Great news: Employers are allowed to ban burquas!

[Underverse]

You tried to spread propaganda before. One must be wary of folks like you. Burqas are dangerous, because you can't know who is hiding beneath it. It would be a perfect way for child molesters to disguise themselves and we wouldn't want that, do we?

The ban is a good thing and I fully support it.

Yeah you should probably leave this thread.

[Acidbaron]

Also since this is a Belgian article.

Just so you lot know BURQA's WERE ALREADY BANNED HERE LONG AGO. Seems some to be missing the entire context of the article a la mmo-c style.

[Deleted]

Who is talking about fucking burqas, why are you ignoring the fact they can say "fuck hijabs too!" even though you can clearly see faces. It's in the fucking OP What the fuck do you mean i'm trying to spread propaganda.

Look at the picture I posted. They are completely in disguise. I don't even know what is beneath that. I am scared for my children and the future!

[Deleted]

Why does the first one need to be banned?

The other two are likely already banned as part of most companies dress codes

[Themius]

We have freedom of religion in Europe but I think it means something subtly different: here you have the freedom to practice whatever religion you wish, should it be legal, but you are discouraged from displaying overtly religious iconography in the workplace should your employer see fit to enforce that. you cannot be discriminated against in terms of opportunity because you practice a religion but you can be told to rein in the displaying of it in public and the workplace if it constitutes a nuisance.

What if a person wears a ring with a cross on it! Like an employee can be like "oh no religious symbol i'm gonna burn we must be rid of it!" Like it's fucking dramatic.

[Moratori]

It's only too permissive when we allow discrimination against people based on one religious rights, or when they use their religion to make laws; however, being allowed to wear a damn hair covering and being unable to ban it, isn't too permissive imo.

The employer should be allowed to fully decide how people who work for them dress. Anything else is just stupid.

[Mistame]

Very interesting. So they are free to practice their religion, but not if someone says no? Seems "Free" doesn't really mean "Free".

Neither "free" nor "freedom", in any context, implies unlimited. Additionally, in the case of Freedom of Religion, it exists to protect individuals from governmental and systemic interference. It allows the individual to practice their religion in any way that does not come at the expense of the rights of others.

Second, it is against the very birth rights of a person.

Um, no. There are no such things as "birth rights". There are human rights, which are general basic rights (life, liberty, etc) and there are freedoms (which include religion). Both are social constructs, but the difference is that the latter governs things that are themselves social constructs, like religion.

I can understand if wearing a specific outfit would be a requirement for a job, but in any other case, it's outright discrimination.

An employer should have the right to allow/disallow religion symbols, attire, etc, regardless of them having a uniform.

Why not adding people with face tattoo or ugly people into this law?

And employer can elect to not hire someone with facial tattoos or "ugly" people. They can also have a policy that governs unacceptable tattoos, piercings, etc.

Because when you go out of your way to "clarify" the rules on one specific category of people, it's discrimination against that group of people.

No, it's not. That's not how that word works. Especially when members of that group go out their way to cry "discrimination" on policies that clearly cover more than they're bitching about.

[Themius]

I'm trying to figure the 'symbol of oppression' logic as it applies in Western society, where Muslim women often come out to say they wear it as a choice and from respect to their faith. I thought the point of religious freedom was just that; that's why people cry foul when burqas specifically get targeted with some weird justification like "it's for the women!" How is taking the choice away from them supposed to be empowering?

However, as it applies to this topic, OP misrepresents the ruling. The ruling is that banning religious symbols is OK in the workplace, but it must be exercised evenly. You can't ban burqas from your office but allow someone to hang a cross on their wall. You can ban both, though, and decide that religious expression has no purpose or place in your office with the justification that your employees should be focused on work, not on religious statements.

This reminds me, when Afghanistan was more progressive and outright banned burqas it upset a lot of women

[PassingBy]

Sikhs can wear turbins... while in a suit... and not be any less serious of a business man, in fact it's not uncommon to see thanks to our freedom of religion laws.

They can, however it still should be up to the employer to accept that, or ban it.
And it should be up to the said sikh to either accept the rules and not wear the turban, or find a job that allows wearing it.

