Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on January 11, 2024, 03:57:20 PM
-
This article on the RTE website caught my interest
https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2024/0110/1425739-religious-discrimination-workplaces-ireland/
-
This article on the RTE website caught my interest
https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2024/0110/1425739-religious-discrimination-workplaces-ireland/
Your thread title seems inappropriate given that the article is pretty well exclusively about religion, with scant regard to any non-religious 'world-view'. Nor is there any semblance of equivalence given within the article, between the rights of those that hold religious views and those that do not.
The penultimate paragraph is rather telling:
'In other words, organisations need to create a workplace where its values are clear to everyone, regardless of the diversity of employees’ beliefs. Accommodating and respecting beliefs is not solely about respecting choice of clothing or appearance, but creating an understanding that there is a range of beliefs that are sacred to colleagues, and that connect them to their past and their traditions. Similarly, it's important to recognise that not everyone may share these beliefs, and some individuals might not adhere to religious convictions at all, which is perfectly acceptable too.'
So those with religious beliefs should have those beliefs accommodated and respected, while those without religious beliefs should merely be accepted. Why should their lack of belief be similarly accommodated and respected? Clearly this author isn't in the business of equality and respecting diversity and inclusion given his clear non-equivalent approach to those with religious beliefs and those without.
-
Prof,
Your thread title seems inappropriate given that the article is pretty well exclusively about religion, with scant regard to any non-religious 'world-view'. Nor is there any semblance of equivalence given within the article, between the rights of those that hold religious views and those that do not.
The penultimate paragraph is rather telling:
'In other words, organisations need to create a workplace where its values are clear to everyone, regardless of the diversity of employees’ beliefs. Accommodating and respecting beliefs is not solely about respecting choice of clothing or appearance, but creating an understanding that there is a range of beliefs that are sacred to colleagues, and that connect them to their past and their traditions. Similarly, it's important to recognise that not everyone may share these beliefs, and some individuals might not adhere to religious convictions at all, which is perfectly acceptable too.'
So those with religious beliefs should have those beliefs accommodated and respected, while those without religious beliefs should merely be accepted. Why should their lack of belief be similarly accommodated and respected? Clearly this author isn't in the business of equality and respecting diversity and inclusion given his clear non-equivalent approach to those with religious beliefs and those without.
Also, why on earth should employees’ beliefs be “respected”? Their right to believe anything they like should be respected right enough, but not the beliefs themselves surely?
-
Prof,
Also, why on earth should employees’ beliefs be “respected”? Their right to believe anything they like should be respected right enough, but not the beliefs themselves surely?
Yes - that seems correct.
It is important that individuals are not discriminated in the workplace on the basis of their belief or lack of belief. And that cuts both ways so accommodation to one individual's beliefs could, for example, mean discrimination against another individual that lacks that belief. An example being a situation where a job requires regular weekend working on a rota - if a christian claims that requiring them to work on a Sunday is discriminatory due to their belief, accommodation of that view might actually result in discrimination against non christians who may be required to work more Sundays than reasonable to accommodate the views of the christian employee.
But this is all about preventing discrimination and, where reasonable, accommodating individual beliefs. None of that is about actually respecting those beliefs. This seems to be completely outside the remit of an employer/employee relationship to me. Accepting and accommodating reasonable requests based on a particular belief is one thing, requiring an employer to actually respect those beliefs quite another. And in this context what is meant by 'employer' - if this is an organisation then I don't see how respect of views is something an organisation is actually capable of. If 'employer' means an individual then a requirement to respect another person's views (rather than accept and accommodate and not discriminate on that basis) is quite another matter - to do so would seem to be discriminatory in itself as it would be disregarding the view of the employer as an individual.
Whether or not an employer or an employee respects the beliefs of another when interacting in a professional capacity seems to miss the point - what should happen is that the employee (or employer) should not be discriminated on that basis of those beliefs, regardless of whether one individual might find those beliefs wrong, abhorrent and/or completely unworthy of respect.
-
Prof,
Also, why on earth should employees’ beliefs be “respected”? Their right to believe anything they like should be respected right enough, but not the beliefs themselves surely?
This
-
Prof,
Also, why on earth should employees’ beliefs be “respected”? Their right to believe anything they like should be respected right enough, but not the beliefs themselves surely?
"Respected" doesn't only mean "admired"; it can also mean "tolerated". It is, though, a much-overused word nowadays.
-
SteveH,
"Respected" doesn't only mean "admired"; it can also mean "tolerated". It is, though, a much-overused word nowadays.
“Tolerated” doesn’t cover it either. If I’m to be required to tolerate something I have to know about it, which requires the believer to tell me about it – either expressly or for example by wearing religious symbols. What I should be expected to be is indifferent to the religious opinions of other employees regardless of what they happen to be, and moreover they should be expected to respect my right not to be told about their religious opinions.
-
SteveH,
“Tolerated” doesn’t cover it either. If I’m to be required to tolerate something I have to know about it, which requires the believer to tell me about it – either expressly or for example by wearing religious symbols. What I should be expected to be is indifferent to the religious opinions of other employees regardless of what they happen to be, and moreover they should be expected to respect my right not to be told about their religious opinions.
Defence of the contradictory "Freedom of religion, Freedom from religion" nonsense You can't have both.
-
Vlad,
Defence of the contradictory "Freedom of religion, Freedom from religion" nonsense You can't have both.
What are you trying to argue here? Of course you can have both – Fred should be free to hold whatever religious opinions take his fancy, and Mary should be free not to hear about them. There's no contradiction there.
-
Vlad,
What are you trying to argue here? Of course you can have both – Fred should be free to hold whatever religious opinions take his fancy, and Mary should be free not to hear about them. There's no contradiction there.
So you disagree with the employment tribunal here?
https://archive.is/zUMSl
-
NS,
So you disagree with the employment tribunal here?
https://archive.is/zUMSl
Actually yes I do, but in any case the right to express something is not the same as the right to make anyone else to listen to it. If, say, someone wants to stand on the office roof and shout nazi propaganda that's up to them, but I don't agree that they should also have the right to stand in the crowded staff canteen at lunchtime and shout "kill the jews".
By the way, I haven't looked for the cases but I'm sure there have been rulings before this one about people in certain jobs not being allowed to wear religious symbols (a cross on a necklace for example), which seems to be contrary in spirit at least to this case.
