Don't get me wrong, I'm in agreement.Even then you can have universal practices that are discriminatory. take the exciting example of the HS guidance notes No75. It clearly states females are inferior to men when it comes to physical strength. However, that's not a get out clause to avoid using Females in a physical role, as you need to make reasonable adjustments to cater for female workers (IE: allow females to move smaller loads).
What can't be reasonably adjusted is the duty of care.
Employer's responsibilities: Workers' health and safety
www.hse.gov.uk
Equally it comes from the employees side:
Are you an employee: Workers' health and safety
www.hse.gov.uk
That's pretty clear. Where the crunch comes is from comparing it with other pieces of legislation, such as discrimination legislation. Which I hope will come down to 'does my religion trump the HASWA?'. As I suspect, and hope, the religion will loose.
The argument, which has been gone over many times before on this thread is: You do not have to have the vaccination, but you'll need it, as you would need a qualification, to do this job.
My point is that the solutions are and should be really rather blunt. It would knock on the head spurious claims of racism and discrimination. For instance, you'll get lots of self-declaring Christians in this country who'll happily have the jab. But then other Christians will claim it's 'against their religion' despite ostensibly praying to the same god. Rinse and repeat with Islam and anyone else you care to mention.
It's prejudice and control wrapped up in a professed set of beliefs and you're spot on. Someone's arcane interpretation of how the universe works, which will often be based on the prejudices of a few controlling elderly males with a mindset from centuries ago, should not be allowed to potentially endanger my life just because I have to use public transport.
