ECHR upholds one Christian but dismisses other cases

[onewheeldave]

Let's hope the army and police don't go down that route.

 

?I've no problem whatsoever with a police officer or soldier questioning rules they consider wrong, or taking any legally available actions to try and change those rules.

 

Whatever the police/army do, it doesn't change the fact that this lady went to court to challenge a rule she considered discriminatory, that court backed her up, and, as a result, people can happily wear symbological jewelry without fear of discrimination, sacking, or other harrassment.

 

It seems a bit strange that so many people who object on the grounds that the 'rules' didn't allow such personal choice/expression, don't just accept that another set of rules (the law, in this case) have ruled the previous rule to be unjust.

[altus]

True indeed. So you then would support a ban on ALL religious symbols at work, including ALL religious dress and ceremonial (lethal) knives etc.? Or are you one of those who seek to appease the militant, and therefore slightly scary, religious extremists?

Don't bother with the false dicotomies.

 

My post was about the police's investigations of child abuse, not something that is legal.

 

I have no objection to people wearing religious symbols/clothing, either were their religion dictates or because of their own personal conviction, as long as it obeys the law and rules of where they are (e.g. employer's dress code). I am against people being coerced into wearing particular clothing because others think it is a requirement of their religion - it should be up to the individual concerned.

[tinfoilhat]

?I've no problem whatsoever with a police officer or soldier questioning rules they consider wrong, or taking any legally available actions to try and change those rules.

 

Whatever the police/army do, it doesn't change the fact that this lady went to court to challenge a rule she considered discriminatory, that court backed her up, and, as a result, people can happily wear symbological jewelry without fear of discrimination, sacking, or other harrassment.

 

It seems a bit strange that so many people who object on the grounds that the 'rules' didn't allow such personal choice/expression, don't just accept that another set of rules (the law, in this case) have ruled the previous rule to be unjust.

 

I think there wasn't much wrong with the original rule, she's stamped her feet and won. There are now new rules. That's life. Is there a limit on size or can I expect an early 90s rapper gold chain and thwacking great 5" diamond encrusted cross (or other religious symbol - arent shiks aloud to wear swords ?!?!?!)in my face when I purchase an overpriced beverage ?

[Parvo]

Told this was due to health and safety reasons and uniform policy, but Muslim women are allowed to wear long sleeves which is also against health and safety and uniform policy. Reverse discrimination?

 

not if they are actually doing a procedure they are not........

 

 

however not sure whether they are allowed to wear the face masks-and that would be discriminating against deaf patients.

 

and the only jewelry allowed is a wedding ring-personally I think they should not be worn either.

[onewheeldave]

I think there wasn't much wrong with the original rule, she's stamped her feet and won. There are now new rules. That's life. Is there a limit on size or can I expect an early 90s rapper gold chain and thwacking great 5" diamond encrusted cross (or other religious symbol - arent shiks aloud to wear swords ?!?!?!)in my face when I purchase an overpriced beverage ?

 

Glad you liked the original rule so much

 

There was something wrong with it though, it was discriminatory and therefore unlawful, hence why the court overturned it.

 

I don't know if there's a limit on the size of jewelry- you're possibly veering off into strawman territory there, given that the piece which is the subject of this thread was a small, discreet cross.

 

And that's what the original rule you liked so much tried to bar- a small, discreet cross, not a 5" diamond encrusted hip-hop special.

[tinfoilhat]

Glad you liked the original rule so much

 

There was something wrong with it though, it was discriminatory and therefore unlawful, hence why the court overturned it.

 

I don't know if there's a limit on the size of jewelry- you're possibly veering off into strawman territory there, given that the piece which is the subject of this thread was a small, discreet cross.

 

And that's what the original rule you liked so much tried to bar- a small, discreet cross, not a 5" diamond encrusted hip-hop special.

 

I don't think it was discriminatory anyway, although I will bow to 5 of the 7judges who made the ruling. It didn't seem to be discriminating against Christians it seemed to be against wearing jewellery. Will her religious co-workers be singing and dancing up the isles (i did note from picturs she didnt seem to have alot of support on the day - but they dont tell the whole story) or will they think what a load of hassle for not alot. Does that make them less christian.

 

On another note Can the stewards revive the much maligned "double sovereign" look ?

[TeaFan]

Is there a balance? A Christian isn't forced to wear a cross. They can take it off without breaking any religious rules. Equally, a Sikh cannot cut his hair without breaking his religious rules. He has to wear a Turban.

 

Mandatory religious rules and elective religious behaviour should be considered differently, do you think?

 

All religious adherents who don't literally follow the rules laid down in their holy texts are tacitly admitting that everything is optional. So any Jew, for example, who turns the lights on on the Sabbath can't really claim that they have to circumcise their child - they've already acknowledged that they are free to pick and choose which laws to follow. So unless someone is a literal follower of their religious codes they can't legitimately claim that there are rules they have to follow.

[onewheeldave]

All religious adherents who don't literally follow the rules laid down in their holy texts are tacitly admitting that everything is optional. So any Jew, for example, who turns the lights on on the Sabbath can't really claim that they have to circumcise their child - they've already acknowledged that they are free to pick and choose[/i] which laws to follow. So unless someone is a literal follower of their religious codes they can't legitimately claim that there are rules they have to follow.

 

It's rarely them making that choice. In the case of rules that become problematic due to, for example, advancements in technology, it's generally a dept within the church that would make a ruling, either deciding that the rule can be reinterpreted, or that there may be a more symbolocial way of carrying out the rule etc, etc.

 

The church goer would then follow what the church had decided.

 

Devoutees of most churches tend to be followers, the last thing they want to be doing is making their own decisions on matters like those.

[TeaFan]

It's rarely them making that choice. In the case of rules that become problematic due to, for example, advancements in technology, it's generally a dept within the church that would make a ruling, either deciding that the rule can be reinterpreted, or that there may be a more symbolocial way of carrying out the rule etc, etc.

 

The church goer would then follow what the church had decided.

 

Devoutees of most churches tend to be followers, the last thing they want to be doing is making their own decisions on matters like those.

 

Aren't they meant to be following the word of God, not people? If God is meant to be omniscient, then he'd have known about all the future advancements in technology at the time he handed the laws down, wouldn't he? I love the way 'religious' people decide for themselves what God was serious about and what he was just kidding about.

[Stomp]

That depends very much on what the 'alternative options' were, doesn't it?

 

Im not convinced that it does. The company had a reasonable policy which she refused to comply with on religious grounds. From the reports she was offered alternatives such as moving to a non-customer-facing role, and/or tucking the cross insider her top so it was not on display.

 

 

Not only is it not an exact comparison, it's no comparison at all- if for some strange reason you'd refused a desk which fitted you, you could have used the one that didn't- your choice.

 

Yeah, a bit of a rubbish example, but the point I was trying to make is that my company offered me alternatives. If I had have refused the desk which was suitable, would I then be able to claim against my employer? This seems to be what this lady has done. She has refused to comply with the company rules, and then refused options to allow her continuned employement.

 

 

I guess you could take them to court- you'd lose though, for wearing an offensive t-shirt. In contrast she was wearing a small cross, which is not offensive.

 

Personally, I don't find a cross, star of david, or any other particular religious symbol offensive, but some people do. The "God Hates Fags" slogan is clearly designed to be offensive to others so you are right it's a non starter. But let's try another example.

 

If I were a "Jedi" - Could I disobey my companies policy on clothing by wearing.....whatever Jedi's wear?