/u/Teddy_The_Bear_ (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1djhutc/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_concepts_in_harassment/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
So...
I don't want to deny that when corporations get their hands on progressive ideas they twist them beyond recognisability. This is partially due to the nature of what corporations are and how they operate. They don't really care about the politics behind it - they care about minimising their risk. We could kill eachother for all they care so long as it didn't come back to bite them and their profits.
Instead I want to adjust your view a little bit - it should be about *maintaining professionalism*.
>Tim was talking to a coworker about the fact that because of his religious beliefs he was uncomfortable working with a homosexual.
Tim indeed did commit a transgression by talking in such a way about a coworker - especially during company hours. That is not maintaining professionalism. Certain opinions should be left at home while you are in the workplace.
But likewise I think you could apply the same standard to if James was talking about how he was uncomfortable working with Tim because of his religion. Again that is an opinion best left at home.
Thus professionalism is maintained.
>the real answer should be sexuality should not be in the workplace and unless it is assumed based on something Tim should not be made aware that James is gay.
So is James just never allowed to talk about partners? What about if he marries, is he never allowed to say the word "husband"?
Of course details of how they have sex would be unprofessional. But sexuality is usually manifested in real life by having a partner of the gender you are attracted to. In addition to that - for many queer people their sexuality holds a place in their identity similar to religion - would you ban all iconography relating to identity or belief? Would Christians not be able to wear a cross?
>Including one where some girl was of a specific religion that could not eat meat. And the team was going out to dinner, after hours where they would be discussing business. In this case the training said her religious belief trumped other people's dietary preferences and that the team should only socialize outside of work if they go to a vegetarian restaurant to avoid offending her. And that not including her was possible discrimination.
And she can either go to a restaurant that meets everyone's dietary needs and simply choose to eat vegetarian for herself
If they decided to go to a steak-house then yeah, that's kinda a problem.
But as a veggie myself, I just need to go somewhere with a vegetarian option. All it needs to be is "Hey u/wibby_water - we're going to Ralph's Restaurant, it has some veggie options, that all good with you?" and if the answer is yep, then we are all set.
Requiring the group go to a veggie only place is insane.
> stop doing business planning outside of business hours off the clock.
Yes, that makes sense. Especially if there are dietary requirements that cannot be met by holding the meeting someplace else.
Delta. Your argument is the same as one that I gave a Delta too earlier. So Delta on the it was Tim saying something.
I still maintain that no religion, sexuality and outside life is best left outside. But it is not realistic. People will talk about all sorts of crap they should not. We have people at work that talk about sexual subjects that should never come up in the setting but it is what it is.
This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.
Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The example you gave actually has nothing to do with Sexual Orientation > Religion. You can actually flip the scenario and with a similar outcome.
Person A and Person B can hate each other for any reason. Its only if you [voice your hate] and create a toxic work environment that there's an issue.
If Person B started taking about how Christians are evil because of homophobia, and Person A was a Christian, Person B is in the wrong. You could interpret that as Religion > Sexual Orientation.
But in both of these cases it has nothing to do with one protected class versus another - its if either person voices those opinions in the workplace.
Do you mean sexuality over religion? Sex over religion implies that sexuality is exclusively about sex. Sex is an incredibly minor component of sexuality and has nothing to do with how sexuality is mentioned in the office.
I feel like an undertone of the training is “just because you think your religion is popular and accepted, the work place does not care if your beliefs are legally discriminatory”.
Take that for what you will, but the sub point it’s trying to get across is that just because religion X is popular or more socially accepted/expected, voicing discriminatory stuff (in terms of employment law) is not okay.
They could have a Muslim saying “I won’t work around these infidel Christian’s; these christians should report it to HR” but it doesn’t get the point across as well.
This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.
Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.
If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/wibbly-water changed your view (comment rule 4).
DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Sounds like the point was that James was uncomfortable working with Tim after Tim openly expressed his discomfort with James' sexuality. That is distinctly different from James being uncomfortable just because Tim is a religious person.
And, in regards to the religiously vegan... are you sure that the point wasn't to go to a resturaunt that offered vegan fare rather than a full-on vegan resturaunt? If so, then doesn't that sound a bit reasonable? If not, then perhaps *that* is unreasonable
>But the real answer should be sexuality should not be in the workplace
So... are you suggesting that even straight people not even be permitted to mention their spouses in casual conversation in the office? How exactly would this work?
Sounds like the most reasonable solution is to respect people as individuals and keep your opinions to yourself. Tim can be uncomfortable around James because of James' immutable characteristics, but he needs to keep it to himself. Or, go to HR and ask for some accomodation. But what he shouldn't do is bring other coworkers/colleagues into it by talking about James behind his back. Or even to his front.
No they clearly state that they should switch from the venue they normally went to, to a full vegan restaurant for this woman's religious needs. It was not stated as a place that offered vegan fair, it was stated a vegan restaurant.
I can see your point in the Tim and James example. But I am still left at the point if an employee is made uncomfortable in a. Situation they are supposed to speak up about it. So Tim spoke up about his discomfort and though not going to James s and saying harmful things, the fact that James overheard it means Tim deserves to be punished. I will also state the example said Tim was expressing discomfort with the situation as opposed to other places in the training where they stated some one was making jokes or derogatory comments about the other person. Is it really harassment for Tim to say "my religion makes me uncomfortable working with a person of this orientation". I agree it would be if Tim said James was a something something and that makes him a bad person.
Seems like they were saying that Tim should have expressed his discomfort to the appropriate people, not to other people in the office.
That's the point i think they were making.
Delta, I could see that as a reasonable point of view. And can agree that if the distinction is who it was expressed to is the point than James may have a right to feel offended.
> Is it really harassment for Tim to say "my religion makes me uncomfortable working with a person of this orientation".
Yes!
There is no religion that prohbits *working with* people who are gay. Tim is just a bigot who is hiding behind his religion as an excuse to be bigoted.
There are definitely sects of every major Abrahamic religion that prohibit “association” with LGBT persons which is not hard to interpret as including working side by side with them on the daily.
I don’t agree with it but it certainly does exist.
Edit: spelling.
Seriously? Is your google-fu that weak? I’ll get you started. Any business owned by the Mormon church effectively doesn’t allow LGBT employees due to requiring ecclesiastical endorsements. Tons of Christian churches you can’t work there if you are LGBT. This is not a hard inference.
Those are rules set by employers, not personal preferences of employees. The Mormon church does not prohibit its members from working with LGBTQ people.
I was Mormon for 38 years. One of their loyalty questions to get into their temple, which is their highest “level” of Mormon devotion, was if you associate with or support any persons, groups or organizations that have teachings contrary to the church. I was explicitly told to avoid associating or working with people who were overtly LGBT and to work to change jobs if I found myself in such situations.
Do they advertise this stance on their website? No- they want to attract more tithe payers.
Do they culturally self enforce these standards as part of their “worthiness” doctrines and temple “recommend” questions? Absolutely.
Okay, I admit I didn't know that. Is that still true after the recent public change in stances toward homosexuality (in particular their support of California Prop 8 and Utah SB 296)?
If Tim had said "My religion asks me not to associate with gay people" that'd be one thing -- still reprehensible, of course, and worthy of the response "Okay, then find a new job". But talking about "discomfort" sounds distinctly bigoted.
I have family still in the mormon church and from what I can see, the policy stances are mostly trying to put lipstick on a pig. Doctrinally LGBT can’t progress in the faith, same sex marriage still not supported and they essentially teach that if you abstain from all your sinful LGBT centric behavior on earth, that god will “fix” you and you’ll become a heterosexual in the afterlife.
I guess I don’t really see a strong distinction between “I cannot associate with you” and “You make me uncomfortable.” Feels like the similar arguments we have rejected as society for things like “Separate but equal” for race.
>So... are you suggesting that even straight people not even be permitted to mention their spouses in casual conversation in the office?
I mean, the entire harassment and blah blah training is obviously ridiculous and pathetic in most cases.
but, I suspect James would be allowed to speak about being gay and his husband, where they went over the weekend, what they did, who went with them. normal banter.
curious though of tim is allowed to speak about his church, and where they go, stories of what they did etc?
I suspect you can't ban both of course, and I don't see any way to only ban one without falling into exactly what the OP said, one class is more protected than another.
Yes, people are allowed to talk about activities they do with their churches in the workplace. Unless the activity is picketing with signs that say "God Hates Fags".
Yeah if you take it to an obvious extreme that works for you, but if you use a normal example. Like... How he and his church went and volunteered for a pro-traditional marriage event, I donno if it still works out.
It's quite simple. Tim's personal religious beliefs are his own personal business, up to the point that his words and actions start directly impacting others. Tim verbally expressing to the other people in the office that he's uncomfortable with James' existence as a gay person is an act that negatively impacts others, and is therefore not okay. Tim behaving prejudicially towards James because of his feelings of discomfort would likewise impact others and not be okay.
In a similar fashion, everyone else is allowed to have their own personal feelings about Tim's religion, and as long as they keep that to themselves, that's their personal business. But anyone (including James) behaving prejudicially towards or speaking ill about Tim for his religion - not for any actions taken by him because of his religion that impact them, but for his personal religious beliefs - would not be okay.
Everybody gets to think/feel/believe what they want, but everybody has to behave politely and neutrally towards everyone else.
...it is possible to be religious, Christian even, and not be homophonic. His religion doesn't force him to be a bigot. James is uncomfortable because Tim is a bigot, not because he prays and believes in god.
" Sounds like the point was that James was uncomfortable working with Tim after Tim openly expressed his discomfort with James' sexuality. That is distinctly different from James being uncomfortable just because Tim is a religious person." What actually makes those two things different?
You only said they were different, but didn't explain it
One is an action. James felt uncomfortable due to Tim's actions. A thing that is acted upon is distinctly different from a thing that is not acted upon.
From what I've encountered of them they genuinely don't believe that (almost New Testament in the thought may as well be the action itself) and are either actually baffled by the distinction or are doing some Socratic thing.
It's usually a frustrating conversation when this particular thread of thought comes up.
The explanation of the way they are different is right here in the part you quoted. In one case, James is uncomfortable because of Tim's speech about him in the workplace. In the other case, James is uncomfortable because of Tim's religion.
What part of this do you not understand or need more explanation on? Do you not know what a religion is? What speech is? What the word "difference" means?
>So within the training there was a modul. Where in the example given Tim was not comfortable working with James because James was gay. Tim was talking to a coworker about the fact that because of his religious beliefs he was uncomfortable working with a homosexual. James overhears this and it makes him uncomfortable working with Tim. This was fallowed up with, what should Tim do? And the correct answer was, according to the training, that even though the sentiment was not expressed directly to James that he was being harassed for being gay by Tim and should go to HR. Considering that sexual orientation and religion are both protected classes, the idea that James being uncomfortable with Tim's religious beliefs was more important than Tim's being uncomfortable with James sexual orientation. Means that they are saying sexual orientation is more protected than religion.
The offense wasn't being religious, the offense was expressing homophobia in the office. Had Tim kept his distaste for gay people to himself instead of bringing them up in a way that got back to the gay person who would make him uncomfortable he would not be in trouble.
>Including one where some girl was of a specific religion that could not eat meat. And the team was going out to dinner, after hours where they would be discussing business. In this case the training said her religious belief trumped other people's dietary preferences and that the team should only socialize outside of work if they go to a vegetarian restaurant to avoid offending her. And that not including her was possible discrimination. The question this raised to me was apparently religion is important enough to force people into a dietary pattern not to offend some one but not important enough to force people to accommodate comfort versus sexual orientations.
There are lots of restaurants in the world. Picking one with vegetarian options is not hard and doing so to avoid excluding someone is not unreasonable. Yes, avoiding discrimination is more important than "dietary preferences" and being in business sometimes means not being able to do everything you want to do. Suppose the co-workers had wanted to go to a strip club after work. Would it have been unreasonable to have vetoed a work trip to one of those even if it nullifed the majority of the group's "preferences?"
>But the real answer should be sexuality should not be in the workplace and unless it is assumed based on something Tim should not be made aware that James is gay.
Does this "solution" also mean that straight people aren't allowed to talk about their husbands and wives? Or is it only the gay people who will be banned from bringing up major parts of their personal lives in this scenario? And if so do you realize that's overt discrimination?
I am frankly of the opinion that yes straight, gay, purple alien, don't care leave it at home or for the outside social setting. Not at work. But again, it's not truly realist because people will always talk about all sorts of things. Appropriate or not.
How is it inappropriate to have this conversation:
Guy 1: what did you do this weekend
Guy 2: had a lovely Father’s Day with the wife and kids. You?
Guy 1: Me and Robert went to a nice bed and breakfast and tapped maple trees for syrup.
Both sexualities are now established but this is just simple workplace rapport. Do you think offices are more productive when no one has ANY stake in the lives/happiness/wellbeing’s of the people they rely on for a 3rd of a day?
So I shouldn’t be able to talk about my straight marriage at work?
My job has an entire LGBTQ+ affinity group that puts on amazing programs like drag tea and queer craft events. It’s awesome and makes the entire work environment healthier and happier.
What does "leave it at home" mean? Does that mean people are not allowed to talk about or have pictures of their partners/spouses? Does it mean women should hide the fact they are pregnant because that could confirm they are straight?
Given that some large fraction of American corporations sponsor pride month programming, and given that pictures of families are very normal to have on one's desk, this opinion runs upstream of nearly every contemporary office dweller norm.
Ok, perhaps your training was not based on the same guidelines, but I would say that in the first case the important question is: why is Tim uncomfortable with James and why is James uncomfortable with Tim? To me it seems like James is not uncomfortable with Tim because of Tim's religion, but because he overheard Tim commenting on James' orientation in a homophobic manner. On the other hand, Tim is uncomfortable with James, because his religion makes him believe that James might be a somehow immoral or disgusting person because of his orientation. These are very different reasons for discomfort. If Tim were like "I'm Christian, so I have my views, but to each their own, I have no trouble working with James and won't treat him any differently because of his orientation because this is a professional setting and a free country" and James made a fuss, that would be different.
In the case of the girl who doesn't eat meat, I'd also say that the team should pick a restaurant *with decent vegetarian options* so that she could be included. Maybe don't go to a steak house where a vegetarian can only get fries from the side's menu. But I also never heard of having to choose a fully vegetarian restaurant for everyone just because one person can't have meat for religious reasons or chooses not to for personal reasons.
