A yoga enthusiast who was given a lifetime ban from a studio after describing the celebration of Christmas as “hocus-pocus” and the celebration of the “rape and abandonment of a child” has lost a case for discrimination on religious grounds.
Peter McKeon had claimed he was discriminated against by Niamh Glackin, trading as Roots Wellness in Mayo, due to his religious beliefs during a session at the studio on December 16th, 2024.
The Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) was told an informal discussion about the upcoming festive season took place among attendees before the class started.
McKeon expressed his view that the Catholic celebration of Christmas was “hocus-pocus” and said he did not celebrate the “rape and abandonment of a child” – a perspective he clarified pertained specifically to the Catholic religion.
READ MORE
When the owner suggested churches maintained a positive moral code, McKeon replied that any organisation that concealed individuals involved in paedophilia and mistreated victims had a questionable moral code.
Glackin gave evidence that McKeon’s interjection had been “aggressive” and he had used “extreme language” that halted the conversation and left other attendees taken aback.
Following the class, she said several clients had approached her to express concern, leading her to determine that McKeon’s continued presence was a threat to her business operations and the “tranquillity and peacefulness” fundamental to yoga.
On December 17th, 2024, she emailed McKeon to inform him the studio was not the correct environment for him, later confirming a lifetime ban was in effect.
McKeon argued the ban had been imposed solely due to his religious views and maintained that the exchange had occurred in a “gentle manner”. He accepted during the hearing, however, that he could have expressed his views using more “benign language”.
In his decision, WRC adjudication officer Brian Dolan found that, although McKeon had established a prima facie case of discrimination, the respondent had successfully rebutted the inference.
Dolan said it was not surprising the respondent had found the language adopted – referencing the rape of a child and paedophilia – to be deeply uncomfortable and inappropriate for the setting.
He found the services had been withdrawn due to the manner in which the views were expressed, rather than the views themselves.
Dolan concluded that, while an individual is entitled to maintain and express religious views, this does not permit the use of “any formulation of language ... in any setting, without consequence”.
