Germany: Mayor fires refugee project intern for wearing headscarf

[ranzino]

Neutrality is indifference to religious symbols not banning religious symbols. Unless a religious practice/custom/symbol interferes with your performance, the employer should be neutral about it. Might as well ban places of worships because they are not neutral and they are displayed in public.

Which part of "government is void of religion" was lost on you ? And yes, the headscarf interfered here in the case, because the woman said she would not take it off while men are present. but she IS ordered to cater to men because part of her duty in office. this alone rewards her a more or less friendly GTFO, because government cannot discuss article 3 of the Grundgesetz ( equality of men and women and so on).

[ranzino]

....

How people dress is not "state affairs." Otherwise, you could also justify banning all religious people from working for the government. Why stop there, why not ban all religions? Clearly religious people should not be involved in the state in any form, right?

Of course it is "state affair", because other employees can restrict you also. And if somebody violates her/his duty because religion, the person would face some harsh words or GTFO. You could say religion is alredy banned, because as soon it interferes with your duty it IS banned.

Your "freedom of religion" stops at town hall's entry. If you cannot stomach it to leave your invisible friend out of the office for some hours, it is clearly the wrong workplace for you.

[Deleted]

A woman wants to wear a headscarf. How is that interfering with her work performance? Will she have problem hearing or something? You're really retarded. It's a piece of cloth.

Absolutely. There's a problem with clothing or objects that cover your face. Who cares about a headscarf?

[Powerogue]

I applaud their consistency at least. Though I'm with other people here that the rule on personal religious garb should be changed, whatever they stick with they should at least apply it equally to everyone so no one can cry "discrimination!"

[Machismo]

Of course it is "state affair", because other employees can restrict you also. And if somebody violates her/his duty because religion, the person would face some harsh words or GTFO. You could say religion is alredy banned, because as soon it interferes with your duty it IS banned.

Your "freedom of religion" stops at town hall's entry. If you cannot stomach it to leave your invisible friend out of the office for some hours, it is clearly the wrong workplace for you.

I'm not religious at all. That doesn't mean I feel the need to ban other religions. It's not a neutral stance to take, it's an authoritarian stance. A neutral stance would be to do nothing.

How much of a person's religion are you willing to restrict if they want to enter into a building? Clearly you have no problem telling them what they can and cannot where. Why stop there? Why not enforce it, and make sure nobody has a crucifix on them, by forcing everyone to strip naked before coming to work. That'll fix 'em. Let's go further, and force them to sign a pledge that states they will not be religious.

[ranzino]

A woman wants to wear a headscarf. How is that interfering with her work performance? Will she have problem hearing or something? You're really retarded. It's a piece of cloth.

She is not entitled to rank religion above duty at work. Because NOBODY is entitled to put ther beliefs above. You seem to have a problem with that ?

[Machismo]

She is not entitled to rank religion above duty at work. Because NOBODY is entitled to put ther beliefs above. You seem to have a problem with that ?

And you seem to have a problem with freedom.

The ban is unnecessarily restrictive. It bans an action which does not cause any harm. Does wearing that scarf mean she's trying to force her religion upon others? Fuck no, it's a scarf.

[Renyo]

Neutrality is indifference to religious symbols not banning religious symbols. Unless a religious practice/custom/symbol interferes with your performance, the employer should be neutral about it. Might as well ban places of worships because they are not neutral and they are displayed in public.

Generally yes, but that changes if they represent the state in their funtion. For example a judge must not wear any religious symbols because he/she represents the state and the state has no religion. She/he is not a private person anymore but a representative of the state while the trial goes on. To give an extreme example, I would not want to participate in a trial that happens in a church by persons who seem to represent a religion. I also do not want crucifixes in the courtroom.
So everytime the person represents the state I think it can be correct to require them to not display religious symbols.
Whether she represents the state in this case can be questioned though.

[ranzino]

I'm not religious at all. That doesn't mean I feel the need to ban other religions. It's not a neutral stance to take, it's an authoritarian stance. A neutral stance would be to do nothing.

How much of a person's religion are you willing to restrict if they want to enter into a building? Clearly you have no problem telling them what they can and cannot where. Why stop there? Why not enforce it, and make sure nobody has a crucifix on them, by forcing everyone to strip naked before coming to work. That'll fix 'em. Let's go further, and force them to sign a pledge that states they will not be religious.

Oh, their pledge ( or work contract, more likely) will say something about. Their crucifix is to be hidden, if they feel the urge to wear it. But they are surely told hell breaks loose if it is NOT hidden.
Look, our german christians are usually not zealous, therefore not placing faith above duty. They know what they are into and not playing dumb.

[ranzino]

And you seem to have a problem with freedom.

The ban is unnecessarily restrictive. It bans an action which does not cause any harm. Does wearing that scarf mean she's trying to force her religion upon others? Fuck no, it's a scarf.

While representing a secular state ? Nope, you cannot wear anything. Period.

[Machismo]

Oh, their pledge ( or work contract, more likely) will say something about. Their crucifix is to be hidden, if they feel the urge to wear it. But they are surely told hell breaks loose if it is NOT hidden.
Look, our german christians are usually not zealous, therefore not placing faith above duty. They know what they are into and not playing dumb.

Great, you have no problem restricting victimless actions... good for you, I guess.

- - - Updated - - -

While representing a secular state ? Nope, you cannot wear anything. Period.

And that is unnecessarily restrictive.

I love the irony of those who wish to force their beliefs onto others... so those people don't force their beliefs onto them.

[ranzino]

Can't find anything on the Rathaus.
But no, just announcing it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.
"No blacks" in the window of your store is still not allowed, even when you do announce it before.

There is no good reason to infringe on the freedom of these people.

my source is in german, sorry. Berlin's Neutralitätsgesetz ( law on neutrality ) mentioned here: http://www.rbb-online.de/politik/bei...-bestehen.html
it does not mention headscarfs at all, it just outright bans all and everything religious related. no crucifix, no kippa, no headscarf and also no exceptions for pastafarian noodlesieves or turbans or whatever.

- - - Updated - - -

Great, you have no problem restricting victimless actions... good for you, I guess.

- - - Updated - - -



And that is unnecessarily restrictive.

I love the irony of those who wish to force their beliefs onto others... so those people don't force their beliefs onto them.

government follows wise words here in germany:

"Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat."

[Renyo]

But the judge has a religion. Even he is an atheist, it is also a religious view. What's the point of guessing the judge religion? We're not fooling anyone here, people have religion; state haven't. Judges might as well wear a full veil and a mask so their race doesn't show since the state doesn't have a race ... completely retarded thinking.

I do not care about his religion, I just do not want anything that represents the state to display a religious symbol. Religion should not have anything to do with acts of the state (the only exception would be if they need to protect religious freedom etc.). Even if it is just a symbol. This is also the current legislation in Germany irrc. So no crucifixes and no (at least open) display of religious symbols by the judges.
I am not saying that a muslim wearing a headscarf can't enact German law accordingly, it is about the representation of a religion by the state. So it has a lot to do with symbolism.

[Machismo]

my source is in german, sorry. Berlin's Neutralitätsgesetz ( law on neutrality ) mentioned here: http://www.rbb-online.de/politik/bei...-bestehen.html
it does not mention headscarfs at all, it just outright bans all and everything religious related. no crucifix, no kippa, no headscarf and also no exceptions for pastafarian noodlesieves or turbans or whatever.

- - - Updated - - -



government follows wise words here in germany:

"Religion is like a penis. It's fine to have one and it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around... and PLEASE don't try to shove it down my child's throat."

Wearing a scarf is none of those things, neither is wearing a crucifix.

[Noradin]

Doing nothing is the neutral path. By restricting something, they have ceased to be truly neutral.

If you see two people fighting, is it more neutral to ignore it, or to beat them both up?

False equivalence, the state is the sum of its representatives, thus if they show religious symbols, then the state is.

[Noradin]

A state can remain impartial, and still allow their employees to be religious. Doing nothing is impartial.

The state is the sum of its representatives.
Thus these representatives have to be neutral if the state is supposed to be.

[Holofernes]

Refugees get the rights of citizens? Pretty sure they cant vote and so forth..

ît depends, on communal votes they often are allowed to participate.

btt: segregation of State and Church is one of the main fundements that most european democrasies are built upon. No "in god we trust" on our currency.

[Deleted]

The mayor is an idiot.

youre not too far away

[Deleted]

And you seem to have a problem with freedom.

The ban is unnecessarily restrictive. It bans an action which does not cause any harm. Does wearing that scarf mean she's trying to force her religion upon others? Fuck no, it's a scarf.

It's the concept of secularism, the state is above religious and religion can't be represented by the state.

[Machismo]

False equivalence, the state is the sum of its representatives, thus if they show religious symbols, then the state is.

No, showing something does not mean it is pushing it. What it shows, is that the state is intolerant and authoritarian.