• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Religion day in the ECHR


Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,845
BBC News - British Airways Christian employee Nadia Eweida wins case

Verdicts today in 4 cases citing religious discrimination.

1 was successful where a BA employee argued that she should be allowed to wear a cross to work. It was unsurprising it was successful as BA themselves altered their uniform code 4 years ago to allow it. But the point was a good one to pursue and you have to admire her for it.

2 others were rejected, both of which seem pretty spurious on the face of it (basically 2 people employed to provide a service refused or threatened to refuse providing that service to gay people and objected to being let go).

The more debatable one was a nurse who wanted to wear a cross to work having the ban on doing so upheld on health and safety rules. This would seem to indicate there's still a grey area where h&s risks may be viewed by employers as outweighing the rights to religious expression. Again it's pretty much open and shut, but it does mean that future cases will be on the cards.
 

Mr. Bumble

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
18,254
BBC News - British Airways Christian employee Nadia Eweida wins case

Verdicts today in 4 cases citing religious discrimination.

1 was successful where a BA employee argued that she should be allowed to wear a cross to work. It was unsurprising it was successful as BA themselves altered their uniform code 4 years ago to allow it. But the point was a good one to pursue and you have to admire her for it.

2 others were rejected, both of which seem pretty spurious on the face of it (basically 2 people employed to provide a service refused or threatened to refuse providing that service to gay people and objected to being let go).

The more debatable one was a nurse who wanted to wear a cross to work having the ban on doing so upheld on health and safety rules. This would seem to indicate there's still a grey area where h&s risks may be viewed by employers as outweighing the rights to religious expression. Again it's pretty much open and shut, but it does mean that future cases will be on the cards.
Nothing stopping the nurse wearing a cross inside his/her clothing or a cross that adhered to H&S standards e.g. made of plastic and/or worn tight to the skin.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,845
Nothing stopping the nurse wearing a cross inside his/her clothing or a cross that adhered to H&S standards e.g. made of plastic and/or worn tight to the skin.
The first verdict relating to BA would indicate that to be true all right.
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,064
The decisions are not surprising but provide welcome clarification as to the right to wear outward symbols of faith.

Once the wearing of such symbols does not cause a health and safety issue, the ECHR finds that an employer has no right to prevent their display.
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
Suppose we should be grateful the serene advocate isn't demanding the right to re-enact the crucifixion at set times during the day.

Mind you the sight of a couple of berserkers nailing each other to wooden crosses and moaning for joy would enliven the dull progress of the security queue. One could offer marks for technique.

On a more serious note though one wonders at the motivation of people who demand to be allowed to display religious insignia or symbol. Are there any figures available on exactly how many infidels have suddenly been converted on catching sight of a cheapo crucifix dangling around the neck of a promoter?

Or is the point of the thing a way of saying 'I'm in the departure lounge for heaven whereas all ye sinners are on Ryanair to hell and damnation'?

Personally I'm of the opinion that if xtians want to volunteer to wear the intellectual equivalent of a yellow star then that saves me time and effort in bars and nightclubs because I know who to avoid.
 

USER1234

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,357
Sounds like good sensible results to me i am particularly happy with the ruling of the case of the 2 people employed to provide a service refused or threatened to refuse providing that service to gay people and objected to being let go, i have followed both cases and the ruling in these cases will make it much harder for people to try to get away with it!!!
 

USER1234

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,357
B.A. had already admitted they were wrong and allowed their employees to wear religious symbols on their uniform, this just confirmed it
 

White Horse

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
7,064
Sounds like a god results to me i am particularly happy with the ruling of the case of the 2 people employed to provide a service refused or threatened to refuse providing that service to gay people and objected to being let go, i have followed both cases and the ruling in these cases will make it much harder for people to try to get away with it!!!
Did you not find it odd that the employer asked a heterosexual Christian lay minister to give "sex therapy" advice (as opposed to relationship counselling) to two homosexuals?

I agree with your general premise that those employed by the State tp provide relationship concelling should be able to provide that service to all people in relationships that are legally permitted by the state.

However, there is still something fishy about this particular case.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
19,084
Suppose we should be grateful the serene advocate isn't demanding the right to re-enact the crucifixion at set times during the day.

Mind you the sight of a couple of berserkers nailing each other to wooden crosses and moaning for joy would enliven the dull progress of the security queue. One could offer marks for technique.

On a more serious note though one wonders at the motivation of people who demand to be allowed to display religious insignia or symbol. Are there any figures available on exactly how many infidels have suddenly been converted on catching sight of a cheapo crucifix dangling around the neck of a promoter?

