Is being against fox hunting a religion?

[David B]

Seems a rather silly question, but a report in today's Torygraph suggests that it might be, for the purposes of anti-discrimination legislation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8368934/Foxhunting-views-placed-on-par-with-religion-after-landmark-legal-ruling.html

Joe Hashman yesterday won the right to sue a garden centre for discrimination over allegations that he was sacked when its pro-hunting bosses discovered he was a leading animal welfare activist.

Orchard Park Garden Centre, in Gillingham, Dorset, fought to prevent the 42-year-old bringing the case, claiming he was insincere and that his views did not qualify as philosophical beliefs under employment tribunal rules.

However, a judge has now ruled in favour of Mr Hashman, whose covert video footage helped convict celebrity chef Clarissa Dickson Wright of attending an illegal hare coursing event in 2009.

David

[munnki]

For me, yeah... It's a sport of the Toffs...and it involves them chasing after some small animal and having it torn apart. Both Toffs and the sport are offensive...

Ban-hammer time... and I loved it when those gits stormed parliament...

[Ozymandias]

I suppose anything can be colloquially termed a religion if it forms the focus of your life and is followed with a fervour the denies logic. I don't suppose it needs the supernatural element.

[rog]

Could being for fox-hunting allow one to win a similar case under the same rules?

I suppose "philosophical beliefs" is the operative phrase here, not religion.

[Berthold]

Is this a belief? I'd rather call it an attitude.

[rog]

Is this a belief? I'd rather call it an attitude.

Rather depends on how far one can stretch the word.

[David B]

Could being for fox-hunting allow one to win a similar case under the same rules?

I suppose "philosophical beliefs" is the operative phrase here, not religion.

It was the torygraph headline that said it was a religion for anti discrimination purposes.

I'd guess it would work the other way round, and employment law would not allow someone to sack someone just because he or she were found to be pro hunting.:dunno:

David

[Ozymandias]

If you were pro-hunting in the sense that you partook of the "sport", then you could presumably be fired at will since fox-hunting is illegal.

[neilstone40]

I think I recall a case within the last few years where someone's view on global warming were treated in similar manner in relation to a discrimination case.

Anyone else remember it or was this just a particularly vivid dream?

[David B]

I think I recall a case within the last few years where someone's view on global warming were treated in similar manner in relation to a discrimination case.

Anyone else remember it or was this just a particularly vivid dream?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html

This link was in the link in the OP

David

[Euric]

Does a belief system need to haves some sort of deity to be called a religion? Unless someone is claiming that religious values are somehow in a separate category from all others, I don't think this is the question we need to be asking.

Should a business owner be allowed to eliminate employees based on their beliefs?

If you say no; then would you be comfortable employing a doctor who admittedly placed no value upon human life? Should the Army be made to accept men/women who refuse to kill? How would you suggest that we identify which sets of values are /are not acceptable for a particular job? If it cannot be left up to the employer to decide, then some sort of government position must exist to make the assessment. Am I the only one who gets goosebumps imagining a government employee whose job it is to pass judgment on your belief system?

[Monad]

No

[mood2]

Does a belief system need to haves some sort of deity to be called a religion? Unless someone is claiming that religious values are somehow in a separate category from all others, I don't think this is the question we need to be asking.

Should a business owner be allowed to eliminate employees based on their beliefs?

If you say no; then would you be comfortable employing a doctor who admittedly placed no value upon human life? Should the Army be made to accept men/women who refuse to kill? How would you suggest that we identify which sets of values are /are not acceptable for a particular job? If it cannot be left up to the employer to decide, then some sort of government position must exist to make the assessment. Am I the only one who gets goosebumps imagining a government employee whose job it is to pass judgment on your belief system?

Welcome Euric.

My personal views are none of my employer's business, doing the job I'm paid to do is what matters. If my views impede that, then there's a problem. Usually stuff can be worked out if there's good will on both sides - say if I want to pray to Mecca during work hours, then see if we can fit tea breaks around that or whatever. Most stuff is sortable. Bottom line I don't think people's world views (religious or otherwise) should advantage or disadvantage them at work.

