Great news: Employers are allowed to ban burquas!

[Torgent]

Kinda logic, religion in something for yourself at home.
Nobody cares what you do there but at work you have workspace rules and religion dont have any higher status at that location.

Absolutely hilarious. 10/10 joke.

Oh you were serious? So I guess you have a problem with people wearing crosses too?

[ranzino]

Absolutely hilarious. 10/10 joke.

Oh you were serious? So I guess you have a problem with people wearing crosses too?

Which part of "absolutely no religion at workplace" did escape your mind ?

- - - Updated - - -

It's a ban on religious headwear and symbols. Take your emotions out this please, it's not a "ban on burquas" no matter how many times you say it.

Well, it bans also burqas.
even if someone would say "i like to look like a ghost, it's not religious" it could violate dress code at workplace, also covered by the ruling.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly my point. What in the hell did they get themselves in to? No wonder people want to leave, if they are treated as mere states instead of nations.

How can the SCOTUS violate our feelings ?

- - - Updated - - -

I am a pro-hijab muslim. Or rather, I am pro-hijab for those who believe that they want to wear it as a sign of obedience/practice of the Islamic rules.

And I think this is a 100% fair and step in the right direction - burqas aren't even mandatory nor even required in Islam. Besides, they are not a sign of a civilized society these days and simply do not fit. Hijab is actually beautiful and elegant - most of my muslim friends look elegant and well dressed while committing to it in work environments or simply in hang outs. Burqas however, do. not. fit.

Yes to banning burqa, no to banning hijab in my personal, humble opinion.

"No hijab in my office, period."

[Noradin]

Exactly my point. What in the hell did they get themselves in to? No wonder people want to leave, if they are treated as mere states instead of nations.

Did you know that even countries in Europe that aren't part of the EU would still have another court that can overrule national courts? (Even Russian ones. The only Exception is Belarus.)

[Sinyc]

Well, it bans also burqas.
even if someone would say "i like to look like a ghost, it's not religious" it could violate dress code at workplace, also covered by the ruling.

Yeah I know. It's just funny to see all these easily offended warriors coming out and calling it a Burqa ban so they feel like they are good people. Virtue Signaling I believe it is called.

[Z-Man]

Now that we've gotten rid of the burqa, can we start on upturned collars? Kilts? Bolo ties?

[Tijuana]

Which part of "absolutely no religion at workplace" did escape your mind ?

- - - Updated - - -



Well, it bans also burqas.
even if someone would say "i like to look like a ghost, it's not religious" it could violate dress code at workplace, also covered by the ruling.

- - - Updated - - -



How can the SCOTUS violate our feelings ?

- - - Updated - - -



"No hijab in my office, period."

Did you quote the wrong person? I don't know what you are on about....

My point, is that the highest court is somehow above the nation's high courts. There is no court that sits above the US court system. Why is that an actual thing for say, Belgium? What in the actual fuck?

- - - Updated - - -

Did you know that even countries in Europe that aren't part of the EU would still have another court that can overrule national courts? (Even Russian ones. The only Exception is Belarus.)

I have no idea what court that would be. The highest court in the US is part of the US court system. We do not cede judicial power to outside forces, and I can't imagine how that is an actual thing that the EU does. What were you thinking???

[ranzino]

Did you quote the wrong person? I don't know what you are on about....

My point, is that the highest court is somehow above the nation's high courts. There is no court that sits above the US court system. Why is that an actual thing for say, Belgium? What in the actual fuck?

- - - Updated - - -



I have no idea what court that would be. The highest court in the US is part of the US court system. We do not cede judicial power to outside forces, and I can't imagine how that is an actual thing that the EU does. What were you thinking???

My SCOTUS example was about different states with different rulings. european courts do not interfere with your local thrash regulations, but human rights is their playground.

