4 UK Christians take discrimination case to European court
93 replies, posted
Necklace cases are discrimination, the other two are them not doing their jobs properly.
[QUOTE=TacticalBacon;37533273]I think for the nurse one it's the same reasoning as why Doctors don't wear ties any more: Because when they're leaning over a patient, it could get on wounds and spread infections or something.
Notice how it says she was moved to a desk job, not fired. They just didn't want her to make things worse for patients by wearing a necklace.[/QUOTE]
that's a pretty good point. yeah i guess all 4 of these dudes are idiots
The first 2 might have a good point (but not a case, especially the nurse for the reasons above).
But the other two what the fuck. They didn't do their jobs and now that they're in trouble for it they have the nerve to complain?
So they are being discriminated against, but them refusing to help gay people is not discriminating? Get the fuck out of here.
[QUOTE=smurfy;37532520]People may argue about the necklace ones, but the other two were clearly not doing their job properly because of intolerance and deserved to be fired[/QUOTE]
Definitely. I wonder if anyone else was wearing any other kinds of pendants or necklaces in her workplace.
[QUOTE]• 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[/QUOTE]
They should be able to wear the necklace they want, it's not harming anyone. I'm going to rate hear-
[QUOTE] • Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate for refusing to give relationship advice to gay people
• Ms Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London[/QUOTE]
Oh.
It would be discrimination if they only applied the rule to Christians. If it is applied equally to all of them regardless of their religious, views, it would not be at all.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;37534033]that's a pretty good point. yeah i guess all 4 of these dudes are idiots[/QUOTE]
unless it's some sort of massive rosary necklace that goes down to your waist the argument's invalid, a small cross on a neck-chain doesn't pose a health risk
frankly this is just anti-christian discrimination. if an employer forbade a sikh employee from wearing a turban (and they are allowed to wear turbans), the entire community would be up in arms. we're not talking about a flashing flaming cross stapled to their heads saying "JOIN JESUS OR BURN" - denying them the right to wear across is a violation of civil liberties. anti-discrimination authorities, state or otherwise, have upheld this right in exactly this context across much of the western world - can't just throw it out now because christians lol, nor because of some ridiculously asinine argument like "the cross is offensive because Christianity is dumb" (looking at you thisispain)
actually i'm calling you out on the luke story, did you mean this?
On the way to Jerusalem he was passing along between Samaria and Galilee. 12 And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers,[a] who stood at a distance 13 and lifted up their voices, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.” 14 When he saw them he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went they were cleansed. 15 Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; 16 and he fell on his face at Jesus' feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan. 17 Then Jesus answered, “Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? 18 Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” 19 And he said to him, “Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well.”
because if so, that is NOT simplified to "if you're ill pray harder", given that christ healed sinners and righteous alike. maybe we'll hit the jackpot and have lankist lurching in to declare christ a murderous terrorist who deserved to be hung on the cross to die in agony, conveniently forgetting all his arguments against the death penalty in 492148157 other threads
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;37533331]Necklace cases are discrimination, the other two are them not doing their jobs properly.[/QUOTE]
It's not discrimination at all. Their religion does not require them to wear the necklaces. They had no reason to wear them other than they wanted to.
[QUOTE=nightlord;37534375]It's not discrimination at all. Their religion does not require them to wear the necklaces. They had no reason to wear them other than they wanted to.[/QUOTE]
no you're not getting it it's not about what you think christian canon is it's about freedom of religious expression which is allowed for everyone else but violated for these two. i mean christ almighty the whole thing is about wearing them because "they want to", do you think god comes down from the sky and kills sikhs who don't wear turbans?
alternatively if that's your only burden, what the religion mandates, i'll create a faith which mandates wearing a gigantic dildo strapped to my forehead
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37534392]no you're not getting it it's not about what you think christian canon is it's about freedom of religious expression which is allowed for everyone else but violated for these two. i mean christ almighty the whole thing is about wearing them because "they want to", do you think god comes down from the sky and kills sikhs who don't wear turbans?
alternatively if that's your only burden, what the religion mandates, i'll create a faith which mandates wearing a gigantic dildo strapped to my forehead[/QUOTE]
No, it's not allowed for everyone else. If their religion [B]required[/B] them to wear it then they would be allowed to. It doesn't, so they aren't allowed and it's the same for everyone else. If it is against the dress code or any other rules the employer has in place then they have to follow it. Those two had no reason to wear the necklace other than they wanted to. It's no different than anyone else deciding to wear a hat or whatever just because they want to.
[QUOTE=nightlord;37534499]No, it's not allowed for everyone else. If the religion [B]required[/B] them to wear it then they would be allowed to. It doesn't, so they aren't allowed and it's the same for everyone else.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't make much sense tbh. If the "required" religious symbols are allowed why not allow the non-required ones? The result is the same and it doesn't harm anyone.
And "required" is extremely vague, it depends on how the person interprets their religion.
[QUOTE=Kljunas;37534577]It doesn't make much sense tbh. If the "required" religious symbols are allowed why not allow the non-required ones? The result is the same and it doesn't harm anyone.
And "required" is extremely vague, it depends on how the person interprets their religion.[/QUOTE]
The non-required ones aren't allowed because they aren't required and there is no reason to make an exception. Not allowing them to wear something that is required by their religion would be discrimination.
It's not vague at all. The bible doesn't say you need to wear a cross necklace, which means it's not required.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37534324]unless it's some sort of massive rosary necklace that goes down to your waist the argument's invalid, a small cross on a neck-chain doesn't pose a health risk
frankly this is just anti-christian discrimination. if an employer forbade a sikh employee from wearing a turban (and they are allowed to wear turbans), the entire community would be up in arms. we're not talking about a flashing flaming cross stapled to their heads saying "JOIN JESUS OR BURN" - denying them the right to wear across is a violation of civil liberties. anti-discrimination authorities, state or otherwise, have upheld this right in exactly this context across much of the western world - can't just throw it out now because christians lol, nor because of some ridiculously asinine argument like "the cross is offensive because Christianity is dumb" (looking at you thisispain)
actually i'm calling you out on the luke story, did you mean this?
On the way to Jerusalem he was passing along between Samaria and Galilee. 12 And as he entered a village, he was met by ten lepers,[a] who stood at a distance 13 and lifted up their voices, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us.” 14 When he saw them he said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they went they were cleansed. 15 Then one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice; 16 and he fell on his face at Jesus' feet, giving him thanks. Now he was a Samaritan. 17 Then Jesus answered, “Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? 18 Was no one found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?” 19 And he said to him, “Rise and go your way; your faith has made you well.”
because if so, that is NOT simplified to "if you're ill pray harder", given that christ healed sinners and righteous alike. maybe we'll hit the jackpot and have lankist lurching in to declare christ a murderous terrorist who deserved to be hung on the cross to die in agony, conveniently forgetting all his arguments against the death penalty in 492148157 other threads[/QUOTE]
but i mean, dress code is dress code. if noone is allowed to wear necklaces then i don't see how it's anti-christian discrimination. the way i see the first 2 have nothing to do with christianity it's just a coincidence, the next 2 though yeah have to do with it but in a bad way
[QUOTE=nightlord;37534499]No, it's not allowed for everyone else. If their religion [B]required[/B] them to wear it then they would be allowed to. It doesn't, so they aren't allowed and it's the same for everyone else. If it is against the dress code or any other rules the employer has in place then they have to follow it. Those two had no reason to wear the necklace other than they wanted to. It's no different than anyone else deciding to wear a hat or whatever just because they want to.[/QUOTE]
Not even required religious jewelry should be allowed if it presents a possible risk to patients, I can understand someone who refuses to stop wearing jewelry being moved to a desk job as a result.
Remember when facepunch said that Muslims shouldn't need to wear the face-veil because it's not required of religion and banning it is fine.
What was stopping her from having the cross hidden under her clothing? She would still be wearing it but it wouldn't break their dress code. Besides, being flamboyant about religion is against the teachings in the bible.
[quote]And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.[/quote]
Everyone saying that it isn't required is annoying me. Sure, it may not be required, however it doesn't effect anyone (in most jobs), so there is no reason for the company to be gigantic twats about it.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;37534903]Everyone saying that it isn't required is annoying me. Sure, it may not be required, however it doesn't effect anyone (in most jobs), so there is no reason for the company to be gigantic twats about it.[/QUOTE]
In the case of the check-in desk, that is true. Not sure why they decided to enforce such a rule.
Hmm... Let's see...
Cross neclaces, eh? Yeah, it's called a fucking DRESS CODE. And if the company you work wants its workers to remain neutral on religious terms with its customers, then shape-up or ship-out. As if you'd fucking complain if a Christian corporation fired its workers for being atheists.
Oh, and if you're going to say that it's not fair that certain corporations would let Muslim people wear burkas when you can't wear your cross, that is ENTIRELY up to what the corporation considers its dress code. Corporations often do that because the Islamic community in general tends to be extremely touchy, and corporations will often avoid controversy at any cost. But they are well within their right to decide a dress code regardless of your religious ideals, because they're not fucking FORCING you to work for them.
Then the gays.
Hey... hey, religious people? Here's a reality check for ya': It is not DISCRIMINATION that the corporation forbids you from discriminating against [I]others [/I]in the course of your job. I am not oppressing your religious freedom by taking away your club and preventing you from hitting people of other religious ideals with it.
As an atheist, I think you're fucking stupid, guy above me. Why do you care? Why are you so angry at religious people? Is a cross necklace going to affect you at all? Is it going to affect anyone? You're just one of those annoying, butthurt atheists who seem to enjoy being cunts and give a bad name to all of the rest of us.
[quote][B]• Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate for refusing to give relationship advice to gay people
• Ms Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London[/B][/quote]
I don't see how this works, they refused to do their jobs and are complaining they got sacked/disciplined? Serves them right, close minded fucks.
No-one is debating these two people, we're debating the others.
[QUOTE=Buck.;37534994]I don't see how this works, they refused to do their jobs and are complaining they got sacked/disciplined? Serves them right, close minded fucks.[/QUOTE]
agreed but it's mainly the other 2 people are talking about
but hey, in 100 years this thing will be completely unheard of
What about those items a sikh must carry at all times, like a little dagger or something? And then so they made fake harmless dagger things which they accept to use because you can't carry a knife around in society.
[editline].[/editline]
It's called a kirpa.
[quote]It is a religious commandment given by [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Gobind_Singh"]Guru Gobind Singh[/URL] (the tenth Guru of Sikhism) at the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baisakhi"]Baisakhi[/URL] [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amrit_Sanchar"]Amrit Sanchar[/URL] (a holy religious ceremony that formally baptizes a Sikh) in [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1699"]AD 1699[/URL], all baptised [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh"]Sikhs[/URL] ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalsa"]Khalsa[/URL]) must wear a kirpan at all times.[/quote]
Wikipedia
Suggest an alternative to a cross.
[QUOTE]• Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate for refusing to give relationship advice to gay people
• Ms Ladele was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London[/QUOTE]
Refusing to do your job because you don't like the way someone lives their life. Just plain selfish if you ask me, should be sacked on the spot.
I think that these people should read the comments. Nobody is disagreeing on this.
[QUOTE=bull3tmagn3t;37535335]What about those items a sikh must carry at all times, like a little dagger or something? And then so they made fake harmless dagger things which they accept to use because you can't carry a knife around in society.
[editline].[/editline]
It's called a kirpa.
Wikipedia[/QUOTE]
You're allowed them in the UK.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.