4 UK Christians take discrimination case to European court
93 replies, posted
[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]
i would kill to be a part of the penicorn faith
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37532859]Anyone who seriously gets offended at the wearing of a cross representing a man who gave his life to save us (according to the story) is a complete fucking twat. New Testament is not Old Testament.[/QUOTE]
A... are you really...?
Wellp, [I]you[/I] know shit all about the new testament.
I don't get you people.
If I sign up for a job, and the dress code states "you may not wear necklaces of any sort" and I wear a necklace, I'm breaking the dress code. They knew the dress code before the signed up for the job. Weather wearing it or not affects anything is irrelevant, they are breaking the rules and they are being punished for it. Simple as that.
Looking around, I found this article:
[URL]http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/nelson-jones/2012/03/wear-cross-government-rights[/URL]
[QUOTE]The submission in effect sets out the decision reached by Lord Justice Sedley and his colleagues in 2010 when considering the case of Nadia Eweida, a [B]British Airways check-in clerk who objected to her employers demand that she conceal the cross she wished to wear as a testimony to her Christian faith.[/B]
The Court of Appeal concluded that Eweida's wish to wear the cross was a personal choice rather than a religious requirement, and therefore did not attract the protection that the law afforded to religious dress such as Sikh turbans or Muslim headscarves. Her case, and that of Shirley Chaplin, a nurse who was told she could not work on an NHS ward while wearing a crucifix, is formally taken against the government, that is against the British state.[/QUOTE]
Here's a picture of the British Airlines employee supposedly with the necklace in question:
[IMG]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2012/mar/12/cross-nadia-eweida-religious-symbols[/IMG]
That necklace is pretty small, but I have a feeling she was proselytizing or drawing attention to the necklace at work given the wording of the bolded bits from this other article.
As for the nurse, I can't see anything wrong with moving her to a desk job. If you work in clinical labs or hospitals, jewelry typically isn't allowed. If an earring falls off into an open wound or contaminates a lab sample you've probably ruined the experiment or killed someone. I'd be mad if they didn't remove her from her position.
EDIT:
Fucking image wouldn't link so here's another article:
[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/17/acrosstobear?INTCMP=SRCH[/URL]
[QUOTE]he employment tribunal, to which she complained, has just [URL="http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3158620.ece"]published its judgment[/URL], and it tells a rather different story. Not only did it kick out all her claims of religious discrimination and harassment, it also criticised her for her intransigence, saying that she:[B]"... generally lacked empathy for the perspective of others ... her own overwhelming commitment to her faith led her at times to be both naive and uncompromising in her dealings with those who did not share her faith."[/B]
One example of this was her insistence that she must never be required to work on Christmas Day, even though she had signed a contract that made it clear that she, like her colleagues, would be working in an operation that functions 24 hours a day, 365 days a year and therefore required shift working and bank holiday working, too.
In order to be fair to everybody, BA used a union-approved ballot system to ensure that those who worked on Christmas Day were fairly and objectively chosen. If their name came up, they were at liberty to negotiate with their colleagues to change shifts and days on a like-for-like basis. But not Nadia. She insisted that, because she was a Christian, she must not be required to work on Christmas Day - or Sunday, come to that.
The tribunal commented:
[B]"[Eweida's] insistence on privilege for Christmas Day is perhaps the most striking example in the case of her insensitivity towards colleagues, her lack of empathy for those without religious focus in their lives, and her incomprehension of the conflicting demands which professional management seeks to address and resolve on a near-daily basis."[/B]
Eweida was originally suspended from work as a BA check-in clerk when she refused to wear a cross on a necklace underneath her uniform rather than on top of it. This breached stated uniform policy, which stated that no one was allowed to wear visible adornments around their neck.
But Eweida and her Christian activist backers managed to foment such a backlash that BA was forced into changing the policy. Now she can wear her cross visibly, and the airline offered her £8,500 compensation and a return to her job, with her point successfully made.
But no - she decided to continue pursuing the airline at the industrial tribunal. She was funded in her action by a rightwing religious law firm in Arizona called the [URL="http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/pressrelease.aspx?cid=4350"]Alliance Defence Fund[/URL], whose affiliated lawyer was[URL="http://www.pauldiamond.com/"]Paul Diamond[/URL], a familiar figure in court cases demanding religious privilege.