Your religious freedom is in no way affected by the fact that your employer disallows a certain type of clothing at the working place.

I have a friend that can't work on Saturdays because of his religion. He informs his potential employers about it in advance, saying that no matter what the reason is he won't go to work on a Saturday. And before accepting the job reaches an agreement that he won't be requested to work on Saturdays.

Same thing with the religious clothing.

[Themius]

The employer should be allowed to fully decide how people who work for them dress. Anything else is just stupid.

No they shouldn't be allowed to, allowing to is stupid.

If a person is religious and must wear a turbin for their religion and personal happiness then they must be allowed to, simple.

- - - Updated - - -

They can, however it still should be up to the employer to accept that, or ban it.
And it should be up to the said sikh to either accept the rules and not wear the turban, or find a job that allows wearing it.

Your religious freedom is in no way affected by the fact that your employer disallows a certain type of clothing at the working place.

I have a friend that can't work on Saturdays because of his religion. He informs his potential employers about it in advance, saying that no matter what the reason is he won't go to work on a Saturday. And before accepting the job reaches an agreement that he won't be requested to work on Saturdays.

Same thing with the religious clothing.

No one is affected by some dude in a fucking turban...

[Dadwen]

Why does the first one need to be banned?

Hell in a few places I've worked the first two would be banned as a safety matter, any loose items getting sucked into the fast line printers or other machines. (third one if it didn't unwrap or safety pinned might have been ok)

[Deleted]

What if a person wears a ring with a cross on it! Like an employee can be like "oh no religious symbol i'm gonna burn we must be rid of it!" Like it's fucking dramatic.

One has to differentiate between christianity and islam. While both have blood on their hands from the past, we live in the present and only islam presents a real threat to the safety of people. You never know if someone is an islamic extremists like those guys in Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Boston or Nice.

The reality is that christians didn't do this. I don't feel threatened by a married person wearing a ring.

[Moratori]

No they shouldn't be allowed to, allowing to is stupid.

If a person is religious and must wear a turbin for their religion and personal happiness then they must be allowed to, simple.

No, they should apply for a job where they allow it if they want to wear it instead of demanding that they be treated different than other people.

[Kujako]

Should an employer be able to require female employees to go topless? If not, then they shouldn't get to ban hijabs either. Their tits or their hair, both are covered for religious reasons.

[Moratori]

Should an employer be able to require female employees to go topless? If not, then they shouldn't get to ban hijabs either. Their tits or their hair, both are covered for religious reasons.

Hahaha, no.

[Kujako]

Hahaha, no.

Yes, really. Just because it's a cultural norm, does not mean it's not religious in nature.

[Deleted]

What if a person wears a ring with a cross on it! Like an employee can be like "oh no religious symbol i'm gonna burn we must be rid of it!" Like it's fucking dramatic.

Yes, if its deemed its a religious symbol, and if that company has a policy against employees wearing religious symbols, they would be asked to remove the ring while at work

[PassingBy]

No they shouldn't be allowed to, allowing to is stupid.

If a person is religious and must wear a turbin for their religion and personal happiness then they must be allowed to, simple.

- - - Updated - - -



No one is affected by some dude in a fucking turban...

What if the job requires wearing protective gear that is incompatible with the turban?
What if the clients of the company don't want to be attended by a person wearing a turban?

[Mehrunes]

Obviously the laws are terribly weak if they're like "okay you can ban all religious symbols."

It's almost as if different rights conflict with each other and just because different places put different value on different rights in case of such a conflict doesn't mean they don't have the right they value less. Does the fact that US puts religious freedom above the rights of the employer mean that US has terribly weak employer rights? Or are you going to stop acting like a child and acknowledge that different countries value different things to a different degree (which you already pretty much already doing in favor of burqas and niqabs)?

[Themius]

No, they should apply for a job where they allow it if they want to wear it instead of demanding that they be treated different than other people.

treated differently? Asking to be treated the same way (aka treated with the same religious freedom rights as everyone else) is not asking for special treatment.