I bet you’d get in a world of trouble if you only tried to employ people who weren’t religious.

deeply held personal beliefs

My deeply held personal belief is that religion is a personal matter and should not impact the workplace. However that view is not protected by law and if id asked either of the people I’ve employed recently about their religous beliefs or practices at the interview id have been in contravention of equality legislation. However once started they can ask for access to pray rooms and special dispensation around their (in my opinion unfounded) beliefs which impact working life but I can’t ask that before employing.

Equality should mean treating all candidates equally so if skin colour, religion or disability have no impact on ability to carry out a role they should not be considered when deciding on who to employ. If it does gave a material impact it should be. Think if it the other way around, an employer doesn’t mention during interview stage that they expect a candidate to be available to work in their own time, unpaid but don’t reveal that until the candidate has left a previous job and committed to the new employer. Not exactly moral behaviour is it.

However once started they can ask for access to pray rooms and special dispensation around their (in my opinion unfounded) beliefs which impact working life but I can’t ask that before employing.

in most cases it’s unlikely you’d ‘have’ to give special dispensation, but you’d be expected to make reasonable allowances.

It’s exactly the reason I’ve read some of this legislation – a religious employee asked us for special dispensation regards working hours (certain days). As it was a key part of the role, we said no.

Which why skin colour isn’t usually a barrier to joining a political or religious organisation.

But we’re not talking about “joining a political or religious organisation” are we, we’re talking about applying for a job at an outdoor activities centre. I’m reasonably confident that there are many workplaces still where the colour of your skin would absolutely prejudice the recruitment process.

This is why protected characteristics are protected. I’ve read comments on this very forum previously along the lines of “their face wouldn’t fit” as justification for rejecting interviewees (though not specifically referring to race). Which is understandable to a point, but if that ‘fit’ means you’re not employing Mohammed because the existing shop floor is predominantly Daily Express readers then the problem is the culture not the candidate.

In the case being discussed here, there is a difference between “you must adhere to our Christian values” and “you must be a Christian.” The former is perfectly fine, the latter would require justification in order to be lawful (AIUI).

Seems a darn goid idea if it is important to the employer. It is immoral to force employers to consider people they don’t want.. Going by some many political comments here most here will agree. I know one business who had 4 applicants for a job. 3 female. Fair enough but he knew that one and probably a second had a family planned in the near future. The disruption caused by maternity leaves would have caused huge problems. The bloke got the job. More amusing,in tne 80’s a friend applied for a London post that required an African langauge,understanding of cultural issues and concern for abused women. The job could have been made for them. Interview board were somewhat peturbed when a kilt wearing, ginger bearded,very obviously public school boy turned up for an interview in some ghetto in London. He didn’t get the job.

Cougar. Is the culture a problem if the work force are happy. Terribly unfair to inflict a political or social view point on someone surely?

Matt. Your pal just broke the law.

Religion is not a political or social view.