Or is the point of the thing a way of saying 'I'm in the departure lounge for heaven whereas all ye sinners are on Ryanair to hell and damnation'?

Personally I'm of the opinion that if xtians want to volunteer to wear the intellectual equivalent of a yellow star then that saves me time and effort in bars and nightclubs because I know who to avoid.

I think a minute in your company would have the same effect on most people...

With regard to wearing religious medals or crucifixes - the woman who works at British Airways usually had it tucked in, it just happened that day that what she wore meant it was exposed. It was a petty and vindictive thing to do to her, and I can guarantee that no person of any other religious faith would ever have been remotely bothered by her crucifix - it's only the likes of you, the professionally offended, who scream like little girls at any hint of someone being openly religious.
 

USER1234

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
9,357
Robert Pigott the Religious affairs correspondent Analysis was very good and to the point and it answers your question White Horse

It's perhaps more significant that Shirley Chaplin's case was dismissed, along with those of Gary McFarlane and Lillian Ladele. Today's judgement sets the legal seal on years in which traditionalist Christians have tried, and failed, to defend their values against secular ones in British courts.

The message coming from Strasbourg is that although people are entitled to hold religious views, that right is severely limited in the workplace when it comes into conflict with the rights of other people. The judgement also hands considerable discretion to employers to set reasonable policies and then insist that employees follow them whatever their religious beliefs.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,897
Suppose we should be grateful the serene advocate isn't demanding the right to re-enact the crucifixion at set times during the day.
What's wrong with that? I re-enacted the Wedding Feast at Cana the other night. Well...kind of...I took a quarter of run of the mill weed and convinced some idiot it was White Widow.
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
I think a minute in your company would have the same effect on most people...

With regard to wearing religious medals or crucifixes - the woman who works at British Airways usually had it tucked in, it just happened that day that what she wore meant it was exposed. It was a petty and vindictive thing to do to her, and I can guarantee that no person of any other religious faith would ever have been remotely bothered by her crucifix - it's only the likes of you, the professionally offended, who scream like little girls at any hint of someone being openly religious.
You speak as if she was dragged through the courts by her employer. She wasn't. She took her employer to the European courts in order to inflate her own religious ego and I don't believe for a moment her crucifix-on-a-chain was 'accidentally' on display. To be honest this little muppet is singularly unable or unwilling on an intellectual basis to understand why there has to be one rule for all employees or none and the 'none' leads to massive issues.

I'm sure she'll be on the Board of BA in no time at all with her glittering personnel record. Personally I'd have her 're-organised' to be working away from other staff and customers at all.

Preferably helping to empty high octane fuel tanks with a length of hose and some sucking training. Or to put it mildly- 'expect no promotion this side of resurrection day' followed by 'get rid of' as an invisible note on her file. Now that's reality.
 

Equinox

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 4, 2011
Messages
3,063
Suppose we should be grateful the serene advocate isn't demanding the right to re-enact the crucifixion at set times during the day.

Mind you the sight of a couple of berserkers nailing each other to wooden crosses and moaning for joy would enliven the dull progress of the security queue. One could offer marks for technique.

On a more serious note though one wonders at the motivation of people who demand to be allowed to display religious insignia or symbol. Are there any figures available on exactly how many infidels have suddenly been converted on catching sight of a cheapo crucifix dangling around the neck of a promoter?

Or is the point of the thing a way of saying 'I'm in the departure lounge for heaven whereas all ye sinners are on Ryanair to hell and damnation'?

Personally I'm of the opinion that if xtians want to volunteer to wear the intellectual equivalent of a yellow star then that saves me time and effort in bars and nightclubs because I know who to avoid.
Who knew that crucifixes worked on intellectual midgits as well as vampires!

I guess as few xtians have had a lucky escape...
 
Last edited:

Radix

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
10,031
BBC News - British Airways Christian employee Nadia Eweida wins case

Verdicts today in 4 cases citing religious discrimination.

1 was successful where a BA employee argued that she should be allowed to wear a cross to work. It was unsurprising it was successful as BA themselves altered their uniform code 4 years ago to allow it. But the point was a good one to pursue and you have to admire her for it.

2 others were rejected, both of which seem pretty spurious on the face of it (basically 2 people employed to provide a service refused or threatened to refuse providing that service to gay people and objected to being let go).

The more debatable one was a nurse who wanted to wear a cross to work having the ban on doing so upheld on health and safety rules. This would seem to indicate there's still a grey area where h&s risks may be viewed by employers as outweighing the rights to religious expression. Again it's pretty much open and shut, but it does mean that future cases will be on the cards.

