ECHR upholds one Christian but dismisses other cases

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

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?

[rubydazzler 11]

If we're going to bend over backwards to accommodate some religious groups clothing preferences, dietary requirements, et cetera, we surely have to extend forebearance to all of them?

 

Have people have just become so used to Christians turning the other cheek, so that we don't have a mini riot everytime they get the hump, the authorities think they can just ride roughshod over their beliefs? If people have serious issues of conscience, about anything, and there are other employees who can do the same job, why insist that someone who is clearly uncomfortable do that particular job?

 

Is it discrimination? I think it is.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

If we're going to bend over backwards to accommodate some religious groups clothing preferences, dietary requirements, et cetera, we surely have to extend forebearance to all of them?

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?

Edited September 4, 2012 by Chris_Sleeps

[rubydazzler 11]

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?

I don't think he HAS to wear a turban, does he? Just not cut his hair and beard. And then there's the dagger and bangles thing ... should we consider health and safety with those as well as a cross and chain?

 

And then we have to consider the hijaab, niqab and burqa, none of which is mandatory. Cultural, yes, but then so is wearing a cross in some very devout Christian circles.

 

So, on balance, I think NO, we don't have to consider them differently. We can respect them as a requirement of the person's own conscience but as religion is only a matter of belief and not of fact, they shouldn't really carry that much weight one compared to another.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

I don't think he HAS to wear a turban, does he? Just not cut his hair and beard.

I think he does. If you want to prove me wrong though, I'm happy to let you do so.

 

And then there's the dagger and bangles thing ... should we consider health and safety with those as well as a cross and chain?

I'll agree with that, in part. No reason at all why anyone can legally carry around a knife. The kirpan is another archaic and outdated nonsense.

 

So, on balance, I think NO, we don't have to consider them differently. We can respect them as a requirement of the person's own conscience but as religion is only a matter of beliefand not of fact, they shouldn't really carry that much weight one compared to another.

I think some things should be considered differently. A strong observance of the Sabbath for example. I'm open to being pursuaded out of it, but I don't think it fair to force a man to work on his holy day. Equally, he shouldn't bring his religion to work with him.

[quisquose 10]

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?

[rubydazzler 11]

Not even wedding rings? Just curious, because a lot of people refuse to take off their wedding rings, and are allowed to cover them with sticking plaster in very sensitive areas of work.

[woodmally 10]

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?

 

Firstly as an athiest I will happily agree with the first two fighting their case. I think they should be allowed to wear a religeous symbol should they choose. It does not impact anybody so why not. I dont believe in religeon but them wearing a cross does not impact me in the slightest.

 

As for refusing to marry a gay person and giving advice to gay people this is wrong. Its purely hypocrytical. They are fighting for their rights but what about the gay persons right to get married or to advice. These fights are to advance thier own homophobic views.

[quisquose 10]

Not even wedding rings? Just curious, because a lot of people refuse to take off their wedding rings, and are allowed to cover them with sticking plaster in very sensitive areas of work.

 

My wife, and others, have to tape them up if they cannot or don't want to remove them. No exceptions are made for religious beliefs.

 

Nadia Eweida was allowed to wear her necklace under her clothing where it wouldn't compromise H&S, but this wasn't good enough apparently.

[woodmally 10]

My wife, and others, have to tape them up if they cannot or don't want to remove them. No exceptions are made for religious beliefs.

 

Nadia Eweida was allowed to wear her necklace under her clothing where it wouldn't compromise H&S, but this wasn't good enough apparently.

 

I think the argument in this case isnt about religeon its about the stupidity of Health and Safety legislation. I think you shouldnt have to tape up your wedding ring its riddiculous.

[rubydazzler 11]

My wife, and others, have to tape them up if they cannot or don't want to remove them. No exceptions are made for religious beliefs.

 

Nadia Eweida was allowed to wear her necklace under her clothing where it wouldn't compromise H&S, but this wasn't good enough apparently.

That seems fair enough, provided the rules are applied across the board, without fear or favour. The problems seem to arise when there's cherrypicking from one person to another?

 

It'll be interesting to see what the results are when the cases have been considered. Hopefully the OP will keep us informed.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

This is always worthy of a note.

 

Austrian driver allowed 'pastafarian' headgear photo