Religious vs disability accommodations

[Razzle]

I was listening to the three episodes of The Nonprophets in which they discussed the story of a Muslim supermarket worker who refused to serve pork and alcohol to a customer, instead suggesting she use the self-checkout machine, which broadened into a discussion about legal and moral requirements for employers to make reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities and people with religious beliefs. Jeff, Dennis and Russell, as well as many listeners, were against the fact that religion is covered by reasonable accommodation laws in some countries. Among the arguments made were that they should not protect things that "are in people's imaginations" (Jeff), and that the Muslim was using the self-cbeckout to avoid doing something, whereas disabled people use machines to enable them to do something (a listener, agreed with by the hosts).

The problem with these arguments is that there are in fact disabilities that cause people to refuse to do things due to figments of their imagination, and which would probably be accommodated in much the same way, i.e. directing customers to another worker or to self-checkout for certain items, and the accommodation would just as much be allowing someone to avoid doing something. For example, some people with PTSD avoid items, smells and even certain types of people, such as men in military uniform, because they cause them to remember and even have vivid and incapacitating flashbacks of traumatic events. Flashbacks and memories are phenomena that come from the imagination. For another example, some people with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder experience irrational terror at the thought of touching certain objects for various reasons including bacterial, chemical or radioactive contamination fears, and less famous OCD obsessions like what psychiatrists call 'magical thinking' obsessions. Examples of clinically diagnosed magical thinking include feeling that because the thought "what if eating or touching a certain type of food causes bad things to happen to my mother?" has randomly popped up in the mind and caused fear, the possibility of it being true cannot responsibly be dismissed. Although most of them know intellectually that this is irrational, the faulty brain wiring of OCD causes intense fear over the slim chance that it's true not to subside just by attempting to push the imaginary threats from the mind. They might run away crying, shake or vomit with fear if forced to do something their OCD tells them is dangerous.

So what's the difference between imaginary threats caused by a disability and imaginary threats caused by religious indoctrination? Or would they want to exclude mental illnesses too?

[Aoi Magi]

One primary difference: Mental disorders are recognized as actual disabilities and people are trying to cure it. Religious indoctrination is not recognized as a disability nor acknowledged as wilful-ignorance.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I find it telling that the Muslim worker wouldn't assist a customer purchasing pork and alcohol, you was willing to accept a paycheck from an establishment that sold  pork and alcohol.  That smacks more than a little bit of hypocrisy.

A few years ago, I was in an upscale men's clothier purchasing a Christmas gift for a friend.  The store advertised free gift wrapping.  The clerk who assisted me was very helpful.  However, when I mentioned that I'd like the gloves gift wrapped, he told me he'd have to get me another assistant, as he was a Jehovah's Witness.  I didn't have an issue with it until I got my sales receipt - the sale was credited to the first assistant, the JW.  So, effectively, the man was willing to take a sales commission on an item he knew all along was a Christmas gift, even though celebrating - or even recognizing - Christmas was against his religion.

It seems as if religious principles crumble like a week old bread crust in a high wind when money gets involved.

Boru

[Razzle]

One primary difference: Mental disorders are recognized as actual disabilities and people are trying to cure it. Religious indoctrination is not recognized as a disability nor acknowledged as wilful-ignorance.

I'm not arguing that religions are disabilities (although I might come down on the side that it should be classed as one, but that would need a whole separate discussion and actually doesn't need to be appealed to in order to make the case I'm making here, so I'd rather not get into it), I'm accepting for the sake of argument that religious belief is not a form of disability. Instead I'm arguing that just as race and sexual orientation are not disabilities, but have certain factors in common with disability (e.g. historical and current day persecution, discrimination and hate crimes), that cause them to be treated the same as disability is by certain laws (e.g. hate crime laws), beliefs caused by religious indoctrination and beliefs caused by mental disabilities have the relevant factors in common that they ought to be treated the same way by reasonable accommodation law, while remaining classed in separate categories. I cannot think of any relevant differences between the two kinds of false beliefs.

As I believe Jeff has stated himself in response to Pascale's Wager, belief is not a conscious choice, whether it's religious belief, ordinary belief or mental illness-induced belief. You can't just flick a switch in your mind and decide to believe in God now just because it would be convenient in some way - any self-deception would have to be unconscious - and there's no reason to think that people who do believe in God ever made a conscious choice to get caught in the mind prison they find themselves in, and can simply decide to stop believing it. I know that when I believed in the Christian God, I desperately didn't want to, although I couldn't admit that, because it was all depressing and terrifying. Although on a neurological level, what's happening is very different to what's happening in PTSD (which is also very different to what's happening in OCD, which is also very different to what's happening in psychosis) - the effect is the same: a pattern of avoiding stimuli which cannot physically harm you but which cause fear, which is not your choice or your fault.

[Alex K]

even though celebrating - or even recognizing - Christmas was against his religion.

Refusing to wrap a Christmas present for religious reasons? Man, that's lame!

[robvalue]

I've heard those episodes on TNP. It's a tricky subject.

If you have a genuine mental condition, and you're up front about it when you are first employed, I think it is reasonable for the employer to make allowances for this if possible. If you can still pretty much do the job, then cool. If not, too bad. But this is not your fault.

Religion is arbitrary, it's made up. It's not based on reality. Sure, people really may believe stuff. But there are literally no limits if you allow religious "accommodation". There are parts of any job people don't like doing, and I can make up any shit I want in order to not have to do that part of the job. The problem with "belief" is that it cannot be easily proven. And it can be easily faked. I, for one, don't believe most of what theists say they believe. I think it's what they want to believe.

I think it should work the same way to an extent; the religious person should admit, up front, what problems they are going to have with the job. It's then up to the interviewers to decide if they can still reasonably do that job. What I don't think is that the employers should have to work around anything the person says about their religion regardless. That is just stupid. If it's too much of a barrier, or it's going to be unfair to other staff or to customers, then too bad.

I can walk into a job and say, "Hey my religion says I can only actually work for 1 second of every hour I'm employed. But you still have to employ me or else it's discrimination." This is no less stupid than arbitrary objections to touching pork or whatever. My arbitrary restrictions mean I can't do the job, that's the reality.

I think I would describe religion as a disability people inflict on themselves.

[Cato]

The reasonable accommodation standard is to allow people with disabilities to perform the prescribed roles and responsibilities. In the case of the Muslim cashier, no such consideration is warranted. Handling pork and alcohol products is part of the basic job requirements. Refusing to execute basic duties no matter the supposed justification is grounds for disqualification, not accommodation. It's the religious practitioner's responsibility to seek employment that doesn't violate his/her cherished beliefs.

[Razzle]

Religion is arbitrary, it's made up. It's not based on reality. Sure, people really may believe stuff. But there are literally no limits if you allow religious "accommodation". There are parts of any job people don't like doing, and I can make up any shit I want in order to not have to do that part of the job. The problem with "belief" is that it cannot be easily proven. And it can be easily faked.

Everything you say here applies equally well to beliefs caused by mental illness. They can't be proved and many examples are as bizarre or more bizarre than religious beliefs, e.g. the magical thinking obsessions I mentioned. Many people suffering from magical thinking will have weeks at a time that they can't touch certain objects, make certain motions, or say certain words, because a thought like 'what if it makes a plane crash?' or 'what if it makes my children die?' comes into their mind and doesn't stop "feeling" real until it's replaced by another magical thinking fear. There are also common OCD obsessions that would by chance get a person out of doing something that most people dislike somewhat, e.g. cleaning toilets. Does this mean we should make an exception in the law so that reasonable accommodations don't have to be made for such obsessions, in case people fake having them?

This is very unlikely to happen in my opinion because most people don't want others to think they have such an embarrassing and misunderstood mental illness, especially their employers and colleagues, and similarly most people won't want to have to try to keep up a lie about belonging to a religion with such strange, unheard of rules as 'must not go near public toilets'. It would be far easier to convince employers and courts that you couldn't go near them due to mental illness than it would be to convince them that it was a religious belief, so if the justification for disallowing the accommodation is fear of people faking it, then reasonable accommodations for mental illness (and back pain and migraines, also easily faked) would have to cease for the same reason.

I think it should work the same way to an extent; the religious person should admit, up front, what problems they are going to have with the job. It's then up to the interviewers to decide if they can still reasonably do that job. What I don't think is that the employers should have to work around anything the person says about their religion regardless. That is just stupid. If it's too much of a barrier, or it's going to be unfair to other staff or to customers, then too bad.

That's already the case. 'Reasonable accommodations' have to be reasonable, whatever they are for. An airline doesn't have to hire partially sighted pilots and take out extra insurance to cover the inevitable crashes.

I can walk into a job and say, "Hey my religion says I can only actually work for 1 second of every hour I'm employed. But you still have to employ me or else it's discrimination." This is no less stupid than arbitrary objections to touching pork or whatever. My arbitrary restrictions mean I can't do the job, that's the reality.

That's also the case for disability accommodations. Some disabled people don't have the energy to work full time. Businesses don't have to hire them if they need full time staff only. Again it seems you're overlooking the word 'reasonable' in these laws.

I think I would describe religion as a disability people inflict on themselves.

So you think religious belief is a choice? Have you ever had a religious belief? I know I am just one person but it certainly was not for me.

[Mudhammam]

Religious belief may not be a choice, but the amount of time one devotes to thinking about the issues it attempts to resolve is often a choice, though it may depend on initial impulses that can only be forced upon a person.

[Razzle]

The reasonable accommodation standard is to allow people with disabilities to perform the prescribed roles and responsibilities. In the case of the Muslim cashier, no such consideration is warranted. Handling pork and alcohol products is part of the basic job requirements. Refusing to execute basic duties no matter the supposed justification is grounds for disqualification, not accommodation. It's the religious practitioner's responsibility to seek employment that doesn't violate his/her cherished beliefs.

So if a worker had an allergy or phobia and couldn't handle two particular items for that reason, would it still be unreasonable for him to be allowed to direct customers to other staff or to self-checkout, because it should be a 'basic requirement' that they physically check out every item?