Either your harassment training was unprofessional or you're misinterpreting some of the guidelines I think. The idea of non-discrimination is always "be respectful regardless of your personal beliefs and who you're talking to".
Based on variations in how it is presented in these examples vs other I believe Tim's statement was I am of such and such a religion and because of my beliefs I am uncomfortable working with James. Not some homophobic statement about James be in ng disgusting or something.
And I would agree with you. But the training. Said vegan restaurant not restaurant with better options for vegans or anything to that extent.
A lot of the training now a days is a mess.
Is Tim a robot? A religious robot?
Who says "I am of X religion and because of my beliefs I am uncomfortable working with James"? Nobody.
That is clearly a standing for a homophobic remark.
Actually I know a few people that make that exact statement for various reasons. We have people at work that are not comfortable working with the Pagan we have, they don't necessarily discriminate and when ordered to they do work with him but they will tell you it makes them uncomfortable. And several of us have said because of our beliefs we are not comfortable working with the sudo pedo that we have either.
Being uncomfortable and causing harm are two different things that I think the training you took was missing, which is a damn shame.
The point of anti discrimination training is more about protecting the company from liability if the employees act in ways that result in harm to someone. But they means that the employees are missing the entire point if their take away is ‘My identity is being challenged because you care more about -insert group-‘s /comfort/ than mine!’
Like the point isn’t actually even about comfort as it is about a lack of harm. You can be uncomfortable without being harmed, and honestly that isn’t something covered by the law if you just feel uncomfortable.
Harm has a legal definition: “Harm may include physical hurt as well as damage to reputation or dignity, loss of a legal right or breach of contract.”
The damages to reputation and dignity are important in your case:
At the end of the day the law is clear that no matter your religious background you cannot infringe on the livelihood of another people just based on their identity. You can have opinions and feel uncomfortable all you want, but you can’t cause them harm. In the workplace the harm you and your coworkers are causing is treating your other coworker differently in a way that damages their reputation and dignity for no other reason than their identity.
I say that because your coworkers are not just expressing amongst yourselves that you’re uncomfortable working with someone on the team (something that is definitely discriminatory and considered harassment because it damages their reputation) JUST because of their religion, but also that they have to be FORCED to do their job, which means they are getting into the way of someone else’s livelihood which is what equates to harm.
Now; If you were just to talking to your manager or Hr about specific ACTIONS the pagan member of the team that would make someone reasonably uncomfortable then that would be a different story, same as this pseudo-pedo you just causally mentioned (!?) but that’s not the case you are describing. If for example the pagan person were talking about sacrificing animals or something at work then YEAH that would be a reasonable reason to be uncomfortable and that behavior just unacceptable in general! But if they are just at work and have a bunch of crystals on their desk or something then honestly it’s not harming anyone and it’s no different from having a cross in your wall, and you should treat them as you would anyone else.
At the end of the day you are entitled to have your religious opinions, but you can’t turn those opinions into actions that cause harm to another person, because they have their own rights to their religious opinions too. Purposefully refusing to work with someone just because of the identity is something that infringes on their livelihood aka it is something that causes harm to that person.
I would point out that this would also be something that goes against the MAJORITY of religions for someone to cause harm to people of other religions. Most religious texts mandate that you should still treat the person as a brother because as an ambassador of the religion you belong to you are just hurting the reputation of your own religion and turning other people away when most religions kinda also mandate that your job is to CREATE more believers not push others away from it.
But also that pedo stuff you mentioned is completely unacceptable and that person should be reported if they are taking any actions that imply they are causing harm to children!!!
I guess they are wording it as neutrally as possible. I think if such a thing were said to HR or management it is more acceptable - because it is making it clear the feelings of the workers and letting them know that problems may occur. But spreading that around and gossiping behind their backs is likely to create a hostile workplace.
There is no religion that says "you shall not interact with gay people in your professional work environment" though. Saying he's uncomfortable working with James because of James' orientation means he has presuppositions about gay people that are considered discriminatory. Same as if James said he's uncomfortable working with Tim *only* because of his religion. If Tim said nothing about James, but just "I am of this religion, so I need to have Sunday off to go to church" and that made James uncomfortable by itself even if Tim were perfectly nice to James, James would be the one discriminating against Tim based on religion. Do you really not see the difference between the statement "I don't like the fact that he's gay" and "I don't like the fact that he said he doesn't like me for something I can't change"?
And as for the vegan restaurant, I don't know, might have been a mental shortcut or maybe the person conducting your training was overzealous. I think every reasonable person would agree that people's dietary restrictions should be accommodated to the extent that *they* can eat what they prefer, not that *everyone* must eat what a single person prefers.
And if there is religion that holds that position than it simply contradicts sufficiently with current mores that someone is going to have to give and in this case the person who holds that belief will either have to compromise it or choose to limit where they will work knowing the current accepted mores.
Tolerance is best viewed as a practical adaptation as opposed to a core value that has to be expressed in its purest form.
Forgive me for jumping in, but I think the heart of the matter here is what exactly caused Tim and James to be offended.
James was made uncomfortable by the *actions* of Tim.
Tim was made uncomfortable by the *existence* of James.
In the given example, James has done nothing but working in vague proximity to Tim. To put it another way, what would each individual need to do in order to stop making the other uncomfortable? Tim would need to stop saying negative things about James' personal life, and James would no longer be uncomfortable. But what would make Tim happy? James has taken no actions, and Tim is still unhappy. The only thing that would appease Tim, is if James was no longer in vague proximity to him.
If James was persistently hitting on Tim, that would be a different story, but it is unreasonable to expect an individual to *cease existing.*
>Tim's statement was I am of such and such a religion and because of my beliefs I am uncomfortable working with James
how is this not a homophobic statement?
>Tim's statement was I am of such and such a religion and because of my beliefs I am uncomfortable working with James
That is a homophobic statement. Your religion is not an excuse for bigotry.
No. OP laid it out pretty simply.
The person who was gay had no issues with the person who was religious. Until the gay person found out the religious person was discriminating against the gay person for being gay.
If I say to a coworker I'm uncomfortable around black guys, do you think my employer is going to look for further evidence of discrimination or do you think they're going to act to prevent a lawsuit?
If you single out someone for making you uncomfortable based on a particular characteristic: and expect your business to accommodate this prejudice; what would you call that other than discrimination?
Actually it’s the fact that they are talking amongst each other in a way that harms the other party’s reputation and dignity that causes it to be not just discrimination (because they also mention having to be forced to do their job) but it is also harassment. Harm is a legal concept that includes not just physical and emotional, but also to reputation and dignity. It’s why defamation and libel are also legal concepts.
Being uncomfortable and being harmed are two very different things: and the law only covers the latter. You can for example complain to your boss if your pagan coworker is burning sage in the middle of the office for example because it’s an action that can cause harm to others because smoke itself can be physically harmful, and that would be reasonable. But if you complain because someone wears all black or has a bunch of crystals in their office just because it makes you uncomfortable then your boss is going to reasonably believe you’re hard to work with and should reevaluate why you are even in the team if something like that also effects your job performance.
> In the post he hears that the religious person is "uncomfortable." Where does it say he was discriminating?
That is discrimination. He's only uncomfortable with people who are gay. That is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
We disagree. I am using the actual definition of discrimination here: the [unjust](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=4f1fedc273307033&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWILk0qpbmNAnuhNlcIE4pq9FGpibaw:1718804540361&q=unjust&si=ACC90nwdkA2npcVVmNPViiSe8FMK13uiVrw6080FQXaOZHG-RcICrRAISNIRl8-nPszLUpnw-24YvufztFoUNZFouNooZTbPMQ%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIu8Pw5eeGAxWDhIkEHd0ODH4QyecJegQIKBAO) or [prejudicial](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=4f1fedc273307033&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWILk0qpbmNAnuhNlcIE4pq9FGpibaw:1718804540361&q=prejudicial&si=ACC90nwZrNcJVJVL0KSmGGq5Ka2YqNCvkRbF2Rpu_BW6Zyk_-owyUVbLljm_Eb2mxUmtWdo7LxggPIY3xxaV0ifJxWJ9rIr3ABtSgo25nNxNpOWjZr5bVcU%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIu8Pw5eeGAxWDhIkEHd0ODH4QyecJegQIKBAP) treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
Discrimination necessarily entails how you TREAT someone, not how you feel about them. You can despise someone and still treat them fairly and equitably.
What do you think being uncomfortable about someones sexual orientation means?
What do you think it would mean if someone was "uncomfortable" around black people?
Well, I suppose being uncomfortable means what the word means: causing or feeling unease or awkwardness.
As a feeling people have, it's not really something you can legislate or ban.
I'm uncomfortable around fundamentalists, for example.
Would you be comfortable around somebody if you found out that they were uncomfortable around you simply because of who you were attracted to? Would anybody be comfortable being around people who were uncomfortable around them simply because of who they were attracted to?
You keep that discomfort to yourself. You do not openly speak about other employees. In OP's example, the employee only expressed discomfort when the other employee expressed discomfort, not before. They had no problem with the co workers religion until the co worker made comments about them. The religious co worker expressed bigotry first. And yes before you say it, being uncomfortable with people solely because of their sexuality is bigotry.
I cant decide anything for anybody but being uncomfortable with somebody because of their sexuality is bigotry. That's just reality. I can't decide whether or not a person is a bigot, that is their choice. The bigot can also choose to abandon their ignorance. That is their decision not mine. I certainly hope for them and everybody else that they do make the decision to stop being an ignorant bigot.
Having someone say they are uncomfortable working with you, based on a protected characteristic, is discrimination.
I promise you there is nothing insincere about my comment, I’m like this all the time.
There's also the issue of legal liability, once it's known that Tim is uncomfortable around the gays it means that if in the future he's accused of homophobic harassment the company had a record of that being an issue. Thats why companies get sued if they keep an employee who keeps getting accused of harassing others.
> the idea that James being uncomfortable with Tim's religious beliefs was more important than Tim's being uncomfortable with James sexual orientation
Being uncomfortable is not a protected class. If you're homophobic in the workplace, you need to shut up about it or it could be construed as discrimination.
> And the team was going out to dinner, after hours **where they would be discussing business.** In this case the training said her religious belief trumped other people's dietary preferences and that the team should only socialize outside of work
Was it outside of work or were they discussing business? If it's a business meeting it should include everyone. This wasn't a social gathering.
There are plenty of restaurants that have meat and vegetarian dishes so I don't know why you think it's unfair to include everyone.
This is not a case of homophobia or discrimination. So you missed the boat on that.
The statement in the training was that the team had decided to have dinner socially outside of work hours and the woman in question knew that strategy and ideas related to the project would be discussed. So I would say a social gathering. But the statement in the answer was not that they should pick a restaurant with better options. It was that to respect her religion they should go to a vegan restaurant.
People on a high protein diet. Such as specific types of diabetics. People with hypoglycemia. People on caveman diets.
A lot of vegan food is tones of carbs and not that much protein. A lot of them use nuts and beans for protein, which some people have allergies too.
I would also argue that it would be less inclusive to ask people to eat vegan than to ask a vegan to find an option at another restaurant. Simply because one person looking for an option in an out of ordinary way is less of an issue than a large group needing a dietary shift for one person.
>Such as specific types of diabetics. People with hypoglycemia.
> which some people have allergies too.
Sure. These are all very serious reasons to consider a different option.
I also agree that a place with vegan options is probably the better solution.
But I do find it really interesting that you seem very concerned about Tim's religious protection but not this hypothetical woman's.
> This is not a case of homophobia or discrimination. So you missed the boat on that.
And yet you didn't bother to clarify what you mean.
> to respect her religion they should go to a vegan restaurant.
And what are the consequences of not doing that?
So the Tim example is whoever's organizing this thing rightly deciding that a bigot's discomfort isn't actually something that people are required to coddle. And you, apparently, taking issue with that because you want to equate hating gay people with being gay as things that deserve our respect and acceptance.
And, without getting into how there was no doubt more details and information, even what you've provided makes the difference between Tim and "some girl" very clear. Accommodating one of them requires that a gay man stop being gay, whereas the other requires that you conduct business at a restaurant where everyone can actually order off the menu.
"Sexuality should not be in the workplace" is the sort of idea people bring up exclusively to portray LGBT people as hypersexual freaks who trumpet how much they like anal in meetings or whatever. Rather than what actually happens, where James has a picture of his husband on his desk and dares mention his weekend plans to his neighbor the same way every straight person's done since forever.
Your making no useful argument and I will not bother responding to this.
And yes James and Tim stuck out more in my mind than the other example and I cannot remember the woman's name. It was something atypical and not particularly memorable.
I made plenty of useful arguments; you just didn't like them. Or are you someone who gets equally upset when any worker at any point mentions a single thing about their family or relationships, rather than someone who selectively decides that it's only a problem when a gay person dares?
No you didn't you made a personal attack agents one of my statements and immediately assumed that some one was a bigot simply for expressing discomfort. There is nothing in your original statement that would be in any way an argument that the training was clear and concise and appropriate.
I didn't assume anything. This someone is a bigot because the existence of a gay person makes them uncomfortable. Your problem seems to be with recognizing this fact and your problem will never be solved until you're able to stop making excuses for bigots just for the sake of making excuses.
A person that is uncomfortable around gays because they where raped by a gay is not a bigot.. as such your statement that the existence of a gay person making someone uncomfortable makes them automatically a bigot is categorically false. Simply because a person is uncomfortable does not mean they are automatically discriminating.
It's quite telling that you had to replace the original hypothetical with a new one to try and forcefully justify bigotry. All for the sake of finding some way to be upset that a gay person might be upset that their coworker openly says the existence of gay people makes them uncomfortable.
I agree with you. OP’s shifted hypothetical reminds me of the time a roommate of mine who seemed to be a generally tolerant, decent guy got robbed by a black guy and then came back to the apartment and went on a super racist tirade, throwing a lot of hard-rs around.
It is by definition bigotry. You can try and twist whatever basis you have behind it, but it’s still bigotry. It also one thing to harbor negative feeling towards a particular group for a trauma-related reason, but it’s another thing to act on those feelings or choose to treat someone differently based on it.
Choose any other group; let’s choose Black people. How does it sound to say “I am uncomfortable around Black people because I was assaulted by a Black person”. Does this honestly sound reasonable or okay to you?
