Skip to comments.Christians Have No Right to Refuse to Work on Sundays, Rules Judge [UK]
Posted on 12/31/2012 10:29:14 AM PST by marshmallow
Judges have been accused of diluting the rights of Christians after a key judgment on whether they can refuse to work on Sundays.
A new ruling by a High Court judge - the first on the issue in nearly a decade - says that Christians have no right to decline working on Sunday as it is not a core component of their beliefs.
The judgment - which upholds an earlier decision - means that individual Christians do not have any protection from being fired for not working on Sundays.
Campaigners said the decision puts Christians at a disadvantage to other religions and means the judiciary are deciding what the core beliefs of Christians can be, which they say is an interference in the right to practise religion.
The judgment was issued by Mr Justice Langstaff as he ruled on an appeal brought by a Christian woman who was sacked after she refused to work on Sundays at a care home.
Celestina Mba claimed the council she worked for pressured her to work on Sundays and threatened her with disciplinary measures - even though other workers were willing to take the shifts.
The 57 year-old, from Streatham Vale, south London, worships every Sunday at her Baptist church, where she is also part of the ministry team offering pastoral care and support to the congregation.
She said that when she took the position in 2007 providing respite care for children with severe learning difficulties at the Brightwell childrens home in Morden, south-west London managers initially agreed to accommodate the requirements of her faith.
But within a few months of starting the job, Miss Mba said managers began pressuring her to work on Sundays.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
My boss says the same thing. Sunday is a workday before Monday.
I wonder if they restrict Moslems from prayer five times a day?
Creeping socialism rear’s its ugly head. Socialists don’t believe in religious holidays, therefore, the workers do not get holidays off, because the state does not recognize them. Want a day off? Forget it. Christmas, Easter, Independence day are just another day to the socialists. If people keep pushing their luck, the state will abolish all religious holidays, for everyone, no exceptions. Vote for hope and change, and you will find that you have no hope to change it back.
So, workers have no right to overtime on weekends unless over forty hours.
Socialists are providing the reason why their rights should not be respected. It goes both ways.
Once upon a time, nobody worked on Sundays or at least worked a full day on Sundays. That, of course, was before the advent of the modern weekend, and Sunday was usually the only day people got off from work.
But there are many small churches that still forbid their people from working on Sundays, and even the Catholic Church discourages it. Catholics are supposed to attend mass every Sunday, and while many of them neglect this and in fact the Church weakened Sunday by providing the Saturday evening “vigil” mass, it is still an obligation.
And all Christians are commanded to keep the Sabbath holy, which with the Jews meant not working. While most of them probably don’t follow this commandment, I don’t see why those who adhere to it should be treated as if this were just a random act of piety and this without legal protection.
I’m sure Muslims are allowed their prayer times, their Friday observances (such as chanting “death to the infidel”), etc. So why not Christians?
But I bet the Muslims get Friday off every week. Also, the judge said not working on Sunday was not one of Christianity’s core beliefs. What part of “Remember the sabbath, keep it holy” does this judge not get? Seriously England, what happened to you?
I thought that the State has no right to dictate to religion under the First Amendment protection.
If you’re working for an at will employer, and you’re required to work weekends, then you should have to work. You can choose to work or you can find a way to work things out with your boss or choose to find a job that will let you have off. I don’t see any problem with this ruling. Everyone wins. It puts control in the hands of each individual. Doesn’t take away the rights of work places to set the schedule of their employees.
In a socialist society, the state does not recognize religion, therefore, religious holidays do not apply to a secular socialist workforce. In a secular socialist state, the worker only benefits the state, and the state allows them to exist only as long as they benefit the state. Call it what you want, but if you agree to it, you are doomed to live it.
I had a circa 1850 book and IIRC, it was early 1700’s England.. all the holidays were Feast Days. Wish I still had it. There were also two fish days....to support the fishing industry...
Growing up we adhered to a strict no work policy at home on the Sabbath. No TV, no radio, no telephone. We never went out to eat on Sunday after church either. Our preacher told us that buying or going to the store or restaurants on the Sabbath kept others from attending church.
I didn’t realize this was an issue anywhere? You sign on for a job where part of the work is on Sunday, and if you refuse you can be fired. How is this a problem?
It's a different world. We're not a nation of farmers who are generally at home.
The Catholic church discourages Sunday work???...never heard that one.
The church started the Saturday gig so one priest could handle two parishs.
The point is...if you take a job, they set the criteria....not you.
>>I didnt realize this was an issue anywhere? You sign on for a job where part of the work is on Sunday, and if you refuse you can be fired. How is this a problem?
Sometimes, the boss changes the hours and days of work. Sometimes, they agree to let you off on Sundays when you are hired, but then cite “business necessity” to renege on that deal. And sometimes, the employee changes and what used to be just another day becomes a holy day.
Notice the out this judge gave themselves. An atheist judge will tell Christians what are their "core" beliefs. Not so with Muslims.
There are some jobs you go into knowing you’re going to work on Sunday - a lot of healthcare, police, fire... and that kind of work you can do in a spirit of worship and be glad you’re following Jesus’s footsteps, healing and helping on the Sabbath.
Of course, if the employer makes provisions for Muslims and Jews not to work on their sabbaths and holy days, it should be done for Christians as well.
Any day can be a sabbath.
In the UK?
But let's say it happened in the US. This would actually be an example of the State staying out of it. By requiring businesses to let people have Sunday off they are advocating for a particular religious point of view.
Don't want to work on Sunday? Find an employer that will let you have that day off. That's the free market, right?
When I was in Germany earlier this year you would struggle to find many shops open on a Sunday. I also remember meeting tourists at Munich airport who thought they’d spend the day shopping in the city centre on a Sunday ... they came back disappointed at finding nothing open. In South Africa it’s the other extreme where everything is open all day every day of the year.
Rules are made only for Christians — muslims will get their asses kissed.
Wrong state; that’s the UK
Exactly. It’s between employer and employee, and if employer demands what is against employee’s conscience to fulfilled, then they can go find another employer. I cannot for the life of me comprehend how posters on this thread call it “socialism” for the state to refuse to dictate terms between contracting parties. It must be they are so used to government dumping on religion—or at least unPC religion—that they interpret every little thing as such.
Now, the judge ruling that observing the Sabbath is not central to Christianity is plain ignorant, not to mention none of his business. But the solution isn’t to recognize the Sabbath as sacrosanct and team up with the employee to coerce better terms out of the employer. That’s the sorta thing that’s brought us to being unable to fire alchoholics or tell cashiers, for instance, not to wear belly shirts or giant hoops through their noses.
This is not the state dictating to religion. This is the state not dictating to employers on behalf if emoloyees’ religion. To my mind they have no business doing so, no how. You are not guaranteed the right to the free exercise of religion against private organizations or individuals with whom you contract. You carry that power yourself.
Should be? Maybe. But it’s none of the law’s business.
It is between the woman and those she works for, she could tell them to shove it but she is obviously a socialist just as much as the judge is.
Really, should it be the government’s job to legislate such work agreements between employers and employees?
Didn’t realise that there was another Capetonian here!
These same courts will bend over backards to placate Muzzies
There are other jobs, if your Christianity prevents you from working on Sunday (like it does me) get a different job. You can’t convince your employer otherwise? Tough. He doesn’t have to follow your religion
Rather interesting since if the discrimination involved race - the media would be all over it as they believe that private businesses do not have the right to discriminate along racial lines no matter what rights the business might have in selecting clients. To the others: I realize that Britain does not have a First Amendment per se but one would think that as a supposed free society that it purports to be that they would have a similar guarantee or protection.
Incidentally, I believe in the right of private persons and organizations to discriminate on the basis of race. Kinda like how the NAACP, The United Negros College Fund, La Raza, etc. no doubt do. Said right derives from freedom of association, which most relates to the right to peaceably assemble as far as constitutionally explicit rights are concerned.
Ultimately it is an inevitable outcome of private property rights. The civil rights act, insofar as it diminished private property rights and freedom of association, was shameful.