The tribunal - unlike the Daily Mail - was required to look at all the evidence, and not consider only Eweida's account of events. And having done so, it kicked the case out on all counts, saying that Eweida did not suffer any discrimination.
The tribunal concluded:
[B]"The complaint of direct discrimination fails because we find that the claimant did not, on grounds of religion or belief, suffer less favourable treatment than a comparator in identical circumstances."[/B]
The tribunal also heard how Eweida's attitude and behaviour towards colleagues had prompted a number of complaints objecting to her: "Either giving them religious materials unsolicited, or speaking to colleagues in a judgmental or censorious manner which reflected her beliefs; one striking example," said the judgment, "was a report from a gay man that the claimant had told him that it was not too late to be redeemed."
Indeed, the proselytising motivation of her desire to wear the cross over her uniform instead of underneath it was underlined when she said: "It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them."
The details of this case make it clear that this is a woman who is wearing religious blinkers. In several instances she brought grievances and complaints against BA that had no basis in fact. She was convinced that BA was anti-Christian, and nothing would dissuade her from that opinion, despite the company jumping through hoops trying to accommodate the many and varied religious demands being placed on it. Indeed, there is a BA Christian Fellowship group that did not support Eweida's fight, and confirmed that BA was already "making available facilities, time, work spaces, intranet use and supporting Christian charitable activities throughout the world" - but strangely we haven't heard about them in the newspaper reports.
The tribunal notes that on the original claim form, Eweida states "I have not been permitted to wear my Christian cross; whilst other faiths (Sikhs, Hindu, Muslims) are permitted to manifest their faith in very obvious fashion. Secular individuals can show private affiliations." The tribunal found the first and last assertions to be untrue. But Eweida would not be persuaded.
Her numerous demands for special treatment because of her religion showed a complete indifference to the effect it would have on the lives of others. Indeed, in one instance she made an accusation against the Christian Fellowship group that turned out to be completely fallacious, and the tribunal felt compelled to say: "We find it demonstrates to a degree the extent to which the claimant [Eweida] misinterpreted events, as well as her readiness to make a serious accusation without thought of the implications."[/QUOTE]
Okay, I came in expecting them to have no case and just be another instance or bigoted assholes make themselves the "victim", but this is actually bullshit.
The necklace thing is retarded and that is plain religious discrimination.
The Homosexuality thing, while I disagree with their views, It's still part of Christianity and it's no more right for them to get fired then it would to fire someone for being gay.
Now watch as I get flooded with boxes because "all Christians are evil and stupid".
[QUOTE=J-Dude;37534981]As if you'd fucking complain if a Christian corporation fired its workers for being atheists.[/QUOTE]
I, what? Are you saying you wouldn't?
[QUOTE=RagerTrader;37536036]The Homosexuality thing, while I disagree with their views, It's still part of Christianity and it's no more right for them to get fired then it would to fire someone for being gay.[/QUOTE]
God damn, that's a stupid argument. Of course they can be fired for [b]not doing their job[/b]. If I go to my job and refuse to move boxes because I dislike cardboard, I'm going to get [b]fucking fired[/b] because that's a stupid as fuck reason to not do my job.
[QUOTE=RagerTrader;37536036]Okay, I came in expecting them to have no case and just be another instance or bigoted assholes make themselves the "victim", but this is actually bullshit.
The necklace thing is retarded and that is plain religious discrimination.
The Homosexuality thing, while I disagree with their views, It's still part of Christianity and it's no more right for them to get fired then it would to fire someone for being gay.
Now watch as I get flooded with boxes because "all Christians are evil and stupid".[/QUOTE]
No you're building a box fort because what you said is stupid.
They are a councillor first and Christian second. If they fail to do their job as a councillor, then they are not fit for the job and will loose it.
Some are treating this like they just got sacked one day outside of the blue for dress code violation. It wouldn't have go to europe court if that is the case. Jesus didn't wear accessories
[QUOTE=RagerTrader;37536036]Okay, I came in expecting them to have no case and just be another instance or bigoted assholes make themselves the "victim", but this is actually bullshit.
The necklace thing is retarded and that is plain religious discrimination.
The Homosexuality thing, while I disagree with their views, It's still part of Christianity and it's no more right for them to get fired then it would to fire someone for being gay.