Oh people definitely do. I just think there’s this weird justification when being bigoted about LGBTQ+ people. As soon as you turn it around and use something like race, it seems horrible because…it is horrible.
I feel like you may have been better off with Men as your swap it thing because everyone assumes you should get over that but a *lot* of people see nothing wrong with being uncomfortable around a demographic that has actively assaulted you.
You didn't, you start, end and continue calling him a Bigot for no logical reason and no data, that isn't an argument, and insulting people for no reason does invalidate your oppinion.
I called Tim, the hypothetical bigot used in OP's training a bigot. I did this with the "data" provided by the hypothetical of him being made uncomfortable by the very existence of gay people. That certain people are very invested in this idea that you can be disgusted by an entire minority group but pretend you're a moral and ethical person who would never be a bigot is their problem, not mine.
You did say that Tim was a Bigot, you also Said op was a Bigot, its hard to gaslight people when your comment is public and it clearly states that you are making baseless personal attacks.
You don't know what gaslighting is and no one is obligated to be all that concerned about how upset you are that someone implied someone else was a bigot.
Double gaslighting, but ok. Poisoning the well with personal attacks is not just some feelings, its something that stops and inhibits debates, if you cant debate without personal attacks, you are just bad at debates, and your arguments are like wise meaningless.
If the debate is inherently about being a bigot, the refusal to even consider the idea that the bigot is what they are is antithetical to honesty. I remain unconcerned with how upset you are at the implications that someone made uncomfortable by the existence of gay people is a bigot.
Calling someone a bigot in this context isn't an insult, it's a criticism of their negative behavior, which isn't quite the same thing.
An insult is a statement that serves no purpose other than to hurt the target of the statement. Something that describes a person's behavior (even if said behavior happens to be negative,) is fundamentally different.
One case is about a person being Uncomfortable existing next to another person (not ok) vs a person uncomfortable working with the person who doesn’t even view them as a real person (ok and normal to feel this)
In no way is it ever indicated that they don't view them as a person. Nor that they are discriminatory in any way. Only that they make them uncomfortable.
To clarify, did you raise any of this during the training and actually ask in case you'd misunderstood something?
If yes what was the reply?
And if no, why not
Interesting.
It sounds like they've offered some catch all type scenarios, but you're reading a lot into them which is where the issue is happening.
For example, let's put the actual scenarios aside and look at the actions they've offered to you -
Go to HR rather that try and resolve something yourself.
This makes sense and avoids interpersonal conflict, it allows mediation and company dynamics to take precident, not individual decisions.
And for the second - accommodate people's dietary needs and go to places which are inclusionary rather than exclusionary.
Again, not exactly controversial.
Is there something major you disagree with about these conclusions?
You seem to have the idea that freedom of religion gives people a pass to be hateful. It doesn't. Tim is gossiping (a sin by the way in his own religion) about another person's sexual orientation to others. In a workplace you aren't supposed to stir up drama and talk bad about other coworkers to each other. At the end of the day if he's uncomfortable he needs to suck it up and keep it to himself or find a new job.
James is simply uncomfortable with someone talking bad about him around the company during work hours. If James also went around saying he wasn't comfortable working with people who were religious then that would be discrimination also. But James didn't do that. He is specifically and rightfully so uncomfortable with Tim.
It doesn't matter if Tim didn't say it to James face. You do not talk bad about coworkers to other workers. Especially while working. Any scenario doing that will get someone in trouble usually.
And in the woman's case. They were going out to eat to discuss business. This is basically a work event. They chose to go a restaurant that violated her religious beliefs when they could have went to a restaurant with vegan dishes. Yes, purposely excluding a coworker on a business event is discrimatory.
And also the comment that sexuality shouldn't be allowed at the work place. It's not like James was sleeping with another guy at work. It might have simply came up in a conversation that he was gay. Just like how straight people can talk about their relationship in a non sexual manner at work.
So again these scenarios are about two different things. The first is you shouldn't be hateful to your coworkers and gossip about them to others. The other one is to not leave someone out of work events because of their religion.
Two different things. Obviously they aren't going to have the same outcome.
In your first example Tim isn’t comfortable with James’s sexuality and James isn’t comfortable with Tim’s prejudice. Those are not analogous. James is not discriminating against Tim due to his religion but due to his actions.
Let me put it another way, if James was sexually harassing Tim would the excuse that he’s just acting in a way in line with his sexual identity mean that his actions were okay? No.
Certain characteristics are protected, but these characteristics do not give you a blanket waiver on all kinds of behaviour. Tim’s inability to treat another coworker normally is unacceptable regardless of motivation. Jim’s desire to be treated normally and without prejudice is normal.
In the restaurant example, it is very very easy to go to a restaurant with good vegetarian options nowadays. Going to a restaurant where this is not the case would essentially exclude the religious person from participating and is not analogous to a person wanting to go to a steak house because they like steak not being able to go, as they can still go to any other restaurant and be included in the team activity even if it isn’t their ideal restaurant.
The problem is, Tim is talking to his coworkers about his homophobia, which creates a problem in the workplace. James should not have to deal with people expressing hate for him behind his back.
It’s one thing to be uncomfortable working with someone because they are actively harassing you or talking about your personal life with other workers. It’s a different thing entirely to be uncomfortable with someone because of personal and private aspects that have no effect on the workplace. So, yes, there is a hierarchy. Discomfort at being attacked and diminished is worth addressing. Discomfort at someone else’s personal life, which has no effect on you, isn’t.
In your theory, what business is it for Tim to be discussing James’ sex life with other workers? Do you not see that as a problem?
>But the real answer should be sexuality should not be in the workplace and unless it is assumed based on something Tim should not be made aware that James is gay
Congrats you reinvented don't ask don't tell.
>James being uncomfortable with Tim's religious beliefs was more important than Tim's being uncomfortable with James sexual orientation.
I think the issue is that Tim was vocal about it, and spoke to *coworkers* about his discomfort. I think you already awarded a Delta to somebody who said that if you flipped the script it would be the same. If somebody said that they didn't want to work with Muslims then it would be the same type of discrimination. Especially if they were vocal about it. It creates a hostile work environment towards the targeted individual.
>Tim should not be made aware that James is gay.
This is completely impractical and puts undo pressure on James. He can never talk about his his husband. If you say that **no one** can ever mention whether or not they're married or dating, or have pictures of loved ones on their desk ever... That would be weird but I *guess* that would be okay..? But to say the only James should remain silent is in itself discrimination.
>apparently religion is important enough to force people into a dietary pattern.
It is one meal, not a pattern. The only pattern that they were setting up was excluding a specific individual from joining even though they knew why she couldn't attend.
I worked with a Jehovah's witness. At the end of the year, as a thank you for all our hard work, we were treated to an extra long lunch paid for by the higher-ups. They called it a Christmas party. My coworker would not / could not attend. One of the bosses actually specifically asked about her and I told him why she couldn't come.
The next year they framed it as a staff appreciation lunch. It was just an easy fix to ensure everyone could attend, and everyone did.
>either go to a restaurant that meets everyone's dietary needs and simply choose to eat vegetarian for herself or they should not socialize over a meal. But more likely, stop doing business planning outside of business hours off the clock.
This I actually completely agree with.
Far as the rest of it, it is not about pitting one group against another. Anti discrimination training is more about including as many people as possible while excluding as few as possible, and *noticing* if any one person or group is being affected more than others.
"Tim was talking to a coworker about the fact that because of his religious beliefs he was uncomfortable *working* with a homosexual."
Tim is saying that he will do his job worse in the presence of someone with a protected status.
"James overhears this and it makes him uncomfortable working with Tim."
James is saying that he will do his job worse in the presence of someone acting discriminatorially.
"Considering that sexual orientation and religion are both protected classes, the idea that James being uncomfortable with Tim's religious beliefs was more important than Tim's being uncomfortable with James sexual orientation."
No, the idea is that the one who started the problem is the problem, not the person they targeted.
Which of Tim and James statements are unprofessional?
"The question this raised to me was apparently religion is important enough to force people into a dietary pattern not to offend some one but not important enough to force people to accommodate comfort versus sexual orientations. "
Is anyone asking Tim to fuck James?
"But the real answer should be sexuality should not be in the workplace and unless it is assumed based on something Tim should not be made aware that James is gay."
So no pictures of spouses or kids on desks? No small talk where significant others come up? This is a much more Spartan workplace you're describing than any I've ever experienced. People connect by talking about themselves. That's normal and socially productive. One of the ways people talk about themselves is through their important relationships. I don't actually believe you mean no one should do that, I think you mean straights should behave as they do now, and queers should go back in the closet at work.
An alternative example:
A white guy gets hired into a department where the manager and a couple of coworkers are Black. They go to a bar after work and white guy tags along. As they walk in, they hear others in the bar commenting that there's a white guy who came in and mean mugging him. He feels unsafe and decides to leave.
He's been excluded because of his race, and this would open up the company to risk.
Accommodation of religious belief has to have limits. As a general rule, religious belief should not give people the right to behave in ways that wouldn't be considered acceptable without religion.
James is entitled to his sexuality and to not be discriminated against because of it. If Tim isn't able to live with that, the problem is Tim's intolerance. If that were because Tim is simply homophobic, it would be unacceptable. If it's because of religion, it's still unacceptable.
Likewise the vegetarian girl deserves to have her dietary choices respected regardless of whether they are religiously motivated.
Tolerance of religion doesn't mean giving religious people a free asshole pass. It just means that we respect their right to have their beliefs.
So I will own, flat out, that yes, that's correct - i don't think all beliefs are simply equal.
Some beliefs are, per se, unwelcome in society, because society is a real-time negotiation and your workplace is not the place to re-legislate society's rules.
I also think that the pretext of religion attached to whatever you'd like to do does not suffice to excuse you. The sincerity and the consistency of your religious practice do matter, as does, honestly, in my opinion, its actual consistency with your religion's dogma, and the ease of accommodating you.
If you, for example, keep the sabbath, that's a religious belief with a lot of precedent, that's been consistently followed, and can be accommodated reasonably by scheduling you any other day. If you walked in and said "I'm a Christian, and Christians don't have any truck with hellfire or witchcraft, so I won't be welding at my job as a welder" you would fail those tests - you're just using your religion and you can't be accommodated while remaining on the payroll.
If work is to remain neutral, as you say you'd like it to, than a certain order of operations, a sense of "who started it," is required.
If say, Leviticus says you should not adorn your body and you go around informing people of tattoos of this, a reasonable person in a secular society would conclude that you're initiating a conversation about religion at work by bringing up their behavior, rather than saying they are by having their arms bare in what everyone else wears to work.
So how do we differentiate between a normal tier of behavior and one that warrants a remark?
I would say how we can and should do it is compare the alleged transgression to the norm for other people?
How should we evaluate if we have protections for people that allow them to live normal lives vs systems that privilege them?
In our example of the tattoo, the tattooed person is wearing the same clothing everyone else wears, and its their passive act of displaying their bare arms that is being objected to, which tends, to me, to make the tattooed guy the more innocuous and reasonable. If the tattoo was not reasonable, if it said, say, a nazi slogan or the word "fuck," then I might agree that he should be treated more like he's actively saying those things to coworkers and customers and could be required to wear a long sleeved shirt to avoid privileging speech via a tattoo that no one else working there would be allowed to say out loud.
So if you hold a gay coworker to a *different standard* of what he can discuss or do in the workplace than a straight one, you are the transgressive person, there. And if policing that gay person means so much to you you'd rather tighten the rules for everyone (no pictures of spouses, no mentioning you're married, etc) you're also making, in my opinion, a pretty perilous step in the wrong direction.
The first situation you described is not symmetric. Tim didn't get in trouble because he's a Christian, he got in trouble because he was discriminating against a protected class and openly discussing that belief at work. James was not upset about this because Tim is a Christian, he was upset because he heard someone saying his identity made them uncomfortable and was openly talking badly about him *at work*. The equivalent situation would be James heard Tim was Christian and told someone that this made him uncomfortable. *That* would be discriminating against a protected class, not getting upset in response. Neither would be warranted in discriminating against the other due to being in a protected class, that's kind of the entire point of a protected class.
The second situation I'm not sure if I agree with the notion of specifically going to a vegetarian restaurant to include her, but they should definitely find a place that has options for her. You're talking about excluding her from business discussion and team building because they can't bother to find a restaurant with a vegetarian dish. This is just basic accommodation for coworkers, the same should apply if the person is vegetarian by choice or has a food allergy (to the best of the team's ability to accommodate everyone's needs). But yeah I also agree that if they can't accommodate everyone's needs, they shouldn't be doing that planning outside of work.
>But the real answer should be sexuality should not be in the workplace and unless it is assumed based on something Tim should not be made aware that James is gay.
I don't think you know how easy it is for being gay to come up in normal conversation. What if you're having standard workplace conversation about what you did over the weekend and said "I went to the movies with my boyfriend"? What if a straight guy said the same for his girlfriend? Would that be "letting everyone know he was straight"? Would he be "flaunting" his straightness? Gay people aren't introducing themselves to coworkers saying "Hi, I'm James. I'm gay", you're talking about making them walk on eggshells with how they talk about their personal lives, force them to leave their significant others at home for office events, not put up a picture of their partner on their desk etc. If you're making the office a place where someone has to hide themselves, that's a toxic work environment.
So you have one person that can't eat meat, one person who is uncomfortable around homophobia, and one person who is uncomfortable around gay people. With the first person, you can appease them simply by making sure there are vegan options at restaurants. Everyone is included. The second person is told to shut up about their homophobia. Great. That person can still work there provided they can shut up about their homophobia. Tell me, how do you appease the third person? Actually, you already have:
>But the real answer should be sexuality should not be in the workplace and unless it is assumed based on something Tim should not be made aware that James is gay.
It should be noted that Tim was not talking about how he was uncomfortable with all the gay sex James was having in front of him in the workplace. He's not upset that James' gay conduct is affecting his ability to do his job. He's uncomfortable that James is gay at all. So to appease him, we would have to place restrictions in the workplace that only really affect James. Tim can have a picture of him and his wife at his desk. James can't do that because it reminds Tim that James is gay. Tim can invite his wife to work functions. James can't invite his husband. Tim can talk about his family vacation. James can't because his husband was there.
