• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

'No God' campaign draws complaint

There was another case of the Local Council Official who refused to officiate at single sex partnership ceremonies because of her "christian beliefs" -can't find the thread etc at the moment.
 
I'm sure his work colleagues are now thrilled at having to work round his fragile sensibilities.

Religion gets special exemption from the normal rules. This is not an uncommon occurrence. It is part of what raises the hackles of atheists.
 
Would courts decide there is a God? When other government authorities such as Mental Health hospitals and services are only too happy to hospitalise a person claiming to be the "second coming of Jesus"?
 
Insubordination seems to me like gross misconduct. I have seen people fired on the spot for refusing a foreman's order.

I live in the USA where employment-at-will is the law in most states.

You might not be able to fire him in America either. Federal law requires employers to take "reasonable" measures to accommodate a person's religious beliefs.
 
You might not be able to fire him in America either. Federal law requires employers to take "reasonable" measures to accommodate a person's religious beliefs.

Does this mean that I can force the government to completely secularize because people keep calling atheism a religion?
 
Does this mean that I can force the government to completely secularize because people keep calling atheism a religion?

I know you are being facetious but I'll answer anyway.

I'm almost certain that the Supreme Court has acknowledged that atheism is not a religion in a philosophical sense but is treated as one for legal purposes.

"Atheist" is not synonymous with "secular" btw.
 
Last edited:
You might not be able to fire him in America either. Federal law requires employers to take "reasonable" measures to accommodate a person's religious beliefs.
It's sometimes hard to work out whether people are venting their anti-religious emotions for relief (when they say that this driver should be sacked on the spot), or whether they actually support employers and governments having so much power they can fire you in a heartbeat over a minor dispute.
I am pretty sure that there would be exceedingly scant popular support for the driver being summarily fired in this country. And most people here are not religious. I would think it would be a pretty dreadful state of affairs too.
 
Last edited:
I'm just a little surprised anybody wouldn't consider this to be a clear cut case of instant dismisal. An employee refuses to do his job then goes home. In any job I've ever had that is a sacking offence.
Oh no it isn't. You have clearly been legged-over, perhaps due to being ignorant of employment laws.
 
Oh no it isn't. You have clearly been legged-over, perhaps due to being ignorant of employment laws.
Well it depends on the employer but failure to comply with lawful and reasonable instructions is generally regarded as gross misconduct. Provided the correct procedures are carried out I don't think he would have any redress if fired.
 
Well it depends on the employer but failure to comply with lawful and reasonable instructions is generally regarded as gross misconduct. Provided the correct procedures are carried out I don't think he would have any redress if fired.
The correct procedure is not summary dismissal if someone "refuses to work and goes home".
 
It's sometimes hard to work out whether people are venting their anti-religious emotions for relief (when they say that this driver should be sacked on the spot), or whether they actually support employers and governments having so much power they can fire you in a heartbeat over a minor dispute.

Like I originally said, it might not be a wise business decision and of course i don't know what kind of employee he otherwise is. So I am certainly not going to blame the company if they weren't going to fire him.

But if I decide that I cannot work under specific conditions, then I can simply put my job on the line over it and tell my employer that either things have to change or I'd leave. (And I have done that, too. *And* kept my job. If I had lost it I would have considered that fair, though.)

I don't see what type of logic would force an employer to continue hiring and paying an employee who out of the blue refused to continue doing his job. It's not even that he objected, it's that he simply walked out of his shift when the management found no other solution on the spot.

Anyway, no, I'd have the same reaction if a vegetarian refused to drive a bus with an advert for McDonalds. But it just so seems to happen, that it is mostly the religious that end up in situations like that...
 
I don't see what type of logic would force an employer to continue hiring and paying an employee who out of the blue refused to continue doing his job.
I don't see why there should be any logical difficulty with a "reasonableness" standard being applicable to whether a circumstance justifies an action under law. Yet it appears that some people have tremendous problems with things like "where do you draw the line" and "opening the floodgates"/"slippery slope". Even criminal laws operate under reasonableness tests.

No, of course an employer is not going to be necessarily forced to hire someone who won't work and wants extraordinary special treatment. But law and due process exists for the aim of arriving at the best resolution which--in most cases--is not one in which only one party has all the bargaining power and walks off with all the payoff.

But it just so seems to happen, that it is mostly the religious that end up in situations like that...
It "seems"? Maybe you are perceiving it through some bias rather than objectivity, you think?
 
Anyway, no, I'd have the same reaction if a vegetarian refused to drive a bus with an advert for McDonalds.
A very good point.

Things are really hopping over by Free Republic
It's people like this that inspired FSTDT:rolleyes:.

But it just so seems to happen, that it is mostly the religious that end up in situations like that...
It's only the religious that can end up in situations like that - the rest of us don't get nearly the same kind of respect. If I said that Fallout 3 offended me because of perceived political leanings, no one would care. If I said that I, as an atheist, was offended by Oblivion because there's only one atheist in the whole game and she is ugly, dresses in black, acts all obnoxious towards everyone and at one point tries to kill you because she worships some sort of demon or whatever... no one would care. If I was a bus driver and refused to drive a bus because there was a GOP poster on its side, I'd be the laughing stock of the bus company.

But Muslims delaying a video game because it contains two little words from their holy book? Totally cool.
 
Last edited:
It's only the religious that can end up in situations like that - the rest of us don't get nearly the same kind of respect.
Can you corroborate that, and not with anecdotes?

And since you call it "respect" that means you approve of the bus driver situation being resolved by dialogue and possible compromise, right? Rather than summary sacking.
 
You think they should be allowed to work notice?
I don't have enough info, and nor do you. I don't even know if it justifies termination of employment. (I doubt it actually).

You were the one who thought you know enough to judge that it justified instant dismissal.
 
Last edited:
And since you call it "respect" that means you approve of the bus driver situation being resolved by dialogue and possible compromise, right? Rather than summary sacking.
I'd personally, as a layman, want it to be handled the same way you'd handle, say, a vegan suddenly, without warning, refusing to drive a bus with a McDonald's ad on it.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom