Great news: Employers are allowed to ban burquas!

[Kujako]

Also personal level of comfort with nudity and, you know, decency laws that forbid it.

Religious decency laws, yes... and again, Muslim women may feel the same level of discomfort by having their hair exposed.

[Mistame]

What about "facey bars"? Everyone has their kink.

In context, that's kind of... accurate. Honestly, head coverings should be a thing in topless bars because most of the women are fugly.

[Moratori]

I am not religious. This stupidity though of the non-religious acting like victims because someone is wearing a yarmulka or a hijab, is just fucking pathetic though.

I don't recall acting like a victim. I think we shouldn't treat people differently based on religious beliefs. You think we should treat people differently based on religious beliefs.

[Mehrunes]

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

Just because there are overlapping elements between religion and societal norms doesn't mean something has to be religious in every case. Different people are different and all. Let's apply your awesome logic to Japan. Which religion exactly would be at fault for a woman wanting to cover her tits?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

You'd be forcing people to dress and act a certain way....

But that's not marginalizing.

[Themius]

Religious decency laws, yes... and again, Muslim women may feel the same level of discomfort by having their hair exposed.

"But how could they feel that say, I don't feel that way!"

[Deleted]

What about "facey bars"? Everyone has their kink.

Id go for an ankle bar ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Themius]

But that's not marginalizing.

Religion is a significant part of many people's lives, you would be taking something they find significant (wearing a yarmulka turban or what not) and stripping them of it... that is the definition of marginalizing. You are treating their religion and their religious items as insignificant.

[Moratori]

Id go for an ankle bar ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Feet where it's at.

- - - Updated - - -

Religion is a significant part of many people's lives, you would be taking something they find significant (wearing a yarmulka turban or what not) and stripping them of it... that is the definition of marginalizing. You are treating their religion and their religious items as insignificant.

Because they are.

[Deleted]

I am not religious. This stupidity though of the non-religious acting like victims because someone is wearing a yarmulka or a hijab, is just fucking pathetic though.

You can wear it, but can we also ignore you at the same time? and if we work together in a workspace this become hard to do that, this is why it is a good thing that it will not be allowed anymore when both sides need to come together at work.

[Deleted]

Religion is a significant part of many people's lives, you would be taking something they find significant (wearing a yarmulka turban or what not) and stripping them of it... that is the definition of marginalizing. You are treating their religion and their religious items as insignificant.

And it can still be part of their life, just not while at work if it is against their companies dress code.

[SupBrah]

Funny... it seems conservatives are most prove to should "my freedom!" when they dont get to push their religion on others.

I have no idea what you just said

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Religion is a significant part of many people's lives, you would be taking something they find significant (wearing a yarmulka turban or what not) and stripping them of it... that is the definition of marginalizing. You are treating their religion and their religious items as insignificant.

No. Their interpretation of an action is unrelated to the rationale behind the decision. The marginalization is happening within their own self and isn't being pushed by society. It's on them. If society was marginalizing, like you claim, that would mean shaming, intimidation, and attacks upon one's belief. Laicity of public spaces is none of these three.

There's also the issue of religion being part of someone identity, which is exactly the problem with intersectionality.

[Tulune]

I'm a bit torn on the whole thing. For client-facing positions and public services I think it's good that employers can decide, but if you sit in your office all day it's a bit different. I think it's good that employers are allowed to ban it, but I don't think banning it is the right thing to do in all cases.

The hard bit for me is that we can't properly distinguish in law between a statement, forced behavior, and personal preference. Wearing political or religious statements at work is different to simply not wanting to show your hair or wearing a cross because it has personal meaning to you. One man could wear a hammer-and-sickle t-shirt because they just like the look, another could wear it as a political statement. In restricting the one mans right to bring his personal political statements into a workplace, you're banning another mans right to wear what he wants.

Like the whole burqini thing. The intent of the ban is to prevent women feeling pressured to cover up, but you're also banning people from using it because they personally feel it's the right thing to do. You're protecting some by oppressing others.

It's a fine line trying to have a society that is open and free and at the same time protecting people from the pressures put on them by their sub-communities to do things they don't want. I question whether totalitarian laws can be justified in order to protect some people when it denies the freedom of others.

A good outcome of the law rests, unfortunately, on trusting that employers will only use it when necessary.

Yeah, those are my thoughts and feeling on the matter as well.

[Kujako]

I have no idea what you just said

"prone" got auto corrected to prove. Cause reasons.

[Deleted]

You can wear it, but can we also ignore you at the same time? and if we work together in a workspace this become hard to do that, this is why it is a good thing that it will not be allowed anymore when both sides need to come together at work.

Well, they will still be allowed, this ruling isn't actually banning anything, just saying that that an employer can ban them. Honestly i expect very few companies and employers to start banning religious wear though, i don't think this impact will really have much of an impact on anybody, other than a few people across Europe might now have to wear the same as everyone else at the workplace for a few hours a day, not really anything significant.

[powerstuck]

I am now your employer.

That small gold chain with a cross on it...don't wear it to job anymore, okay ? Thanks.

[stormgust]

Religion is a significant part of many people's lives, you would be taking something they find significant (wearing a yarmulka turban or what not) and stripping them of it... that is the definition of marginalizing. You are treating their religion and their religious items as insignificant.

You're not treating them insignificant, you're just asking them to follow the local costums.

[Mehrunes]

Europeans value their own culture above all and run around scared that immigrants and moving in, and have pushed lately this idea of "oh no we are going to lose our cultural identity! We must stamp it out."

Good job not answering the question. And good job projecting your biased dogshit. Would you look at that, a judgement that allows employers to ban religious and philosophical signs but requires them to be consistent about it (I mean, you quoted @Thage's post saying exactly that already and somehow managed to skip that part) which, lo and behold, not only includes banning local religious garments but requires that in case an employer wants to ban such stuff is because muh xenophobia. Get lost with your idiotic nation bashing.

[Deleted]

I am now your employer.

That small gold chain with a cross on it...don't wear it to job anymore, okay ? Thanks.

My understanding of the ruling is you wouldn't be able to do that, unless its explicitly stated in your dress code that religious items of clothing / jewelry are against company dress code.