• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

And they shall persecute you for MY name's sake. [W:20]

I'm not familiar with UK law, so I have no idea what Article 9 is. Also, not being from the UK, I say you guys are free to screw up your country however you please.

That being said, if we were talking about a gay pride bracelet, YOU and the UK courts wouldn't have anything to say about it. Imagine the outcry if someone were fired or demoted for wearing a gay pride bracelet.

What if we were talking about the dots Indian people have on their foreheads? What if we were talking about head dresses on Muslim women?

The court's ruling is bogus, because the standard it uses would ONLY be applied to Christians, not to any other religion or special group.

Manc Skipper said:
The UK government statement on the cases:
“The Government submit that… the applicants’ wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not a manifestation of their religion or belief within the meaning of Article 9, and…the restriction on the applicants' wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was not an ‘interference’ with their rights protected by Article 9.”
“In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith, still less one that is regarded (including by the applicants themselves) as a requirement of the faith.”

So neither woman was prevented from wearing a cross under their uniform, only from breaching their company's uniform policy. There is no compulsion to wear a cross in Christianity, either openly or not. Their choice to wear jewellery against policy was theirs alone.
Click to expand...
 
A safety issue? Aren't you preemptively blaming the victim here?

If someone were to assault this woman for wearing a cross, in no way, shape, or form would it be her fault. She has a right to express herself. If someone has a problem with who she is, that is THEIR problem, not hers.

samsmart said:
Also, it may be less of a discriminatory practice and more of a safety issue. British Airways flies all over the world, including the Middle East. In those Islamist countries, showing off non-Muslim religious icons may be a domestic crime there, punishable by their religious laws. So, for the safety of their employees when in foreign nations, the company may require that no religious icons be worn.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
A safety issue? Aren't you preemptively blaming the victim here?

If someone were to assault this woman for wearing a cross, in no way, shape, or form would it be her fault. She has a right to express herself. If someone has a problem with who she is, that is THEIR problem, not hers.
Click to expand...

I'm not blaming the victim.

I'm just pointing out that laws are different in different countries, and this may be a case of protecting her from local prosecution since not every country has the same laws in regards to religious expression.
 
Fine, but then put her on a different route, don't just fire her. Not every flight goes to Iran.

samsmart said:
I'm not blaming the victim.

I'm just pointing out that laws are different in different countries, and this may be a case of protecting her from local prosecution since not every country has the same laws in regards to religious expression.
Click to expand...
 
falconduler said:
compromise is never a good thing when you are dealing with a religious ideology. fear of expression can only result in resentment or dilution of one's sacred belief. the basic tenet of christianity is to share this belief with others. it doesn't mean to coerce others . the other party is still able to believe what he or she wants to believe.

if i want to share a sandwhich ,you can always say no thanks.
Click to expand...

What if your religious ideology demands you control someone else's life in a way they don't want to? What if its two religious ideologies that contradict? Whos going to win that battle? Does Christianity just win by default because its the true religion and everyone needs to just fall in line with it.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Can a company have any policy they want? What if there were a company that had a policy of not hiring black people. Would you be OK with that?
Click to expand...

Most companies do have dress codes. And dress codes do not equate to the hiring of minorities.
 
Religious persecution used to mean getting eaten by lions, being crucified upside down or burned at the stake.

Now it's not being able to flaunt your religious paraphernalia at work in the face of customers who have another religion.

My how times change.
 
Both are examples of discrimination.

Should muslims and jews be forced to shave their beards? Should muslim women be forced to show their hair?

samsmart said:
Most companies do have dress codes. And dress codes do not equate to the hiring of minorities.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
Both are examples of discrimination.

Should muslims and jews be forced to shave their beards? Should muslim women be forced to show their hair?
Click to expand...

No. They can get jobs with other companies that don't have such requirements.
 
So you are really saying yes. If they want the job, they must shave their beards. Even if they are qualified for the job. Am I wrong?

samsmart said:
No. They can get jobs with other companies that don't have such requirements.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
So you are really saying yes. If they want the job, they must shave their beards. Even if they are qualified for the job. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

No.

As was pointed out before, wearing a cross necklace is not an integral part of Christianity.
 
