UN article on when and where exceptions to the discrimination laws can be applied.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but this is just their "subjective perception".

It isn't as simple as an employer sacking someone just because they think they can. There has to be a good reason which overrides the law IE

A difference in treatment may be lawful in employment situations if:

...

• an organization is taking positive action to encourage or develop a group of people with a religion or belief that is under-represented or disadvantaged in a role or activity

Click to expand...

Seems like this could apply - RA is trying to promote sensitivity to a disadvantaged minority group.

Otherwise if an employer wants to discriminate for non religious reasons can through the positive objective justification but they must qualify the reason and it cannot be just because they don't like someone, for convenience or want to save money.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure people of all religions need to comply with the rules about not attacking minorities for simply being minorities, so it isn't as if this one guy is being singled out for his religion. He would have been fired regardless of the rationalization he used for attacking various minority groups.

KCfromNC said:

And since they're the ones signing his paycheck, it is their subjective opinion which is the one which matters.

Click to expand...

No it is the law that matters. An employer may have a subjective view that a trainee worker should be paid below the minimum hourly rate because they are not fully qualified as yet and put that into their contract. The worker may sign that contract making the contract binding.

But that doesn't make the clause that the employer can pay below the minimum wage right. The law says different. So their subjective opinion doesn't count and can be over ruled by the law. That is what Folau felt. That RA had no right to dictate that he could not express his beliefs in his private life because he had a right to do so according to Human Rights laws.

And he's perfectly free to do so. Just like his employer is perfectly free to stop paying him to represent them if they find that he's making them look bad by his actions.

Click to expand...

At the end of the day Folau took RA to court and won and was compensated for being sacked and his lost wages.

KCfromNC said:

Yeah, but this is just their "subjective perception".

Click to expand...

No these are based on an assessment of what is fair and reasonable in the situation. If your going to use an argument based on subjective perceptions for what makes a human right correct then your going down a rocky road as this would undermine the entire human rights laws.

Seems like this could apply - RA is trying to promote sensitivity to a disadvantaged minority group.

Click to expand...

Except who are the people with the religious belief. It is the pacific Islander players which RA has to support and uphold their right to their beliefs. But instead they have more or less said to those Pacific Islander players your beliefs are not welcome in RA. That is why many were upset. Yet even after RA did this they further denied their rights by not allowing then to express their feelings about the matter as RA gagged them. They only allowed one side to have a voice, which was those who opposed Folau. That is being discriminating against a group who is under represented.

I'm pretty sure people of all religions need to comply with the rules about not attacking minorities for simply being minorities, so it isn't as if this one guy is being singled out for his religion. He would have been fired regardless of the rationalization he used for attacking various minority groups.

Click to expand...

But I could say like you did that RA view that Folau attacked anyone (gays) is their subjective perception. In reality if you look at the facts that Folau is a preacher, has been posting quotes and religious articles on his social media for a long time, did so in his private time and posted a general quote about sinners and naming many of them rather than singling out gays I would say that the fair assessment is that he was not targeting gays. That he was expressing his beliefs as he has always done and that RA seen things wrong and took a PC position which was an over reaction.

This puts it more in the basket of an organisation with a lot of power including Qantas who were their sponsor putting pressure on them denying the rights of a person who was expressing their beliefs rather than someone who breached their code of conduct. Add to this RA own codes state they cannot sack someone for expressing their beliefs their case looked pretty slim. I guess that's why they settled out of court and paid Folau compensation.

Paidiske said:

Well, this is true to a degree.

But the reality also is that there simply aren't enough practising members of any religion to adequately staff all the church run schools. So if church schools are prepared to employ people who aren't practising members of their faith, (which most have to do to operate), then I think we have to allow a certain degree of latitude.

It's one thing, for example, to expect your staff to be respectfully quiet during school-run worship services. It's another thing to police what your staff do when they're not working.

And, frankly, part of being a person of faith is learning to live and work alongside those who don't share you faith, and school is as good a place as any to get a foundation in that, too.

Click to expand...

And I think for the most part if there are teachers who are not of that faith it will be recognized. They would normally try to employ people with certain ethical standards at least. They would allow them to express their different views in their private life as a result. It all depends on the circumstances. But for some to try and make a case that religious schools or church have some privileged position to discriminate because the UN has determined that they need to be able to do so in some situations is a logical fallacy. To say they will automatically do so is wrong. People have to give them more credit than that.

pleinmont said:

The Church and morals certainly don't go together, the Bible and morals are an oxymoron!

Click to expand...

That's a very sweeping statement.

If I was an employer and had an employee who made themselves very unpopular with other staff by expressing their view of religion in a preachy sort of way, I would sack them if they continued to do so after giving them a written warning first.