Page 6 of 28 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
8
16
... LastLast
  1. #101
    If its unilaterally all religions then go for it.

  2. #102
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Nymrohd View Post
    I would suppose the same ruling would allow an employer to ban crosses (though I guess you can hide them so that should be OK), the kippah or a sikh's turban?
    Yes, this ruling specifically states that the banning of headscarfs (dunno why the topic is about burqas, though I guess similar rules apply) is only legitimate if it is a part of a more broader ban on religious signs in the workplace.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by omeomorfismo View Post
    so there will be tons of appeal for discrimination because, clearly, cross wont be banned? good for advocates....
    Actually, this judgement said that head scarf bans are only legal in the context where other religious symbols are also banned as part of a dress code

  3. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Krawu View Post
    But can we include things like the Sikh dagger in this as well? They're basically allowed to take a small sword everywhere.
    I had to google it, and that came up:



    If this is a small sword than my butter knife is one as well, lol.

    As for the topic, sounds okay to me. The argument against it seems that religious people (let's not beat around the bush, mainly female muslims) won't even bother to look for work if they can't live their religion in public, and that might very well be the case for some, but on the other hand I believe this also means a potential employee doesn't have to worry about beeing shackled to the issue as well - which inturn might lead to employees being a bit more laid-back on the issue - considering that they now can take that "privilege" away at any time if problems should arise.

    If you force employees to allow religious symbols then they might simply not hire you in the first place - and it's not like they have to give the actual reason why they are not hiring you.
    Last edited by Malacrass; 2017-03-14 at 02:12 PM.

  4. #104
    As long as the ban applies to all religious headgear and symbols, fine. If it doesn't, Islamophobia. Straight up.

  5. #105
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Shnider View Post
    wrong understanding of religion. There is no verse in islam asking women to hide their faces.
    There is a part of the Hadith that says that the sisters of mohammed wore headscarves, which is generally interpreted as a recommendation for muslim to wear something that covers your face

  6. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Nosty View Post
    ?
    No, it's not.
    Some customers (probably most) take offense wearing specific attire that has no relation to the job whatsoever, a bussiness has every right to decline certain wear if it costs them customers.
    I mean seriously, stop being so politically correct & think logical for a few seconds.

    If a nun is wearing her attire in a shoestore, i'd also be like 'wtf is that about'.
    This whole muslim political correctness is really being taken too far with each passing day honestly.

    Look at the Turkey thing going on right now, they have no valid arguements so they start calling holland 'remains of nazis', the leader of a country is calling others nazi's due to lack of proper arguementation, really?
    please, for the love of ... stop being so politically correct over every single thing concerning muslims, you are destroying (no, i'm not being sarcastic or joking) western culture the way things are going right now.
    It is quite fascinating that you call this logic.
    As I said in my original comment, if a certain outfit is necessary for the job I understand, other wise it is discrimination. Why not adding people with face tattoo or ugly people into this law? I'm sure an ugly guy or a person with a tattoo on his face would be worst for the business when it comes to a shoe store.

    Also if customers are offended by black people, does it mean we have to pass a bill to prevent black people from working in white neighbourhoods?

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    It's not baseless and you have no power to tell me what to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by nocturnus View Post
    Now do your thing and have the last word, however ignorant it will be.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodakane View Post
    No, baseless means there's no base. Whether I provide something or not has no bearing if it's baseless or not.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dumbleduck View Post
    It is quite fascinating that you call this logic.
    As I said in my original comment, if a certain outfit is necessary for the job I understand, other wise it is discrimination. Why not adding people with face tattoo or ugly people into this law? I'm sure an ugly guy or a person with a tattoo on his face would be worst for the business when it comes to a shoe store.

    Also if customers are offended by black people, does it mean we have to pass a bill to prevent black people from working in white neighbourhoods?
    First of all, you can in fact deny an applicant for having discernable tattoos. Secondly, ugly can't be measured objectively and lastly, denying based on skin colour would be racism.

    How about you reflect, afore you reply.
    Last edited by nocturnus; 2017-03-14 at 02:19 PM.

  8. #108
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    It will depend on their reasons. If their customers prefer one religion over another - it's ok, if it's arbitrary - that's discrimination.
    This is actually flat-out wrong, the ban is only legal if it is in the context of a broad ban on religious symbols

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Peggle View Post
    how does this ruling work with this one?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...s-at-work.html


    This ruling by the ECHR ruled that it was against her religious freedom after being told she cannot wear a crucifix at work

    edit: forgot the link
    Usually the most recent precedent applies, so I would guess it overwrites this ruling, though I am somewhat surprised that they hear 2 similar cases within such a short time and deliver a completely different verdict

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by nocturnus View Post




    First of all, you can in fact deny an applicant for having discernable tattoos. Secondly, ugly can't be measured objectively, apply for modeling and lastly, denying based on skin colour would be racism.

