ECHR upholds one Christian but dismisses other cases

[Badlittlepup 10]

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.

 

You do have to wonder though - if the registrar objecting was a Muslim would their claim have been dismissed quite so readily?

[quisquose 10]

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.

 

The first two were disciplined for ignoring H&S policy, which everybody else complied with, using their religion as an excuse.

 

[fake 10]

I don't think the first two have a cats chance in hell of winning as we have separated state and religion and it should stay that way.

 

Faith is a personal thing so no need to glorify religion by wearing artefacts especially as the Abrahamic religions actually forbids idolatry and a the wearing of a cross is not mandatory. I think exceptions should be made such as with wearing turbans on motorbikes as that is a mandatory religious item and had to be regulated.

 

I wonder, were these people that are now complaining aware of the rules when they started work as it sounds like a bit of religious cherry picking to me.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

I don't think the first two have a cats chance in hell of winning as we have separated state and religion and it should stay that way.

No we haven't. We categorically haven't. The Head of State, the Head of the Armed Forces, the Head of the Law, and The Head of the Church exist in The Crown.

[janie48 98]

Seeing some of these posts makes me feel determined to wear a cross in future.

If my atheist boss says anything about it tomorrow,i shall tell him to stuff the job.

[quisquose 10]

You do have to wonder though - if the registrar objecting was a Muslim would their claim have been dismissed quite so readily?

 

Of course they would.

 

Just like the Muslim cabbie that was sacked for refusing let a family into his car because one of them was carrying an unopened bottle of wine.

[Eater Sundae 12]

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.

 

Re the last paragraph. Just because someone is already in post shouldn’t make a difference. The law has changed. Gay people have a right to access certain services. An individual who doesn’t approve doesn’t have the RIGHT to deny them those services. If the organisation can manage this and keep its employees away from this kind of work, then that is OK, but the organisation shouldn’t HAVE to do this. Any compromise to allow one of its employees to pick and chose the work they do must impact negatively on all other employees whose choices are diminished.

 

I don’t understand why not approving of gay relationships actually stops anyone from performing a service – it’s not as if they are being required to undertake any homosexual activities.

[fake 10]

No we haven't. We categorically haven't. The Head of State, the Head of the Armed Forces, the Head of the Law, and The Head of the Church exist in The Crown.

 

Yes we have.

 

This country is no longer run by the Church and run by parliament as opposed to other countries that have their religion as the main base of government. That is also shown by the way in which our head of state has no actual power as opposed to parliament.

 

In the UK the Church have an advisory capacity that's all, have no power and are not part of government.

[Chris_Sleeps 10]

This country is no longer run by the Church and run by parliament as opposed to other countries that have their religion as the main base of government.

We're not a theocracy, I'll grant you that. We have unelected Bishops in Parliament though. We have not seperated Church and State, and it is false to say so. We should seperate them.

In the UK the Church have an advisory capacity that's all, have no power and are not part of government.

I won't go into the powers of the monarch, but the Lords Spiritual are in government. You're fundamentally incorrect.

[Badlittlepup 10]

Re the last paragraph. Just because someone is already in post shouldn’t make a difference. The law has changed. Gay people have a right to access certain services. An individual who doesn’t approve doesn’t have the RIGHT to deny them those services. If the organisation can manage this and keep its employees away from this kind of work, then that is OK, but the organisation shouldn’t HAVE to do this. Any compromise to allow one of its employees to pick and chose the work they do must impact negatively on all other employees whose choices are diminished.

 

I don’t understand why not approving of gay relationships actually stops anyone from performing a service – it’s not as if they are being required to undertake any homosexual activities.

 

It doesn't necessarily lead to denial of the service though does it? If it only applies to the staff already in place I don't see why they can't be just rota'd on to hetero ceremonies as long as they understand that their shifts will be organised around when those are rather than the weddings/civil partnerships being organised around when they want to work.

 

I don't see why it isn't possible for the two to coexist as long as it can be arranged so neither encroaches on the other.

[Badlittlepup 10]

Yes we have.

 

This country is no longer run by the Church and run by parliament as opposed to other countries that have their religion as the main base of government. That is also shown by the way in which our head of state has no actual power as opposed to parliament.

 

In the UK the Church have an advisory capacity that's all, have no power and are not part of government.

 

You are sooooo soooo wrong it is untrue. The church and state are not separate in the UK. You are confusing a country where the church and state are combined with a theocracy and they're different things.

[quisquose 10]

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.

 

There is no ban on Christian symbols in the workplace. Even now I am sat opposite a lady wearing our uniform with a cross dangling from her neck. As far as I am aware, sitting in front of a computer does not necessitate a jewellery policy, although if she chose to wear some elaborate tiara we might have words.

 

(If that's you janie48 then feel free to continue wearing your cross, and if this atheist boss says you can't then say "stuff the job" and then claim constructive dismissal, because like most employers we don't have a jewellery policy.)

 

Any employer is perfectly entitled to introduce a no jewellery policy if it wants, and many do, as long as this is applied equally to all relevant employees with no discrimination. This is precisely what BA sought to do, with the compliance of every relevant employee except one.

 

As for the adapting of uniform policies, which may allow the wearing of a veil, then so what as long as it is applied equally and everybody can?

 

What you claimed was that in the early 90s BA, presumably the baggage area, banned hijabs and turbans but an exception has now been made for those, and it's a case of exceptions being applied unequally. Asking for proof of this claim, which I doubt very much, is not "muddying the waters" at all.

 

Anyway, the irony of these people going to the ECHR is that it reminds me of the saying, "be careful of what you wish for". If they were to win it would open up an almighty can of worms, turning the workplace into a battlefield of conflicting religious beliefs to prove which was more important than the other. The religions with the most archaic and observed practices are bound to rank ahead of those of the watered down Christian variants.