Discussing religions and worldviews at the workplace

[bluehillside Retd.]

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? 

[Enki]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Enki]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.     

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Maeght]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Maeght]

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

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Maeght]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?