Mister M Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 I'm quite looking forward to the appelants losing their appeal, then I can laugh at them harrumphing about unfairness and discrimination. Edit, on a seperate but related issue, it is rather worrying that the new Justice minister, Chris Grayling believes that the B&B owners were right in turning away a gay couple from their business on account of their sexuality.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I'm quite looking forward to the appelants losing their appeal Bad Luck, one won: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21025332 But, even as a Christian this kind of thing annoys me. Wearing a cross on show isn't compulsory to our religion. I wear one under my shirt. I don't feel the need to flash it off to all and sundry, my faith is a person matter between me and my God. Its a religion which is supposed to preach about care, compassion and understanding, but these people have shown none of this - especially McFarlane the Relate counsellor. In my opinion he's not qualified to do his job so doesn't deserve to continue with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 My company has a "smart appearance" policy for all employees. We have a high-visibility clothing policy in certain areas, to comply with health and safety. No exceptions are made for religious beliefs. My wife's employer has a "no jewellery" policy since it could compromise the important forensic results of the tests they are employed to perform. No exceptions are made for religious beliefs. The surgeons she works with are not allowed to wear jewellery. No exceptions are made for religious beliefs. British Airways employ a "no jewellery" policy in certain areas, to comply with health & safety requirements. No exceptions are made for religious beliefs. Nadia Eweida is not seeking to stop unfair discrimination against her, she is seeking to gain special exemptions for her religion so that she can ignore valid rules that apply to everybody else. It is important that she, and the others, fail in their attempts to force unfair privileges for religion in the workplace. Who are funding these expensive legal cases? That depends on whether her employer had a "no jewelry" policy though, doesn't it. Were all employees barred from wearing earings/other jewlery, or was this specifically about her cross? If it was, then she is clearly battleing against discrimination. ---------- Post added 15-01-2013 at 12:56 ---------- She said: "It was as if they thought I would deliberately risk harming a patient by my choice of expressing my faith." No, Ms Chaplin. There was a rule in place about not wearing necklaces because there was a risk that patients could grab the jewellery, and potentially throttle the wearer. The NHS Trust was protecting you, and other staff members from assault. And yet crucifixes are most commonly worn on a dainty chain that would most definitly snap if pulled. If that's what she was wearing then there's zero risk on being throttled by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
six45ive Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I'm very happy with the result from the ECHR. Time and again when religious people seem to think they can adjust their employment contract to fit their own private religious beliefs do they end up losing in court. When will these people realise that their beliefs come second to the law and employment legislation/contracts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I don't see how displaying your religion to the world is a human right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 If you wear a uniform for your work you shouldn't be allowed to wear a cross or any other accessory. The clue is in the word 'uniform'. If you don't wear a uniform then you should have every right to do so. However when even the law of the land doesn't apply to all (Sikhs and crash helmets for instance) the waters are muddied for employers and employees alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I don't see how displaying your religion to the world is a human right. Wouldn't it be better if they wore some kind of badge to display their religion to the world then you could go out of your way to avoid them. Unless they were a nurse or a doctor or some other insignificant profession then that might present a little difficulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 Bad Luck, one won: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21025332 But, even as a Christian this kind of thing annoys me. Wearing a cross on show isn't compulsory to our religion. I wear one under my shirt. I don't feel the need to flash it off to all and sundry, my faith is a person matter between me and my God. Its a religion which is supposed to preach about care, compassion and understanding, but these people have shown none of this - especially McFarlane the Relate counsellor. In my opinion he's not qualified to do his job so doesn't deserve to continue with it. I thought Christians were keen to spread their words,and wearing a cross on display is a great tool. ---------- Post added 15-01-2013 at 15:36 ---------- If you wear a uniform for your work you shouldn't be allowed to wear a cross or any other accessory. The clue is in the word 'uniform'. If you don't wear a uniform then you should have every right to do so. However when even the law of the land doesn't apply to all (Sikhs and crash helmets for instance) the waters are muddied for employers and employees alike. Would you ban the wearing of rings and other personal itemsPartial uniformity is a necessity in the workplace but cloning is rather sterile,and highly impersonal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retrogo Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 BBC News Four British Christians who claim they lost their jobs as a result of discrimination against their beliefs are taking their cases to the European Court of Human Rights later. [...] The cases involve British Airways check-in clerk Nadia Eweida, nurse Shirley Chaplin, relationship counsellor Gary McFarlane and registrar Lilian Ladele: Ms Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian from Twickenham, south-west London, was sent home by her employer British Airways in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross Devon-based nurse Mrs Chaplin was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for similar reasons Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate after saying he had a conscientious objection to giving relationship advice to gay people Ms Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London Is this a case of discrimination, or just a case of people who wouldn't modify their behaviour? Is work a place to practice your beliefs, or should they be kept at home and work is place to do the job you're paid to do? Is dealing with a homosexual couple different to wearing a cross? One is a act that may hurt, but who is upset by a simple cross? People shouldn't be at work to express their religous views, they are there to WORK. If any expression is to be made, its the coperate identity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stomp Posted January 15, 2013 Share Posted January 15, 2013 I don’t know the entire case history here, but from reading the thread it seems that the Christian lady who won her case today was offered a range of alternative options to comply with her company’s’ uniform policy. If this were true then she, in my opinion does not deserve her victory. I am 6ft 4in tall, and upon starting my current employment found that I could not sit at their standard height desks as my legs wouldn’t go underneath. I was offered an option of a desk which I can raise to my comfort. If I had refused this offer, would I deserve to win a case for discrimination on the grounds of my height? Not an exact comparison I know. I volunteer within an organisation involved in pre-hospital care. This organisation has a (somewhat confusing) uniform policy. For example, we are not permitted to wear ties, necklaces or other such jewellery around the neck in case it dangles in something unpleasant. I have to be “bare below the elbow”, so that means that I have to take off my watch, my medical alert bracelet and my ring. However, there are exceptions, and this is where the waters get muddied: If I am a married male or female I am permitted to leave on my wedding ring, so long as it is “plain”. If I am not married I am not permitted to wear any ring, even if it were plain (whether male or female). If I were a female Muslim I would be permitted to wear a headscarf of my choosing. If I were not so, this would be banned. If I were a Muslim male I would be permitted to change my uniform trousers (black combats) and instead wear either a short-sleeved thobe or Islamic trousers. If I were a Christian male, I would be expected to adhere to the uniform policy as set out above. Can I therefore claim a breach of my rights because I have to remove my crucifix necklace? My employer has a casual dress code. However there is a “no football shirts” and a “no offensive slogan” policy. Could I take my employer to court for refusing me the right to express my religious freedom if I were dismissed because I were a member of the Westboro Baptist Church and I wore a T-Shirt saying “God hates fags”? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.