5 ms·

Employers can ban workers from wearing visible religious signs, ECJ rules

trompetenaccoun 5y ago
I want to believe.
1cvmask 5y ago
Will they ban workers for wearing jewelry (necklaces with crosses) or for having tattoos? Or will this be selectively applied to minorities?
- Normille 5y ago
  Or maybe this law will actually result in equality for everyone under the law and end the preferential treatment that certain minorities enjoy but which aren't extended to the rest of us: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6165368.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6165368.stm https://www.thelocal.no/20131104/norways-nrk-bans-newsreader-from-wearing-a-cross/ https://www.thelocal.no/20131104/norways-nrk-bans-newsreader... https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-overturns-turban-workplace-rule https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-overturns-turb... https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/rules-motorcyclists-83-88 https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/rules-motorcyclists-83-... http://www.motor-software.co.uk/motorcycle-helmets-and-sikh-religion/ http://www.motor-software.co.uk/motorcycle-helmets-and-sikh-... [section 2,1] https://www.dfa.ie/passports/photo-guidelines/ https://www.dfa.ie/passports/photo-guidelines/ [under 'Facial Features'] https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/uk-law-secures-rights-of-sikhs-to-carry-kirpans/article27173909.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/uk-law-secures-r... And, yes, I know most of those examples are from the UK, which is not in the EU any more, so not directly affected by the ruling. But that's where I live and the rules I'm familiar with [all of which were in place while the UK was in the EU]. Similar exemptions for 'oppressed minorities' from the rules everyone else has to follow are common throughout the EU and beyond. Personal anecdote: Whilst going through security in an EU airport, I was ordered to take off the bandana I had tied round my head. When I objected on the grounds that security weren't demanding that moslems remove their head coverings, I was told "That's different. Those are worn for religious reasons" I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to tot up the number of areoplanes, buses, markets, etc. that have been blown up for "reasons of being a long haired rocker type" and compare with the number blown up "for religious reasons"
  - eesmith 5y ago
    Not only are your examples UK-centric, they are also Sikh-centric. Your first example was a British Christian woman wearing a visible cross "so that other people will know that Jesus loves them." Wearing a cross this way is not a requirement of Christian faith. And a company can prohibit employees from proselytizing, even if that is part of their faith. Your second example, a Norwegian Christian woman, wore a cross for fashion reasons, not religious reasons. It doesn't seem relevant. The only other non-Sikh example was that Irish passport photo guideline "You can wear a head covering for religious or medical reasons." You have a problem with this because .... why? Passports are international documents. It would surely be odd if a Philippine Catholic nun, or American Hutterite woman (as two Christian faiths that require headgear) were allowed entry into Ireland when an Irish Catholic nun or Jewish man aren't allowed their photograph with veil or kippah, respectively. As you correctly point out, many places have been blown up "for religious reasons". This includes blowing things up in the name of Christianity. By your logic, you should therefore agree with the first two rulings.
    - Normille 5y ago
      So, by your logic, "God told me to do it" trumps the law of the land which is supposed to apply equally to everybody? In a supposedly modern egalitarian and secular society, mediaeval voodoo and its associated fantasies should have no say in deciding the law of the land. And holding a set of mediaeval voodoo inspired beliefs shouldn't give you a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card, when it comes to disobeying the laws which everyone else is subject to.
