Great news: Employers are allowed to ban burquas!

[May90]

I agree with the ruling, but, judging by the very first comment, trying to seriously discuss it on these boards is a huge waste of time. *yawns*

[Deleted]

An employer should be able to tell his employees what they can, and cannot wear in his establishment. They should also be able to decide what customers they take and/or refuse.

Well you can't take it too far though. There are limits. An employer shouldn't be able to tell his employees that they need to wear assless chaps or else they're fired. People should be allowed to wear religious symbols, if it doesn't impede their ability to work there.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with the ruling, but, judging by the very first comment, trying to seriously discuss it on these boards is a huge waste of time. *yawns*

What isn't a waste of time?

[May90]

What isn't a waste of time?

Starcraft!

[breadisfunny]

Do you wanna get infracted? Cause that's how you get infracted

it's what blastfizzle lives for. that and judging by his location description it should be obvious why he brings up this topic.

[Mormolyce]

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.

First of all, while a lot of people think that, it isn't true.

Secondly, the New Testament in no way exonerated people from modesty requirements, and hair coverings and other modest dress edicts for women continued for almost two milennia after Christ.

It was among many cultural values that progressively liberalised during the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the Age of Reason and the 20th Century. More recently feminism was one of the driving forces in it.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not liberalism we have gotten used to, it's secularism.

You realise that secularism is a result of liberalism?

[Setheria]

On the one hand: Public displays of religion with connotations of oppression, notably for women.

On the other hand: Just be a fucking adult and deal with it. I'm an Atheist, and I couldn't give a rat's arse if someone wants to wear a cross, a hijab, whatever. It may be oppressive in a middle eastern theocracy, but it's much less likely to have that connotation in a western democracy. I don't want someone bringing religion into political decision making, but stop being so easily offended by something as simple as clothing or personal adornments.

Get upset over religious interference in safe sex programs, LGBTQI harassment or denial of abortion services. Get upset over people throwing acid in the face of female students and teachers. Not something as benign as this.

[Deleted]

Show me where he mentions ethnicity.

Certain ethnic groups wear these kinds of garbs, or did you think all muslims did?

[ati87]

So to counter that they aren't a symbol of oppression you come up with... the small number of people wearing them in certain countries...

Are you just another one of those posters arguing for the sake of arguing?

You're making the accusation of oppression, the burden of proof is on you to proof you're statement right and not on me to disprove you're unproven statement.

- - - Updated - - -

I live in Melbourne Australia and have seen tons of Burkas in my Suburb (1 of 300+) alone. So unless the numbers are incredibly skewed, Australia must just tend to attract the more devout bunch?

anecdotal is anecdotal....plus you're answer a loaded question.

You could have seen 1 and in you're infinite wisdom decided to make that single person you call it loads.

[nocturnus]

Certain ethnic groups wear these kinds of garbs, or did you think all muslims did?

Wrong. Some muslims do, not "certain ethnic groups". Ergo, it's not racism.

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.

And what did I say?

There's nothing racist about that. He discriminates...

It's amusing that you complain about people "having trouble grasping a simple idea" while you're the one that isn't paying attention.

[Deleted]

Thread is about burqas, while most people are thinking about hajibs anyway, most muslim women at my work wear Hajibs, and I really don't give a shit.

[nocturnus]

Thread is about burqas, while most people are thinking about hajibs anyway, most muslim women at my work wear Hajibs, and I really don't give a shit.

Aye, thread is misleading. The article is about every garnment that expresses religious or political association. So also a hijab.

[Deleted]

Have you seen at least 10 women in you're lifetime wearing a burka?

I have but I mean, it's hard to tell when they look like casper or ninjas, maybe it was the same person?

[Vargur]

Incoming triggered sjws crying islamophobia!

There are atheists among "SJWs" as well, I bet they don't like seeing presumably religious symbols all the time.

[HumbleDuck]

Wrong. Some muslims do, not "certain ethnic groups". Ergo, it's not racism.



And what did I say?



It's amusing that you complain about people "having trouble grasping a simple idea" while you're the one that isn't paying attention.

Actually type of hijab is very much dependent on ethnicity. Hijab in Aryan dominated places of muslim world is vastly different than hijab in let's say Arab dominated places ( and that is also different than Turk, Kurd, ... Muslims). Still not racism, but important to point out.

And about what you said, you asked what my point was, and I tried to clarify that.

PS. I think you are replying to wrong comments.

[Deleted]

Aye, thread is misleading. The article is about every garnment that expresses religious or political association. So also a hijab.

But we all know it's just aimed at burqas or hijabs though.

[ati87]

I have but I mean, it's hard to tell when they look like casper or ninjas, maybe it was the same person?

that's why I don't speculate on my gut feeling on top of my biases because when the BBC did it's research they concluded that the percentage of people wearing it's such a small percentage that a person has to wonder why governments are pushing for policies and discussions involving the burka.

then their is the 2e part about ''oppression'', what are they basing this one? Do they have any bloody proof that this is oppression?

if I google arab male clothing I see guys that are also covered fully and if they want could cover their faces if the situation ask for it so if I had to judge the reason why arabs wear these clothing (even in the west) it would be cultural mixed with religion.

[May90]

Yes, to think of it, I've never ever seen a woman wear a burqa outside UAE. Maybe it is different in Europe, but in the US, Canada and Australia I've barely even seen anyone wear hijab, and never niqab/burqa. Don't think this verdict was worth the taxpayers' money spent on its consideration.

[Allatar]

But we all know it's just aimed at burqas or hijabs though.

No we don't: the only reason that burqas and hijabs have been mentioned in this article is because 2 women who wanted to be able to wear them in the workplace after being told they couldn't, decided to take the matter to court. Where they lost. The court didn't say 'burqas are banned lol fu!', the court said 'employers in Europe have the right to decide if people can display religious icons openly or not, as they see fit'.

Unfortunately a very, very badly chosen and seemingly deliberately inflammatory title has meant that very few of the people commenting here have actually gone and looked at the actual ruling.

[Deleted]

No we don't: the only reason that burqas and hijabs have been mentioned in this article is because 2 women who wanted to be able to wear them in the workplace after being told they couldn't, decided to take the matter to court. Where they lost. The court didn't say 'burqas are banned lol fu!', the court said 'employers in Europe have the right to decide if people can display religious icons openly or not, as they see fit'.

Unfortunately a very, very badly chosen and seemingly deliberately inflammatory title has meant that very few of the people commenting here have actually gone and looked at the actual ruling.

No the only reason burqas and hajibs are mentioned is because that's the only thing the newspapers and everyone else reports about. Most headlines literally say BURQAS and mentions religious icons etc. just somewhere in the article.

But no one cares about religious icons, they just care about the burqa or hijab.

[Mehrunes]

But we all know it's just aimed at burqas or hijabs though.

The law or the article?