It seems you are getting on the right track. QuoteI'd say that the right framework for thinking about this is one that compares expected costs with expected benefits. The max expected benefit of such questions is the value of the information about the candidate's belief, assuming you can extract reliable information. On the expected costs, hmmm i think many times lawsuits consequences can be unpredictable. Its not only the settlement fine that may cost your firm some X bucks and your self a chunk of your bonus or even your job, its the negative publicity in a sector where reputation seems invaluable. QuoteIf the mere question "is it appropriate to discuss sex or religion in the workplace?" is going to incite someone to violence...well, I'd rather know this sooner rather than later, but again, I would seek other means to find out that the person is like this.Is this info valuable? I think not. Because everyone can become violent if his limits are crossed. The only difference is that the limits of tolerance are different for different people. QuotePerhaps the word "conversations" does not fully convey the potential for things to go wrong with certain topics. Suppose an employee at your workplace keeps trying to convert another employee to his/her religion. The other employee belongs to a different religion and every day they argue about which religion is "better." The arguments are loud and annoy the other employees.What you describe is called prosylitism. Its not a mere conversation about religions or creeds. An easy to resolve this problem since its illegal to prosylitize in many jurisdictions, since such an endeavor entails lack of respect for others' religions. On the other hand, if the "no talk about religions" means that discussions like "how i spent my christmass holidays" are banned, then i think its too much.Eventually, you cant restrict and censor people, on what to discuss and what not to. But you can keep them busy. On the other hand, self censorship is a characteristic of mature personalities and characters with sense of professionalism and integrity.Since i like to deceive myself that i am one such person, if i were confronted with such questions during an interview i would reconsider if I should accept the job. It raises a lot of alarms for many issues. On the other hand i agree with you, that there is no need to talk about sex at workplace, talk is cheap, just do it. But there is always business before pleasure.

QuoteOriginally posted by: propertyrightsQuoteOriginally posted by: barnyIt's an utterly pointless question. If you hire the right people with good emotional intelligence and people skills, they will be able to perfectly well decide by themselves whether it is appropriate to talk about such matters in a given conversation. By the way, my answer is yes, though not always. Bright people tend to have opinions on stuff, and enjoy debating with others. As long as you don't try to outright offend somebody, what's the problem with a bit of workplace discussion?I'm going to start by juxtaposing your post with CommodityQuant's post: QuoteThe reason the question is stupid (and therefore inappropriate) is that every interviewee would give the obvious answer: "I would work intensely all day and focus on business issues rather than religion or sex etc."Before I proceed further, I just want to check whether you have read this article that I have mentioned several times here:http://careerplanning.about.com/od/work ... k_talk.htm (Top 6 Topics to Avoid Discussing at Work). Perhaps you have read it and disagree with it. I just want to check first whether you have read it because the reasons I would give for avoiding certain topics at work are pretty much the same as what the article says.As I said, for the most part, it is crass to discuss such things and I probably wouldn't, but what if I was quite friendly with my co-workers, we occasionally go out for beers etc. and a debate springs up about religion or politics during work time? I'd probably contribute then, depending on the exact dynamics of the discussion. Is that so wrong?