      - eesmith 5y ago
        I have no idea how you drew that conclusion. I explicitly stated a company could prohibit proselytizing at work. That includes even if "God told me to do it". Congrats! Your "medieval voodoo" made my eyes roll. Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity far pre-date the medieval era, while voodoo, as a mix of traditional West African religions and Roman Catholicism, post-dates the medieval era. > when it comes to disobeying the laws which everyone else is subject to Are you so naive to believe that laws cannot have a built-in bias for or against a specific population? As Anatole France wrote in The Red Lily: “For the poor it consists in supporting and maintaining the rich in their power and their idleness. At this task they must labour in the face of the majestic equality of the laws, which forbid rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. This equality is one of the benefits of the Revolution.” - https://archive.org/details/redlily00frangoog/page/n100/mode/2up?q=equality https://archive.org/details/redlily00frangoog/page/n100/mode... The same happens with religions. Normille's from the UK. The Church of England has been the established church of England since 1534 (just after the medieval era). Want to guess how many British laws have a built-in 'Get Out of Jail Free' card for the CoE practices that so strongly influenced British culture? Here's one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer#Countries_that_permit_school-sponsored_prayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer#Countries_that_p... > ... all pupils in state schools must take part in a daily act of collective worship, unless their parents request that they be excused from attending.[7] The majority of these acts of collective worship are required to be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character", with two exceptions Here's another - until somewhat recently abolished, blasphemy laws in England "only protect[ed] the Christian beliefs as held by the Church of England" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Ki... . Those wouldn't be allowed in the US. Where somehow the phrase "In God We Trust" is 'ceremonial deism' in the US and therefore not religious?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_deism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_deism Or where Blue Laws, which are nominally secular, according the the courts, also happen to coincide with "the prohibition of Sabbath desecration in Christian Churches following the first-day Sabbatarian tradition" common in the US. Why is it illegal for most stores in Maine to be open on Easter? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States#Maine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States... (I presume that's the Easter of Western Christianity, not Eastern Orthodox.) Name a "modern egalitarian and secular society" in the West and I guarantee there are laws biased that favor the long-standing dominant local religious practices.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nabla9 5y ago
  The ban is justified only if the goal is neutrality. The court decision considered this question and made an explicit ruling. If employer bans big symbols, like headscarf, they have to ban small symbols as well. No exceptions, no selectivity.
  - trompetenaccoun 5y ago
    It's a surprisingly reasonable and fair ruling, who would have thought such a thing is still possible.
nabla9 5y ago
Case C‑804/18 if anyone is interested. Ruling was in the morning, so it's not yet in the database. Judgement is now available but only in German and French at this time https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=244180&pageIndex=0&doclang=DE&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1695104 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...

I want to believe.

Will they ban workers for wearing jewelry (necklaces with crosses) or for having tattoos? Or will this be selectively applied to minorities?

Normille 5y ago
Or maybe this law will actually result in equality for everyone under the law and end the preferential treatment that certain minorities enjoy but which aren't extended to the rest of us: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6165368.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6165368.stm https://www.thelocal.no/20131104/norways-nrk-bans-newsreader-from-wearing-a-cross/ https://www.thelocal.no/20131104/norways-nrk-bans-newsreader... https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-overturns-turban-workplace-rule https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-overturns-turb... https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/rules-motorcyclists-83-88 https://www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/rules-motorcyclists-83-... http://www.motor-software.co.uk/motorcycle-helmets-and-sikh-religion/ http://www.motor-software.co.uk/motorcycle-helmets-and-sikh-... [section 2,1] https://www.dfa.ie/passports/photo-guidelines/ https://www.dfa.ie/passports/photo-guidelines/ [under 'Facial Features'] https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/uk-law-secures-rights-of-sikhs-to-carry-kirpans/article27173909.ece https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/uk-law-secures-r... And, yes, I know most of those examples are from the UK, which is not in the EU any more, so not directly affected by the ruling. But that's where I live and the rules I'm familiar with [all of which were in place while the UK was in the EU]. Similar exemptions for 'oppressed minorities' from the rules everyone else has to follow are common throughout the EU and beyond. Personal anecdote: Whilst going through security in an EU airport, I was ordered to take off the bandana I had tied round my head. When I objected on the grounds that security weren't demanding that moslems remove their head coverings, I was told "That's different. Those are worn for religious reasons" I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to tot up the number of areoplanes, buses, markets, etc. that have been blown up for "reasons of being a long haired rocker type" and compare with the number blown up "for religious reasons"
- eesmith 5y ago
  Not only are your examples UK-centric, they are also Sikh-centric. Your first example was a British Christian woman wearing a visible cross "so that other people will know that Jesus loves them." Wearing a cross this way is not a requirement of Christian faith. And a company can prohibit employees from proselytizing, even if that is part of their faith. Your second example, a Norwegian Christian woman, wore a cross for fashion reasons, not religious reasons. It doesn't seem relevant. The only other non-Sikh example was that Irish passport photo guideline "You can wear a head covering for religious or medical reasons." You have a problem with this because .... why? Passports are international documents. It would surely be odd if a Philippine Catholic nun, or American Hutterite woman (as two Christian faiths that require headgear) were allowed entry into Ireland when an Irish Catholic nun or Jewish man aren't allowed their photograph with veil or kippah, respectively. As you correctly point out, many places have been blown up "for religious reasons". This includes blowing things up in the name of Christianity. By your logic, you should therefore agree with the first two rulings.
  - Normille 5y ago
    So, by your logic, "God told me to do it" trumps the law of the land which is supposed to apply equally to everybody? In a supposedly modern egalitarian and secular society, mediaeval voodoo and its associated fantasies should have no say in deciding the law of the land. And holding a set of mediaeval voodoo inspired beliefs shouldn't give you a 'Get Out of Jail Free' card, when it comes to disobeying the laws which everyone else is subject to.
    - eesmith 5y ago
      I have no idea how you drew that conclusion. I explicitly stated a company could prohibit proselytizing at work. That includes even if "God told me to do it". Congrats! Your "medieval voodoo" made my eyes roll. Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity far pre-date the medieval era, while voodoo, as a mix of traditional West African religions and Roman Catholicism, post-dates the medieval era. > when it comes to disobeying the laws which everyone else is subject to Are you so naive to believe that laws cannot have a built-in bias for or against a specific population? As Anatole France wrote in The Red Lily: “For the poor it consists in supporting and maintaining the rich in their power and their idleness. At this task they must labour in the face of the majestic equality of the laws, which forbid rich and poor alike to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. This equality is one of the benefits of the Revolution.” - https://archive.org/details/redlily00frangoog/page/n100/mode/2up?q=equality https://archive.org/details/redlily00frangoog/page/n100/mode... The same happens with religions. Normille's from the UK. The Church of England has been the established church of England since 1534 (just after the medieval era). Want to guess how many British laws have a built-in 'Get Out of Jail Free' card for the CoE practices that so strongly influenced British culture? Here's one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer#Countries_that_permit_school-sponsored_prayer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_prayer#Countries_that_p... > ... all pupils in state schools must take part in a daily act of collective worship, unless their parents request that they be excused from attending.[7] The majority of these acts of collective worship are required to be "wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character", with two exceptions Here's another - until somewhat recently abolished, blasphemy laws in England "only protect[ed] the Christian beliefs as held by the Church of England" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_Ki... . Those wouldn't be allowed in the US. Where somehow the phrase "In God We Trust" is 'ceremonial deism' in the US and therefore not religious?! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_deism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_deism Or where Blue Laws, which are nominally secular, according the the courts, also happen to coincide with "the prohibition of Sabbath desecration in Christian Churches following the first-day Sabbatarian tradition" common in the US. Why is it illegal for most stores in Maine to be open on Easter? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States#Maine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_laws_in_the_United_States... (I presume that's the Easter of Western Christianity, not Eastern Orthodox.) Name a "modern egalitarian and secular society" in the West and I guarantee there are laws biased that favor the long-standing dominant local religious practices.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nabla9 5y ago
The ban is justified only if the goal is neutrality. The court decision considered this question and made an explicit ruling. If employer bans big symbols, like headscarf, they have to ban small symbols as well. No exceptions, no selectivity.
- trompetenaccoun 5y ago
  It's a surprisingly reasonable and fair ruling, who would have thought such a thing is still possible.

nabla9 5y ago

Case C‑804/18 if anyone is interested. Ruling was in the morning, so it's not yet in the database. Judgement is now available but only in German and French at this time https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=244180&pageIndex=0&doclang=DE&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1695104 https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&do...