Philosophical beliefs in Equality Act

[skirted84]

This mainly applies to UK members and anywhere with comparable laws on philosophical belief. Essentially it stems from religious protection from discrimination but going further to recognise non religious beliefs which are similarly sincerely held (it actually states in those words or close to). For reference

the belief has to be one which is genuinely held
it has to be a belief, and not simply an opinion or viewpoint that’s based on the present state of information available
it has to relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
the belief has to attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance
it has to be worthy of respect within a democratic society, and not be incompatible with human dignity or conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Examples that meet all requirements include beliefs against equal marriage, veganism (but not vegetarianism), anti transgender views, Scottish independence.

So whether these things should be protected, would a belief in fashion freedom meet the same test, and ensure men can not face detriment at work or accessing services for wearing skirts in work, known to out of work or even advocating the acceptability? There is no test case as of yet. In theory it may come under the Sexism category but there can be different dress codes for men and women.

[Stu]

My own view is that the scope of equality legislation should only extend to recognising equality under the law. In other words, it should only guarantee equality as it relates to the law of the land, the state and its institutions and so on. There should be no attempt to impose equality on the private sector by force of law. That does not, of course, prevent the state from saying it will only agree contracts and the like with private organisations that also respect the equality principle. So, basically, I would repeal the Equality Act entirely.

When it comes to wearing skirts for work, public sector employees would be protected because there would be a policy of equality; private sector employees would not enjoy such protection. That said, a good private sector employer would be keen to compete for and retain the best staff and so they would try to make the terms of employment and rules which apply to employees as benign as possible.

[rode_kater]

Ok, so this is a bit weird. Why do you have a law that protects beliefs? People can believe whatever they like and don't need to justify that to anybody. Otherwise that would make them thought-crimes. It's article 9 of the ECHR.

The only thing the law should talk about is actions. If you want to believe homosexuality is evil, that's your right. What you can't do is harass people based on that belief. The flows into the freedom of expression: you can wear whatever you like, decorate your house however you like, etc...

And on the flip-side: you can't discriminate based on (what you think) someone else believes. You can't read minds, you can only infer based on actions. So like with freedom of expression, you can't discriminate based on what people are wear or how they decorate their houses. Basically, your right to exercise your religion ends at my nose. And it really doesn't matter whether you sincerely believe or not.

That's the basics. I don't know about the Equalities Act specifically, but knowing the British, they probably gold plated it and went way overboard.

[Midas]

A lot of people misunderstand this legislation. It does not operate to protect beliefs per se. What it does is make it unlawful (not illegal) with civil rather than criminal sanctions to discriminate against people because of certain characteristics, which include race, sex, disability, age, religious beliefs and others included in the act.

It is mainly but not exclusively used in employment situations, so if you get the sack because of one of these things you can claim damages at an employment tribunal. You do of course have to prove your case and many spurious claims fail.

[skirted84]

Just like if it did include a belief men can wear skirts, it would be the act of discriminating against or firing men for wearing skirts not for "believing" in the freedom to do so, albeit that belief leads to the action of doing so. We can debate the worthiness of including non religious beliefs, but as these examples have been upheld, would MIS meet the same test?

[Uncle Al]

This whole scenario reminds me of the 2002 Tom Cruise movie - Minority Report
( Thought Police Anyone )

Uncle Al

[skirted84]

In what way Al?
Midas has explained very well what the legislation does and doesn't do. I often wonder how many understand the nature of our laws on these things. Simple thoughts or feelings can never be criminalised, but actions that stem from them could.

[Uncle Al]

Simple thoughts or feelings can never be criminalized, but actions that stem from them could.

That's why I don't think 'out-loud' very often

Uncle Al

[crfriend]

That's why I don't think 'out-loud' very often

I think out loud all the time, and I talk to myself. I'm also highly aware of the possibilities of open microphones -- which is something that some of our "leaders" aren't and weren't.

[joking1966]

This mainly applies to UK members and anywhere with comparable laws on philosophical belief. Essentially it stems from religious protection from discrimination but going further to recognise non religious beliefs which are similarly sincerely held (it actually states in those words or close to). For reference

the belief has to be one which is genuinely held
it has to be a belief, and not simply an opinion or viewpoint that’s based on the present state of information available
it has to relate to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour
the belief has to attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance
it has to be worthy of respect within a democratic society, and not be incompatible with human dignity or conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Examples that meet all requirements include beliefs against equal marriage, veganism (but not vegetarianism), anti transgender views, Scottish independence.

Okay, full disclosure before I start: I consider myself centre right libertarian. Where does the centre portion come from? Well I believe there is good to the state funding a basic level of education and health insurance. Note I said funding not running. Generally the state is bad at running social programs.

So on to topic. When the state tries to define things such as belief and apply law to it they generally are acting on the zeitgeist of the day and not creating overarching principles needed in a successful liberal democracy. The government should stick to basic principles when it comes to social issues. Simple things like to group or person cannot behave in a manner outside the acceptable universal morals. You can't murder, steal, assault harm other's property, etc.
When it comes to broader rights the government should also stick to universal principals. Everyone, regardless of immutable characteristics, would have equal opportunity to excel, succeed, and fail. And every person, regardless of immutable characteristics, is equal under the eyes of the law. This is also regardless of past wrongs against a group. You should never get special compensation in the court because your Grandmother was an indentured servant 100 years ago. Nor should you get preferred treatment in the court because you are rich and white.
This translates into the work place or public life where an employer or agency cannot deny or fire anyone for immutable characteristics. (Race, creed, colour, ethnicity, sex, sexual preference.) The corollary to this government cannot force you to hire someone based upon immutable characteristics.
When special "rights" are created for special groups it becomes unfair socially and difficult to apply law fairly. This is against universality of societal principles.