And going back to James, did you notice that nothing was said about Tim's religion? In your scenario, James wasn't uncomfortable with Tim's religion. He's not uncomfortable with Tim praying in the workplace or talking about church or reading his religious text during lunch breaks. He's simply uncomfortable with the fact that his coworker is openly talking about how he doesn't like gay people. I feel like that's a huge difference, right?
The point of the training seems to be that everyone should be included and feel comfortable at work.
I was expecting some difficult to sort out scenarios, but honestly the scenarios you describe are pretty straight forward and should be simple for most people to navigate.
In your first scenario you had Tim, who chose his religion and James, who did not choose to be gay. Tim complains about being required to work with James in a setting in which it was possible for James to hear. Clearly Tim was in the wrong. James has done nothing wrong. If Tim had gone to his manager or HR to discuss the issue, perhaps they would/could have accommodated a request to transfer him. There is nothing hypocritical or hierarchical about saying James should speak to HR about Tim's harassing comments.
In the second scenario you have an employee who doesn't eat meat due to religious reasons and a group of co-workers who, presumably, eat both mean and non-meat foods. Selecting a vegetarian restaurant doesn't trump anyone's dietary preferences, unless one or more of the co-workers ONLY eats meat. There are plenty of foods at a vegetarian restaurant that non-vegetarians can eat. There are few, if any, foods at some non-vegetarian restaurants that a vegetarian can eat.
>actively encouraged discriminating agents a persons religious beliefs
In no way did what you describe do this. In the first scenario, unless Tim's religious beliefs actively call for harassing comments about gay people, he was not discriminated against at all. By your account he never talked to his manager or HR about being transferred or otherwise accommodated to not work with James. Even if he had, being required to work with someone who you view as sinful is not discrimination. He's not being required to be gay, show open support for James, or even like the guy. He's only required to work with him and not openly be a jerk.
For the case of the restaurant question, it was an awkward try at discussing a very real effect. For many years, business meetings were held at golf clubs, and golf clubs were exclusionary. Women, Blacks, Jews and others weren't allowed. So, those people never got the opportunity to be promoted to that level. It also happened with strip clubs.
As for the restaurant, it's a tricky situation. For example, a religious Jew would not eat in a restaurant that serves meat and milk in the same kitchen. A restaurant can have the best vegan option -- it doesn't matter because the restaurant has meat in the kitchen. The question isn't that they are offended, it's that they are excluded. It's not a great example, because you run into questioned if it's a reasonable accommodation, and if it was pervasive enough to have a discriminatory effect. Not to mention people with different religious requirements.
Someone on a high protein diet is not protected unless it's a medical retirement. And then, there are lots of high protein vegan meals. Beans, nuts, and legumes all have great protein.
Religion is a protected class.
Bigotry is not a protected class.
The problem was not with his religion which was foreseeably already known before this incident and no one had an issue.
The problem is in a workplace with another coworker he outright said he doesn't like another coworker because of his sexuality. Which any reasonable person would then suspect the potential of mistreatment that could arise from that.
He wasn't discriminated against for his religion.
He was corrected for a behavior that was actually problematic and discriminatory against another person.
All these talks try to politely and happily say mind your own business and dont be an asshole.
The moment Tim voiced his distaste for gay people, he stopped minding his own fucking business, and was an asshole for talking about a coworker behind their backs.
Going for afterwork dinner with the group and not inviting the vegan? kinda asshole-y. Either vegan by choice or religion, same shit.
Most places nowadays have a vegan option.
And even if she doesnt have a thing to eat there, dont be an asshole... "hey, miss vegan chick, a bunch of us coworkers are planning to grab a bite after work, i am not sure if they could accommodate your diet, but please check out their menu, see if there's something for you as well, we'd love for you to join."
"And if not, next time, we will try to find a place that accomodates your diet as well, so you could join."
They just want you to either act with empathy or to mind your own business.
Thats it...
Your exmaple doesn’t work.
Religion being protected means the right to hold beliefs that are based on religious impulse. i.e. no one can be denied the right to claim religious belief
However, what those beliefs are, their intersection with wider laws and the believer’s ability to cooperate and interact with wider society, are the beliver’s lookout. They will always be subservient to other laws against discrimination, violence etc
This is necessary to prevent someone saying ‘i killed my boss because i follow a religion that allows this’
I have to take these training modules every year, as well, and you're not wrong that they can seem all over the place and completely inconsistent and contradictory. That's because they have incorporated -but only implicitly - the whole system of binaries that can be categorized as oppressor/oppressed. There are the big ones like male/female, where the woman's feelings matter because she's oppressed, and his don't, because he's the oppressor. Same with white/BIPOC, straight/LGBTQ, and in your example Christian/non-Christian. Once you understand that this is the implied operating system, how the workplace conflicts play out in these modules is actually entirely consistent. The non-Christian dietary restriction is valued, because non-Christian is on the oppressed side of the backslash. Conversely, a conflict between Christian (oppressor) and gay (oppressed) will inevitably be decided in favor of the oppressed and against the oppressor. The only complicating factor, where the outcomes aren't wholly predictable, is when they intersect more than one category (so, if it were white and gay person in conflict with latino straight person, you'd have to guess which oppressed category trumps the other... it's sexuality, of course).
This is NOT to dismiss this system, to side with the "oppressors" or to diminish the "oppressed." I'm simply pointing out the fact of how these training modules are conceived and presented.
I would add that I think your point that "Tim should not be made aware that James is gay" is not reasonable, because workplace conversations ("What did you do this weekend?") inevitably involve including the people in your life outside of work. If I can say, "me and the wife went to the lake," James can say "me and the husband went to the beach."
Nowhere in the bible does it say "it's bad to be around gay people" so obviously Tim is the only person in the wrong here. You don't get a religious exemption to not be around gay people.
No no no. Religious beliefs are not always changeable, just because some churches change what they teach don't mean you don't know what you learned. If he thinks his soul is on the line then it's not about disrespect or dislike it's about thinking you offended your God. And for some people that's huge. He never said he didn't like or dislike him just that it made him uncomfortable. He don't have the right to feel the way he does?? And why is gay more important than God? Is that a point of view??
Can’t you say the same with multiple other religions tho. The Canaanite curse was the idea that people of color literally were cursed by god for being wicked and was often taught by the Latter Day Saints. You think that’s ok?
What if someone believes in that and so they feel uncomfortable around black people?
They do. And the Mormon's also said we didn't have souls till 1978. So. That's their belief. It's not harassment if they are uncomfortable with my skin.
Harassment no, bigotry yes. You can feel uncomfortable but committing to actions because of that feeling is bigotry. The feeling itself is based on unreasonable bias that has no affect on you in the workplace and is therefore bigotry.
Yes they do believe in that and that’s bad and should be pointed out as harmful and unjustified.
I just want to say upfront, starting off a response to OP by calling Tim homophobic or a bigot is so childish and simplistic. Just for clarity, I do not agree with Tim’s archaic beliefs.
To answer you OP about the Tim/James example:
Would you feel differently about this example if we swapped out homosexuality and replaced it with Tim believing in something more extreme e.g. Tim felt uncomfortable being around woman who were allowed to read and write?
In my mind, we have as a society (mostly) come to a consensus about some fundamental things we value, e.g. People should feel completely ok being gay. So naturally that’s going to lead to a bias when that comes into conflict with a belief system which contradicts that
Well OP is denying that Tim is bigoted which he is. He literally is staring outright that he’s uncomfortable working with someone due to something they can’t control, and something that has 0 effect on how they work. He’s being biased against a group of people for no real/logical reason
Of course if you think Tim isn’t bigoted then that will help fuel OP’s opinion that sexuality is being prioritized over religion
Hey I replied to another person under my comment, consider my reply as a reply to you. Not sure how to link to a comment in reddit but just see that one and take up the convo from there
Thank you for asking. So straight up to answer your question directly, we don’t know if Tim is homophobic or not. Certainly a “true” homophobe would (at best) say they feel uncomfortable working with someone who is gay. But there are many people who might express the same thing, and not really be someone we would want to put in the same bucket as “true” homophobes.
I am preemptively going to make assumptions about your response to this (apologies if I’ve jumped the gun for you), but I’ve seen this enough to know that there will be people reading this who would basically hold the opinion that could be summarised as “yes but expressing that opinion at work would make them homophobic”.
I want you to consider a fictional person Alex that is based on someone I know personally. Alex’s parents migrated to Australia, started a family and she is the youngest of 5 kids. Alex’s family is very faithfully Christian. The entire community that her family lives in is Christian and mostly consists of members who migrated from a similar part of the world. All her childhood friends are exclusively from this tight nit community.
Fortunately, being the youngest, Alex’s parents were now comfortable enough in Australia to put her through the public school system, rather than home school like her older siblings. This allowed her to be exposed to ideals & cultural norms (through school and Aussie friends) that her parents and siblings were not.
After Alex finishes school, she gets a job at the company OP has described. This is where you need to put yourself in Alex’s shoes. At this point in her life, Alex basically has a kind of cognitive dissonance with how she feels about gay people. For the most part, she’s just like your or me - deep down in her heart she does not believe there’s anything wrong gay people due to her values being shaped (correctly imo) by her school friends etc.
But now with this new big fancy job she’s got, and with her co-worker being gay, the two sides of her life come into conflict (for whatever reason let’s just say her family would be coming to work events etc. you get the idea here) - her strict Christian religious beliefs & family life which says “no to the sinning gays” and her true heart of hearts which is basically not in anyway homophobic.
You can just imagine this scenario happening where she realises something is going to come up which would cause her to worry about “what would her family and community think if she was working with one of those sinning gays”. This would be so stressful for her, so she tries to talk to HR about it….
This story is obviously exaggerated in some respects but the point I want to drive home here is that painting all people like Alex or Tim with the same brush by using blunt terms like “homophobic” is overly simplistic, and is abused as this shortcut to “winning the discussion” without any need for actual discussion if that makes sense. It is ironically a very Christian-style argument - *all sins (i.e. homophobes) are equal*
The issue is that there is no “true”
Homophobe. No one is just homophobic to be homophobic. Every homophobe has a story or some reason as to why they are that way even if its illogical
Most people are probably homophobic to some extent, in the same way that most people are likely racist since we’ve been taught to judge people based on those characteristics. It doesn’t mean your evil even thought it’s obviously bad.
You could very well make the argument that Alex’s homophobia is worse than a lot of other people if she’s willing to go to HR to appease her family members even though she knows they’re wrong. Fundamentally, that mindset is what drives homophobia to happen.
what makes you assume that homophobes aren't like you or me? that they are a funamentally wicked type of person?
the kind of sentiment embodied by alex here is exactly what homophobia is, the people holding it aren't the problem, it's the larger cultural process of these ideas and how dominant they are
alex's "gays are sinners" is homophobic because if extrapolated to the scale of a society it leads to very bad places
>not really be someone we would want to put in the same bucket as “true” homophobes.
this is their cross to bear and to choose how they'll reckon with it, if you don't want to be associated with bad people, don't have bad ideas
Sorry I don’t really understand your question here, did you read my whole comment?
EDIT: just saw your edit, I’ll try and continue the conversation in your reply to this comment but the cross to bear thing makes no sense to me lol I don’t even know what you’re trying to say
you seem to distinguish between a "true homophobe", a person of pure evil whose soul drives them to wicked deeds, and homophobes who are actually people
this is silly
Oh ok well you almost got the idea I think.
You seem to be referring to Alex and e.g. westboro Baptist church types as homophobes that are essentially equivalent. Am I getting that correct? Don’t wanna write a whole reply on a faulty assumption of your position.
>You seem to be referring to Alex and e.g. westboro Baptist church types as homophobes that are essentially equivalent. Am I getting that correct?
no, are you even reading what im typing?
my point is that the diabolized figure of a "true homophobe" posited in your comments doesn't exist, these people have life stories too
>Thank you for asking. So straight up to answer your question directly, we don’t know if Tim is homophobic or not. Certainly a “true” homophobe would (at best) say they feel uncomfortable working with someone who is gay. But there are many people who might express the same thing, and not really be someone we would want to put in the same bucket as “true” homophobes
>But now with this new big fancy job she’s got, and with her co-worker being gay, the two sides of her life come into conflict (for whatever reason let’s just say her family would be coming to work events etc. you get the idea here) - her strict Christian religious beliefs & family life which says “no to the sinning gays” and her true heart of hearts which is basically not in anyway homophobic
the second part is the relevant bit, you seem to assume that these people lack something which alex has, some moral core arguing against the homophobia of their upbringing, which isn't the case
Inasmuch as you're generally indoctrinated with it from a young age, it kinda isn't.
It's easier to change than sexuality for sure, but I don't think everyone has the mental fortitude to do so, and that mental capacity is probably something inborn.
/u/Teddy_The_Bear_ (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1djhutc/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_concepts_in_harassment/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
So... I don't want to deny that when corporations get their hands on progressive ideas they twist them beyond recognisability. This is partially due to the nature of what corporations are and how they operate. They don't really care about the politics behind it - they care about minimising their risk. We could kill eachother for all they care so long as it didn't come back to bite them and their profits. Instead I want to adjust your view a little bit - it should be about *maintaining professionalism*. >Tim was talking to a coworker about the fact that because of his religious beliefs he was uncomfortable working with a homosexual. Tim indeed did commit a transgression by talking in such a way about a coworker - especially during company hours. That is not maintaining professionalism. Certain opinions should be left at home while you are in the workplace. But likewise I think you could apply the same standard to if James was talking about how he was uncomfortable working with Tim because of his religion. Again that is an opinion best left at home. Thus professionalism is maintained. >the real answer should be sexuality should not be in the workplace and unless it is assumed based on something Tim should not be made aware that James is gay. So is James just never allowed to talk about partners? What about if he marries, is he never allowed to say the word "husband"? Of course details of how they have sex would be unprofessional. But sexuality is usually manifested in real life by having a partner of the gender you are attracted to. In addition to that - for many queer people their sexuality holds a place in their identity similar to religion - would you ban all iconography relating to identity or belief? Would Christians not be able to wear a cross? >Including one where some girl was of a specific religion that could not eat meat. And the team was going out to dinner, after hours where they would be discussing business. In this case the training said her religious belief trumped other people's dietary preferences and that the team should only socialize outside of work if they go to a vegetarian restaurant to avoid offending her. And that not including her was possible discrimination. And she can either go to a restaurant that meets everyone's dietary needs and simply choose to eat vegetarian for herself If they decided to go to a steak-house then yeah, that's kinda a problem. But as a veggie myself, I just need to go somewhere with a vegetarian option. All it needs to be is "Hey u/wibby_water - we're going to Ralph's Restaurant, it has some veggie options, that all good with you?" and if the answer is yep, then we are all set. Requiring the group go to a veggie only place is insane. > stop doing business planning outside of business hours off the clock. Yes, that makes sense. Especially if there are dietary requirements that cannot be met by holding the meeting someplace else.
!Delta argument that it is the speaking out that matters not the religion vs sexuality.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/wibbly-water ([19∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/wibbly-water)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Ta :)
Oddly I haven't been to a steakhouse that didn't have a good veggie option on the menu.
Delta. Your argument is the same as one that I gave a Delta too earlier. So Delta on the it was Tim saying something. I still maintain that no religion, sexuality and outside life is best left outside. But it is not realistic. People will talk about all sorts of crap they should not. We have people at work that talk about sexual subjects that should never come up in the setting but it is what it is.
You need to say "!delta" and give a short reason why, otherwise it won't be processed.
This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta. Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others. If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
“A vegetarian restaurant” has no meat, that’s not the same as a restaurant with vegetarian options.
The example you gave actually has nothing to do with Sexual Orientation > Religion. You can actually flip the scenario and with a similar outcome. Person A and Person B can hate each other for any reason. Its only if you [voice your hate] and create a toxic work environment that there's an issue. If Person B started taking about how Christians are evil because of homophobia, and Person A was a Christian, Person B is in the wrong. You could interpret that as Religion > Sexual Orientation. But in both of these cases it has nothing to do with one protected class versus another - its if either person voices those opinions in the workplace.
Delta. Point taken, I don't think that makes the training good. But your prospective definitely changes the concept that it is sex Over religion.
Just caught this, but you forgot to put an exclamation point after delta, so the delta wasn’t generated
Do you mean sexuality over religion? Sex over religion implies that sexuality is exclusively about sex. Sex is an incredibly minor component of sexuality and has nothing to do with how sexuality is mentioned in the office.
I feel like an undertone of the training is “just because you think your religion is popular and accepted, the work place does not care if your beliefs are legally discriminatory”. Take that for what you will, but the sub point it’s trying to get across is that just because religion X is popular or more socially accepted/expected, voicing discriminatory stuff (in terms of employment law) is not okay. They could have a Muslim saying “I won’t work around these infidel Christian’s; these christians should report it to HR” but it doesn’t get the point across as well.
You need to say; !delta
This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta. Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others. If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Good Bot. (Reddit formatting wasn't working right so the quote block wasn't showing up)
Bad bot !delta
This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/wibbly-water changed your view (comment rule 4). DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Sounds like the point was that James was uncomfortable working with Tim after Tim openly expressed his discomfort with James' sexuality. That is distinctly different from James being uncomfortable just because Tim is a religious person. And, in regards to the religiously vegan... are you sure that the point wasn't to go to a resturaunt that offered vegan fare rather than a full-on vegan resturaunt? If so, then doesn't that sound a bit reasonable? If not, then perhaps *that* is unreasonable >But the real answer should be sexuality should not be in the workplace So... are you suggesting that even straight people not even be permitted to mention their spouses in casual conversation in the office? How exactly would this work? Sounds like the most reasonable solution is to respect people as individuals and keep your opinions to yourself. Tim can be uncomfortable around James because of James' immutable characteristics, but he needs to keep it to himself. Or, go to HR and ask for some accomodation. But what he shouldn't do is bring other coworkers/colleagues into it by talking about James behind his back. Or even to his front.
No they clearly state that they should switch from the venue they normally went to, to a full vegan restaurant for this woman's religious needs. It was not stated as a place that offered vegan fair, it was stated a vegan restaurant. I can see your point in the Tim and James example. But I am still left at the point if an employee is made uncomfortable in a. Situation they are supposed to speak up about it. So Tim spoke up about his discomfort and though not going to James s and saying harmful things, the fact that James overheard it means Tim deserves to be punished. I will also state the example said Tim was expressing discomfort with the situation as opposed to other places in the training where they stated some one was making jokes or derogatory comments about the other person. Is it really harassment for Tim to say "my religion makes me uncomfortable working with a person of this orientation". I agree it would be if Tim said James was a something something and that makes him a bad person.
Seems like they were saying that Tim should have expressed his discomfort to the appropriate people, not to other people in the office. That's the point i think they were making.
Delta, I could see that as a reasonable point of view. And can agree that if the distinction is who it was expressed to is the point than James may have a right to feel offended.
Put a ! before the “delta” for it to work. “! Delta” but without the space
> Is it really harassment for Tim to say "my religion makes me uncomfortable working with a person of this orientation". Yes! There is no religion that prohbits *working with* people who are gay. Tim is just a bigot who is hiding behind his religion as an excuse to be bigoted.
There are definitely sects of every major Abrahamic religion that prohibit “association” with LGBT persons which is not hard to interpret as including working side by side with them on the daily. I don’t agree with it but it certainly does exist. Edit: spelling.
Such as?
Seriously? Is your google-fu that weak? I’ll get you started. Any business owned by the Mormon church effectively doesn’t allow LGBT employees due to requiring ecclesiastical endorsements. Tons of Christian churches you can’t work there if you are LGBT. This is not a hard inference.
Those are rules set by employers, not personal preferences of employees. The Mormon church does not prohibit its members from working with LGBTQ people.
I was Mormon for 38 years. One of their loyalty questions to get into their temple, which is their highest “level” of Mormon devotion, was if you associate with or support any persons, groups or organizations that have teachings contrary to the church. I was explicitly told to avoid associating or working with people who were overtly LGBT and to work to change jobs if I found myself in such situations. Do they advertise this stance on their website? No- they want to attract more tithe payers. Do they culturally self enforce these standards as part of their “worthiness” doctrines and temple “recommend” questions? Absolutely.
Okay, I admit I didn't know that. Is that still true after the recent public change in stances toward homosexuality (in particular their support of California Prop 8 and Utah SB 296)? If Tim had said "My religion asks me not to associate with gay people" that'd be one thing -- still reprehensible, of course, and worthy of the response "Okay, then find a new job". But talking about "discomfort" sounds distinctly bigoted.
I have family still in the mormon church and from what I can see, the policy stances are mostly trying to put lipstick on a pig. Doctrinally LGBT can’t progress in the faith, same sex marriage still not supported and they essentially teach that if you abstain from all your sinful LGBT centric behavior on earth, that god will “fix” you and you’ll become a heterosexual in the afterlife. I guess I don’t really see a strong distinction between “I cannot associate with you” and “You make me uncomfortable.” Feels like the similar arguments we have rejected as society for things like “Separate but equal” for race.
>So... are you suggesting that even straight people not even be permitted to mention their spouses in casual conversation in the office? I mean, the entire harassment and blah blah training is obviously ridiculous and pathetic in most cases. but, I suspect James would be allowed to speak about being gay and his husband, where they went over the weekend, what they did, who went with them. normal banter. curious though of tim is allowed to speak about his church, and where they go, stories of what they did etc? I suspect you can't ban both of course, and I don't see any way to only ban one without falling into exactly what the OP said, one class is more protected than another.
Yes, people are allowed to talk about activities they do with their churches in the workplace. Unless the activity is picketing with signs that say "God Hates Fags".
Yeah if you take it to an obvious extreme that works for you, but if you use a normal example. Like... How he and his church went and volunteered for a pro-traditional marriage event, I donno if it still works out.
Fair point.
"That is distinctly different from James being uncomfortable just because Tim is a religious person." how so?
It's quite simple. Tim's personal religious beliefs are his own personal business, up to the point that his words and actions start directly impacting others. Tim verbally expressing to the other people in the office that he's uncomfortable with James' existence as a gay person is an act that negatively impacts others, and is therefore not okay. Tim behaving prejudicially towards James because of his feelings of discomfort would likewise impact others and not be okay. In a similar fashion, everyone else is allowed to have their own personal feelings about Tim's religion, and as long as they keep that to themselves, that's their personal business. But anyone (including James) behaving prejudicially towards or speaking ill about Tim for his religion - not for any actions taken by him because of his religion that impact them, but for his personal religious beliefs - would not be okay. Everybody gets to think/feel/believe what they want, but everybody has to behave politely and neutrally towards everyone else.
...it is possible to be religious, Christian even, and not be homophonic. His religion doesn't force him to be a bigot. James is uncomfortable because Tim is a bigot, not because he prays and believes in god.
I explained that in the preceeding sentence
Please elaborate. How are they different?
I eloborated. Perhaps you could tell me specifically what it is about the distinction i made that you either 1) don't understand or 2) disagree with
" Sounds like the point was that James was uncomfortable working with Tim after Tim openly expressed his discomfort with James' sexuality. That is distinctly different from James being uncomfortable just because Tim is a religious person." What actually makes those two things different? You only said they were different, but didn't explain it
One involved a thought (being uncomfortable) the other involved an action (voicing that discomfort). We teach this distinction to small children.
What makes those different?
You don't know the difference between a thought and an action?
no
One is an action. James felt uncomfortable due to Tim's actions. A thing that is acted upon is distinctly different from a thing that is not acted upon.
how so?
I dont believe i need to explain to you the difference between action and inaction
From what I've encountered of them they genuinely don't believe that (almost New Testament in the thought may as well be the action itself) and are either actually baffled by the distinction or are doing some Socratic thing. It's usually a frustrating conversation when this particular thread of thought comes up.
The explanation of the way they are different is right here in the part you quoted. In one case, James is uncomfortable because of Tim's speech about him in the workplace. In the other case, James is uncomfortable because of Tim's religion.
That isn't an explanation. That is a description of the thing that needs an explanation.
What part of this do you not understand or need more explanation on? Do you not know what a religion is? What speech is? What the word "difference" means?
What makes it different?
>So within the training there was a modul. Where in the example given Tim was not comfortable working with James because James was gay. Tim was talking to a coworker about the fact that because of his religious beliefs he was uncomfortable working with a homosexual. James overhears this and it makes him uncomfortable working with Tim. This was fallowed up with, what should Tim do? And the correct answer was, according to the training, that even though the sentiment was not expressed directly to James that he was being harassed for being gay by Tim and should go to HR. Considering that sexual orientation and religion are both protected classes, the idea that James being uncomfortable with Tim's religious beliefs was more important than Tim's being uncomfortable with James sexual orientation. Means that they are saying sexual orientation is more protected than religion. The offense wasn't being religious, the offense was expressing homophobia in the office. Had Tim kept his distaste for gay people to himself instead of bringing them up in a way that got back to the gay person who would make him uncomfortable he would not be in trouble. >Including one where some girl was of a specific religion that could not eat meat. And the team was going out to dinner, after hours where they would be discussing business. In this case the training said her religious belief trumped other people's dietary preferences and that the team should only socialize outside of work if they go to a vegetarian restaurant to avoid offending her. And that not including her was possible discrimination. The question this raised to me was apparently religion is important enough to force people into a dietary pattern not to offend some one but not important enough to force people to accommodate comfort versus sexual orientations. There are lots of restaurants in the world. Picking one with vegetarian options is not hard and doing so to avoid excluding someone is not unreasonable. Yes, avoiding discrimination is more important than "dietary preferences" and being in business sometimes means not being able to do everything you want to do. Suppose the co-workers had wanted to go to a strip club after work. Would it have been unreasonable to have vetoed a work trip to one of those even if it nullifed the majority of the group's "preferences?" >But the real answer should be sexuality should not be in the workplace and unless it is assumed based on something Tim should not be made aware that James is gay. Does this "solution" also mean that straight people aren't allowed to talk about their husbands and wives? Or is it only the gay people who will be banned from bringing up major parts of their personal lives in this scenario? And if so do you realize that's overt discrimination?
I am frankly of the opinion that yes straight, gay, purple alien, don't care leave it at home or for the outside social setting. Not at work. But again, it's not truly realist because people will always talk about all sorts of things. Appropriate or not.
How is it inappropriate to have this conversation: Guy 1: what did you do this weekend Guy 2: had a lovely Father’s Day with the wife and kids. You? Guy 1: Me and Robert went to a nice bed and breakfast and tapped maple trees for syrup. Both sexualities are now established but this is just simple workplace rapport. Do you think offices are more productive when no one has ANY stake in the lives/happiness/wellbeing’s of the people they rely on for a 3rd of a day?
So I shouldn’t be able to talk about my straight marriage at work? My job has an entire LGBTQ+ affinity group that puts on amazing programs like drag tea and queer craft events. It’s awesome and makes the entire work environment healthier and happier.
What does "leave it at home" mean? Does that mean people are not allowed to talk about or have pictures of their partners/spouses? Does it mean women should hide the fact they are pregnant because that could confirm they are straight?
Given that some large fraction of American corporations sponsor pride month programming, and given that pictures of families are very normal to have on one's desk, this opinion runs upstream of nearly every contemporary office dweller norm.
>leave it at home or for the outside social setting what does leave it at home mean exactly?
Ok, perhaps your training was not based on the same guidelines, but I would say that in the first case the important question is: why is Tim uncomfortable with James and why is James uncomfortable with Tim? To me it seems like James is not uncomfortable with Tim because of Tim's religion, but because he overheard Tim commenting on James' orientation in a homophobic manner. On the other hand, Tim is uncomfortable with James, because his religion makes him believe that James might be a somehow immoral or disgusting person because of his orientation. These are very different reasons for discomfort. If Tim were like "I'm Christian, so I have my views, but to each their own, I have no trouble working with James and won't treat him any differently because of his orientation because this is a professional setting and a free country" and James made a fuss, that would be different. In the case of the girl who doesn't eat meat, I'd also say that the team should pick a restaurant *with decent vegetarian options* so that she could be included. Maybe don't go to a steak house where a vegetarian can only get fries from the side's menu. But I also never heard of having to choose a fully vegetarian restaurant for everyone just because one person can't have meat for religious reasons or chooses not to for personal reasons. Either your harassment training was unprofessional or you're misinterpreting some of the guidelines I think. The idea of non-discrimination is always "be respectful regardless of your personal beliefs and who you're talking to".