-
NS,
Actually yes I do, but in any case the right to express something is not the same as the right to make anyone else to listen to it. If, say, someone wants to stand on the office roof and shout nazi propaganda that's up to them, but I don't agree that they should also have the right to stand in the crowded staff canteen at lunchtime and shout "kill the jews".
By the way, I haven't looked for the cases but I'm sure there have been rulings before this one about people in certain jobs not being allowed to wear religious symbols (a cross on a necklace for example), which seems to be contrary in spirit at least to this case.
So what does free speech mean to you?
-
NS,
So what does free speech mean to you?
More or less the same as it means to you I suspect, namely that it's vital for a healthy society and that any restrictions on it should be in extreme and exceptional cases - incitement to violence for example.
My point though was that the right to say something and the right to insist anyone else must listen to it are not the same thing.
-
NS,
More or less the same as it means to you I suspect, namely that it's vital for a healthy society and that any restrictions on it should be in extreme and exceptional cases - incitement to violence for example.
My point though was that the right to say something and the right to insist anyone else must listen to it are not the same thing.
How do you avoid someone's right not to listen becoming a suppression of the free speech in the work place? If someone from the Westboro Baptists say they don't want to see or hear anything in support of gay rights in the work place, your position seems to be that anyone talking about gay rights should be prevented from speaking. Now I don't think you think that so could you elaborate in more detail, please?
-
NS,
How do you avoid someone's right not to listen becoming a suppression of the free speech in the work place?
By for example telling an evangelical Christian employee he’s not free to preach in the staff canteen at lunchtime, but he can do so in an office that people can access or not as they wish. It seems to me that curtailing what people can say and where they can say it are different things, and that sometimes the right to speak and the right not to hear are opposed so compromise is needed.
If someone from the Westboro Baptists say they don't want to see or hear anything in support of gay rights in the work place, your position seems to be that anyone talking about gay rights should be prevented from speaking.
No – see above. My workplace experience has been that in general businesses treat their premises as places of work, not as places for proselytising religious, political etc opinions but they also make accommodations for personal beliefs where they can – with prayer rooms for example.
Now I don't think you think that so could you elaborate in more detail, please?
Re the case you linked to:
“For more than 20 years Rachel Meade has been a social worker in Westminster. On her Facebook page, which was set to private, she posted messages to about 40 friends.”
That seems to me to have nothing to do with her employment. If Ms Meade was in fact transphobic and there was evidence that she acted that way in the course of her work duties then sure Westminster Council should have an interest, but as reported so what?
-
In short, you are entitled to freedom of speech (with certain limited exceptions, such as the law of libel), but no-one is obliged to give you a platform.
-
NS,
By for example telling an evangelical Christian employee he’s not free to preach in the staff canteen at lunchtime, but he can do so in an office that people can access or not as they wish. It seems to me that curtailing what people can say and where they can say it are different things, and that sometimes the right to speak and the right not to hear are opposed so compromise is needed.
No – see above. My workplace experience has been that in general businesses treat their premises as places of work, not as places for proselytising religious, political etc opinions but they also make accommodations for personal beliefs where they can – with prayer rooms for example.
Re the case you linked to:
“For more than 20 years Rachel Meade has been a social worker in Westminster. On her Facebook page, which was set to private, she posted messages to about 40 friends.”
That seems to me to have nothing to do with her employment. If Ms Meade was in fact transphobic and there was evidence that she acted that way in the course of her work duties then sure Westminster Council should have an interest, but as reported so what?
What if the speech is just in conversation, or in reply to training. Had Meade stated her comments in a diversity training session, should she have disciplined? I'd suggest the finding in the case is ni, and I would agree.
-
In short, you are entitled to freedom of speech (with certain limited exceptions, such as the law of libel), but no-one is obliged to give you a platform.
I think the question remains as to my reply to bhs, what is a platform? Can someone talk openly about beluefs at work, and raise them as regards work policies? I would suggest other than the limited exceptions you mention, the answer should be yes.
-
NS,
What if the speech is just in conversation, or in reply to training. Had Meade stated her comments in a diversity training session, should she have disciplined? I'd suggest the finding in the case is ni, and I would agree.
If someone chooses to express their faith or ideological beliefs in the workplace in conversation or in a training session then other employees have the right to tell them they don’t want to hear it. Incidentally, I’m struck by:
“Under UK law your staff have the right to both hold and express beliefs, which, as the judgment said “whilst (they) may well be profoundly offensive, and even distressing to . . . others, they are beliefs that are, and must be, tolerated in a pluralist society.”
Presumably this principle applies equally to both parties, so as well as “I don’t wish to hear it thanks” the other employee is also be free just to say a "profoundly offensive, and even distressing" “fuck off” instead?
-
NS,
If someone chooses to express their faith or ideological beliefs in the workplace in conversation or in a training session then other employees have the right to tell them they don’t want to hear it. Incidentally, I’m struck by:
“Under UK law your staff have the right to both hold and express beliefs, which, as the judgment said “whilst (they) may well be profoundly offensive, and even distressing to . . . others, they are beliefs that are, and must be, tolerated in a pluralist society.”
Presumably this principle applies equally to both parties, so as well as “I don’t wish to hear it thanks” the other employee is also be free just to say a "profoundly offensive, and even distressing" “fuck off” instead?
Expressing the views, yes. As to how you express them? I would suggest that's a different question.
-
NS,
Expressing the views, yes. As to how you express them? I would suggest that's a different question.
But what if I’m an evangelical member of the Church of Fuckology whose central (OK, only) tenet is: “Thou shalt be free to save time by telling those who would presume to evangelise to you to fuck off”?
After all “Under UK law your staff have the right to both hold and express beliefs, which, as the judgment said “whilst (they) may well be profoundly offensive, and even distressing to . . . others, they are beliefs that are, and must be, tolerated in a pluralist society” and “And they cannot be shut down or disciplined simply because other colleagues find them disagreeable”?
Ae you suggesting that employees should be free to express their views but not free to decide how to express them?
-
NS,
But what if I’m an evangelical member of the Church of Fuckology whose central tenet is: “Thou shalt be free to save time by telling those who would presume to evangelise to you to fuck off”?
After all “Under UK law your staff have the right to both hold and express beliefs, which, as the judgment said “whilst (they) may well be profoundly offensive, and even distressing to . . . others, they are beliefs that are, and must be, tolerated in a pluralist society” and “And they cannot be shut down or disciplined simply because other colleagues find them disagreeable”?
Ae you suggesting that employees should be free to express their views but not free to decide how to express them?
I'm not suggesting any absolute freedom though so rhe idea that there is some limitation on how to express views is fine.
I take it that you agree that people shouldn't have their views shut down, or be diciplined simoky because others find tgem disagreeable?
-
NS,
I'm not suggesting any absolute freedom though so rhe idea that there is some limitation on how to express views is fine.
Wow! Seems to me that while restrictions on free speech should be in exceptional cases only, restricting free speech because of how it’s expressed is a much lower bar than restricting it on the basis of its content. Who then should decide which terms are and are not acceptable, and how?
I take it that you agree that people shouldn't have their views shut down, or be diciplined simoky because others find tgem disagreeable?
I’ve never said that people should have their views “shut down” (except in exceptional cases) – what I have said though is that those who would express their religious or ideological opinions have no right to insist that others must listen to them.
-
NS,
Wow! Seems to me that while restrictions on free speech should be in exceptional cases only, restricting free speech because of how it’s expressed is a much lower bar than restricting it on the basis of its content. Who then should decide which terms are and are not acceptable, and how?
I’ve never said that people should have their views “shut down” (except in exceptional cases) – what I have said though is that those who would express their religious or ideological opinions have no right to insist that others must listen to them.
Note I didn't say you had said that. I asked a specific question and you seem to have answered a different one. I don't really understand either what views you classify as ideological, as opposed to just views.
As to how one expresses views, your ideas of higher/lower bars seems a confused and confusing one to me. Is it ypur position that there should be no restriction in how one expresses views, as long as the views are what you think should be openly expressed?
-
NS,
Note I didn't say you had said that. I asked a specific question and you seem to have answered a different one.
What question do you think you asked that I replied to with the answer to a different question?
I don't really understand either what views you classify as ideological, as opposed to just views.
The context of the article you linked to was ideological (ie, supposed transphobia) so I responded in kind. It’s a distinction without significance though – “views” is fine instead.
As to how one expresses views, your ideas of higher/lower bars seems a confused and confusing one to me.
Why?
Is it ypur position that there should be no restriction in how one expresses views, as long as the views are what you think should be openly expressed?
No, my position is what I said it is: “freedom of speech should be restricted only in exceptional cases” and “the right to say something is not the same as the right to insist that someone listen to it” both seem pretty clear to me.
Also by the way it’s not about “what you think should be openly expressed“ – it’s about what the law says should be openly expressed which, in this country at least, seems broadly sensible to me.
-
NS,
What question do you think you asked that I replied to with the answer to a different question?
The context of the article you linked to was ideological (ie, supposed transphobia) so I responded in kind. It’s a distinction without significance though – “views” is fine instead.
Why?
No, my position is what I said it is: “freedom of speech should be restricted only in exceptional cases” and “the right to say something is not the same as the right to insist that someone listen to it” both seem pretty clear to me.
Also by the way it’s not about “what you think should be openly expressed“ – it’s about what the law says should be openly expressed which, in this country at least, seems broadly sensible to me.
The question was:
'I take it that you agree that people shouldn't have their views shut down, or be disciplined simply because others find them disagreeable?'
The thing that I'm having a problem understanding is how you can have a right not to hear a view, which seems to be something you support, without a restriction on someone being able to express a view.
-
No – see above. My workplace experience has been that in general businesses treat their premises as places of work, not as places for proselytising religious, political etc opinions but they also make accommodations for personal beliefs where they can – with prayer rooms for example.
That's correct.
And there is a difference between what you might be permitted to say, as an employee, in your spare time under the auspices of freedom of speech and what you may be permitted to say at work, in work time, using work communication routes etc, etc as an employee. So there are plenty of things that you might be fine saying to mates in the pub that would have you disciplined within a work context as the comments might not comply with the expected workplace standards of professionalism and respect for other workers and/or clients. That seems completely reasonable to me as when you sign and employment contract it will likely have requirements for code of conduct within that professional context.
The tricky one, is where private comments come to the attention of employers who might (not unreasonably) have concerns that the individual (for example someone routinely making racist comments on-line) might act in a disciplinary manner in employment. Moreover if those comments aren't private and there is a clear link to the employment status of that person the employer may also have concerns that the comments might bring the employer into disrespect if those comments do not align with the organisation's stated values.
-
That's correct.
And there is a difference between what you might be permitted to say, as an employee, in your spare time under the auspices of freedom of speech and what you may be permitted to say at work, in work time, using work communication routes etc, etc as an employee. So there are plenty of things that you might be fine saying to mates in the pub that would have you disciplined within a work context as the comments might not comply with the expected workplace standards of professionalism and respect for other workers and/or clients. That seems completely reasonable to me as when you sign and employment contract it will likely have requirements for code of conduct within that professional context.
The tricky one, is where private comments come to the attention of employers who might (not unreasonably) have concerns that the individual (for example someone routinely making racist comments on-line) might act in a disciplinary manner in employment. Moreover if those comments aren't private and there is a clear link to the employment status of that person the employer may also have concerns that the comments might bring the employer into disrespect if those comments do not align with the organisation's stated values.
Same question then as to bhs:
'I take it that you agree that people shouldn't have their views shut down, or be disciplined simply because others find them disagreeable?'
-
NS,
The question was:
'I take it that you agree that people shouldn't have their views shut down, or be disciplined simply because others find them disagreeable?'
I thought I’d already answered in the affirmative, but if not I do now. “…simply because others find them disagreeable” is not sufficient reason to restrict someone’s freedom of speech. Indeed it’s precisely when something is offensive or disagreeable that the right to say it should be protected.
The thing that I'm having a problem understanding is how you can have a right not to hear a view, which seems to be something you support, without a restriction on someone being able to express a view.
Take an example: a busy office has a staff restaurant that lots of employees use at lunchtime. Should, say, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church have the right to stand in the corner evangelising his views? I think not because the other diners have the right not to be forced to listen to it if they also want to have lunch in the staff restaurant. Is that a restriction on the evangelical's right to freedom of speech? In some ways yes, but there are competing rights here so the answer should be a compromise such as another room that people could visit or not as they chose.
In other words, the right to free speech doesn’t necessarily include the right to exercise it wherever and whenever the (in this case) evangelist wants to. We see this in real life when, for example, pro-lifers are told they can protest but not at the front doors of abortion clinics.
-
NS,
I thought I’d already answered in the affirmative, but if not I do now. “…simply because others find them disagreeable” is not sufficient reason to restrict someone’s freedom of speech. Indeed it’s precisely when something is offensive or disagreeable that the right to say it should be protected.
