Great news: Employers are allowed to ban burquas!

[purebalance]

I agree with the ruling. In Western society this kind of symbol of oppression should not be tolerated.

Oh the new SJW claim is that some of the women enjoy wearing it and it empowers them.

[Mehrunes]

pretty much even tho the burka is a sign of oppression lol

For many people it's cultural garment at this point. Which is why Muslim women are free to wear it in private if they so desire.

[xChurch]

Considering it counts all religious, political and philosophical signs, I don't really see any problem. If burqas got banned but yamicas were fine, then it would be pretty dumb.

[Thimagryn]

What about onesies? Can we get a ban on those too?

[Mehrunes]

Ah yes, the good old "Only 'Murica does freedom!"-trope...

US barely cracks top 20-ranking among nations overall freedom rating

But... but first amendment? And land of ze free? Are you telling me US doesn't have monopoly on the concept of freedom?

If it's evenly-applied, then it's not discrimination. Seems simple to me.

Obviously not simple to everyone. Some see discrimination of Muslims here. And possibly everywhere. The truth is out there. Even though other parts of labor law (as well as other parts of the ruling itself if what I read in other source is right) outright prohibit an uneven application of this and unlike few types of work discrimination, this would be piss-easy to prove in court (then again momentary rise of right wing parties somehow transplants to European courts because reasons) because a photography of a coworker of other religious with their head-wear still on (or having a cross necklace or whatever) is extremely easy to make.

A boss can fire an employee for every reason possible. There is no law needed to allow companies to ask for a dress code.

At will employment isn't really used in EU.

It more just gives a precedent so that if in the future someone complains they were discriminated against because they couldn't wear their religious clothing to work, it can just be referred to this, at least thats what i understand from it.

Continental legal system doesn't use precedents. It just clarified existing law. Other than that, yeah, no one can sue over that now (unless an employer tries to use that only against employees of specific religions). And given how it was unclear to the point it required a national court referring a question to the ECJ, it did change things in a way.

[LaserChild9]

Would never happen in the US and proves why people who later became Americans left Europe for freedom.

Would never happen in the US because chances are a good majority of the people that wear a burka are on the no fly list so they wont actually get there in large enough numbers to make this an issue... Before you bash other countries laws and policies, maybe you should consider your own countries take on such things.

[Theinquisition]

Well that'll never happen in our country because we have freedom of religion, so you can't ban people from wearing crosses.

That literally has nothing to do with freedom of religion.

You also have the freedom to work somewhere that doesnt limit your religious garb. No one is forcing anyone to work anywhere

[Powerogue]

I'm generally for it when it's in cases where you need to be identifiable, but I can see the logic for workplaces in general. Workplaces typically have uniforms or dress codes, and if your religious garb conflicts with the uniform in a way you can't negotiate a compromise with, that's too bad.

Consider the following made up example:

crazy person: I want to go to work with underpants on my head
employer: No.
crazy religious person: I want to go to work with underpants on my head. It's part of Pantism.
employer: I guess I'm forced to under nondiscrimination laws, come on in.

[Halicia]

That literally has nothing to do with freedom of religion.

You also have the freedom to work somewhere that doesnt limit your religious garb. No one is forcing anyone to work anywhere

Wouldn't this fall afoul of sexual harassment laws though ?

If every place can now decide to have its employees strip at random because they disagree with their morality, you no longer HAVE that freedom of employment.

[Rennadrel]

They can, but the optics of doing so won't look good.

[melodramocracy]

Wouldn't this fall afoul of sexual harassment laws though ?

If every place can now decide to have its employees strip at random because they disagree with their morality, you no longer HAVE that freedom of employment.

So employers shouldn't have dress codes?

[HumbleDuck]

Yes, but discrimination isn't necessarily racism.

So, what was your point again? Because all I read was this:



What obvious logic that I missed hides behind this?



Aye, which is why I said the title was misleading.

My point was, if a company doesn't have a dress code and the employer bans a headwear, or cross necklaces, it's discrimination.
I don't understand why people have so much trouble grasping this very simple idea.

And my comment on black people was a hint to the " great Western culture" part of his post.

[ranzino]

"Banning all religious clothing, etc, under some circumstances is not against European law."

That's not the same as being allowed to ban burquas.

Ok, it applies to employers only and covers everything related to religious garb.

- - - Updated - - -

My point was, if a company doesn't have a dress code and the employer bans a headwear, or cross necklaces, it's discrimination.
I don't understand why people have so much trouble grasping this very simple idea.

And my comment on black people was a hint to the " great Western culture" part of his post.

Employer needs reason, but the he could impose the new rules immediately then.

[HumbleDuck]

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

And Iran, and Turkey. Actually I can argue the current state of these countries are direct reaction to those decisions.

[Jonnusthegreat]

This is an interesting ruling - a burka is NOT a religious sign, so it should not be bannable by their ruling. It is an outfit.

[Orange Joe]

The Bible has many similar passages, we just tend to ignore them.

Hair coverings, shawls and the like were very common in the West until pretty recently. The irony is that the hatred of the burqua et al is a culture shock from a society that's gotten so used to liberalism in the last few centuries.

It has to do with Jesus dying for our sins. Essentially when he did that we no longer had to follow the rules laid out by the old testament. Well, unless you want to use it as a reason to discriminate against someone else.

[ChampionChains]

I wish we could ban all religious shit in public. Religion should be a personal matter. Fuck prayer at school and crosses every goddamned where.

[ranzino]

This is an interesting ruling - a burka is NOT a religious sign, so it should not be bannable by their ruling. It is an outfit.

by virtue of a dress code burqa is bannable as every other clothing or piece of clothing too. the ruling is for employers, not for government to regulate personal lifestyle ( unless government is the employer, but it's still limited to work place)

[Deleted]

Terrible. People should be allowed to wear what they want in the workplace.

There's no argument for banning burqas other than racism and xenophobia.

[ranzino]

Terrible. People should be allowed to wear what they want in the workplace.

There's no argument for banning burqas other than racism and xenophobia.

dresscode >>>> religion. always !