[Mehrunes]

I have no idea what court that would be. The highest court in the US is part of the US court system. We do not cede judicial power to outside forces, and I can't imagine how that is an actual thing that the EU does. What were you thinking???

Theoretically US is party to International Court of Justice. And some other specialized or ad hoc international tribunals.

[Deleted]

employers should have all the rights to make their own decisions about who they employ.

No they shouldnt.

[Mehrunes]

So, the EU has courts that supersede the courts of actual nations? This is a thing?

Yes, supranational and international law supersedes national law, it's basic hierarchy of legislature. And the court to safeguard supranational, in this case, law supersedes national courts. Though in this case, this didn't happen in traditional way. The ECJ only clarified a part of law in question, after which the case went back to the Belgian court and the ruling on the particular case was made in Belgium.

[Tijuana]

My SCOTUS example was about different states with different rulings. european courts do not interfere with your local thrash regulations, but human rights is their playground.

Right, and my point is that, if NATIONS are reduced to mere STATES, by entering the EU, how in the hell did they get anyone to sign on?

- - - Updated - - -

Theoretically US is party to International Court of Justice. And some other specialized or ad hoc international tribunals.

Yeah, no. We submit ourselves to the rulings of international courts by choice, not by force. Just look at the Iraq war; voted down by UN, zero fucks given, war ensues. This is a key component of being a sovereign nation. I didn't know this was signed away by the EU.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, supranational and international law supersedes national law, it's basic hierarchy of legislature. And the court to safeguard supranational, in this case, law supersedes national courts. Though in this case, this didn't happen in traditional way. The ECJ only clarified a part of law in question, after which the case went back to the Belgian court and the ruling on the particular case was made in Belgium.

There is nothing basic about giving your sovereign status away via treaty. The US will NEVER do that.

[Al Gorefiend]

Don't most employers enforce dress codes anyways? I've never worked a job where I was allowed to come to work dressed in torn jeans, flannel and a snapback.

I'd say the amount of jobs with a required uniform far exceeds jobs not requiring them.

[Mehrunes]

Yeah, no. We submit ourselves to the rulings of international courts by choice, not by force. Just look at the Iraq war; voted down by UN, zero fucks given, war ensues. This is a key component of being a sovereign nation. I didn't know this was signed away by the EU.

Well, yes, that's why I said it's only theoretical in regards to ICJ. Due to the moronic way UNSC is set up and due to US' adoration of abusing their veto power, they may ignore the rulings to their heart content. And EU member states are subject to ECJ rulings willingly. Nothing keeps them in EU.

There is nothing basic about giving your sovereign status away via treaty. The US will NEVER do that.

That's all fine and dandy, glory eternal be to ze mighty US, but EU member states are sovereign. And the hierarchy of laws is basic, sorry. International law US ratified is above US law in case of conflict.

[Deleted]

Don't most employers enforce dress codes anyways? I've never worked a job where I was allowed to come to work dressed in torn jeans, flannel and a snapback.

I'd say the amount of jobs with a required uniform far exceeds jobs not requiring them.

this is basically what he ruling was about 2 ladies thought that their religious wear should grant them special exception, court said no.

[Deleted]

Exactly my point. What in the hell did they get themselves in to? No wonder people want to leave, if they are treated as mere states instead of nations.

That's the biggest issue. Many countries in Europe have a history of hundreds, even thousands of years. While they fall under the broader definition of Western culture, each country has its unique language, history and cultural variations. States and provinces in the US and Canada were created literally out of nowhere, while the countries of Europe are the result of thousands of years of "natural" developement. That should be respected by the EU bosses, but it is not, which is creatng schisms. People are generally willing to cooperate, but they don't want to ditch their local sovereignity or national identity, which is claimed by certain less honest individuals to be undesirable despite of healthy nationalism's obvious benefits to welfare, order, progress, rule of law, and the overall quality of life; take Scandinavian countries, for example.