Now watch as I get flooded with boxes because "all Christians are evil and stupid".[/QUOTE]
Religious discrimination would be allowing them to wear the necklace while disallowing other people. To discriminate is to recognise differences. Not allowing [b]anyone[/b] to wear one is perfectly acceptable, especially when wearing a necklace is not a required, documented part of their faith. This differs from for example Sikhs, who are [b]required[/b] to wear those silver bangles and turbans as it tells them to in their religious texts.
And the homosexuality part - Do you really think that they should be allowed to sue, because they feel unjustly discriminated, because they were fired for unjustly discriminating? lmao
[QUOTE] • Mr McFarlane, a Bristol counsellor, was sacked by Relate for refusing to give relationship advice to gay people[/QUOTE]
"Wait, gay people actually exist? And they are in relationships with other gay people?! I didn't sign up for this!"
[QUOTE=RagerTrader;37536036]Okay, I came in expecting them to have no case and just be another instance or bigoted assholes make themselves the "victim", but this is actually bullshit.
The necklace thing is retarded and that is plain religious discrimination.
The Homosexuality thing, while I disagree with their views, It's still part of Christianity and it's no more right for them to get fired then it would to fire someone for being gay.
Now watch as I get flooded with boxes because "all Christians are evil and stupid".[/QUOTE]
Nope. If you read the edit I made there's another article that lays out how she was proselytizing and lying about the situation and how BA was actually trying to accommodate her with the cross business but she refused:
[QUOTE]the airline offered her £8,500 compensation and a return to her job, with her point successfully made.
But no - she decided to continue pursuing the airline at the industrial tribunal. She was funded in her action by a rightwing religious law firm in Arizona called the Alliance Defence Fund, whose affiliated lawyer wasPaul Diamond, a familiar figure in court cases demanding religious privilege.[/QUOTE]
So other religions can wear what they want to but Christians can't? Ridiculous.
[QUOTE=EzioAuditore;37536664]So other religions can wear what they want to but Christians can't? Ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
No actually, no one can wear jewelry typically in labs or medical facilities for hygienic reasons, and British Airlines does not allow anyone to wear jewelry over their uniforms.
The British Airlines employee was handing out jesus shit to other employees and to passengers, bitched about having to work on sundays/holidays when the contract explicitly states that there is an impartial lottery for determining shifts on holidays while providing means for negotiation with other employees, and was given an exemption for her fucking necklace.
She refused.
Not only did she refuse, she went on and tried to paint herself as a victim in public view probably to drum up shit about how BA and the government is anti-christian while receiving funds from the ADF.
Actually after hearing about this woman, I think that BA are not at fault. The article itself never states that other people were not allowed to wear any jewellery.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37532902]I'm sure there's some shit on evilbible.com. but as a whole Jesus's record is pretty squeaky clean.[/QUOTE]
he was the worst carpenter
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;37536876]Actually after hearing about this woman, I think that BA are not at fault. The article itself never states that other people were not allowed to wear any jewellery.[/QUOTE]
The fact that people are even taking her seriously is crazy. Here's another article that states she's refused to deal with BA:
[URL="http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/1840156.0/?act=complaint&cid=785797"]http://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/1840156.0/?act=complaint&cid=785797[/URL]
[QUOTE][B]"I knew BA intended to promote religions other than Christianity. However, I was unprepared for the hostile reaction that I was given," she said in a statement read out at the tribunal in Reading.
[/B]
"I was harried, sent home, refused pay, had grievance procedures that are still continuing and have had to be resolute.
"No other religious individual would have sustained this; the concession would have been granted with a full apology.
"I want the best for Great Britain and I want the best for BA. However, this is not achieved by treating Christians with disrespect and contempt. This is an aspect of culture and policy that we follow at our peril."
Miss Eweida, who began working for BA as a customer services representative in May 1999, started wearing the cross when the airline changed its uniform.
Miss Eweida agreed she had always observed the code, however in May 2006 she attended an internal diversity training course, in which tolerance of religious minorities was promoted, so the next day she wore the cross.
She was ordered to remove it by senior staff and later, on September 20, 2006, was sent home and refused pay.
She claimed that although BA supported and promoted other religions, the company found the Christian faith "offensive."
"There is a diversity and tolerance policy that is neither diverse nor tolerant," she added.
Ingrid Simler, a lawyer representing BA, said the company promoted Christianity on a par with other religions and cited the internal Christian fellowship as proof of this.
[B]In February 2007 BA changed its policy to allow staff members to wear the cross, with prior permission from managers and Miss Eweida is now back at work Tribunal chairman Robin Lewis decided that Miss Eweida could also pursue a claim for lost wages during her absence from September 20, 2006, to February 1, 2007.[/B]
[B]A BA spokesman said the company had offered Miss Eweida a payment of £8,500 which included a donation of £50,000 to Unicef but Miss Eweida refused.[/B][/QUOTE]
She's fucking nuts.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;37534880]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.[/QUOTE]
Remember when facepunch was a singular monolithic entity instead of a bunch of different guys sitting at their PCs.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;37534993]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]
Right back at you, because you're completely missing the fucking point, and trying to equate me to some kind of bullshit stereotype.
If the corp says "no jewelry or political, sports or religious symbols," that's the end of the matter, because they can decide they want the face of their company to at least APPEAR neutral on those matters in the public eye. A religiously-based corporation, similarly, can probably choose their own hiring criteria and dress code compatible with their religious ideology.
It's the fact that these whiners want some kind of special treatment for the fact that they have an opinion on something, so they feel they [I]need [/I] to be allowed to misrepresent the people they work for irregardless of their wishes.
The point is that these people are acting like they're surprised at the fact that companies have their OWN religious rights in being allowed to represent themselves however they'd like. They're allowed not to take stance, or let their workers appear to take a stance. I'm pretty damn skippy this wouldn't fly at the place I work either.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37532859]A picture of Christ no more invokes homophobic than a picture of blonde people invokes Aryan pride.
Anyone who seriously gets offended at the wearing of a cross representing a man who gave his life to save us (according to the story) is a complete fucking twat. New Testament is not Old Testament.[/QUOTE]
We should ban the Union Jack being displayed on anything since the British Empire sure commited a few atrocities...
Seriously though, nothing is pure so you might as well express yourself the way you want
I understand the necklace ones,i mean how does a necklace breach health and safety guidelines? But,the other two are just stupid.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;37538097]Right back at you, because you're completely missing the fucking point, and trying to equate me to some kind of bullshit stereotype.
If the corp says "no jewelry or political, sports or religious symbols," that's the end of the matter, because they can decide they want the face of their company to at least APPEAR neutral on those matters in the public eye. A religiously-based corporation, similarly, can probably choose their own hiring criteria and dress code compatible with their religious ideology.
It's the fact that these whiners want some kind of special treatment for the fact that they have an opinion on something, so they feel they [I]need [/I] to be allowed to misrepresent the people they work for irregardless of their wishes.
The point is that these people are acting like they're surprised at the fact that companies have their OWN religious rights in being allowed to represent themselves however they'd like. They're allowed not to take stance, or let their workers appear to take a stance. I'm pretty damn skippy this wouldn't fly at the place I work either.[/QUOTE]
I already said I'd changed my opinion. I though that the ban was only on the cross.
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37534324]
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]
you didn't call me out you just posted the whole thing and said "NOPE"
[quote]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?”[/quote]
that's pretty obvious isn't it. no-one else returned because they didn't praise god enough.
[quote]your faith has made you well[/quote]
derp
[QUOTE=IPK;37538626]I understand the necklace ones,i mean how does a necklace breach health and safety guidelines? But,the other two are just stupid.[/QUOTE]
For the nurse its a violation of health code. The risk of introducing foreign matter into any wound is too great to allow most any jewelry. Jewelry could break and fall into a wound, dirt or contaminants deposited on the jewelry could fall into the wound, the jewelry could cause physical tearing or damage to the patient/medical devices, the jewelry could get caught in moving parts of medical machinery and cause damage to the wearer/patient, or the materials the jewelry are composed of could chemically react with loads of things in the medical setting.
For the British Airlines worker, there's quite a bit going on there. Jewelry worn over the official uniform was not permitted for anyone. The woman complained, got an exemption from the rule, was offered compensation and refused and is still screaming discrimination [B]after special treatment was offered to her.[/B] This isn't even touching her deplorable behavior involving offensive remarks towards other employees and towards passengers on the basis of their personal beliefs or family matters, nor is it touching the abuse of her position to evangelize to passengers and the buttloads of crazy that come from the association with the ADF.
