No hijabs need apply.

end of the road

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Religion doesn't interfere in my business whatsoever.

you don't know that it doesn't.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

That may be the case if that was on the questionnaire but it's not. Anyone with an IQ above 90 will realise giving equivalence to the loch ness monster, god, the tooth fairy and leprechauns is not a very "catholic Ireland" question and if they don't and they tick the box for believing in god when they don't in fact believe in god the questionnaire will still have done it's job in screening them out early as I wouldn't want someone who thinks and behaves like that working for me. Win win.

yet you can't provide evidence of it. your workforce (not that i believe you are an employer for one second but we will run with it anyway) could all be religious for all you know. not ticking yes to some questionnaire isn't proof of anything. i think the game is up lad.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

You look down at people who believe in god, which has been obvious from your posts on here.
You scorn them & discriminate against them in your business.

That's not open minded

You can believe in God without following a religion..

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You can believe in God without following a religion..

Yep, I never said you couldn't.
The poster I was replying to, thinks less of people who believe in god.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Yep, I never said you couldn't.
The poster I was replying to, thinks less of people who believe in god.

I can't agree. From what I read of his posts, he has an objection to religion since the dogma and conformity of religion affects behavior. Belief in God, on the other hand, can be independent to the following of a religion, and therefore free of the dogma that interferes with his perception of a good employee.

He objects to the trappings of religion being displayed in the workplace. What you do in your own private life is your own business. What you do in work is his business, as the potential employer.

I don't particularly agree with his viewpoint regarding religion/intelligence..

54and56

bubblypop wrote: »

You look down at people who believe in god any makey uppey beings whether the being is the loch ness monster or one of a collection of thousands of beings labelled 'god', which has been obvious from your posts on here.
You scorn them & discriminate against them disagree with them and prefer not to employ people who believe in makey uppey stuff in your business.

That's not open minded

Fixed that for ya!!

54and56

end of the road wrote: »

you don't know that it doesn't.

Well there's no evidence that it does but don't let the absence of any facts prevent you from making a conclusion

end of the road wrote: »

yet you can't provide evidence of it. your workforce (not that i believe you are an employer for one second but we will run with it anyway) could all be religious for all you know. not ticking yes to some questionnaire isn't proof of anything. i think the game is up lad.

As long as they don't tick any of the makey uppey being boxes on the questionnaire and don't wear any religious garb at work I'm happy. Of course they could all be perpetuating lies about being religious, that wouldn't necessarily shock me at all, it seems to go with the territory.

Samaris

Tbh, it seems to be the belief in God thing he's got a beef with. Pretty sure he's restated that it is -belief- that calls down his rather singular judgement on others, not whether they belong to a religion or not. Leads in to all the logic/intelligence stuff. I have trouble taking all this word for truth (given it is against the law as laid out in Employment Equality acts 1998 & 2004 which baldly states religion is one of the grounds that cannot be discriminated against. If it can be used to protect the atheists, despite it being stated as "religion" and atheists emphatically don't have one, it's certainly going to protect "you religious at all? Right, interview over" as egregiously over the line.)

But eh, works for a point to argue from, even if it is highly unlikely. If it is true, we'll probably get to see how it goes in the courts at some point ourselves :P

54and56

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't agree. From what I read of his posts, he has an objection to religion since the dogma and conformity of religion affects behavior.

Not really. It's not the dogma and conformity I object to. It's the fact the person is prepared to suspend logic and reason to believe in something and I make no distinction between whether the entity being believed in is labelled god or the tooth fairy, they are equally fictional.

I'm not a fan or organised religion for some of the reasons you outline but that's not related to the issue being discussed here ref employees.

Deleted User wrote: »

He objects to the trappings of religion being displayed in the workplace. What you do in your own private life is your own business. What you do in work is his business, as the potential employer.

Correct.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't particularly agree with his viewpoint regarding religion/intelligence..

I don't equate religion with intelligence or lack of it. Some seriously clever people choose to believe in religion. My concern relates to decision making not intelligence.

54and56

Samaris wrote: »

Tbh, it seems to be the belief in God thing he's got a beef with. Pretty sure he's restated that it is -belief- that calls down his rather singular judgement on others, not whether they belong to a religion or not. Leads in to all the logic/intelligence stuff. I have trouble taking all this word for truth (given it is against the law as laid out in Employment Equality acts 1998 & 2004 which baldly states religion is one of the grounds that cannot be discriminated against. If it can be used to protect the atheists, despite it being stated as "religion" and atheists emphatically don't have one, it's certainly going to protect "you religious at all? Right, interview over" as egregiously over the line.)

But eh, works for a point to argue from, even if it is highly unlikely. If it is true, we'll probably get to see how it goes in the courts at some point ourselves :P

Close. I place a high value on sound decision making when hiring staff and prefer to avoid hiring people who willingly suspend logic and reason to believe in makey uppey beings.

I don't distinguish between one makey uppey being and another and i certainly don't treat those people who believe in a being labelled as 'religious' any more positively or negatively than those who believe in beings not labeled 'religious'. They are all treated equally!

suicide_circus

Religious people are generally happier and more successful

54and56

suicide_circus wrote: »

Religious people are generally happier and more successful

Great point, well argued.

suicide_circus

suicide_circus wrote: »

Religious people are generally happier and more successful

Proof? Or is this a faith thingy?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can't agree. From what I read of his posts, he has an objection to religion since the dogma and conformity of religion affects behavior. Belief in God, on the other hand, can be independent to the following of a religion, and therefore free of the dogma that interferes with his perception of a good employee.

He objects to the trappings of religion being displayed in the workplace. What you do in your own private life is your own business. What you do in work is his business, as the potential employer.

I don't particularly agree with his viewpoint regarding religion/intelligence..

I think he cleared that up for you!

Samaris

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Close. I place a high value on sound decision making when hiring staff and prefer to avoid hiring people who willingly suspend logic and reason to believe in makey uppey beings.

I don't distinguish between one makey uppey being and another and i certainly don't treat those people who believe in a being labelled as 'religious' any more positively or negatively than those who believe in beings not labeled 'religious'. They are all treated equally!

You might think you do, but you mostly just end up injuring yourself for actually rather illogical reasons. Still, that's your look-out.

And you treat those you consider "religious" in any way at all differently those you have as "non-religious", so yes, I believe you are still falling afoul of the law. Your point about which religion you're against is semantics as being against all of them is still legally problematic.

54and56

Samaris wrote: »

You might think you do, but you mostly just end up injuring yourself for actually rather illogical reasons. Still, that's your look-out.

And you treat those you consider "religious" in any way at all differently those you have as "non-religious", so yes, I believe you are still falling afoul of the law. Your point about which religion you're against is semantics as being against all of them is still legally problematic.

You keep misrepresenting me. I weed out candidates who willingly suspend logic and reason, end of. Some of them are labelled as 'religious' by others, I don't make any such distinction.

I'm not "against" religion at all but I equally don't put it up on a pedestal as though it should receive some form of special treatment.

I have in fact stated several times that I would defend the right of individuals to practice whatever hobbies they like in their own time whether that's religion or chasing the loch ness monster, makes no difference to me whatsoever.

If you choose to suspend logic and reason your decision making skills are of no use to me. That may be too narrow or black and white for some people but it has served me well so far.

Omackeral

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

Quite frankly, I don't care what people wear, for whatever reason. But this thread is about the hijab and it is, to me, no different from a person wearing a hat or 'god-forbid' a shawl.
Why anyone would care is beyond me.

What about a hood? I was in Blanch shopping Centre a while back and it was raining out so I had a hood up. I'd say I was in the door about two seconds and security were over saying would you mind taking that hood down? Now he approached it nicely and I had no problem doing it and can see why that's their policy but what's the physical difference?

Is it cos people in hoodies have a stereotype? Is it all people in hoods?

Omackeral

bubblypop wrote: »

You look down at people who believe in god, which has been obvious from your posts on here.
You scorn them & discriminate against them in your business.

That's not open minded

I think Jean is one of these Atheists more obsessed with God/No God/Religion than your run of the mill believer is. It's beautifully ironic.

I don't believe in god myself, so I don't really think about religion. I certainly don't think anyone who has a particular faith system is automatically stupid, I think the assumption that they are is.

54and56

Omackeral wrote: »

What about a hood? I was in Blanch shopping Centre a while back and it was raining out so I had a hood up. I'd say I was in the door about two seconds and security were over saying would you mind taking that hood down? Now he approached it nicely and I had no problem doing it and can see why that's their policy but what's the physical difference?

Is it cos people in hoodies have a stereotype? Is it all people in hoods?

I think it's a security protocol. Thieves and other law breakers often seek to evade detection and/or hide their faces from CCTV cameras and security guards by wearing a hoodie which protrudes sufficiently far in front of the face to make identification from any sort of angle other than straight on quite difficult so those charged with maintaining security and keeping people safe will request that hoods are taken down inside the building, similar to how you often see a "please remove your helmet" sign for couriers on the way into office buildings and banks etc.

The related issue here is that if a security person can legitimately request that someone removes or takes down their hoodie inside private property such as a shopping centre so that the persons identity can be clearly seen on CCTV in case they subsequently steal something or mug a customer in the shopping centre is there any reason they shouldn't be able to make the same request to someone wearing any other form of garment which also prevents CCTV and security guards from identifying the person even if that garment is deemed by the wearer to be an expression of their religion?