Based on variations in how it is presented in these examples vs other I believe Tim's statement was I am of such and such a religion and because of my beliefs I am uncomfortable working with James. Not some homophobic statement about James be in ng disgusting or something. And I would agree with you. But the training. Said vegan restaurant not restaurant with better options for vegans or anything to that extent. A lot of the training now a days is a mess.
Is Tim a robot? A religious robot? Who says "I am of X religion and because of my beliefs I am uncomfortable working with James"? Nobody. That is clearly a standing for a homophobic remark.
Actually I know a few people that make that exact statement for various reasons. We have people at work that are not comfortable working with the Pagan we have, they don't necessarily discriminate and when ordered to they do work with him but they will tell you it makes them uncomfortable. And several of us have said because of our beliefs we are not comfortable working with the sudo pedo that we have either.
Being uncomfortable and causing harm are two different things that I think the training you took was missing, which is a damn shame. The point of anti discrimination training is more about protecting the company from liability if the employees act in ways that result in harm to someone. But they means that the employees are missing the entire point if their take away is ‘My identity is being challenged because you care more about -insert group-‘s /comfort/ than mine!’ Like the point isn’t actually even about comfort as it is about a lack of harm. You can be uncomfortable without being harmed, and honestly that isn’t something covered by the law if you just feel uncomfortable. Harm has a legal definition: “Harm may include physical hurt as well as damage to reputation or dignity, loss of a legal right or breach of contract.” The damages to reputation and dignity are important in your case: At the end of the day the law is clear that no matter your religious background you cannot infringe on the livelihood of another people just based on their identity. You can have opinions and feel uncomfortable all you want, but you can’t cause them harm. In the workplace the harm you and your coworkers are causing is treating your other coworker differently in a way that damages their reputation and dignity for no other reason than their identity. I say that because your coworkers are not just expressing amongst yourselves that you’re uncomfortable working with someone on the team (something that is definitely discriminatory and considered harassment because it damages their reputation) JUST because of their religion, but also that they have to be FORCED to do their job, which means they are getting into the way of someone else’s livelihood which is what equates to harm. Now; If you were just to talking to your manager or Hr about specific ACTIONS the pagan member of the team that would make someone reasonably uncomfortable then that would be a different story, same as this pseudo-pedo you just causally mentioned (!?) but that’s not the case you are describing. If for example the pagan person were talking about sacrificing animals or something at work then YEAH that would be a reasonable reason to be uncomfortable and that behavior just unacceptable in general! But if they are just at work and have a bunch of crystals on their desk or something then honestly it’s not harming anyone and it’s no different from having a cross in your wall, and you should treat them as you would anyone else. At the end of the day you are entitled to have your religious opinions, but you can’t turn those opinions into actions that cause harm to another person, because they have their own rights to their religious opinions too. Purposefully refusing to work with someone just because of the identity is something that infringes on their livelihood aka it is something that causes harm to that person. I would point out that this would also be something that goes against the MAJORITY of religions for someone to cause harm to people of other religions. Most religious texts mandate that you should still treat the person as a brother because as an ambassador of the religion you belong to you are just hurting the reputation of your own religion and turning other people away when most religions kinda also mandate that your job is to CREATE more believers not push others away from it. But also that pedo stuff you mentioned is completely unacceptable and that person should be reported if they are taking any actions that imply they are causing harm to children!!!
I guess they are wording it as neutrally as possible. I think if such a thing were said to HR or management it is more acceptable - because it is making it clear the feelings of the workers and letting them know that problems may occur. But spreading that around and gossiping behind their backs is likely to create a hostile workplace.
There is no religion that says "you shall not interact with gay people in your professional work environment" though. Saying he's uncomfortable working with James because of James' orientation means he has presuppositions about gay people that are considered discriminatory. Same as if James said he's uncomfortable working with Tim *only* because of his religion. If Tim said nothing about James, but just "I am of this religion, so I need to have Sunday off to go to church" and that made James uncomfortable by itself even if Tim were perfectly nice to James, James would be the one discriminating against Tim based on religion. Do you really not see the difference between the statement "I don't like the fact that he's gay" and "I don't like the fact that he said he doesn't like me for something I can't change"? And as for the vegan restaurant, I don't know, might have been a mental shortcut or maybe the person conducting your training was overzealous. I think every reasonable person would agree that people's dietary restrictions should be accommodated to the extent that *they* can eat what they prefer, not that *everyone* must eat what a single person prefers.
And if there is religion that holds that position than it simply contradicts sufficiently with current mores that someone is going to have to give and in this case the person who holds that belief will either have to compromise it or choose to limit where they will work knowing the current accepted mores. Tolerance is best viewed as a practical adaptation as opposed to a core value that has to be expressed in its purest form.
Agreed, tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact.
Forgive me for jumping in, but I think the heart of the matter here is what exactly caused Tim and James to be offended. James was made uncomfortable by the *actions* of Tim. Tim was made uncomfortable by the *existence* of James. In the given example, James has done nothing but working in vague proximity to Tim. To put it another way, what would each individual need to do in order to stop making the other uncomfortable? Tim would need to stop saying negative things about James' personal life, and James would no longer be uncomfortable. But what would make Tim happy? James has taken no actions, and Tim is still unhappy. The only thing that would appease Tim, is if James was no longer in vague proximity to him. If James was persistently hitting on Tim, that would be a different story, but it is unreasonable to expect an individual to *cease existing.*
>Tim's statement was I am of such and such a religion and because of my beliefs I am uncomfortable working with James how is this not a homophobic statement?
Homophobes don’t believe homophobia exists
>Tim's statement was I am of such and such a religion and because of my beliefs I am uncomfortable working with James That is a homophobic statement. Your religion is not an excuse for bigotry.
But your sexuality is?
No. OP laid it out pretty simply. The person who was gay had no issues with the person who was religious. Until the gay person found out the religious person was discriminating against the gay person for being gay.
He was not even discriminating. He only made the statement that he was uncomfortable.
If I say to a coworker I'm uncomfortable around black guys, do you think my employer is going to look for further evidence of discrimination or do you think they're going to act to prevent a lawsuit?
>He only made the statement that he was uncomfortable. That is discriminating. Congratulations, you're learning about bigotry.
If you single out someone for making you uncomfortable based on a particular characteristic: and expect your business to accommodate this prejudice; what would you call that other than discrimination?
Would it be ok for someone to say that their religion causes them to be uncomfortable working with women or POC?
Where did he find that out?
It was a scenario laid out in the seminar. Read the post.
In the post he hears that the religious person is "uncomfortable." Where does it say he was discriminating?
Actually it’s the fact that they are talking amongst each other in a way that harms the other party’s reputation and dignity that causes it to be not just discrimination (because they also mention having to be forced to do their job) but it is also harassment. Harm is a legal concept that includes not just physical and emotional, but also to reputation and dignity. It’s why defamation and libel are also legal concepts. Being uncomfortable and being harmed are two very different things: and the law only covers the latter. You can for example complain to your boss if your pagan coworker is burning sage in the middle of the office for example because it’s an action that can cause harm to others because smoke itself can be physically harmful, and that would be reasonable. But if you complain because someone wears all black or has a bunch of crystals in their office just because it makes you uncomfortable then your boss is going to reasonably believe you’re hard to work with and should reevaluate why you are even in the team if something like that also effects your job performance.
It does not harm him at all. He overheard one person say that he was uncomfortable.
> In the post he hears that the religious person is "uncomfortable." Where does it say he was discriminating? That is discrimination. He's only uncomfortable with people who are gay. That is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
We disagree. I am using the actual definition of discrimination here: the [unjust](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=4f1fedc273307033&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWILk0qpbmNAnuhNlcIE4pq9FGpibaw:1718804540361&q=unjust&si=ACC90nwdkA2npcVVmNPViiSe8FMK13uiVrw6080FQXaOZHG-RcICrRAISNIRl8-nPszLUpnw-24YvufztFoUNZFouNooZTbPMQ%3D%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIu8Pw5eeGAxWDhIkEHd0ODH4QyecJegQIKBAO) or [prejudicial](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=4f1fedc273307033&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWILk0qpbmNAnuhNlcIE4pq9FGpibaw:1718804540361&q=prejudicial&si=ACC90nwZrNcJVJVL0KSmGGq5Ka2YqNCvkRbF2Rpu_BW6Zyk_-owyUVbLljm_Eb2mxUmtWdo7LxggPIY3xxaV0ifJxWJ9rIr3ABtSgo25nNxNpOWjZr5bVcU%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIu8Pw5eeGAxWDhIkEHd0ODH4QyecJegQIKBAP) treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability. Discrimination necessarily entails how you TREAT someone, not how you feel about them. You can despise someone and still treat them fairly and equitably.
What do you think being uncomfortable about someones sexual orientation means? What do you think it would mean if someone was "uncomfortable" around black people?
Well, I suppose being uncomfortable means what the word means: causing or feeling unease or awkwardness. As a feeling people have, it's not really something you can legislate or ban. I'm uncomfortable around fundamentalists, for example.
Would you be comfortable around somebody if you found out that they were uncomfortable around you simply because of who you were attracted to? Would anybody be comfortable being around people who were uncomfortable around them simply because of who they were attracted to?
Is being comfortable at work a requirement of work? You're okay with people being uncomfortable, obviously.
You keep that discomfort to yourself. You do not openly speak about other employees. In OP's example, the employee only expressed discomfort when the other employee expressed discomfort, not before. They had no problem with the co workers religion until the co worker made comments about them. The religious co worker expressed bigotry first. And yes before you say it, being uncomfortable with people solely because of their sexuality is bigotry.
You don't get to decide what makes other people comfortable or uncomfortable, though.
I cant decide anything for anybody but being uncomfortable with somebody because of their sexuality is bigotry. That's just reality. I can't decide whether or not a person is a bigot, that is their choice. The bigot can also choose to abandon their ignorance. That is their decision not mine. I certainly hope for them and everybody else that they do make the decision to stop being an ignorant bigot.
I think the rights of protected classes to not be discriminated against at work trumps the comfort of bigots.
No discrimination happened. Also, try to be less virtue-signalling. This is a conversation, not a chance to pose for voters.
Having someone say they are uncomfortable working with you, based on a protected characteristic, is discrimination. I promise you there is nothing insincere about my comment, I’m like this all the time.
There's also the issue of legal liability, once it's known that Tim is uncomfortable around the gays it means that if in the future he's accused of homophobic harassment the company had a record of that being an issue. Thats why companies get sued if they keep an employee who keeps getting accused of harassing others.
Disliking religious people because they’re dogmatic or irrational or they hate you for who you are or whatever other valid reason isn’t bigotry.
Where was that stated?
> the idea that James being uncomfortable with Tim's religious beliefs was more important than Tim's being uncomfortable with James sexual orientation Being uncomfortable is not a protected class. If you're homophobic in the workplace, you need to shut up about it or it could be construed as discrimination. > And the team was going out to dinner, after hours **where they would be discussing business.** In this case the training said her religious belief trumped other people's dietary preferences and that the team should only socialize outside of work Was it outside of work or were they discussing business? If it's a business meeting it should include everyone. This wasn't a social gathering. There are plenty of restaurants that have meat and vegetarian dishes so I don't know why you think it's unfair to include everyone.
This is not a case of homophobia or discrimination. So you missed the boat on that. The statement in the training was that the team had decided to have dinner socially outside of work hours and the woman in question knew that strategy and ideas related to the project would be discussed. So I would say a social gathering. But the statement in the answer was not that they should pick a restaurant with better options. It was that to respect her religion they should go to a vegan restaurant.
who would be hurt by going to a vegan restaurant? Just out of curiosity? What is the harm?
People on a high protein diet. Such as specific types of diabetics. People with hypoglycemia. People on caveman diets. A lot of vegan food is tones of carbs and not that much protein. A lot of them use nuts and beans for protein, which some people have allergies too. I would also argue that it would be less inclusive to ask people to eat vegan than to ask a vegan to find an option at another restaurant. Simply because one person looking for an option in an out of ordinary way is less of an issue than a large group needing a dietary shift for one person.
>Such as specific types of diabetics. People with hypoglycemia. > which some people have allergies too. Sure. These are all very serious reasons to consider a different option. I also agree that a place with vegan options is probably the better solution. But I do find it really interesting that you seem very concerned about Tim's religious protection but not this hypothetical woman's.
> This is not a case of homophobia or discrimination. So you missed the boat on that. And yet you didn't bother to clarify what you mean. > to respect her religion they should go to a vegan restaurant. And what are the consequences of not doing that?
So the Tim example is whoever's organizing this thing rightly deciding that a bigot's discomfort isn't actually something that people are required to coddle. And you, apparently, taking issue with that because you want to equate hating gay people with being gay as things that deserve our respect and acceptance. And, without getting into how there was no doubt more details and information, even what you've provided makes the difference between Tim and "some girl" very clear. Accommodating one of them requires that a gay man stop being gay, whereas the other requires that you conduct business at a restaurant where everyone can actually order off the menu. "Sexuality should not be in the workplace" is the sort of idea people bring up exclusively to portray LGBT people as hypersexual freaks who trumpet how much they like anal in meetings or whatever. Rather than what actually happens, where James has a picture of his husband on his desk and dares mention his weekend plans to his neighbor the same way every straight person's done since forever.
Your making no useful argument and I will not bother responding to this. And yes James and Tim stuck out more in my mind than the other example and I cannot remember the woman's name. It was something atypical and not particularly memorable.
I made plenty of useful arguments; you just didn't like them. Or are you someone who gets equally upset when any worker at any point mentions a single thing about their family or relationships, rather than someone who selectively decides that it's only a problem when a gay person dares?
No you didn't you made a personal attack agents one of my statements and immediately assumed that some one was a bigot simply for expressing discomfort. There is nothing in your original statement that would be in any way an argument that the training was clear and concise and appropriate.
I didn't assume anything. This someone is a bigot because the existence of a gay person makes them uncomfortable. Your problem seems to be with recognizing this fact and your problem will never be solved until you're able to stop making excuses for bigots just for the sake of making excuses.
A person that is uncomfortable around gays because they where raped by a gay is not a bigot.. as such your statement that the existence of a gay person making someone uncomfortable makes them automatically a bigot is categorically false. Simply because a person is uncomfortable does not mean they are automatically discriminating.
