On 26-Jan-09 20:08, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> 
>>   On the other hand, it's a fine line between freedom of religious
>> expression and, sometimes, safety regulations.
>>
>>   For example, if in some kind of food preparation establishment there's
>> a rule, related to food hygiene and safety, that all workers handling the
>> food must not wear long-sleeved shirts (because long sleeves may touch
>> the food products, increasing risk of contamination), and someone has the
>> religious conviction that he must wear long-sleeved shirts (I suppose I
>> don't have to mention such religion by name), which one in this case 
>> should
>> be imposed, the freedom of religious expression, or the safety rule?
> 
> Here's another interesting one:
> 
> Apparently in the UK, if you're unemployed, you can obtain unemployment 
> benefits. But if you get offered a job and you turn it down, they can 
> cut off your benefits.
> 
> Now suppose you get offered a job in a porn shop, and you morally don't 
> approve of porn. Do they have the right to take away your benefits?
> 
> OTOH, you could try to make up any flimsy excuse that *any* job you're 
> offered conflicts with your "morals", so you never have to actually get 
> a job and can just sit taking benefits...
> 
> That's an interesting balancing act to get right.

It has happened here in the netherlands, although as I remember it was 
by mistake. Someone got offered a job in a brothel (just after they 
became legal again) because that fitted her educational level. Refusal 
to accept would by law indeed have cut her benefits. The rule is 
apparently that these jobs should go in a special file and should never 
be offered to random unemployed ladies. I assume the same goes for jobs 
in e.g. the slaughterhouse. I think the sane way out is that not only 
the education is used to see if a job fits but also psychological 
factors are taken into account. I assume they do normally.

Post a reply to this message