I swear, its like none of you guys even read the thread.
[QUOTE=Rents;37537386]Remember when facepunch was a singular monolithic entity instead of a bunch of different guys sitting at their PCs.[/QUOTE]
I like using Facepunch as a substantive noun.
[QUOTE=Megafan;37532510]It's silly to call this 'discrimination against belief', when they were essentially refusing to perform their job or follow dress code purely on the basis of their religion. How did they not know what the expectations would be before signing on to their jobs?[/QUOTE]
To be completely honest - a small cross on the neck is something that I believe should be permitted and not disciplined against. If the cross was larger, that is another matter though. That said, accoring to above posters, there's more to the story than just small pieces of jewelry.
The other two though (civil union and relationship advice) is indeed a failure to meet standards.
[quote]Gary McFarlane, a Bristol relationship counsellor, who was sacked by Relate after saying on a training course he might have had a conscientious objection to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples.
[/quote]
He didn't actually refuse to do his job.
Stay classy SH, stay classy.
[QUOTE=thisispain;37539306]you didn't call me out you just posted the whole thing and said "NOPE"
that's pretty obvious isn't it. no-one else returned because they didn't praise god enough.
derp[/QUOTE]
sorry bad boy but "your faith has made you well" doesn't translate to "only faith will make you well", etc.
now given (as i said earlier) that christ healed all sorts, not merely the virtuous, and generally preached love thy enemy love thy neighbour etc etc etc i'm going to take a wild guess and say jesus didn't advocate faith-based healthcare
[QUOTE=BoysLightUp;37547861]sorry bad boy but "your faith has made you well" doesn't translate to "only faith will make you well", etc.
now given (as i said earlier) that christ healed all sorts, not merely the virtuous, and generally preached love thy enemy love thy neighbour etc etc etc i'm going to take a wild guess and say jesus didn't advocate faith-based healthcare[/QUOTE]
saying that someones faith made someone well DOES mean he advocated faith based healing. not that what jesus advocated is relevant at all considering he died like almost 2 thousand years ago and everything he supposedly said or did has been repeated and rewritten countless times. not that any of this is relevant at all!!! if a place of business has a dress code and someone is not willing to adhere to that dress code then they can't work there that's pretty much it. although i don't really think it's that fair, i wear a scapular pretty much at all times but i keep it under my t-shirt, i would be very peeved if i was told to remove it
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;37547993]saying that someones faith made someone well DOES mean he advocated faith based healing. not that what jesus advocated is relevant at all considering he died like almost 2 thousand years ago and everything he supposedly said or did has been repeated and rewritten countless times. not that any of this is relevant at all!!! if a place of business has a dress code and someone is not willing to adhere to that dress code then they can't work there that's pretty much it. although i don't really think it's that fair, i wear a scapular pretty much at all times but i keep it under my t-shirt, i would be very peeved if i was told to remove it[/QUOTE]
well given that christ has had a gigantic influence on quite a lot i think it's very important what christ advocated. i mean you can go "NOT TRUE LOL" if you like but when much of the world at current has been shaped by christian ideas i'd think it was very important to know what those ideas were. i mean i'm not muslim but given the influence of islamic scholarship on european scholarship in the 13th / 14th century, i'd like to know what the muslim ideas were that made islamic scholarship special enough to do things.
I think Eweida is a goddamn moron, but the other three? I'm not sure they're in the wrong. Yes, I can understand the arguments against the necklace, but the necklace is tiny. If there's a risk that little thing is going to get in a wound, why the fuck is the nurse rubbing her neck on people? I'd question that above anything. As for the last two, if they have an objection to something they don't feel comfortable with (for whatever reason) they shouldn't be made to do it or given shit for it. I think it's rather silly, myself, but it's their beliefs.
Having said all of that, I'm going to immediately contradict it because I'm indecisive like that. I [i]also[/i] do not think private businesses should be told how to run their own shop. If you don't like something, but it's how the company does things? Well, it's how the company does things, it's their choice and you can either deal with that or work somewhere that's a better fit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.