    How about you reflect, afore you reply.
    You actually proved my point. You can deny a person who doesn't follow the dress code, it doesn't have to do with religion.
    Passing a law to single out religious people is the unjust treatment of different categories of people on the ground of religion, which is by definitely discrimination.

    By the way, racism is a form of discrimination.
    Last edited by HumbleDuck; 2017-03-14 at 03:44 PM. Reason: Lots and lots of typos

  10. #110
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    I'll admit, I am not too familiar with European laws.

    In the U.S. we have Freedom of Religion in our Constitution. Does Europe have such a law?
    For the sake of clarity, ''Europe'' isn't a country but yes, all of the european countries have such a law.

    However making people not wear their religious icons isn't considered to be a breach of those laws by the European court of Justice

  11. #111
    The Insane Kathandira's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ziltoidia 9
    Posts
    19,451
    Quote Originally Posted by hypermode View Post
    For the sake of clarity, ''Europe'' isn't a country but yes, all of the european countries have such a law.

    However making people not wear their religious icons isn't considered to be a breach of those laws by the European court of Justice
    Very interesting. So they are free to practice their religion, but not if someone says no? Seems "Free" doesn't really mean "Free".
    RIP Genn Greymane, Permabanned on 8.22.18

    Your name will carry on through generations, and will never be forgotten.

  12. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    Very interesting. So they are free to practice their religion, but not if someone says no? Seems "Free" doesn't really mean "Free".
    We can practice it in our free time.

  13. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    Very interesting. So they are free to practice their religion, but not if someone says no? Seems "Free" doesn't really mean "Free".
    You are not practicing your religion by wearing clothes though. Having a religion shouldn't exempt you from your workplace dress codes.

  14. #114
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    Very interesting. So they are free to practice their religion, but not if someone says no? Seems "Free" doesn't really mean "Free".
    Not really, they can still practice their religion, just not while at work. A christian will still be able to go to church and pray, but their employer can say their crucifix is against company dress code

  15. #115
    The Insane Kathandira's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ziltoidia 9
    Posts
    19,451
    Interesting indeed.
    RIP Genn Greymane, Permabanned on 8.22.18

    Your name will carry on through generations, and will never be forgotten.

  16. #116
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    Very interesting. So they are free to practice their religion, but not if someone says no? Seems "Free" doesn't really mean "Free".
    Usually rights arn't considered to be absolute, especially when they come into conflict with other rights.
    In this case, the right to freedom of religion came into conflict with the right to manage your business as you choose.

    In this case, the infraction on your right to practise your religion was seen as so minor that the judges ruled that the latter was more important

  17. #117
    The Insane Kathandira's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ziltoidia 9
    Posts
    19,451
    Quote Originally Posted by hypermode View Post
    Usually rights aren't considered to be absolute, especially when they come into conflict with other rights.
    In this case, the right to freedom of religion came into conflict with the right to manage your business as you choose.

    In this case, the infraction on your right to practice your religion was seen as so minor that the judges ruled that the latter was more important
    This supports my "Freedom is a lie" stance.

    No one can truly be free, because one person's freedom can easily impede on another person's freedom.
    RIP Genn Greymane, Permabanned on 8.22.18

    Your name will carry on through generations, and will never be forgotten.

  18. #118
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    This supports my "Freedom is a lie" stance.

    No one can truly be free, because one person's freedom can easily impede on another person's freedom.
    Yep, your freedom ends where another persons freedom begins.

    Though I think you should amend your stance to ''Absolute freedom is a lie'' since relatively there is a lot of difference in individual freedom between a European country and some third world shithole like Turkey

  19. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Vorkreist View Post
    Incoming triggered sjws crying islamophobia!
    i wouldn't consider myself an SJW but, so long as they don't only enforce it with the muslim crap I'd be absolutely fine with it. But everyone knows Lenda will still be wearing her bedazzled crucifix. Fair is fair, ban that shit. But ban all of it.

  20. #120
    The Insane Kathandira's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ziltoidia 9
    Posts
    19,451
    Quote Originally Posted by hypermode View Post
    Yep, your freedom ends where another persons freedom begins.

    Though I think you should amend your stance to ''Absolute freedom is a lie'' since relatively there is a lot of difference in individual freedom between a European country and some third world shithole like Turkey
    My usual title is "The illusion of Freedom". Though consider that I am from the U.S., and Freedom is by many thought to be absolute. Even though there are similarities to the European way that there is no absolution in freedom.

    For example, I have the Freedom of Speech, but I cannot make a death threat, or something of the sort.
    RIP Genn Greymane, Permabanned on 8.22.18

    Your name will carry on through generations, and will never be forgotten.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •