Discrimination on the grounds of unsavoury religious beliefs?

Question

Under UK law it's illegal for someone to discriminate against you because of your religion or beliefs.

What happens if those some of beliefs are currently socially unacceptable or illegal or immoral?

Consider the following scenarios...

1. Someone comes to a job interview and mentions that they believe that homosexuals should be stoned to death and asks for assurances that none of the other employees are gay.

2. A potential tenant views a property for rental. They mention that they don't need any accommodation for their young daughters because as soon as they reach 12 y.o. they'll be married off to a rich relative on the other side of the world.

3. An employee is casually asked what they did over the weekend - they say they went on training camp to learn how to slaughter unbelievers when their priests tell them the time is right.

If the 1st one didn't get the job, the 2nd one didn't get the tenancy and the 3rd one got fired, could they claim they were discriminated against because of their beliefs?

For the purposes of this question let's assume that these are all sincere and deeply held beliefs in accordance with the basic tenets of their religion (rather than cultural practices). Lets also assume that the person who didn't give them the job (or tenancy) was honest (or foolish) enough to tell them that it was because of these beliefs that they didn't get accepted.

To be clear - this is intended as a hypothetical question, I'm not suggesting any religion actually expounds any of these doctrines. I'm interested in how the law deals with religious freedom when/if those freedoms conflict with another religion or secular values. Hypothetical example - if one religion requires cats to be worshiped as Gods, and another believes cats are the agents of Satan and need to cleansed with fire then how does the law decide between the two?

I've not mentioned any particular religions in the question, so I don't think any need mentioning in the answers. Trying to keep this about question about the law only

Answer 1

What constitutes a belief for the purpose of being a protected characteristic under Section 4 of the Equality Act 2010 was examined in Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010] IRLR 4.

There are 5 criteria which must be met which you can view at the above link. The relevant one for our purposes is:

It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

Other case law has established that this is a high threshold i.e. it's only meant to exclude extreme cases. It's been said that it would exclude, for example, a belief in nazism. I suspect it would probably exclude your 3 examples too, but each case would be judged on its own facts.

Answer 2

Answering strictly the question title: Beliefs enjoy wide protection; expressing them in language or even deed may infringe on the rights of others and is therefore more restricted. For example, "verbal abuse and harassment" are forbidden when they are "likely to cause violence, alarm or distress".

This tension is reflected in the wording in the European Convention on Human Rights which the UK ratified as the first country in the 1950s (emphasis by me):

ARTICLE 9

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

In no way is religious freedom absolute or all-encompassing; in effect, the article states that its expression must be compatible with the society in which in is exercised. It is not even necessary that anybody be harmed; a violation of "morals" is sufficient.

It is up to the courts to find the equilibrium between the conflicting rights here, and given the wide latitude the law provides, that equilibrium must be found anew with each new generation.

To pick one of your examples: Child marriages, also in the UK, have come into focus in recent years as societies worldwide grow more aware of sexual abuse and the sexual exploitation of power differentials in relations. There are campaigns aiming to close legal loopholes permitting the marriage of underage persons, typically girls.