Religious Symbols, Conscience, and the Rights of Others

Leigh, Ian; Hambler, Andrew

doi:10.1093/ojlr/rwt048

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Predictably the latter choice of terms has drawn criticism, although, paying careful attention to the Convention jurisprudence on sexual orientation equality, it is not indefensible. 67 However, it is the argument about the fundamental nature of conscience which is the focus here.…”

Section: Weighing Conscience Claims Against Other Interestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Courts and Conscience Claims

Leigh¹

2019

Religious Beliefs and Conscientious Exemptions in a Liberal State

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In J. Adenitire (ed), Religious Beliefs and Conscientious Exemptions in a Liberal State (Hart, June 2019), ch. 6 ISBN 9781509920938 (submitted version).  This work was undertaken with the assistance of the British Academy and the Wolfson Foundation under a British Academy Wolfson Professorship. I am grateful to John Adenitire for his helpful comments on an earlier draft. In places I have drawn on the following:

show abstract

Section: Weighing Conscience Claims Against Other Interestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Courts and Conscience Claims

Leigh¹

2019

Religious Beliefs and Conscientious Exemptions in a Liberal State

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The other important point for employers arising from Eweida and Ors is that it is no longer acceptable for an employer to make its own determination of what kind of religious practices might be considered necessary to a particular religious belief and make exceptions to dress codes for those only (Hill, 2013;Leigh and Hambler, 2014). For example, British Airways had originally made some exceptions for Muslim and Sikh dress, because these were 'mandatory' to Islam and Sikhism, but not for the Christian cross as this was not considered mandatory to Christianity.…”

Section: Dress/personal Appearancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…This decision was unsuccessfully challenged at the European Court of Human Rights (Eweida and Ors v UK). Some commentators have been critical of the decisions in this case on the basis that the courts should have required a higher (and more concrete) standard of justification from the employer than they did (e.g Parkinson, 2011;Leigh and Hambler, 2014)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing workplace religious expression within the legal constraints

Hambler

2016

Employee Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose\ud – The purpose of this paper is to consider in broad terms how employers may respond to different forms of religious expression by employees in the workplace, within the discretion afforded to them by law.\ud \ud Design/methodology/approach\ud – Through a discussion of relevant legislation and case law, and a review of relevant literature, it seeks to identify the legal constraints within which employers must operate when determining policy and practice in this area and gives consideration to how they should respond.\ud \ud Findings\ud – It is observed that employers enjoy considerable freedom either to impose restrictions or to encourage religious expression.\ud \ud Originality/value\ud – The paper considers some of the over-arching principled arguments both for and against encouraging religious freedom at work, whilst concluding that support for religious expression may be the better option, not least for the positive benefits for employee well-being, commitment and engagement which, it is argued, may result

show abstract

“…Thus it would seem that conscience, paramount though it is, can be voluntarily suspended in a "specific situation", something which the ECtHR had already rejected as a general principle where Article 9 is invoked' . 65 In relation to Article 14, the dissenters stated that there was no discrimination towards a service user and that no service user had ever complained about Ladele. The legitimate aim of Islington to provide services without discrimination was never an issue.…”

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Religious Rights versus Sexual Orientation Discrimination: A Fair Deal for Everyone

Howard

2015

Religion Hum Rights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines restrictions on the right to manifest one's religion which are held to be justified for the protection of the rights of others, in particular, the right not to be discriminated against on the ground of one's sexual orientation. Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom is scrutinised and it is argued that this suggests three possible ways of dealing with cases where an employee refuses to carry out certain parts of their job because of their religion or belief: using the "free to resign" rule; imposing a duty of reasonable accommodation on employers; and, providing for a conscientious objection exemption. These will be analysed with particular attention for their restrictions and limitations. This should lead to a conclusion as to whether these rights can be reconciled in a way that provides a fair deal for everyone.

show abstract

Religious Symbols, Conscience, and the Rights of Others

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

The Courts and Conscience Claims

The Courts and Conscience Claims

Managing workplace religious expression within the legal constraints

Religious Rights versus Sexual Orientation Discrimination: A Fair Deal for Everyone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About