Take an example: a busy office has a staff restaurant that lots of employees use at lunchtime. Should, say, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church have the right to stand in the corner evangelising his views? I think not because the other diners have the right not to be forced to listen to it if they also want to have lunch in the staff restaurant. Is that a restriction on the evangelical's right to freedom of speech? In some ways yes, but there are competing rights here so the answer should be a compromise such as another room that people could visit or not as they chose.
In other words, the right to free speech doesn’t necessarily include the right to exercise it wherever and whenever the (in this case) evangelist wants to. We see this in real life when, for example, pro-lifers are told they can protest but not at the front doors of abortion clinics.
Thanks for the answer.
And yes, I get that there are certain times when a 'platform' does not need to be given. The issue is in terms of work how could you have a more generalised right of someone not hearing something while still allowing normal freedom of expression for others. This isn't about offering a platform in the sense of forcing people to attend a meeting. As with the example I used earlier, if someone from the Westboro Baptists wanted to be able to not hear about someone supporting gay rights then I don't think you mean the person supporting gay rights should have to remove themselves from the room the Westboro Baptist person is in and go down the corridor to the 'King Midas has asses' ears' room and say it there - yet that seems to be the implication of some of your statements
-
NS,
Thanks for the answer.
And yes, I get that there are certain times when a 'platform' does not need to be given. The issue is in terms of work how could you have a more generalised right of someone not hearing something while still allowing normal freedom of expression for others.
It seems to me to be impossible to derive a one size fits all solution to that. If, say, an employee tells a colleague that he’s an evangelical Christian that’s ok, but if he proceeds to evangelise and the colleague doesn’t want to hear it then she shouldn’t have to.
This isn't about offering a platform in the sense of forcing people to attend a meeting.
That’s not it. In my example no-one is forced to attend the staff restaurant, but they have a perfect right to do so without having to listen to an evangelical sermonising there at the same time.
As with the example I used earlier, if someone from the Westboro Baptists wanted to be able to not hear about someone supporting gay rights then I don't think you mean the person supporting gay rights should have to remove themselves from the room the Westboro Baptist person is in and go down the corridor to the 'King Midas has asses' ears' room and say it there - yet that seems to be the implication of some of your statements
That’s not the implication of what I said. An equivalent would be a gay rights activist demanding the right to announce his convictions at the staff restaurant, which would also be not acceptable. The issue here isn’t the content of what people want to say but rather the place and time in which they say it, and the competing rights of others not to hear it when they do.
-
Same question then as to bhs:
'I take it that you agree that people shouldn't have their views shut down, or be disciplined simply because others find them disagreeable?'
I agree, but that right is tempered within an employment context.
Firstly on the basis that it may be perfectly reasonable for an employer to discipline an individual who expresses those views within a work context. And secondly they may also do so in circumstance where the expression of those views, even if outside of the work context, are reasonably considered to bring the employer organisation into disrepute.
To what extent those two circumstances may come into play is subjective, based in the individual circumstances of each case and dependent on a number of issues, including the nature of the employment contract, the nature of the role in which the employee is employed, the values of the organisation etc. That others find those views disagreeable may also play a role in determining whether a threshold is met for a 'quiet word' or even disciplinary action.
-
Take an example: a busy office has a staff restaurant that lots of employees use at lunchtime. Should, say, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church have the right to stand in the corner evangelising his views? I think not because the other diners have the right not to be forced to listen to it if they also want to have lunch in the staff restaurant. Is that a restriction on the evangelical's right to freedom of speech? In some ways yes, but there are competing rights here so the answer should be a compromise such as another room that people could visit or not as they chose.
In other words, the right to free speech doesn’t necessarily include the right to exercise it wherever and whenever the (in this case) evangelist wants to. We see this in real life when, for example, pro-lifers are told they can protest but not at the front doors of abortion clinics.
Spot on - the right to freedom of expression is context dependent and there will be certain circumstances where it is inappropriate for an individual to say certain things while be perfectly free to do so in another context. Evangelising within a work context would appear to be one of those - not only because others within a work context should have the freedom not to be on the receiving end of evangelism. But also within the context of an inclusive environment certain employees may feel excluded, uncomfortable or harassed by that evangelism and are unable to detach themselves without losing their freedom to enjoy the work-based canteen.
And it cuts both ways - an individual loudly 'preaching' about 'god-botherers' and their hypocrisy in the same work environment would also be inappropriate and a 'quiet word' or stronger action may be appropriate.
-
NS,
Actually yes I do, but in any case the right to express something is not the same as the right to make anyone else to listen to it. If, say, someone wants to stand on the office roof and shout nazi propaganda that's up to them, but I don't agree that they should also have the right to stand in the crowded staff canteen at lunchtime and shout "kill the jews".
I haven’t experienced this and I don’t suppose you have. Interesting that the nearest analogy to discussing religion in the work place is this extreme one
-
Take an example: a busy office has a staff restaurant that lots of employees use at lunchtime. Should, say, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church have the right to stand in the corner evangelising his views? I think not because the other diners have the right not to be forced to listen to it if they also want to have lunch in the staff restaurant. Is that a restriction on the evangelical's right to freedom of speech? In some ways yes, but there are competing rights here so the answer should be a compromise such as another room that people could visit or not as they chose.
In other words, the right to free speech doesn’t necessarily include the right to exercise it wherever and whenever the (in this case) evangelist wants to. We see this in real life when, for example, pro-lifers are told they can protest but not at the front doors of abortion clinics.
I’ve never experienced the Westboro Baptists in my workplaces and I don’t suppose you have.
That’s two goes at a sensible argument and the second go even more muffed and extreme than the first. You seem to have gone nuclear and it just sounds like more antitheist wankfantasy.
-
Spot on - the right to freedom of expression is context dependent and there will be certain circumstances where it is inappropriate for an individual to say certain things while be perfectly free to do so in another context. Evangelising within a work context would appear to be one of those - not only because others within a work context should have the freedom not to be on the receiving end of evangelism. But also within the context of an inclusive environment certain employees may feel excluded, uncomfortable or harassed by that evangelism and are unable to detach themselves without losing their freedom to enjoy the work-based canteen.
And it cuts both ways - an individual loudly 'preaching' about 'god-botherers' and their hypocrisy in the same work environment would also be inappropriate and a 'quiet word' or stronger action may be appropriate.
