Religious Rights versus Sexual Orientation Discrimination:
[Article]
A Fair Deal for Everyone
Erica Howard
Leiden
Brill
This article examines restrictions on the right to manifest one's religion which are held to be justified for the protection of the rights of others, in particular, the right not to be discriminated against on the ground of one's sexual orientation. Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom is scrutinised and it is argued that this suggests three possible ways of dealing with cases where an employee refuses to carry out certain parts of their job because of their religion or belief: using the "free to resign" rule; imposing a duty of reasonable accommodation on employers; and, providing for a conscientious objection exemption. These will be analysed with particular attention for their restrictions and limitations. This should lead to a conclusion as to whether these rights can be reconciled in a way that provides a fair deal for everyone. This article examines restrictions on the right to manifest one's religion which are held to be justified for the protection of the rights of others, in particular, the right not to be discriminated against on the ground of one's sexual orientation. Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom is scrutinised and it is argued that this suggests three possible ways of dealing with cases where an employee refuses to carry out certain parts of their job because of their religion or belief: using the "free to resign" rule; imposing a duty of reasonable accommodation on employers; and, providing for a conscientious objection exemption. These will be analysed with particular attention for their restrictions and limitations. This should lead to a conclusion as to whether these rights can be reconciled in a way that provides a fair deal for everyone.
2015
128-159
Religion & Human Rights
10/2
1871-0328
conscientious objection
Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom
freedom of religion
freedom to resign
non-discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation