Exemplification

Discrimination In decisions involving the right to freedom of religion, the Constitutional Court has shown its willingness in suitable cases to grant exceptions from facially unbiased laws. These laws include general application where such laws imposed weigh down on members of a certain religious group. In a decision, the Merrimac Education Center in South Africa, Kwazulu-Natal and Others versus Pillay, the Constitutional Court settled an exception from a regulation to allow a member of a religious group to take in a practice that showed his religious beliefs and culture. The court’s decision to exempt a student wearing a nose stud, stating the effective day to day running of the school would not affected (Lenta, par. 1). The government’s concern in implementing anti-discrimination laws devoid of immunity seems far stronger. A declaration for release from anti-discrimination laws looks in one respect more directly to look like the claim in Christian Education in South Africa versus The Ministry of Justice. In Christian education, the right of a learner not to undergo physical punishment at the hands of teachers was held to assist the wish of religious teachers to impose physical punishment in agreement with their spiritual convictions. The rationale behind the law banning unjust discrimination aims to guard all peoples’ right to equality, a basic right. In cases where religious groupings take on work-related discrimination on grounds banned to profitable enterprises draw little antagonism. In South Africa, anti-discrimination law forbids work-related discrimination on forbidden grounds, for example, sexual orientation, gender, race, and religion (Lenta, par. 2). However, in at least one circumstance churches should be allowed to discriminate. They should be permitted to apply religious standards in the selection of entrants for appointment to sacerdotal office. Nevertheless, the right of churches to keep on work-related prejudice on barred grounds does not stop there. Many are apologetic for the keeping out of women from the Catholic priesthood. People who have given consideration to the issue concur that anti-discrimination laws should not be summoned to stop this gender bias. This is because anti-discrimination laws should not be applied to stop such bias. Religious groups have a right to control their own dealings in accordance with the beliefs of members via their churches. Thus, freedom of religion as well as associational independence stresses as much (Lenta, par. 5).

Work cited
Lenta, Patrick. Taking Diversity Seriously: Religious Associations and Work-related Discrimination. 2009. Web.