What is wrong with evangelisation though, since you suggest elsewhere it has no effect so must be perfectly harmless why are you now portraying it as some kind of special danger as if the topic of God must be dodged at all costs?
-
I’ve never experienced the Westboro Baptists in my workplaces and I don’t suppose you have.
That’s two goes at a sensible argument and the second go even more muffed and extreme than the first. You seem to have gone nuclear and it just sounds like more antitheist wankfantasy.
I introduced the Westboro Baprists to argue against bhs's position in reply 13.
-
I can remember clearly when I was a teacher in a Middle School we had student teachers who would take over the classes at certain times. It came to light that one particular student teacher who was of a strongly evangelical disposition was filling the pupil's minds with all sorts of religious humbug, including the threat of punishment by God if they didn't accept Jesus as their saviour. Most pupils ignored her threats but some were understandably confused and upset. She was reported to our Headmaster(himself a practising Anglican) who very soon sent her packing.
Quite recently my wife and I were in Bath. It was a hot day and we decided to have a drink and a sandwich, sitting outside of one of the many cafes in the central area. Soon after we sat down, a small group of people appeared and set up a small table opposite. From here, one after the other, they started on their evangelistic mission, proselytising through a loudspeaker at all and sundry. I don't think that we should have had to endure their particular brand of meaningless rubbish(from our viewpoint), but endure we did as we were already eating and drinking by this time.
I suggest that these are two instances when public expression of religion are totally inappropriate.
-
I can remember clearly when I was a teacher in a Middle School we had student teachers who would take over the classes at certain times. It came to light that one particular student teacher who was of a strongly evangelical disposition was filling the pupil's minds with all sorts of religious humbug, including the threat of punishment by God if they didn't accept Jesus as their saviour. Most pupils ignored her threats but some were understandably confused and upset. She was reported to our Headmaster(himself a practising Anglican) who very soon sent her packing.
Quite recently my wife and I were in Bath. It was a hot day and we decided to have a drink and a sandwich, sitting outside of one of the many cafes in the central area. Soon after we sat down, a small group of people appeared and set up a small table opposite. From here, one after the other, they started on their evangelistic mission, proselytising through a loudspeaker at all and sundry. I don't think that we should have had to endure their particular brand of meaningless rubbish(from our viewpoint), but endure we did as we were already eating and drinking by this time.
I suggest that these are two instances when public expression of religion are totally inappropriate.
And presumably all ideological views?
-
What is wrong with evangelisation though, since you suggest elsewhere it has no effect so must be perfectly harmless why are you now portraying it as some kind of special danger as if the topic of God must be dodged at all costs?
People shouldn't have to listen to stuff that they don't want to - regardless of whether that is religious in nature or not. I don't think the street preaching such as mentioned in Bath should be allowed in the public shopping areas, nor should the busking be allowed. People can chose to go to places to hear preaching and music if they want to but it shouldn't be imposed on people going about their normal business. Evangelising etc in the work place shouldn't be allowed by employers I feel as this could lead to break down in working relationships and effect the team ethos.
-
No, my position is what I said it is: “freedom of speech should be restricted only in exceptional cases” and “the right to say something is not the same as the right to insist that someone listen to it” both seem pretty clear to me.
There's also no duty on anybody to provide you with a platform for your speech. I think that is quite pertinent when talking about what expression your employer can restrict and must permit.
-
And presumably all ideological views?
If you mean related to their religious beliefs, it seemed so.
-
If you mean related to their religious beliefs, it seemed so.
No, I mean that you would apply it to any type of ideological beliefs, say political?
-
Vlad,
I haven’t experienced this and I don’t suppose you have. Interesting that the nearest analogy to discussing religion in the work place is this extreme one
I’ve never experienced the Westboro Baptists in my workplaces and I don’t suppose you have.
That’s two goes at a sensible argument and the second go even more muffed and extreme than the first. You seem to have gone nuclear and it just sounds like more antitheist wankfantasy.
What is wrong with evangelisation though, since you suggest elsewhere it has no effect so must be perfectly harmless why are you now portraying it as some kind of special danger as if the topic of God must be dodged at all costs?
You’re missing the point. These were thought experiment examples to illustrate the argument, not descriptions of actual experiences.
-
Jeremy,
There's also no duty on anybody to provide you with a platform for your speech. I think that is quite pertinent when talking about what expression your employer can restrict and must permit.
Yes, especially regarding employers but as a matter of practical expediency some will nonetheless provide spaces for people to pray or I suppose even evangelise if they want to provided they can't bother anyone else who can't readily avoid it.
-
I can remember clearly when I was a teacher in a Middle School we had student teachers who would take over the classes at certain times. It came to light that one particular student teacher who was of a strongly evangelical disposition was filling the pupil's minds with all sorts of religious humbug, including the threat of punishment by God if they didn't accept Jesus as their saviour. Most pupils ignored her threats but some were understandably confused and upset. She was reported to our Headmaster(himself a practising Anglican) who very soon sent her packing.
Quite recently my wife and I were in Bath. It was a hot day and we decided to have a drink and a sandwich, sitting outside of one of the many cafes in the central area. Soon after we sat down, a small group of people appeared and set up a small table opposite. From here, one after the other, they started on their evangelistic mission, proselytising through a loudspeaker at all and sundry. I don't think that we should have had to endure their particular brand of meaningless rubbish(from our viewpoint), but endure we did as we were already eating and drinking by this time.
I suggest that these are two instances when public expression of religion are totally inappropriate.
We seem to have wandered from discussing religion at work to a zealous but rogue teacher at a school. Abject mission creep by the looks of it on his part and yours.
I believe it was that revered antitheist Stephen Fry and others who claimed that we shouldn’t worry about what is said and upsets people.
-
No, I mean that you would apply it to any type of ideological beliefs, say political?
In the case of these two instances, yes indeed.
-
We seem to have wandered from discussing religion at work to a zealous but rogue teacher at a school. Abject mission creep by the looks of it on his part and yours.
I believe it was that revered antitheist Stephen Fry and others who claimed that we shouldn’t worry about what is said and upsets people.
Actually it was a her, and are you saying that a school doesn't count as a workplace?
-
Vlad,
We seem to have wandered from discussing religion at work to a zealous but rogue teacher at a school. Abject mission creep by the looks of it on his part and yours.
No we haven’t. The point here involves the right to speak vs the right not to have to listen to it. The content of what’s said is neither here nor there.