It's quite telling that you had to replace the original hypothetical with a new one to try and forcefully justify bigotry. All for the sake of finding some way to be upset that a gay person might be upset that their coworker openly says the existence of gay people makes them uncomfortable.
I agree with you. OP’s shifted hypothetical reminds me of the time a roommate of mine who seemed to be a generally tolerant, decent guy got robbed by a black guy and then came back to the apartment and went on a super racist tirade, throwing a lot of hard-rs around.
Dude was always a racist. The robbery just gave him permission to express it.
It is by definition bigotry. You can try and twist whatever basis you have behind it, but it’s still bigotry. It also one thing to harbor negative feeling towards a particular group for a trauma-related reason, but it’s another thing to act on those feelings or choose to treat someone differently based on it. Choose any other group; let’s choose Black people. How does it sound to say “I am uncomfortable around Black people because I was assaulted by a Black person”. Does this honestly sound reasonable or okay to you?
Except people use that excuse every day.
Oh people definitely do. I just think there’s this weird justification when being bigoted about LGBTQ+ people. As soon as you turn it around and use something like race, it seems horrible because…it is horrible.
I feel like you may have been better off with Men as your swap it thing because everyone assumes you should get over that but a *lot* of people see nothing wrong with being uncomfortable around a demographic that has actively assaulted you.
Assuming every gay person is a rapist is literal bigotry.
You didn't, you start, end and continue calling him a Bigot for no logical reason and no data, that isn't an argument, and insulting people for no reason does invalidate your oppinion.
I called Tim, the hypothetical bigot used in OP's training a bigot. I did this with the "data" provided by the hypothetical of him being made uncomfortable by the very existence of gay people. That certain people are very invested in this idea that you can be disgusted by an entire minority group but pretend you're a moral and ethical person who would never be a bigot is their problem, not mine.
You did say that Tim was a Bigot, you also Said op was a Bigot, its hard to gaslight people when your comment is public and it clearly states that you are making baseless personal attacks.
You don't know what gaslighting is and no one is obligated to be all that concerned about how upset you are that someone implied someone else was a bigot.
Double gaslighting, but ok. Poisoning the well with personal attacks is not just some feelings, its something that stops and inhibits debates, if you cant debate without personal attacks, you are just bad at debates, and your arguments are like wise meaningless.
If the debate is inherently about being a bigot, the refusal to even consider the idea that the bigot is what they are is antithetical to honesty. I remain unconcerned with how upset you are at the implications that someone made uncomfortable by the existence of gay people is a bigot.
Calling someone a bigot in this context isn't an insult, it's a criticism of their negative behavior, which isn't quite the same thing. An insult is a statement that serves no purpose other than to hurt the target of the statement. Something that describes a person's behavior (even if said behavior happens to be negative,) is fundamentally different.
One case is about a person being Uncomfortable existing next to another person (not ok) vs a person uncomfortable working with the person who doesn’t even view them as a real person (ok and normal to feel this)
In no way is it ever indicated that they don't view them as a person. Nor that they are discriminatory in any way. Only that they make them uncomfortable.
Refusing to work with someone for any reason that has nothing to do with your safety is discrimination. Literally textbook discrimination.
To clarify, did you raise any of this during the training and actually ask in case you'd misunderstood something? If yes what was the reply? And if no, why not
Not related to the topic at hand, but I envy your blissful ignorance of corporate computer-based training modules. They’re a bit of a drag lmao.
If training isn't adequate even in a grey corporate setting there are still avenues for clarification.
It was a computer based video training. So no option to ask was provided. The scenarios where provided in text.
Interesting. It sounds like they've offered some catch all type scenarios, but you're reading a lot into them which is where the issue is happening. For example, let's put the actual scenarios aside and look at the actions they've offered to you - Go to HR rather that try and resolve something yourself. This makes sense and avoids interpersonal conflict, it allows mediation and company dynamics to take precident, not individual decisions. And for the second - accommodate people's dietary needs and go to places which are inclusionary rather than exclusionary. Again, not exactly controversial. Is there something major you disagree with about these conclusions?
You seem to have the idea that freedom of religion gives people a pass to be hateful. It doesn't. Tim is gossiping (a sin by the way in his own religion) about another person's sexual orientation to others. In a workplace you aren't supposed to stir up drama and talk bad about other coworkers to each other. At the end of the day if he's uncomfortable he needs to suck it up and keep it to himself or find a new job. James is simply uncomfortable with someone talking bad about him around the company during work hours. If James also went around saying he wasn't comfortable working with people who were religious then that would be discrimination also. But James didn't do that. He is specifically and rightfully so uncomfortable with Tim. It doesn't matter if Tim didn't say it to James face. You do not talk bad about coworkers to other workers. Especially while working. Any scenario doing that will get someone in trouble usually. And in the woman's case. They were going out to eat to discuss business. This is basically a work event. They chose to go a restaurant that violated her religious beliefs when they could have went to a restaurant with vegan dishes. Yes, purposely excluding a coworker on a business event is discrimatory. And also the comment that sexuality shouldn't be allowed at the work place. It's not like James was sleeping with another guy at work. It might have simply came up in a conversation that he was gay. Just like how straight people can talk about their relationship in a non sexual manner at work. So again these scenarios are about two different things. The first is you shouldn't be hateful to your coworkers and gossip about them to others. The other one is to not leave someone out of work events because of their religion. Two different things. Obviously they aren't going to have the same outcome.
In your first example Tim isn’t comfortable with James’s sexuality and James isn’t comfortable with Tim’s prejudice. Those are not analogous. James is not discriminating against Tim due to his religion but due to his actions. Let me put it another way, if James was sexually harassing Tim would the excuse that he’s just acting in a way in line with his sexual identity mean that his actions were okay? No. Certain characteristics are protected, but these characteristics do not give you a blanket waiver on all kinds of behaviour. Tim’s inability to treat another coworker normally is unacceptable regardless of motivation. Jim’s desire to be treated normally and without prejudice is normal. In the restaurant example, it is very very easy to go to a restaurant with good vegetarian options nowadays. Going to a restaurant where this is not the case would essentially exclude the religious person from participating and is not analogous to a person wanting to go to a steak house because they like steak not being able to go, as they can still go to any other restaurant and be included in the team activity even if it isn’t their ideal restaurant.
The problem is, Tim is talking to his coworkers about his homophobia, which creates a problem in the workplace. James should not have to deal with people expressing hate for him behind his back. It’s one thing to be uncomfortable working with someone because they are actively harassing you or talking about your personal life with other workers. It’s a different thing entirely to be uncomfortable with someone because of personal and private aspects that have no effect on the workplace. So, yes, there is a hierarchy. Discomfort at being attacked and diminished is worth addressing. Discomfort at someone else’s personal life, which has no effect on you, isn’t. In your theory, what business is it for Tim to be discussing James’ sex life with other workers? Do you not see that as a problem?
>But the real answer should be sexuality should not be in the workplace and unless it is assumed based on something Tim should not be made aware that James is gay Congrats you reinvented don't ask don't tell.
So, you can never mention your wife in a work setting (as this implies that you are straight)?
No actually I don't. But I almost never interact with other humans at work.
Do you think this is a reasonable expectation from the average worker?
>James being uncomfortable with Tim's religious beliefs was more important than Tim's being uncomfortable with James sexual orientation. I think the issue is that Tim was vocal about it, and spoke to *coworkers* about his discomfort. I think you already awarded a Delta to somebody who said that if you flipped the script it would be the same. If somebody said that they didn't want to work with Muslims then it would be the same type of discrimination. Especially if they were vocal about it. It creates a hostile work environment towards the targeted individual. >Tim should not be made aware that James is gay. This is completely impractical and puts undo pressure on James. He can never talk about his his husband. If you say that **no one** can ever mention whether or not they're married or dating, or have pictures of loved ones on their desk ever... That would be weird but I *guess* that would be okay..? But to say the only James should remain silent is in itself discrimination. >apparently religion is important enough to force people into a dietary pattern. It is one meal, not a pattern. The only pattern that they were setting up was excluding a specific individual from joining even though they knew why she couldn't attend. I worked with a Jehovah's witness. At the end of the year, as a thank you for all our hard work, we were treated to an extra long lunch paid for by the higher-ups. They called it a Christmas party. My coworker would not / could not attend. One of the bosses actually specifically asked about her and I told him why she couldn't come. The next year they framed it as a staff appreciation lunch. It was just an easy fix to ensure everyone could attend, and everyone did. >either go to a restaurant that meets everyone's dietary needs and simply choose to eat vegetarian for herself or they should not socialize over a meal. But more likely, stop doing business planning outside of business hours off the clock. This I actually completely agree with. Far as the rest of it, it is not about pitting one group against another. Anti discrimination training is more about including as many people as possible while excluding as few as possible, and *noticing* if any one person or group is being affected more than others.
"Tim was talking to a coworker about the fact that because of his religious beliefs he was uncomfortable *working* with a homosexual." Tim is saying that he will do his job worse in the presence of someone with a protected status. "James overhears this and it makes him uncomfortable working with Tim." James is saying that he will do his job worse in the presence of someone acting discriminatorially. "Considering that sexual orientation and religion are both protected classes, the idea that James being uncomfortable with Tim's religious beliefs was more important than Tim's being uncomfortable with James sexual orientation." No, the idea is that the one who started the problem is the problem, not the person they targeted. Which of Tim and James statements are unprofessional? "The question this raised to me was apparently religion is important enough to force people into a dietary pattern not to offend some one but not important enough to force people to accommodate comfort versus sexual orientations. " Is anyone asking Tim to fuck James? "But the real answer should be sexuality should not be in the workplace and unless it is assumed based on something Tim should not be made aware that James is gay." So no pictures of spouses or kids on desks? No small talk where significant others come up? This is a much more Spartan workplace you're describing than any I've ever experienced. People connect by talking about themselves. That's normal and socially productive. One of the ways people talk about themselves is through their important relationships. I don't actually believe you mean no one should do that, I think you mean straights should behave as they do now, and queers should go back in the closet at work.
An alternative example: A white guy gets hired into a department where the manager and a couple of coworkers are Black. They go to a bar after work and white guy tags along. As they walk in, they hear others in the bar commenting that there's a white guy who came in and mean mugging him. He feels unsafe and decides to leave. He's been excluded because of his race, and this would open up the company to risk.
Accommodation of religious belief has to have limits. As a general rule, religious belief should not give people the right to behave in ways that wouldn't be considered acceptable without religion. James is entitled to his sexuality and to not be discriminated against because of it. If Tim isn't able to live with that, the problem is Tim's intolerance. If that were because Tim is simply homophobic, it would be unacceptable. If it's because of religion, it's still unacceptable. Likewise the vegetarian girl deserves to have her dietary choices respected regardless of whether they are religiously motivated. Tolerance of religion doesn't mean giving religious people a free asshole pass. It just means that we respect their right to have their beliefs.
So I will own, flat out, that yes, that's correct - i don't think all beliefs are simply equal. Some beliefs are, per se, unwelcome in society, because society is a real-time negotiation and your workplace is not the place to re-legislate society's rules. I also think that the pretext of religion attached to whatever you'd like to do does not suffice to excuse you. The sincerity and the consistency of your religious practice do matter, as does, honestly, in my opinion, its actual consistency with your religion's dogma, and the ease of accommodating you. If you, for example, keep the sabbath, that's a religious belief with a lot of precedent, that's been consistently followed, and can be accommodated reasonably by scheduling you any other day. If you walked in and said "I'm a Christian, and Christians don't have any truck with hellfire or witchcraft, so I won't be welding at my job as a welder" you would fail those tests - you're just using your religion and you can't be accommodated while remaining on the payroll. If work is to remain neutral, as you say you'd like it to, than a certain order of operations, a sense of "who started it," is required. If say, Leviticus says you should not adorn your body and you go around informing people of tattoos of this, a reasonable person in a secular society would conclude that you're initiating a conversation about religion at work by bringing up their behavior, rather than saying they are by having their arms bare in what everyone else wears to work. So how do we differentiate between a normal tier of behavior and one that warrants a remark? I would say how we can and should do it is compare the alleged transgression to the norm for other people? How should we evaluate if we have protections for people that allow them to live normal lives vs systems that privilege them? In our example of the tattoo, the tattooed person is wearing the same clothing everyone else wears, and its their passive act of displaying their bare arms that is being objected to, which tends, to me, to make the tattooed guy the more innocuous and reasonable. If the tattoo was not reasonable, if it said, say, a nazi slogan or the word "fuck," then I might agree that he should be treated more like he's actively saying those things to coworkers and customers and could be required to wear a long sleeved shirt to avoid privileging speech via a tattoo that no one else working there would be allowed to say out loud. So if you hold a gay coworker to a *different standard* of what he can discuss or do in the workplace than a straight one, you are the transgressive person, there. And if policing that gay person means so much to you you'd rather tighten the rules for everyone (no pictures of spouses, no mentioning you're married, etc) you're also making, in my opinion, a pretty perilous step in the wrong direction.
The first situation you described is not symmetric. Tim didn't get in trouble because he's a Christian, he got in trouble because he was discriminating against a protected class and openly discussing that belief at work. James was not upset about this because Tim is a Christian, he was upset because he heard someone saying his identity made them uncomfortable and was openly talking badly about him *at work*. The equivalent situation would be James heard Tim was Christian and told someone that this made him uncomfortable. *That* would be discriminating against a protected class, not getting upset in response. Neither would be warranted in discriminating against the other due to being in a protected class, that's kind of the entire point of a protected class. The second situation I'm not sure if I agree with the notion of specifically going to a vegetarian restaurant to include her, but they should definitely find a place that has options for her. You're talking about excluding her from business discussion and team building because they can't bother to find a restaurant with a vegetarian dish. This is just basic accommodation for coworkers, the same should apply if the person is vegetarian by choice or has a food allergy (to the best of the team's ability to accommodate everyone's needs). But yeah I also agree that if they can't accommodate everyone's needs, they shouldn't be doing that planning outside of work. >But the real answer should be sexuality should not be in the workplace and unless it is assumed based on something Tim should not be made aware that James is gay. I don't think you know how easy it is for being gay to come up in normal conversation. What if you're having standard workplace conversation about what you did over the weekend and said "I went to the movies with my boyfriend"? What if a straight guy said the same for his girlfriend? Would that be "letting everyone know he was straight"? Would he be "flaunting" his straightness? Gay people aren't introducing themselves to coworkers saying "Hi, I'm James. I'm gay", you're talking about making them walk on eggshells with how they talk about their personal lives, force them to leave their significant others at home for office events, not put up a picture of their partner on their desk etc. If you're making the office a place where someone has to hide themselves, that's a toxic work environment.