Unsurprisingly for some who have read my previous posts here I don't believe private religious beliefs should be given any form of special status which prevents them from being treated in the same way hoodies, balaclava's or ski masks would be treated in the same circumstances. If they are granted such 'untouchable' status all the theives would have to do is order a burqa online for £20 and have carte blanch to walk into any shopping centre or bank without fear of being identified. That's the logical conclusion and how would you prevent it? Ask "real" religious burqa wearers to sign up to some form of register so they can be licensed as genuine burqa wearers? No good would come of such a fascist idea.

54and56

Omackeral wrote: »

I think Jean is one of these Atheists more obsessed with God/No God/Religion than your run of the mill believer is. It's beautifully ironic.

I'm obsessed I tell you, obsessed

It is possible however that I do "think" about the big questions more than the run of the mill "believer". To accept there is a god etc doesn't really require any thinking if you think about it. The run of the mill beleiver is typically indoctrinated way before they can think for themselves and because they "believe" the story of the god they have been indoctrinated into I imagine (but am open to correction) that they don't actually think too much about it thereafter as they have accepted the doctrine. A bit like how most christians treat the bible like a software license :-)



I on the other hand believe nothing so will often ponder and examine some of the big questions but mostly I just get on with enjoying my life, learn something new every day and try to be as productive and successful as I can.

I'm not quite as dismissive of religious people as say Jim Jefferies :-)

Samaris

Oh well, if it's real, then we'll probably see if the courts agree with you at some point. But it is amusing that you call yourself open-minded and a deep thinker on the big questions while taking such a narrow and short-sighted approach to a very large group of people.

I'm not misrepresenting you, btw, I'm working off exactly what you have said.

Edit: It doesn't actually matter that you also take out people who believe in the Loch Ness monster, btw. Your purported aim is to hit anyone who does not have the same belief set as you - and I rather suspect, assuming you are a human being, you have a bunch of irrational beliefs not supported by either reality or observed reality either, since that's rather how humans work - including all religions. That it includes all religions should actually be enough to get you under the discrimination acts in Ireland. It's a bit like saying that because you don't want anyone physically incapable of a job, you will therefore not hire disabled people for any job in your company and trying to argue that because you don't hire physically weak people (regardless of whether this is actually required for the task at hand), it's not discriminatory. Of course it is.

I asked this earlier or in another thread, but nobody answered.

If You allow the Hijab, what is to stop the Niqab or Burqa from being brought into use?

My problem is where does it end... Once you say that one aspect is allowable, the position of refusing other aspects is seriously weakened. How we justify refusal of Hudud when we say that Muslims have the right to the Hijab or other religious behavior...?

Widdershins

There's an article by a woman from Amnesty in the Times online this morning. It's ''not a tool of oppression'' she categorically states. It's a form of expressing ''love and compassion''. It must be nice to be someone who can believe what you want to believe.

She also writes as though this is a hijab ban, and a public hijab ban, instead of a workplace only potential for a ban in certain circumstance, and not only for hijab but encompassing other religious attire.

biko

This Sikh police officer can still go to work in his religious attire, thanks to Brexit.

LaChatteGitane

Deleted User wrote: »

I asked this earlier or in another thread, but nobody answered.

If You allow the Hijab, what is to stop the Niqab or Burqa from being brought into use?

My problem is where does it end... Once you say that one aspect is allowable, the position of refusing other aspects is seriously weakened. How we justify refusal of Hudud when we say that Muslims have the right to the Hijab or other religious behavior...?

I suspect women wearing the niqab or burka are not really part of the workforce, so that's that non-existent problem solved.

LaChatteGitane

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

I suspect women wearing the niqab or burka are not really part of the workforce, so that's that non-existent problem solved.

That makes no sense whatsoever. This isn't about the effects on a workforce. This is the effect it has on society as a whole.

Your post doesn't answer my question. Just a deflection.

LaChatteGitane

Deleted User wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever. This isn't about the effects on a workforce. This is the effect it has on society as a whole.

Your post doesn't answer my question. Just a deflection.

Does it not ? This thread is about no religious garb in the workplace, I've been told.
In the other case, well, the niqab and burka are already in use.

pilly

Deleted User wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever. This isn't about the effects on a workforce. This is the effect it has on society as a whole.

Your post doesn't answer my question. Just a deflection.

No, you're making no sense klaz.

The thread is about the hijab in the workplace.

All of the other garments you mentioned are already allowed in modern society. What makes you think they're not allowed?

emo72

Just watched the Jim Jeffries video, and then, read the rest of the thread. Man it's funny.

LaChatteGitane

LaChatteGitane wrote: »

Does it not ? This thread is about no religious garb in the workplace, I've been told.
In the other case, well, the niqab and burka are already in use.

Isn't the point of this thread that there is a movement to ban the Hijab? I figured the other garments would be part of that, and without the ban, there would be issues with preventing other Islamic behaviors from being enacted.

In hindsight, my writing was poorly constructed. Sorry.