I believe it was that revered antitheist Stephen Fry…
Has he said he’s an antitheist, or is that something else you’ve made up?
…and others who claimed that we shouldn’t worry about what is said and upsets people.
No, he said that the right to freedom of speech is very important. He didn’t though argue for a right to make people listen. They’re very different things.
-
In the case of these two instances, yes indeed.
What types of speech, if any would be, exempt?
-
Vlad,
No we haven’t. The point here involves the right to speak vs the right not to have to listen to it. The content of what’s said is neither here nor there.
...
If you create a right not to listen, then in any public forum where you are, you can shut down the right to free speech.
-
NS,
If you create a right not to listen, then in any public forum where you are, you can shut down the right to free speech.
So does the right to freedom of speech by, say, evangelising in the staff canteen at lunchtime trump the right of the diners not to have to listen to it or not in your opinion?
Seems to me the the right to speak and the right to do it in any circumstance are not the same thing. To adapt the famous example, I should have the right to shout "Fire" in an empty field, but probably not in a crowded theatre. Do you agree?
-
NS,
So does the right to freedom of speech by, say, evangelising in the staff canteen at lunchtime trump the right of the diners not to have to listen to it or not in your opinion?
Seems to me the the right to speak and the right to do it in any circumstance are not the same thing. To adapt the famous example, I should have the right to shout "Fire" in an empty field, but probably not in a crowded theatre. Do you agree?
Yes, I agree. But I wasn't the one touting a blanket right not to listen, or speak. Your 'right not to listen' does not seem to have been qualified by you at all, unless I've missed it?
-
What types of speech, if any would be, exempt?
That would depend on the setting. For instance if I chose to attend a church service then I would have no objection to a vicar delivering a sermon. On the other hand, if the same vicar tried to deliver his/her sermon in or near a restaurant where I was eating then I would object strongly.
-
NS,
Yes, I agree. But I wasn't the one touting a blanket right not to listen, or speak. Your 'right not to listen' does not seem to have been qualified by you at all, unless I've missed it?
I didn't claim a "blanket" right not to listen – if I happened to walk past the field in which someone was shouting "Fire!" I'd have no right to object for example, and nor for that matter should I be able to object if it was the Westboro Baptists preaching a sermon. Rather the "right" involved here is that while people should have the right to free speech (subject to some exceptional limitations) they should not have the right to force others to listen to it – by evangelising in the staff canteen at lunchtime for example. In other words, "I must be free to speak" and "I must be free to force others to listen to me" are not the same thing.
-
Enki,
That would depend on the setting. For instance if I chose to attend a church service then I would have no objection to a vicar delivering a sermon. On the other hand, if the same vicar tried to deliver his/her sermon in or near a restaurant where I was eating then I would object strongly.
That's actually a bit more problematic. If, say, I was eating at a restaurant's outside terrace and someone on the opposite side of the street was evangelising whilst I might have the right to ask him to fuck off (that being my right to freedom of speech) I'd have no right to stop him, however annoying I found him to be.
-
NS,
I didn't claim a "blanket" right not to listen – if I happened to walk past the field in which someone was shouting "Fire!" I'd have no right to object for example, and nor for that matter should I be able to object if it was the Westboro Baptists preaching a sermon. Rather the "right" involved here is that while people should have the right to free speech (subject to some exceptional limitations) they should not have the right to force others to listen to it – by evangelising in the staff canteen at lunchtime for example. In other words, "I must be free to speak" and "I must be free to force others to listen to me" are not the same thing.
So how do you balance your 'right not to listen' in any circumstance where someone is expressing an opinion? Obviously a person could remove themselves from the forum where someone is speaking but you seem to envisage something more than that. Could you outline how you see it working?
-
Enki,
That's actually a bit more problematic. If, say, I was eating at a restaurant's outside terrace and someone on the opposite side of the street was evangelising whilst I might have the right to ask him to fuck off (that being my right to freedom of speech) I'd have no right to stop him, however annoying I found him to be.
So when does the right to stop someone apply?
-
That would depend on the setting. For instance if I chose to attend a church service then I would have no objection to a vicar delivering a sermon. On the other hand, if the same vicar tried to deliver his/her sermon in or near a restaurant where I was eating then I would object strongly.
So I should be able to stop any political rallies I want?
-
NS,
So how do you balance your 'right not to listen' in any circumstance where someone is expressing an opinion? Obviously a person could remove themselves from the forum where someone is speaking but you seem to envisage something more than that. Could you outline how you see it working?
I don’t argue for a right not to listen (or at least not to hear) “in any circumstances”. To take my example, I’d argue for that right in the crowded workplace restaurant at lunchtime, but probably not for people who might just overhear things when they walked past a room set aside for the evangelical (or whatever).
The problem with that of course is that there are as many different possible circumstances as anyone can think of so you can’t legislate individually for all of them. Broadly I’d opt for freedom of speech where other people could reasonably avoid listening to it it if they wanted to, but I don’t have a binary, one size fits all answer.
-
So I should be able to stop any political rallies I want?
If it was outside the restaurant where I was eating and the rally was disturbing my meal, I would want the rally to move to a more acceptable place or if it was being held outside a hospital where I was recuperating, ditto.
-
NS,
I don’t argue for a right not to listen (or at least not to hear) “in any circumstances”. To take my example, I’d argue for that right in the crowded workplace restaurant at lunchtime, but probably not for people who might just overhear things when they walked past a room set aside for the evangelical (or whatever).
The problem with that of course is that there are as many different possible circumstances as anyone can think of so you can’t legislate individually for all of them. Broadly I’d opt for freedom of speech where other people could reasonably avoid listening to it it if they wanted to, but I don’t have a binary, one size fits all answer.
I'll be happy if you could provide any sort of guidance about how you think it should work. You seem to have proposed something but have no idea about how it might work.
-
If it was outside the restaurant where I was eating and the rally was disturbing my meal, I would want the rally to move to a more acceptable place or if it was being held outside a hospital where I was recuperating, ditto.
That's not answering the question. Should you be able to have it stopped?
-
That's not answering the question. Should you be able to have it stopped?
Obviously I didn't make that clear. No, not stopped but moved, as I suggested, to a more suitable location such as a public square. In London, Trafalgar Square would be an acceptable location, especially if prior notice was given.
-
Obviously I didn't make that clear. No, not stopped but moved, as I suggested, to a more suitable location such as a public square. In London, Trafalgar Square would be an acceptable location, especially if prior notice was given.
Stopping it happening where someone chooses is stopping it. Surely anywhere opposite most restaurants is a public space? It might make sense to move it if it blocked the throroughfare but as you note that shouldn't apply if there was prior notice given.
-
NS,
I'll be happy if you could provide any sort of guidance about how you think it should work. You seem to have proposed something but have no idea about how it might work.
As I said, the choice is freedom to speak “anything, anywhere, any time” (including the staff canteen) and denying freedom of speech whenever someone who hears it is offended by what’s said. Neither is acceptable in my view (and nor I suspect in yours by the way) so we’re left with a messy, “impossible to define precisely” compromise between the two. The legal position often relies tests of on reasonableness in many many different arenas, so “you cannot impose your freedom of speech on others who cannot reasonably avoid having to listen to you” is as good a place to start as any.
-
NS,
As I said, the choice is freedom to speak “anything, anywhere, any time” (including the staff canteen) and denying freedom of speech whenever someone who hears it is offended by what’s said. Neither is acceptable in my view (and nor I suspect in yours by the way) so we’re left with a messy, “impossible to define precisely” compromise between the two. The legal position often relies tests of on reasonableness in many many different arenas, so “you cannot impose your freedom of speech on others who cannot reasonably avoid having to listen to you” is as good a place to start as any.
So if it is in a place of work, and there are 2 people who work together, one who is gay, and one of whom is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, your position does seems to be that the Westboro member could ask for the gay worker to be stopped talking about anything in support of gay rights?
-
Stopping it happening where someone chooses is stopping it. Surely anywhere opposite most restaurants is a public space? It might make sense to move it if it blocked the throroughfare but as you note that shouldn't apply if there was prior notice given.
No it isn't 'stopping it'. it's accepting that people have the right to hold a political rally in a suitable place, and I don't consider outside a restaurant or a hospital to be a suitable place. You might, I don't.
-
No it isn't 'stopping it'. it's accepting that people have the right to hold a political rally in a suitable place, and I don't consider outside a restaurant or a hospital to be a suitable place. You might, I don't.
Surely though that's not about what is said but about rights of access as already mentioned? I've been in restaurants that are on public squares, and there have been political meetings outside the restaurant in the public square.
-
NS,
So if it is in a place of work, and there are 2 people who work together, one who is gay, and one of whom is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, your position does seems to be that the Westboro member could ask for the gay worker to be stopped talking about anything in support of gay rights?
Applying my own test, as neither employee could reasonably escape his proximity to the other than yes – regardless of whether it was the gay worker advocating for gay rights or the evangelical advocating for persecuting gay people. This is where Vlad fell apart a few posts ago – it’s not the content of the speech that matters here, it’s the competing rights of expressing it vs no being forced to hear it (especially in a workplace setting).
-
NS,
Applying my own test, as neither employee could reasonably escape his proximity to the other than yes – regardless of whether it was the gay worker advocating for gay rights or the evangelical advocating for persecuting gay people. This is where Vlad fell apart a few posts ago – it’s not the content of the speech that matters here, it’s the competing rights of expressing it vs no being forced to hear it (especially in a workplace setting
So if a fellow employee talks about enjoying Coronation St in my workplace, you think I should be able to have them stopped saying that if I object to hearing it.
-
Surely though that's not about what is said but about rights of access as already mentioned? I've been in restaurants that are on public squares, and there have been political meetings outside the restaurant in the public square.
But what about a restaurant in a normally quiet area? What about the hospital scenario? For me, it comes down to the suitability of the location and the disruption it causes.
-
But what about a restaurant in a normally quiet area? What about the hospital scenario? For me, it comes down to the suitability of the location and the disruption it causes.
And I'm not disagreeing with that. The point is that it isn't about what is being said but the impact on other public freedoms. It's not because you are in a restaurant.
For the hospitals, are you suggesting that there can be no picket lines during a strike?
-
NS,
So if a fellow employee talks about enjoying Coronation St in my workplace, you think I should be able to have them stopped saying that if I object to hearing it.
Of course not. If on the other hand though he did it continually, told the other worker he was inferior and would go to hell for not agreeing with him etc then probably yes as it’d be a form of harassment. You’ve already agreed with me that the right to speak and the right to do it in any circumstance are not the same thing, so how would you decide how do to draw the line between the two?
-
NS,
Of course not. If on the other hand though he did it continually, told the other worker he was inferior and would go to hell for not agreeing with him etc then probably yes as it’d be a form of harassment. You’ve already agreed with me that the right to speak and the right to do it in any circumstance are not the same thing, so how would you decide how do to draw the line between the two?
But why not, if as you said 'it’s not the content of the speech that matters here'?
-
NS,
But why not, if as you said 'it’s not the content of the speech that matters here'?
Yes, in the sense I just described – whether it’s the evangelical telling his gay colleague that he’s bound for hell or the gay colleague telling the evangelical that he’s a scumbag for voting against gay rights isn’t the point. Rather the point is whether either can reasonably avoid listening to the other, and in this case neither of them can.
How would you decide to draw the line between the freedom to speak and the freedom not to hear it as you seem to agree with the general principle too?
-
And I'm not disagreeing with that. The point is that it isn't about what is being said but the impact on other public freedoms. It's not because you are in a restaurant.
For the hospitals, are you suggesting that there can be no picket lines during a strike?
Yes, indeed, it's all about the impact on other people's freedoms. Within certain limits I really don't care what's being said at political rallies.
If the picket line was close to where I was recuperating and it involved a lot of noise then I would want it moved(not stopped) owing to the unsuitability of the location and the disruption it might be causing.
-
NS,
Yes, in the sense I just described – whether it’s the evangelical telling his gay colleague that he’s bound for hell or the gay colleague telling the evangelical that he’s a scumbag for voting against gay rights isn’t the point. Rather the point is whether either can reasonably avoid listening to the other, and in this case neither of them can.
How would you decide to draw the line between the freedom to speak and the freedom not to hear it as you seem to agree with the general principle too?
I'n not seeing any answer there given as already pointed out you said 'it’s not the content of the speech that matters here'.
Note I'm still trying to find out why I can't object tp and have the person who praises Coronation St bequietened.
-
Yes, indeed, it's all about the impact on other people's freedoms. Within certain limits I really don't care what's being said at political rallies.
If the picket line was close to where I was recuperating and it involved a lot of noise then I would want it moved(not stopped) owing to the unsuitability of the location and the disruption it might be causing.