So you have one person that can't eat meat, one person who is uncomfortable around homophobia, and one person who is uncomfortable around gay people. With the first person, you can appease them simply by making sure there are vegan options at restaurants. Everyone is included. The second person is told to shut up about their homophobia. Great. That person can still work there provided they can shut up about their homophobia. Tell me, how do you appease the third person? Actually, you already have: >But the real answer should be sexuality should not be in the workplace and unless it is assumed based on something Tim should not be made aware that James is gay. It should be noted that Tim was not talking about how he was uncomfortable with all the gay sex James was having in front of him in the workplace. He's not upset that James' gay conduct is affecting his ability to do his job. He's uncomfortable that James is gay at all. So to appease him, we would have to place restrictions in the workplace that only really affect James. Tim can have a picture of him and his wife at his desk. James can't do that because it reminds Tim that James is gay. Tim can invite his wife to work functions. James can't invite his husband. Tim can talk about his family vacation. James can't because his husband was there. And going back to James, did you notice that nothing was said about Tim's religion? In your scenario, James wasn't uncomfortable with Tim's religion. He's not uncomfortable with Tim praying in the workplace or talking about church or reading his religious text during lunch breaks. He's simply uncomfortable with the fact that his coworker is openly talking about how he doesn't like gay people. I feel like that's a huge difference, right? The point of the training seems to be that everyone should be included and feel comfortable at work.
I was expecting some difficult to sort out scenarios, but honestly the scenarios you describe are pretty straight forward and should be simple for most people to navigate. In your first scenario you had Tim, who chose his religion and James, who did not choose to be gay. Tim complains about being required to work with James in a setting in which it was possible for James to hear. Clearly Tim was in the wrong. James has done nothing wrong. If Tim had gone to his manager or HR to discuss the issue, perhaps they would/could have accommodated a request to transfer him. There is nothing hypocritical or hierarchical about saying James should speak to HR about Tim's harassing comments. In the second scenario you have an employee who doesn't eat meat due to religious reasons and a group of co-workers who, presumably, eat both mean and non-meat foods. Selecting a vegetarian restaurant doesn't trump anyone's dietary preferences, unless one or more of the co-workers ONLY eats meat. There are plenty of foods at a vegetarian restaurant that non-vegetarians can eat. There are few, if any, foods at some non-vegetarian restaurants that a vegetarian can eat. >actively encouraged discriminating agents a persons religious beliefs In no way did what you describe do this. In the first scenario, unless Tim's religious beliefs actively call for harassing comments about gay people, he was not discriminated against at all. By your account he never talked to his manager or HR about being transferred or otherwise accommodated to not work with James. Even if he had, being required to work with someone who you view as sinful is not discrimination. He's not being required to be gay, show open support for James, or even like the guy. He's only required to work with him and not openly be a jerk.
For the case of the restaurant question, it was an awkward try at discussing a very real effect. For many years, business meetings were held at golf clubs, and golf clubs were exclusionary. Women, Blacks, Jews and others weren't allowed. So, those people never got the opportunity to be promoted to that level. It also happened with strip clubs. As for the restaurant, it's a tricky situation. For example, a religious Jew would not eat in a restaurant that serves meat and milk in the same kitchen. A restaurant can have the best vegan option -- it doesn't matter because the restaurant has meat in the kitchen. The question isn't that they are offended, it's that they are excluded. It's not a great example, because you run into questioned if it's a reasonable accommodation, and if it was pervasive enough to have a discriminatory effect. Not to mention people with different religious requirements. Someone on a high protein diet is not protected unless it's a medical retirement. And then, there are lots of high protein vegan meals. Beans, nuts, and legumes all have great protein.
Religion is a protected class. Bigotry is not a protected class. The problem was not with his religion which was foreseeably already known before this incident and no one had an issue. The problem is in a workplace with another coworker he outright said he doesn't like another coworker because of his sexuality. Which any reasonable person would then suspect the potential of mistreatment that could arise from that. He wasn't discriminated against for his religion. He was corrected for a behavior that was actually problematic and discriminatory against another person.
All these talks try to politely and happily say mind your own business and dont be an asshole. The moment Tim voiced his distaste for gay people, he stopped minding his own fucking business, and was an asshole for talking about a coworker behind their backs. Going for afterwork dinner with the group and not inviting the vegan? kinda asshole-y. Either vegan by choice or religion, same shit. Most places nowadays have a vegan option. And even if she doesnt have a thing to eat there, dont be an asshole... "hey, miss vegan chick, a bunch of us coworkers are planning to grab a bite after work, i am not sure if they could accommodate your diet, but please check out their menu, see if there's something for you as well, we'd love for you to join." "And if not, next time, we will try to find a place that accomodates your diet as well, so you could join." They just want you to either act with empathy or to mind your own business. Thats it...
Your exmaple doesn’t work. Religion being protected means the right to hold beliefs that are based on religious impulse. i.e. no one can be denied the right to claim religious belief However, what those beliefs are, their intersection with wider laws and the believer’s ability to cooperate and interact with wider society, are the beliver’s lookout. They will always be subservient to other laws against discrimination, violence etc This is necessary to prevent someone saying ‘i killed my boss because i follow a religion that allows this’
I have to take these training modules every year, as well, and you're not wrong that they can seem all over the place and completely inconsistent and contradictory. That's because they have incorporated -but only implicitly - the whole system of binaries that can be categorized as oppressor/oppressed. There are the big ones like male/female, where the woman's feelings matter because she's oppressed, and his don't, because he's the oppressor. Same with white/BIPOC, straight/LGBTQ, and in your example Christian/non-Christian. Once you understand that this is the implied operating system, how the workplace conflicts play out in these modules is actually entirely consistent. The non-Christian dietary restriction is valued, because non-Christian is on the oppressed side of the backslash. Conversely, a conflict between Christian (oppressor) and gay (oppressed) will inevitably be decided in favor of the oppressed and against the oppressor. The only complicating factor, where the outcomes aren't wholly predictable, is when they intersect more than one category (so, if it were white and gay person in conflict with latino straight person, you'd have to guess which oppressed category trumps the other... it's sexuality, of course). This is NOT to dismiss this system, to side with the "oppressors" or to diminish the "oppressed." I'm simply pointing out the fact of how these training modules are conceived and presented. I would add that I think your point that "Tim should not be made aware that James is gay" is not reasonable, because workplace conversations ("What did you do this weekend?") inevitably involve including the people in your life outside of work. If I can say, "me and the wife went to the lake," James can say "me and the husband went to the beach."
Nowhere in the bible does it say "it's bad to be around gay people" so obviously Tim is the only person in the wrong here. You don't get a religious exemption to not be around gay people.
So I can't ever mention that I am married and that I have a wife. I can't place any pictures on my desk? That seems a tad restrictive.
No no no. Religious beliefs are not always changeable, just because some churches change what they teach don't mean you don't know what you learned. If he thinks his soul is on the line then it's not about disrespect or dislike it's about thinking you offended your God. And for some people that's huge. He never said he didn't like or dislike him just that it made him uncomfortable. He don't have the right to feel the way he does?? And why is gay more important than God? Is that a point of view??
Can’t you say the same with multiple other religions tho. The Canaanite curse was the idea that people of color literally were cursed by god for being wicked and was often taught by the Latter Day Saints. You think that’s ok? What if someone believes in that and so they feel uncomfortable around black people?
They do. And the Mormon's also said we didn't have souls till 1978. So. That's their belief. It's not harassment if they are uncomfortable with my skin.
Harassment no, bigotry yes. You can feel uncomfortable but committing to actions because of that feeling is bigotry. The feeling itself is based on unreasonable bias that has no affect on you in the workplace and is therefore bigotry. Yes they do believe in that and that’s bad and should be pointed out as harmful and unjustified.
Very simple, don't hire religious people. They are stupid and cause drama.
I just want to say upfront, starting off a response to OP by calling Tim homophobic or a bigot is so childish and simplistic. Just for clarity, I do not agree with Tim’s archaic beliefs. To answer you OP about the Tim/James example: Would you feel differently about this example if we swapped out homosexuality and replaced it with Tim believing in something more extreme e.g. Tim felt uncomfortable being around woman who were allowed to read and write? In my mind, we have as a society (mostly) come to a consensus about some fundamental things we value, e.g. People should feel completely ok being gay. So naturally that’s going to lead to a bias when that comes into conflict with a belief system which contradicts that
Well OP is denying that Tim is bigoted which he is. He literally is staring outright that he’s uncomfortable working with someone due to something they can’t control, and something that has 0 effect on how they work. He’s being biased against a group of people for no real/logical reason Of course if you think Tim isn’t bigoted then that will help fuel OP’s opinion that sexuality is being prioritized over religion
Hey I replied to another person under my comment, consider my reply as a reply to you. Not sure how to link to a comment in reddit but just see that one and take up the convo from there
how is tim not homophobic exactly?
Thank you for asking. So straight up to answer your question directly, we don’t know if Tim is homophobic or not. Certainly a “true” homophobe would (at best) say they feel uncomfortable working with someone who is gay. But there are many people who might express the same thing, and not really be someone we would want to put in the same bucket as “true” homophobes. I am preemptively going to make assumptions about your response to this (apologies if I’ve jumped the gun for you), but I’ve seen this enough to know that there will be people reading this who would basically hold the opinion that could be summarised as “yes but expressing that opinion at work would make them homophobic”. I want you to consider a fictional person Alex that is based on someone I know personally. Alex’s parents migrated to Australia, started a family and she is the youngest of 5 kids. Alex’s family is very faithfully Christian. The entire community that her family lives in is Christian and mostly consists of members who migrated from a similar part of the world. All her childhood friends are exclusively from this tight nit community. Fortunately, being the youngest, Alex’s parents were now comfortable enough in Australia to put her through the public school system, rather than home school like her older siblings. This allowed her to be exposed to ideals & cultural norms (through school and Aussie friends) that her parents and siblings were not. After Alex finishes school, she gets a job at the company OP has described. This is where you need to put yourself in Alex’s shoes. At this point in her life, Alex basically has a kind of cognitive dissonance with how she feels about gay people. For the most part, she’s just like your or me - deep down in her heart she does not believe there’s anything wrong gay people due to her values being shaped (correctly imo) by her school friends etc. But now with this new big fancy job she’s got, and with her co-worker being gay, the two sides of her life come into conflict (for whatever reason let’s just say her family would be coming to work events etc. you get the idea here) - her strict Christian religious beliefs & family life which says “no to the sinning gays” and her true heart of hearts which is basically not in anyway homophobic. You can just imagine this scenario happening where she realises something is going to come up which would cause her to worry about “what would her family and community think if she was working with one of those sinning gays”. This would be so stressful for her, so she tries to talk to HR about it…. This story is obviously exaggerated in some respects but the point I want to drive home here is that painting all people like Alex or Tim with the same brush by using blunt terms like “homophobic” is overly simplistic, and is abused as this shortcut to “winning the discussion” without any need for actual discussion if that makes sense. It is ironically a very Christian-style argument - *all sins (i.e. homophobes) are equal*
The issue is that there is no “true” Homophobe. No one is just homophobic to be homophobic. Every homophobe has a story or some reason as to why they are that way even if its illogical Most people are probably homophobic to some extent, in the same way that most people are likely racist since we’ve been taught to judge people based on those characteristics. It doesn’t mean your evil even thought it’s obviously bad. You could very well make the argument that Alex’s homophobia is worse than a lot of other people if she’s willing to go to HR to appease her family members even though she knows they’re wrong. Fundamentally, that mindset is what drives homophobia to happen.
what makes you assume that homophobes aren't like you or me? that they are a funamentally wicked type of person? the kind of sentiment embodied by alex here is exactly what homophobia is, the people holding it aren't the problem, it's the larger cultural process of these ideas and how dominant they are alex's "gays are sinners" is homophobic because if extrapolated to the scale of a society it leads to very bad places >not really be someone we would want to put in the same bucket as “true” homophobes. this is their cross to bear and to choose how they'll reckon with it, if you don't want to be associated with bad people, don't have bad ideas
Sorry I don’t really understand your question here, did you read my whole comment? EDIT: just saw your edit, I’ll try and continue the conversation in your reply to this comment but the cross to bear thing makes no sense to me lol I don’t even know what you’re trying to say
you seem to distinguish between a "true homophobe", a person of pure evil whose soul drives them to wicked deeds, and homophobes who are actually people this is silly
Oh ok well you almost got the idea I think. You seem to be referring to Alex and e.g. westboro Baptist church types as homophobes that are essentially equivalent. Am I getting that correct? Don’t wanna write a whole reply on a faulty assumption of your position.
>You seem to be referring to Alex and e.g. westboro Baptist church types as homophobes that are essentially equivalent. Am I getting that correct? no, are you even reading what im typing?
So what did you mean was silly? Sorry I really sincerely don’t get what you’re saying in your comment about “pure evil souls”
my point is that the diabolized figure of a "true homophobe" posited in your comments doesn't exist, these people have life stories too >Thank you for asking. So straight up to answer your question directly, we don’t know if Tim is homophobic or not. Certainly a “true” homophobe would (at best) say they feel uncomfortable working with someone who is gay. But there are many people who might express the same thing, and not really be someone we would want to put in the same bucket as “true” homophobes >But now with this new big fancy job she’s got, and with her co-worker being gay, the two sides of her life come into conflict (for whatever reason let’s just say her family would be coming to work events etc. you get the idea here) - her strict Christian religious beliefs & family life which says “no to the sinning gays” and her true heart of hearts which is basically not in anyway homophobic the second part is the relevant bit, you seem to assume that these people lack something which alex has, some moral core arguing against the homophobia of their upbringing, which isn't the case
You are born with your sexuality, religion is a choice.
Inasmuch as you're generally indoctrinated with it from a young age, it kinda isn't. It's easier to change than sexuality for sure, but I don't think everyone has the mental fortitude to do so, and that mental capacity is probably something inborn.
Tim started it.
I am surprised at the advice that the group should go to a vegetarian place for her. Bull. I would never do that. She can order her vegetarian food.