tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post2554121568784837539..comments2023-10-30T04:16:25.917-04:00Comments on Sentient Developments: Guest Blogger: Russell Blackford: Implications of the atheist bus.Georgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13003484633933455827noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-29871142582459764942009-01-19T20:31:00.000-05:002009-01-19T20:31:00.000-05:00I am an agent of choice. Increase it as much as p...I am an agent of choice. <BR/><BR/>Increase it as much as possible and educate those who are left to choose to the best of available methods.<BR/><BR/>With those choices come consequences.<BR/><BR/>Also, know that not choosing is also a choice and the consequences which come with that path should be treated as such. There is no crying in baseball...Sometimes.ArcAnge1Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02440932066267184439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-91442184920371327602009-01-19T04:47:00.000-05:002009-01-19T04:47:00.000-05:00I don't mind the idea of "reasonable accommodation...I don't mind the idea of "reasonable accommodation", and I certainly don't think it's silly. In fact, I'm going to get to that issue in a couple of posts' time. I largely agree with your analogy with disability law.<BR/><BR/>But reasonableness has to be a two-way street. Also, I think that reasonable accommodation of people who for some religious or moral reason "can't" do something is kind of a separate issue sitting over the top of freedom of religion, and in the posts coming up I'm going to make an attempt to distinguish the two.<BR/><BR/>The vegetarian case you set out is interesting. Maybe in the precise circumstances you describe the chef would have a perfectly good legal case for some kind of redress - but based on contract or on some doctrine like estoppel. I'd need to think about it, but one way of looking at it is to say that the job has changed so much that the chef is now redundant (in the technical sense that we're not so much sacking <I>him</I>; we've actually restructured and abolished his job underneath him). In that case, it's probably unreasonable to expect him to accept redeployment to what's really quite a different job, given the importance of the prior understandings and reassurances. The company can sack the chef but it'll be legally obliged to do it by making him redundant, which in the jurisdictions I'm familiar with will give him much better benefits (and much less stigma) than if he's dismissed from employment for some other reason.<BR/><BR/>I've got no problem with people protecting themselves with legal arrangements set up in advance (the taxi drivers you mention might be an example if that's their arrangement), but I do have an objection if people think that they can refuse to carry out their ordinary, expected duties, without even compromising. I think that if that's what they want they really she be in another job.<BR/><BR/>The bus driver in this case is kind of in a grey area because it really was something unusual (and newsworthy, etc), though in a ss sense within the ordinary requirements of the job. I think that the way the company acted was pretty reasonable but a lot of people discussing this over on Richard Dawkins' site think the company was too soft.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6753820.post-79312438351748250532009-01-19T02:18:00.000-05:002009-01-19T02:18:00.000-05:00To shift the question a little… Would we have more...To shift the question a little… Would we have more sympathy for the employee if it were a moral objection rather than an implicitly religious object? For instance a non-religious vegetarian takes a job as a chef at a vegetarian restaurant after being assured they will never have to handle meat, later the company that owns the restaurant decides to go in a different direction and serve meat, would we expect our vegetarian chef to quit? It’s not a legal necessity, oral promises made during the hiring process, even if made at a fairly low level, are enforceable (by the courts) and the company might have to make an exception for that chef. (Of course companies have their own protections as well…) <BR/><BR/>Back to religion, if Title VII took a page out of the Americans with Disabilities Act's play book (the suggestion of which most religious people would find highly offensive, I'd wager) a legal argument could be made that an employer would have to make a 'reasonable accommodation.' Something close to what the bus company did in the article you sited seems reasonable. (Of course, generally, courts don’t treat mental disabilities the same way they do physical disabilities…) This is a bit silly to suggest, but at least there’s some frame work that could be worked within to flesh out immerging gray areas. <BR/><BR/>Dr's are of course a completely separate matter that I agree with you entirely on.<BR/><BR/>As for the cab drivers, its my understanding that a cab driver can refuse a fare for any reason (this is especially true in the case of companies where drivers are expected to own their own cars). There was a story about this here in the states last year, I don’t recall how it resolved, I think the story came out of Chicago. (Can anyone from that area confirm that?)The Missed Call Of Cthulhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00924590579972975790noreply@blogger.com