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

Erica Howard
{"title":"Religious Rights versus Sexual Orientation Discrimination: A Fair Deal for Everyone","authors":"Erica Howard","doi":"10.1163/18710328-12341284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":168375,"journal":{"name":"Religion and Human Rights","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Religion and Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18710328-12341284","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.
宗教权利与性取向歧视:对每个人都公平
本文审查了对表明自己宗教信仰的权利的限制,这些限制被认为是保护他人权利的正当理由,特别是不因性取向而受到歧视的权利。对Eweida和其他人诉英国案进行了仔细审查,认为这提出了三种可能的处理方法,即员工因宗教或信仰而拒绝执行其工作的某些部分:使用“自由辞职”规则;规定雇主有责任提供合理便利;并且,提供良心反对豁免。将对其进行分析,并特别注意其局限性。这应该导致一个结论,即这些权利是否可以以一种为每个人提供公平交易的方式加以调和。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信