So they should be allowed to ban anything that isn't "integral?" What gives them that right? These are adults we are talking about. Shouldn't they be free to express themselves in an appropriate manner?


samsmart said:
No.

As was pointed out before, wearing a cross necklace is not an integral part of Christianity.
Click to expand...
 
Religious expression shouldn't be restricted in the workplace without a valid reason. Having a dress code banning crosses isn't enough, there needs to be justification for why wearing a cross would be a problem. Infringing on any rights of the employee requires more reasoning than "because I said so".
 
falconduler said:
choose between job or religion or leave. that's what i like about the first amend.
Click to expand...

Do you always try to talk cryptically? The first two scenarios were clear violations of religious freedom. The second two were not. If you're hired to do a job that you refuse to do, they're not just going to keep paying you for no reason.
 
If there was a policy banning necklaces/jewelery in the first two cases, then yes, reprimands were necessary for violating said policies. However, were employees allowed to wear jewelery as long as it wasn't religiously affiliated, then yes- these are cases of discrimination or at the very least a highly-questionable company policy. On one side of the coin, religious beliefs are just those- beliefs. They cannot harm someone and as long as they don't interfere with effectively executing one's assigned task, they are merely tools of self-expression such as clothing or musical taste. However, when an employee takes advantage of their religious freedom to the point where it becomes a burden on themselves, their colleagues or even customers, action must be taken. This was not the case for either of the first two scenarios you suggested, so unless they were specifically breaking a company policy, I believe discrimination took place.

The last two scenarios, as pointed out numerous times throughout the thread, are not cases of discrimination. These people let their own personal beliefs get in the way of doing what they're being paid to do. Someone is paying these people money either from the taxpayer's pockets or their own. These employees happily accept that money, yet still believe they're entitled to choose whether or not to do what they've been paid to based on their own moral compass. That's stealing. That's fraud. Their employers had every right and then some to punish these people.
 
falconduler said:
choose between job or religion or leave. that's what i like about the first amend.
Click to expand...

Hypothetical. What if the person was told before even starting the job that he/she must perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples as well as heterosexual couples as well?

In your opinion, would it be "okay" if the person was told beforehand everything the job entailed? And if the person agreed to the terms, yet later refused to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, would that be enough to fire them?
 
rathi said:
Having a dress code banning crosses isn't enough, there needs to be justification for why wearing a cross would be a problem.
Click to expand...
None of these cases have anything to do with dress codes banning crosses. It is misinformation like this (intentional or not) that is generating so much of the unnecessary anger and hatred surrounding these cases.
 
rathi said:
Religious expression shouldn't be restricted in the workplace without a valid reason. Having a dress code banning crosses isn't enough, there needs to be justification for why wearing a cross would be a problem. Infringing on any rights of the employee requires more reasoning than "because I said so".
Click to expand...

A uniform policy banning jewellery is not a restriction on religious expression. Where would it end?

images
 
HonestJoe said:
None of these cases have anything to do with dress codes banning crosses. It is misinformation like this (intentional or not) that is generating so much of the unnecessary anger and hatred surrounding these cases.
Click to expand...

The first two case in the OP are based on dress codes. The hospital dress code is justified for health and sanitation reasons, I'm having a hard time seeing the reasoning for air-line check in.
 
Manc Skipper said:
A uniform policy banning jewellery is not a restriction on religious expression. Where would it end?

images
Click to expand...

Banning jewelry is a restriction on religious expression. The question is whether such a ban is reasonable or not based on the needs of the job in question.

Your picture is also invalid, as Blackadder's mother was visiting him in the home, not the workplace.
 
There is no requirement in Christianity to wear jewellery, and a uniform policy does not ban you from wearing it under your uniform where your invisible friend can see it at will. Vanity isn't a good reason to wear religious symbols.

It wasn't his mother, but an extremist puritan aunt. Incidentally, the actress is Jewish.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I dislike the persecution of Christianity and Christians.
Click to expand...
Couldn't you have easily have said the next sentence you are about to read?

"Personally I dislike the persecution of any religion and their followers."
(Unless,of course,that is not something you believe in)
I believe in prosecuting criminals of crimes they commit regardless of their religious beliefs in fair trials of their peers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom