Discrimination law has been subjected to a piecemeal approach by policy makers, in an attempt to keep up with a rapidly evolving society. In a nation which is increasingly multicultural, the challenges faced by legislators to offer adequate protection to individuals have increased. Equality law is far less clear cut than in years past, where distinguishing between groups based on characteristic such as sex or age, was far less complex, as was identifying their rights and affording them sufficient protection. The inclusion of religion and belief in equality law has created many difficulties, particularly at work where a diverse range of employees require protection. The subjective nature of religion has proved difficult to manage, resulting …show more content…
There have been few cases where a claimant’s views have not been held to be a belief, generally where they are political in nature, such as in Redfearn. Political beliefs aside, the courts are generally reluctant to refuse a belief protection, which inevitably results in somewhat niche and unusual beliefs being included which some may argue distorts the Act’s purpose. The issue of moral conscience and faith has wide-reaching effects, far beyond the workplace, so it is only right that the courts exercise caution when making decisions which could ultimately hinder diversity and restrict personal freedom. Nevertheless, the situation remains that provided a claimant’s beliefs are sufficiently strong, any trends or indeed cults would fall into the remit of equality law, no matter how fleeting the trend may be. Many religions, such as Islam and Christianity, are not only centuries old but have also formed the foundations of modern culture and society. Regardless of whether or not these beliefs are valid or indeed realistic, they are deep-rooted in history and have moulded customs and traditions. The argument exists that perhaps it was holders of these beliefs that discrimination law was designed to protect and less so a belief that ‘public service broadcasting has the higher purpose of promoting cultural interchange and social cohesion’. However, given that religion and belief is such a sensitive area, and any dismissal of a belief would have far-reaching ramifications, the approach taken is perhaps the only legitimate one for the time being. It is worth noting that this broad interpretation can be problematic for employers as they ‘can avoid practices which would obviously adversely affect well-known religious groups, but not the whole panoply of beliefs which are potentially protected.’ Consequently,