Frankly this is quite disgusting. Where are these refugees from the middle of the last millennium coming from?

I'm taking a case againts the ECHR to the European Court of Human Rights!
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
19,084
You speak as if she was dragged through the courts by her employer. She wasn't. She took her employer to the European courts in order to inflate her own religious ego and I don't believe for a moment her crucifix-on-a-chain was 'accidentally' on display. To be honest this little muppet is singularly unable or unwilling on an intellectual basis to understand why there has to be one rule for all employees or none and the 'none' leads to massive issues.

I'm sure she'll be on the Board of BA in no time at all with her glittering personnel record. Personally I'd have her 're-organised' to be working away from other staff and customers at all.

Preferably helping to empty high octane fuel tanks with a length of hose and some sucking training. Or to put it mildly- 'expect no promotion this side of resurrection day' followed by 'get rid of' as an invisible note on her file. Now that's reality.
I actually don't need to say anything in response to your post - you kind of just show yourself up for the irrational extremist you are all by yourself.

You even think that the ECHR was wrong because they didn't join in with your utterly deranged bigotry-fest. Even the ECHR! Seriously, cop yourself on...
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
I actually don't need to say anything in response to your post - you kind of just show yourself up for the irrational extremist you are all by yourself.

You even think that the ECHR was wrong because they didn't join in with your utterly deranged bigotry-fest. Even the ECHR! Seriously, cop yourself on...
Er- I believe you are the one fighting the Beardy Sky Beast's corner in all this. There's no rubber room my side of the house on that basis alone.

Are you still maintaining as dishonestly as possible that you aren't motivated by the religious arguments on the many and not-very-varied abortion threads?:)

Have a nice xtian, honest, straighforward day now. The way you are going xtians will end up being forced to wear lie detectors around their neck at work.
 
Joined
Jun 9, 2007
Messages
19,084
Er- I believe you are the one fighting the Beardy Sky Beast's corner in all this. There's no rubber room my side of the house on that basis alone.

Are you still maintaining as dishonestly as possible that you aren't motivated by the religious arguments on the many and not-very-varied abortion threads?:)

Have a nice xtian, honest, straighforward day now. The way you are going xtians will end up being forced to wear lie detectors around their neck at work.
You're just the mirror image of the deranged priests of yore - a different decade and you'd probably be first in line for the seminary. Tedious.
 

LamportsEdge

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2012
Messages
21,894
Point of order- I would be in the mob in France making sure that the connection between church and Le Roi was not forgotten and passing out helpful pamphlets such as 'Getting the Best Out Of Your Guillotine'.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
22,897
Reminds me of the Dao, Verse 38.

"When Dao is lost one must learn the rules of virtue
When virtue is lost, the rules of kindness
When kindness is lost, the rules of justice
When justice is lost, the rules of conduct"

Without being sounding like a total wrister - and I know quoting from the Dao makes me a de facto wrister- the point is that it is sad that these things even become legal cases. The fact that society is now so politicized and factionalized that differences cannot be resolved using basic common sense, respect for others and tolerance shows how far we have fallen. Who could possibly object to someone wearing a crucifix/religious headwear/religious symbols? Who could possibly be offended at the visual expression of a religious belief?

I mean seriously, wft is wrong with people? My local corner shop where I used to live is run by a Lebanese muslims, lovely people, who refused to sell booze or smokes for religious reasons. Should I sue them? My old tutor was a Sikh who wore the head gear- so fkn what? What should I do- throw a strop because his visual display of religious adherence touched some insecure nerve?

Civility has been replaced by law, and suddenly all these rules that were supposed to be about tolerance and respect have led to divisiveness and non-stop attention-seeking and hysteria. Obviously there is a practical line- if someone's religious beliefs stops them from doing their job or endangers others, clearly the job comes first. But why the litigiousness? Tolerance, good will and common sense if they ever existed could resolve these issues far better than law. Law should be the last resort. Even in cases where there is a clear conflict, a compromise is better. Take the civil partnership issue- if a office registers 5 same sex partnerships and 95 heterosexual partnerships, who loses out if the guy with the religious objection handles a few more heterosexual cases so as to avoid violating his conscience? The service is still provided to all impartially. Where such a work around is not reasonable available, then by all means the rights of the service user comes first and the principles of equality of access and fair treatment must be clearly observed, but otherwise why make it an issue? Good societies are built on people trying to accommodate each other- force must always be the last resort.
 
Top