Quote The max expected benefit of such questions is the value of the information about the candidate's belief, assuming you can extract reliable information. On the expected costs, hmmm i think many times lawsuits consequences can be unpredictable. Its not only the settlement fine that may cost your firm some X bucks and your self a chunk of your bonus or even your job, its the negative publicity in a sector where reputation seems invaluable.Just to be clear - not for your benefit, Anthis, but rather for that of others who may be reading this, since this has been a point of confusion in this thread, the "information about the candidate's belief" is information regarding whether the candidate feels it is acceptable to discuss sex or religion in the workplace, not the candidate's religious belief nor the candidate's sexual belief. Neither a yes answer nor a no answer tells us the person's religious beliefs, nor his/her beliefs regarding sex. Again, I point out the issue about lawsuits needs to be considered both in terms of expected cost and expected benefits because discussions about religion or sex can eventually lead to religious or sexual harassment lawsuits, so a reduction in these kinds of discussions in a workplace setting may help to mitigate this risk. I agree that there may be reputational cost to lawsuits. If we do a Google search for "religious harassment," we find this as the first search result: http://www.religioustolerance.org/harra_wk.htmYou'll see that it recommends saying "I prefer not to discuss religion at work" if the issue comes up in an interview.QuoteIs this info valuable? I think not. Because everyone can become violent if his limits are crossed. The only difference is that the limits of tolerance are different for different people.I believe that the information is valuable because this would be an extreme response to a mere question. The person can answer or can choose not to answer. And it is not a question that has some kind of insult embedded in it, like "are you stupid?" It is not a question about the person's religious beliefs or sexual preferences. It is just a question about what kinds of things the person thinks are acceptable to talk about at work. If someone had a tendency to become violent if you were to ask him what he likes to eat, wouldn't you want to know this sooner rather than later? For work that is basically involved with processing information, I believe it is important to ask questions. If you are afraid to ask someone questions, it may become difficult to collect the information needed to make good decisions. What kinds of questions might incite you to violence?QuoteWhat you describe is called prosylitism. Its not a mere conversation about religions or creeds. An easy to resolve this problem since its illegal to prosylitize in many jurisdictions, since such an endeavor entails lack of respect for others' religions. On the other hand, if the "no talk about religions" means that discussions like "how i spent my christmass holidays" are banned, then i think its too much.It might not be easy to resolve once it has occurred, especially if the person does not stop after warnings. You can fire the person, but then s/he might allege religious discrimination and file a lawsuit. The law may be on your side, yet, as you pointed out before, there may be reputational costs - even if you win. There would also be legal costs. And there may even be a small chance that you lose - perhaps s/he'll claim that other people were also proselytizing, but s/he was unfairly singled out. By the time you reach this stage, a disaster has already occurred. How is a discussion about "how i spent my christmas holiday" a discussion about religion? I know it is a holiday with religious significance, but it is a nationally recognized holiday that applies to all people (in certain countries) regardless of their religion. If you tell me that you went to Miami for Christmas, I still don't know whether you are a Jehovah's Witness, a Jew, a Muslim, a Wiccan, etc. If you tell me you spent Christmas in Miami, this is not a religious discussion.QuoteEventually, you cant restrict and censor people, on what to discuss and what not to.Did you read this http://www.lancasterlawblog.com/2007/09 ... ink-again/? Actually, private sectors employers can censor people.Quote But you can keep them busy. On the other hand, self censorship is a characteristic of mature personalities and characters with sense of professionalism and integrity.Since i like to deceive myself that i am one such person, if i were confronted with such questions during an interview i would reconsider if I should accept the job. It raises a lot of alarms for many issues.Wouldn't you prefer that your coworkers also be self-censoring? Wouldn't you prefer workplaces where everyone there is self-censoring? Now, you might say that if the employer removes some people because of what they discuss at the workplace, this is not self-censoring, but rather employer censoring. But let's say that you have some people in your workplace who are self-censoring and some people who are not. What, if anything, should be done about the people who are not self-censoring, and are not mature personalities with a sense of professionalism and integrity?QuoteOn the other hand i agree with you, that there is no need to talk about sex at workplace, talk is cheap, just do it. But there is always business before pleasure.Not interested in addressing the sexual harassment issue?

QuoteOriginally posted by: barnyAs I said, for the most part, it is crass to discuss such things and I probably wouldn't, but what if I was quite friendly with my co-workers, we occasionally go out for beers etc. and a debate springs up about religion or politics during work time? I'd probably contribute then, depending on the exact dynamics of the discussion. Is that so wrong?You're starting with "As I said," but you actually didn't say before (at least, not in this thread) that "it is crass to discuss such things." We agree on this point. Is it wrong if a debate springs up and you contribute? You earlier wrote "As long as you don't try to outright offend somebody, what's the problem with a bit of workplace discussion?" and I would say that it ought to be fairly benign if no attempt is made to offend somebody, but a possible issue is that someone may be offended anyways even though no offense was meant. There's also the question of "who is starting the debate?" If someone else starts the debate, and you participate, well, OK. But that's part of the issue as well - debates tend to suck people in. One minute you're working and the next minute you've been drawn into someone else's debate - it's a distraction. Debates about certain topics may be unresolvable and/or may lay the foundation for lawsuits. If one particular person continually starts debates about non-work-related topics, and if other coworkers find these topics annoying, offensive, or even the basis for lawsuits, do you agree that this could be a problem?

