Options
Do you think these Christians have been discriminated against ?
blueblade
Posts: 88,859 Forum Member
✭✭✭
They have taken their cases to the ECHR, so it'll be interesting to see how they get on.
link here
For my own part I certainly agree that the above individuals affected should be allowed to wear a crucifix. To me it seems cruel and unusual treatment to try and stop them for non health and safety reasons. So I genuinely hope they win.
As for the latter two, I don't agree with them and hope they lose, but only if exactly the same rules would pertain to adherents of any other religion whose arguments were the same as the Christian ones.
Thoughts ?
link here
A ruling is not expected from the European court for several weeks.
The cases involve:
Nadia Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian from Twickenham, south-west London, who was sent home by her employer British Airways in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross
Devon-based nurse Shirley Chaplin, who was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for similar reasons
Gary McFarlane, a Bristol relationship counsellor, who was sacked by Relate after saying on a training course he might have had a conscientious objection to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples
Registrar Lilian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London
Each individual had made a separate application to the court, but the cases are being heard together.
For my own part I certainly agree that the above individuals affected should be allowed to wear a crucifix. To me it seems cruel and unusual treatment to try and stop them for non health and safety reasons. So I genuinely hope they win.
As for the latter two, I don't agree with them and hope they lose, but only if exactly the same rules would pertain to adherents of any other religion whose arguments were the same as the Christian ones.
Thoughts ?
0
Comments
The people who refused to provide services to same sex couples haven't a leg to stand on. They are providing a public service and should be providing it to everyone regardless of religion/sexuality/race etc.
If jewellery is generally allowed, then crosses should be too. Disallowing only Christian imagery or religious imagery in jewellery would be discriminatory. I have no idea why anybody would take issue with a cross.
The other two are failing to do their jobs. If their religion makes them incompatible with a job, well that's their problem - not the employers. They're fired for not doing the job, not for being religious.
Employers wouldn't dare tell a Muslim not to wear religious emblems because they would be in all sorts of trouble. Why should it be ok to stop Christians from doing so?
IIRC she wasn't told she couldn't wear it but rather that she should wear it under her top. It wasn't because it was a crucifix but it was because it was a necklace and wearing a necklace outside the clothes contravened the dress code that applied to everyone.
I don't see how being told you can't wear a necklace over your top is any more 'cruel and unusual' than being told you've got to wear a tie.
Edit: what Stiffy said.
My understanding of the case is that the health and safety argument came later and was not the original reason for dismissal. Also, I read somewhere that the people concerned offered to wear it under their uniforms and refused. If that's true, then they have a case.
NEXT!
Can you remember where?
Shirley Chaplin was told she could wear it under her uniform and she refused.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-17346834
I agree with you regarding those who wish to wear a crucifix. As for the other two , it depends on when they applied for their current positions, possibly the law changed during their employment and therefore morally they have been forced to move their boundaries. I think it is quite innapropriate to apply for a job then state that its unnacceptable on religious grounds.
Because it is a tenet of the Muslim faith that women should cover their hair. To force them not to would be anti-Muslim and discrimination.
It is not a tenet of the Christian faith to dangle an Argos crucifix over your blouse. The decision was merely anti-cheap jewellery and not anti-Christian.
Well it is IMO, because it's a random ruling for which (as far as I know) British Airways have yet to give a logical reason as to why they imposed it.
If they can't supply any good reason, then it's bollocks and should be overturned. Especially if it prevents someone from expressing their religious conscience.
As far as ties, don't forget the DWP ruling in about 2004, which decreed it was discriminatory to enforce men to wear ties, as women didn't have to wear them. Also, women could wear trousers, but men couldn't wear a skirt.
I can't remember. Perhaps I imagined it :eek:
I think they have been doing the job since before the new rules came in but, still, employee contracts change all the time so it's not an excuse.
Couldn't sack her fast enough, personally. I bet her colleagues threw a damn good party on the day that she got canned.
What would you consider a good reason for a dress code in public facing position? Does image matter?
What's so special about religious conscience over any other strongly held view anyway? Should nurses be allowed to advertise their political allegiances while tending to the sick too? If not, why? What's the difference?
It really isn't. No member of staff is allowed to wear visible jewellery.
She refused to hide it under her clothing.
It might be a religious symbol, but it's not a requirement of the faith. What if someone decided their expression of Christianity was this or this? None are required by Christians, but anyone could have the same petty argument as that woman, that it's their way of showing their faith and they must be allowed. No. They mustn't. There's a uniform code, and everyone has to stick to it.
As for Muslim employees, I'm sure BA would be perfectly happy for Christian ladies to cover their hair with a discrete scarf matching the uniform, if they wished. No separate rules.
You can also decide that any uniform code is wrong and people should be free to wear what they like. Fine. Different argument. But if it's one code for all people, there cannot possibly be discrimination.
But it might be a tenet of the individual's personal religious conscience that they wear a crucifix visibly, and that is what IMO, should be the underpinning criteria. Not what the higher orthodoxy dictate.
Rightly, there is no such thing. Else people would wear what they hell they liked and call it religious conscience.
How about if a Hindu had this tattoo on their cheek, as their personal religious conscience? Should BA allow that on their check in desk?
I'm sick of people thinking they can do what the hell they like (either religious or otherwise) and then call it discrimination or a breach of rights or something when they're politely told to stick to a simple, fair rule.
Don't like the uniform code? Don't work for the company!
Actually the crucifix/cross thing is directly analogous to wearing the hijab, both are overt religious observances, but I don't see anyone daring to try to ban the hijab...
Agreed, with the cast iron proviso that if, for example, a Muslim refused to carry out similar duties on religious grounds, but stated it was because of a higher tenet of their religion, they would also get the sack.
That they wouldn't be exempt from the duty because of that higher diktat within their religion (not saying they have such a higher ruling, it's purely hypothetical and could apply to any religion)
Yes, they change. My place even got taken over by a new company, so it was new rules and new T&C. We got six months to accept the new contract or find another job. Just the way it goes.
No it isn't. Nowhere does any Christian text say you must have an outward display of your religion.
The Quran explicitly states a woman should dress modestly and be covered. The hijab is also not just a religious symbol, but a cultural one.