This just seems to follow the Tory govts plans to restrict the freedom to demonstrate because of posdible annoyance to others. How do you avoid all protest being shut down?
-
This just seems to follow the Tory govts plans to restrict the freedom to demonstrate because of posdible annoyance to others. How do you avoid all protest being shut down?
That's your interpretation, not mine. I simply don't believe in the complete freedom to demonstrate wherever(and, incidentally, whenever) the demonstrators wish. I think there have to be checks and balances when demonstrations impact on other people's freedoms.
-
That's your interpretation, not mine. I simply don't believe in the complete freedom to demonstrate wherever(and, incidentally, whenever) the demonstrators wish. I think there have to be checks and balances when demonstrations impact on other people's freedoms.
I don't believe in complete freedom to demonstrate either.
I don't think just someone objecting to it, which so far is your position as far as I can see, is a good one.
-
NS,
I'n not seeing any answer there given as already pointed out you said 'it’s not the content of the speech that matters here'.
Note I'm still trying to find out why I can't object tp and have the person who praises Coronation St bequietened.
You could ask the Coronation St. fan to be "bequietened" if his insistence on talking about it to you at the workplace could be deemed harassing, impairing your ability to perform your duties etc. Telling you "I'm a fan of Coronation St." is fine; insisting you watch his three-hour slideshow of Corry actors through the ages isn't.
-
NS,
You could ask the Coronation St. fan to be "bequietened" if his insistence on talking about it to you at the workplace could be deemed harassing, impairing your ability to perform your duties etc. Telling you "I'm a fan of Coronation St." is fine; insisting you watch his three-hour slideshow of Corry actors through the ages isn't.
I take it that applies to someone talking about their religion as well?
-
NS,
I take it that applies to someone talking about their religion as well?
Yes. “I’m a Christian/Muslim/whatever” is fine; “You must listen to me preach the sermon on the Mount” isn’t.
Where that’s problematic though (and where I suspect you’ll go next) would be when, say, one employee is Jewish and his colleague tells him he’s a neo-nazi or similar. To be frank I don’t have a ready answer to that, but that’s why these things can be messy and not clear cut.
-
NS,
Yes. “I’m a Christian/Muslim/whatever” is fine; “You must listen to me preach the sermon on the Mount” isn’t.
Where that’s problematic though (and where I suspect you’ll go next) would be when, say, one employee is Jewish and his colleague tells him he’s a neo-nazi or similar. To be frank I don’t have a ready answer to that, but that’s why these things can be messy and not clear cut.
You seem to be under some misapprehension that I think things are clear cut, but then I'm not making statements like 'it’s not the content of the speech that matters here' which seems very clear cut.
I hadn't been going to go to the area that you went to but since you raised it, what if the much used and abused Westboro Baptist employee simply states that he is a member and thinks homosexuality is bad, or indeed just states he's a member?
-
People shouldn't have to listen to stuff that they don't want to - regardless of whether that is religious in nature or not. I don't think the street preaching such as mentioned in Bath should be allowed in the public shopping areas, nor should the busking be allowed. People can chose to go to places to hear preaching and music if they want to but it shouldn't be imposed on people going about their normal business. Evangelising etc in the work place shouldn't be allowed by employers I feel as this could lead to break down in working relationships and effect the team ethos.
So I should be able to demand no adverts in public?
-
So I should be able to demand no adverts in public?
Can't see that an advert is the same as preaching or busking. It is the case though that certain images are not acceptable on public advertising of course.
My views are partly 'informed' by problems that I have with my ears so that buskers are literally a pain to me so I have to avoid them. This is just an example though of a situation where something is imposed on a member of the public who just wants to go about there normal business.
-
Can't see that an advert is the same as preaching or busking. It is the case though that certain images are not acceptable on public advertising of course.
Why not? It's a message that you might not wabt tk encounter.
-
Why not? It's a message that you might not wabt tk encounter.
Added the following to my previous post
'My views are partly 'informed' by problems that I have with my ears so that buskers are literally a pain to me so I have to avoid them. This is just an example though of a situation where something is imposed on a member of the public who just wants to go about there normal business.'
An advert generally doesn't get in the way of me doing my normal activity and as I said, certain images, which may offend, are not allowed which I agree with
-
Added the following to my previous post
'My views are partly 'informed' by problems that I have with my ears so that buskers are literally a pain to me so I have to avoid them. This is just an example though of a situation where something is imposed on a member of the public who just wants to go about there normal business.'
An advert generally doesn't get in the way of me doing my normal activity and as I said, certain images, which may offend, are not allowed which I agree with
And an advert may be a virtual pain to someone for all sorts of reasons. If your condition is sufficient to restrict the freedom of others, it justifies all sorts of other restrictions based on other conditions.
-
And an advert may be a virtual pain to someone for all sorts of reasons. If your condition is sufficient to restrict the freedom of others, it justifies all sorts of other restrictions based on other conditions.
You can avoid looking at an advert. You can't avoid the blaring loudspeaker of buskers unless you avoid the location totally.
Which freedoms are you thinking of? There are always limits on what people can do if they impinge on others.
My thoughts on buskers is probably not related to the general theme of the thread as I'm not talking about what they are singing/[playing but the volume and the fact that it is imposed on me (and others I'm sure). Same as on street preachers really - there are already laws on what can be said and if they stick to those and keep the volume down then i don't really care as they can be ignored.
-
NS,
You seem to be under some misapprehension that I think things are clear cut,…
I’ve neither said nor implied any such thing.
…but then I'm not making statements like 'it’s not the content of the speech that matters here' which seems very clear cut.
Yes, meaning there’s no clear cut way to permit or limit freedom of speech for one ideology as opposed to another. That why it’s the likely effect of the expression on the listener (especially one who can’t avoid it) that’s determinative. A Jewish employee could very reasonably say he felt intimidated and threatened by his neo-nazi colleague spouting Mein Kampf in the workplace for example, whereas it’s hard to think of someone reasonably feeling that way because his colleague tells him he believes in the Tooth Fairy.
These matters aren’t simple to regulate though, as we see here:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jan/15/ba-rights-cross-european-court
I hadn't been going to go to the area that you went to but since you raised it, what if the much used and abused Westboro Baptist employee simply states that he is a member and thinks homosexuality is bad, or indeed just states he's a member?
Could, say, a gay colleague reasonably argue that he felt threatened or intimidated by that? As, like me, you seem to be against “anything goes” but at the same time strongly protective of freedom of speech, what do you think?