QuoteOriginally posted by: propertyrightsQuote Not interested in addressing the sexual harassment issue?I will give you one opinion on gender issues. (Lumping them all together as 'sexual harassment' is a sleight of hand, albeit a skillful one).I don't care about sexual harassment - just give as good as you get. I also am not interested in maternity leave, glass ceilings, and work-life balance.The dirtiest little secret lies in equal compensation for equal work.What talented, ambitious, hard-working person should ever be willing to accept 67 cents on the dollar? For years on end?Gals who don't like the look of that start their own firms.

QuoteOriginally posted by: trackstarQuoteOriginally posted by: propertyrightsQuote Not interested in addressing the sexual harassment issue?I will give you one opinion on gender issues. (Lumping them all together as 'sexual harassment' is a sleight of hand, albeit a skillful one).I don't care about sexual harassment - just give as good as you get. I also am not interested in maternity leave, glass ceilings, and work-life balance.The dirtiest little secret lies in equal compensation for equal work.What talented, ambitious, hard-working person should ever be willing to accept 67 cents on the dollar? For years on end?Gals who don't like the look of that start their own firms.Plus, only the less charming ones do harass actually...

That is why casual Fridays to me means wear your steel-toed work boots and a miniskirt.Once a guy gets a taste of that combination, he will keep a civil tongue in his head.(I wear them to the barn first too...)

What about Mondays to Thursdays?

It takes a guy like that a week to recover. (I do assume that you have seen Clockwork Orange)

QuoteOriginally posted by: propertyrightsQuoteOriginally posted by: jawabeanthe original question is inappropriate, and i think it potentially exposes you to complaints. that's the reason why you feel that it may be inappropriate. if you're not sure, don't ask.OK, suppose you are filing a complaint due to being asked the question "is it appropriate to discuss religion and/or sex in the workplace?" in an interview. Suppose that you answered yes and I said it is our company policy not to discuss religion and/or sex in the workplace because these are potentially inflammatory topics that may distract people from their work. How would you word your complaint?I would say that devoutly religious people are more likely to discuss religion at work, since religion is an important part of their lives, and that such a policy discriminates against this group.

QuoteOriginally posted by: Rrolack2QuoteOriginally posted by: propertyrightsQuoteOriginally posted by: jawabeanthe original question is inappropriate, and i think it potentially exposes you to complaints. that's the reason why you feel that it may be inappropriate. if you're not sure, don't ask.OK, suppose you are filing a complaint due to being asked the question "is it appropriate to discuss religion and/or sex in the workplace?" in an interview. Suppose that you answered yes and I said it is our company policy not to discuss religion and/or sex in the workplace because these are potentially inflammatory topics that may distract people from their work. How would you word your complaint?I would say that devoutly religious people are more likely to discuss religion at work, since religion is an important part of their lives, and that such a policy discriminates against this group.OK - good point. A complete ban of religious discussion may be too draconian. Alternative questions: 1) If you are religious, would you agree that it is inappropriate to try to convert other people at the workplace to your religion? 2) If a coworker happens to belong to a different religion, would this cause you to treat him or her any differently? Theoretically, these questions should not produce informative answers because everyone would give the obvious answers: 1) yes, 2) no. But the kinds of people who would try to convert their coworkers are not necessarily going to hide their proclivities even when it is obviously in their best interests to do so. If everyone did the "obviously" right things all the time, then there wouldn't be any issue because no one would proselytize in workplace environments.