[Euric]

My personal views are none of my employer's business, doing the job I'm paid to do is what matters. If my views impede that, then there's a problem. Usually stuff can be worked out if there's good will on both sides - say if I want to pray to Mecca during work hours, then see if we can fit tea breaks around that or whatever. Most stuff is sortable. Bottom line I don't think people's world views (religious or otherwise) should advantage or disadvantage them at work.

You say "doing the job is what matters", and "If my views impede that, then theres a problem". Do you really believe that it is the employee's place to tell their boss how they will be evaluated? It would not be difficult to imagine a scenario where the employer would be jeopardizing his own beliefs, or the reputation of his establishment by employing the wrong types of people. Therefore, it should be based on the judgement of the business owner, whether or not you are fit to work for him.

[Rie]

I'm in agreement with FUBG on this business of it being a religion. It's a brutal and silly sport but boys will be boys.

[mood2]

My personal views are none of my employer's business, doing the job I'm paid to do is what matters. If my views impede that, then there's a problem. Usually stuff can be worked out if there's good will on both sides - say if I want to pray to Mecca during work hours, then see if we can fit tea breaks around that or whatever. Most stuff is sortable. Bottom line I don't think people's world views (religious or otherwise) should advantage or disadvantage them at work.

You say "doing the job is what matters", and "If my views impede that, then theres a problem". Do you really believe that it is the employee's place to tell their boss how they will be evaluated? It would not be difficult to imagine a scenario where the employer would be jeopardizing his own beliefs, or the reputation of his establishment by employing the wrong types of people. Therefore, it should be based on the judgement of the business owner, whether or not you are fit to work for him.

Employers can hire pretty much whichever applicant they want. IIRC in UK law an employer can sack someone for any reason reason in the first 2 years. If subsequently something in an employee's private life affects the business, I'd agree it's fair to include that in ongoing evaluation.

An employer can also evaluate an employee's work in whatever way she wants, like-wise the employee will evaluate the wages and conditions offered. The general basis of work contracts is exchanging skills/labour/time for money, that's all.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Is this a belief? I'd rather call it an attitude.

Rather depends on how far one can stretch the word.
Some people have racks specially designed for the purpose.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Given most people here's view of religion, then no it isn't: religion being an irrational belief in ideas without evidence, and it's perfectly possible to have a rationally-reasoned and evidence-based view on fox hunting.

Wondering whether Fox News reported this, and if so, whether they looked scared. That sort of fox hunting I'm all for.

[BioBeing]

Wondering whether Fox News reported this, and if so, whether they looked scared. That sort of fox hunting I'm all for.

:yup::yup::yup:

[RawFire]

It was always my understanding that a religion was a theology based upon deity worships, in other words, unless there is a central figure that is prayed and worshiped upon, where there are governing moral rules to distinguish right from wrong, and where it is a day to day ritual, (hence, Jim brushed his teeth twice a day "religiously", then I don't believe it is a religion. I would say that those whom firmly believe fox hunting should be outlawed, rather than following a religion, are members of a certain theology, not religious, but a belief none the less.

I mean, would that make people who refuse to drive, for instance, due to its harmful effects on the environment religious in their use of a bicycle?

[DanB]

Taoism?

[RawFire]

Taoism?

Taoists Deity would be the Universe itself and Nature, their day to day ritual beliefs would compromise of the "three jewels of the Tao", being Compassion, Moderation and Humility. Much the same of the Pagan theology, also known as a religion, whom send devotion and prayers to nature and the earth, and conduct ceremonial rituals, offerings, and rights of passage, all honoring the earth.

My point is, that those against fox hunting follow a strict belief, such as I follow a strict belief that those whom don't possess the logical and reasonable processes of thought to conduct themselves while talking to me, or those whom dwell from the topic and turn to personal insults and the like, I believe, are not worth my time, and so I don't associate with them any further.

I am not the Deity of a religion known as "The logical laws of RawFire's Reason" or any such nonsense, it is simply a belief shared by me, and those i converse with.

It can string from almost anything, beliefs such as this could be, as in my case, a way to save both time and energy, and a way to remain balanced in ones self by excommunication of those ignorant few whom, rather than discuss the issue, turn aggressive and search to hurt others with words. It could be a way to save money, such as those adversely against gambling, or a way to lesser a fear, those adversely against gun regulations. Simply because it is strongly believed in, does not mean it is a religion.