ECHR upholds one Christian but dismisses other cases

[quisquose 10]

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?

 

... and Nadia Eweida & Shirley Chaplin are demanding the very cherrypicking that allows them, but not others, to ignore valid H&S rules.

 

They are being bankrolled by a wealthy US funded Christian organisation which won't stop at jewellery if it wins.

[woodmally 10]

... and Nadia Eweida & Shirley Chaplin are demanding the very cherrypicking that allows them, but not others, to ignore valid H&S rules.

 

They are being bankrolled by a wealthy US funded Christian organisation which won't stop at jewellery if it wins.

 

Good point however we do have too much stupid health and safety legislation and if there is one thing I hate more than wealthy US Christian groups its health and safty.

 

Though, thinking about it, Christianity might not have been around if we had health and safety in the past. As crusifixion might have been a health and safety blackspot.

 

However returning to a serious note. I think you need to take a pragmatic liberal approach. Is Nadia and Shirley wearing a cross at work negativly affecting anyone. The answer to that question is a resounding no so why shouldnt they wear a cross.

Edited September 4, 2012 by woodmally
typo

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

As crusifixion might have been a health and safety blackspot.

That's notably understated.

[quisquose 10]

I think you need to take a pragmatic liberal approach. Is Nadia and Shirley wearing a cross at work negativly affecting anyone. The answer to that question is a resounding no so why shouldnt they wear a cross.

 

So your employer implements a rule to wear a shirt and tie which you, and everybody else, comply with, but your colleague opposite refuses to do so because of their "religious beliefs" and turn up in jeans and t-shirts instead. Wouldn't this irritate you somewhat?

 

By all accounts all the other BA staff were okay with the sensible rule that they shouldn't wear dangling jewellery in the baggage area, and they thought Eweida was an irritating stuck up cow for claiming she was more special than the rest of them.

 

Of course, she is just a pawn within the larger gameplan. She has lost at every legal stage thus far, and most people would have accepted the ruling at step 1, but she is being bankrolled by an organisation that would like to expand religious privilege across a much wider range of employment.

 

Since the claims against individual employers were rejected, the battleground has shifted. It is now the law itself that is being challenged and, by extension, the State. This means the implications of the case are wider ranging. A successful outcome for these individuals will mean a change in the law, or at least an adjustment in the way the law has been interpreted, that will apply to all employers across the board.

 

Want time off at the weekend? Think it's fair to rotate weekend working with other employees? Forget it if these people are successful.

Edited September 4, 2012 by quisquose

[Mecky 10]

Listened to the news on the radio and they had the story of this, or something similar. These people say they want equal rights, fair dos, but yet they oppose other things they deem undesireable eg. gay marriage. How can someone claim equality on one hand and persecute on the other? That doesn't sound very equal to me.

[Badlittlepup 10]

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.

 

Yes, but if you go back to before the early 90s BA would almost certainly have had rules about headwear which would have automatically banned hijabs and turbans but an exception was made for those, so it's a case of exceptions being applied unequally.

 

Who are funding these expensive legal cases?

 

Christian legal institute.

[janie48 95]

Listened to the news on the radio and they had the story of this, or something similar. These people say they want equal rights, fair dos, but yet they oppose other things they deem undesireable eg. gay marriage. How can someone claim equality on one hand and persecute on the other? That doesn't sound very equal to me.

 

Do all atheists who are vocal reflect your views?

[quisquose 10]

Yes, but if you go back to before the early 90s BA would almost certainly have had rules about headwear which would have automatically banned hijabs and turbans but an exception was made for those, so it's a case of exceptions being applied unequally.

 

You will have to provide evidence of this for me to take it seriously. I am unconvinced that there are any potential dangers of a turban or hijab becoming entangled in moving machinery in the same manner that a pendant could be. However, I suspect that any sensible management would take issue, and should be allowed to take issue, with somebody choosing to wear any headscarf that could become entangled.

 

I accept that the turban has been given special treatment, but this was a one-off and I think it was a mistake. Taking the route of giving all and sundry other religious choices exemptions from employment rules would be a dangerous precedent.

 

I agree pretty much with Terry Sanderson here:

 

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2012/09/heres-hoping-the-european-court-can-bring-an-end-to-this-campaign-of-distortion-over-religious-discrimination

[Bloomdido 10]

And the irony is that up until a few hundred years ago the Christian Theocracy used to kill people who dared to challenge its rule. As this behaviour became unacceptable the church tried to use its political power and influence to get its way (and still does) but even this is failing them now.

 

So they depend on lawsuits defending bigots and self-labelled martyrs whilst crying victimisation from the rooftops to anyone stupid enough to listen.

[janie48 95]

And the irony is that up until a few hundred years ago the Christian Theocracy used to kill people who dared to challenge its rule. As this behaviour became unacceptable the church tried to use its political power and influence to get its way (and still does) but even this is failing them now.

 

So they depend on lawsuits defending bigots and self-labelled martyrs whilst crying victimisation from the rooftops to anyone stupid enough to listen.

 

They don't stand a chance,so you will be able to gloat a bit more soon.

[Resident 1,183]

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.

 

As above, I agree that the first two have a shot of winning the case but the second two don't have a case in my opinion as both of those were disciplined for being discriminate against others, using their religion as the excuse.

[Badlittlepup 10]

You will have to provide evidence of this for me to take it seriously. I am unconvinced that there are any potential dangers of a turban or hijab becoming entangled in moving machinery in the same manner that a pendant could be. However, I suspect that any sensible management would take issue, and should be allowed to take issue, with somebody choosing to wear any headscarf that could become entangled.

 

I accept that the turban has been given special treatment, but this was a one-off and I think it was a mistake. Taking the route of giving all and sundry other religious choices exemptions from employment rules would be a dangerous precedent.

 

I agree pretty much with Terry Sanderson here:

 

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2012/09/heres-hoping-the-european-court-can-bring-an-end-to-this-campaign-of-distortion-over-religious-discrimination

 

Sorry, but that's asking for links as a way of muddying the waters. It's well known that adapting uniform policies to suit religious sensibilities is a modern occurence and happen until at least the 1980s. If you really need to have this confirmed to you have a quick google for the myraid of discrimination cases which created the precedence for the current situation we have where these exceptions are made.

 

It's the fact that these exceptions have begun to be made - you can't decide to give exceptions to one group and then refuse it to another and still claim you're on the side of equality.

 

As far as giving no exceptions goes - then you run the risk of creating a situation where people can be directly discriminated against because of their religion or any overt demonstration of it. I disagree strongly with that and don't agree that the decision to allow people to wear hijabs or turbans was wrong, but it needs to be applied equally.

 

The thing about gay marriage is different because it directly enroaches on the rights of other people to access services. However people who were already in the job who objected should have been accommodated - just new recruits should understand that it is a requirement.