[Mehrunes]

That's the biggest issue. Many countries in Europe have a history of hundreds, even thousands of years. While they fall under the broader definition of Western culture, each country has its unique language, history and cultural variations. States and provinces in the US and Canada were created literally out of nowhere, while the countries of Europe are the result of thousands of years of "natural" developement. That should be respected by the EU bosses, but it is not, which is creatng schisms. People are generally willing to cooperate, but they don't want to ditch their local sovereignity or national identity, which is claimed by certain less honest individuals to be undesirable despite of healthy nationalism's obvious benefits to welfare, order, progress, rule of law, and the overall quality of life; take Scandinavian countries, for example.

If by EU bosses you mean governments of member states which negotiated the treaties, then sure. Because CJEU's authority or even its very existence is on them. And member states are sovereign, nothing is ditched here. The authority of CJEU oscillates around EU law and national courts not having authority on law above national level isn't a breach of sovereignty by any stretch of imagination. Also, dafuq is healthy nationalism?

[ranzino]

Just for info about USA: you are not even fit to be a theoretically member of EU ( besides the geography) because your laws are beneath our own level. of course a lot of other countries are also not fit, but since USA is so very sure and adamant about it's the epitome of civilization: sorry, you are not.

[Tijuana]

That's the biggest issue. Many countries in Europe have a history of hundreds, even thousands of years. While they fall under the broader definition of Western culture, each country has its unique language, history and cultural variations. States and provinces in the US and Canada were created literally out of nowhere, while the countries of Europe are the result of thousands of years of "natural" developement. That should be respected by the EU bosses, but it is not, which is creatng schisms. People are generally willing to cooperate, but they don't want to ditch their local sovereignity or national identity, which is claimed by certain less honest individuals to be undesirable despite of healthy nationalism's obvious benefits to welfare, order, progress, rule of law, and the overall quality of life; take Scandinavian countries, for example.

I'm not sure I would quite paint the original 13 colonies, that were there for hundreds of years, the same as I would paint say, Arizona. There were are are distinct cultural differences between the original colonies. But, the point is solid overall, and I agree. It's just insane they let THIS level of power out of their own hands. I think the EU would be stronger, if it were an actual nation, but this half measure is just nuts for the member nations, imo.

[Endus]

That's the biggest issue. Many countries in Europe have a history of hundreds, even thousands of years. While they fall under the broader definition of Western culture, each country has its unique language, history and cultural variations. States and provinces in the US and Canada were created literally out of nowhere, while the countries of Europe are the result of thousands of years of "natural" developement. That should be respected by the EU bosses, but it is not, which is creatng schisms. People are generally willing to cooperate, but they don't want to ditch their local sovereignity or national identity, which is claimed by certain less honest individuals to be undesirable despite of healthy nationalism's obvious benefits to welfare, order, progress, rule of law, and the overall quality of life; take Scandinavian countries, for example.

This is nonsense eurocentrism.

Those European countries often have deviated pretty significantly from their historical background; they are not empires that have stood unchanging against the tide of time.

And the Americas have just as much history. Thousands of years. You just don't care about that history, because it wasn't about Europeans. The US and Canada weren't "created out of nowhere". They were created from colonies of those European nations, in territories that had previously been held by various First Nations. That overtaking is obviously significant, but it's little different from the Angles and the Saxons invading the British islands, to the extent that "anglo-saxon" has become a major ethnic group there.

Pretending that non-European history doesn't exist and doesn't count is just completely without basis in reality or fact.

[Noradin]

Right, and my point is that, if NATIONS are reduced to mere STATES, by entering the EU, how in the hell did they get anyone to sign on?

That one post wasn't meant literal, just as an explanation.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, no. We submit ourselves to the rulings of international courts by choice, not by force.

The same is true here.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't most employers enforce dress codes anyways? I've never worked a job where I was allowed to come to work dressed in torn jeans, flannel and a snapback.

Yes, but there are limitations on what kind of dress code they can set.