From: roger@hayter.org 
  
 On 7 Aug 2025 at 21:04:33 BST, "Jethro_uk"  wrote: 
  
 > On Thu, 07 Aug 2025 17:20:25 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 > 
 >> On 7 Aug 2025 at 18:04:12 BST, "Jethro_uk"  
 >> wrote: 
 >> 
 >>> On Thu, 07 Aug 2025 16:55:23 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote: 
 >>> 
 >>>> On 7 Aug 2025 at 14:23:51 BST, "JNugent"  wrote: 
 >>>> 
 >>>>> [quoted text muted] 
 >>>> 
 >>>> If it were a religious belief (as defined by the courts) it would not 
 >>>> have to prove that it was worthy of respect in a democratic society. 
 >>>> Indeed, many religious beliefs aren't. The Grainger tests apply to 
 >>>> non-religious beliefs. 
 >>> 
 >>> What is a religious belief, then ? 
 >> 
 >> As far as I know it is up to a court faced with a claim of 
 >> discrimination against someone because of religious belief to decide, 
 >> inter alia, if theirs is a genuine religious belief. Guided by previous 
 >> cases, but not by a statutory definition. They will no doubt have the 
 >> dictionary definition(s) in mind, but that is only a start. 
 > 
 > How about a religion where a key tenet is the earth is flat :) 
  
 If the court decided it was a genuine religion (and I do not know how they 
 decide this, someone would have to look up some cases) his employers could 
 not 
 sack him merely because of his belief. But if, for instance, his job as a 
 ship's captain could not safely be done because of eccentric navigation 
 based 
 on a plane rather than a sphere, then it might be proportionate to sack him 
 because of the *expression* of his beliefs. 
  
 -- 
  
 Roger Hayter 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)