No hijabs need apply.

Samaris

Fleawuss wrote: »

You don't seem to get it: there is no "private belief" in religion. It must be confessed publicly, it demands control of the public space.

Of course there is. Various religions do proclaim that its followers must go out and be annoying to other people, but many don't particularly follow that. Someone's private belief in a deity is none of my business. Sure, once they start shoving it in my face, it becomes my business (and my irritation). But to deliberately demand people's private beliefs, to make them say them, and then to discriminate against them based on their daring to say they are Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu is absolute rubbish.

I know a few people who will, if asked, say that they are inclined to believe there is some sort of deity and/or that they are Christian, but they're not Catholic (or another specific varient). Only reason I know that is because it came up in conversation. They didn't shove it down my throat. But to dig someone's religion out of them for the -express purpose- of discriminating against them is way more egregiously wrong than merely having a religious belief.

Fleawuss

Samaris wrote: »

Of course there is. Various religions do proclaim that its followers must go out and be annoying to other people, but many don't particularly follow that. Someone's private belief in a deity is none of my business. Sure, once they start shoving it in my face, it becomes my business (and my irritation). But to deliberately demand people's private beliefs, to make them say them, and then to discriminate against them based on their daring to say they are Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu is absolute rubbish.

I know a few people who will, if asked, say that they are inclined to believe there is some sort of deity and/or that they are Christian, but they're not Catholic (or another specific varient). Only reason I know that is because it came up in conversation. They didn't shove it down my throat. But to dig someone's religion out of them for the -express purpose- of discriminating against them is way more egregiously wrong than merely having a religious belief.

You genuinely don't get it. Pointing out to you again the nature of religious belief won't change that. So, moving on, looking at the digging out of someone's religion takes me back to the legal point above. It would be an interesting case to see a defense citing the lack of specificity i.e. The employer doesn't seek to find out WHAT religion you are, merely if you are RELIGIOUS. The US Supreme Court case offers a common law tradition precedent.

Samaris

Fleawuss wrote: »

You genuinely don't get it. Pointing out to you again the nature of religious belief won't change that. So, moving on, looking at the digging out of someone's religion takes me back to the legal point above. It would be an interesting case to see a defense citing the lack of specificity i.e. The employer doesn't seek to find out WHAT religion you are, merely if you are RELIGIOUS. The US Supreme Court case offers a common law tradition precedent.

I am not sure that it is me misunderstanding. What you are talking about is evangelical organised religion. What I am talking about is belief. Belief does not require converts. Belief merely requires faith. Evangelical organised religion does require converts, but many who are nominally part of a religion and have faith in a supreme being (or several) do not subscribe to that and just get on with their lives.

You can call them wrong, sure, but they are doing you no harm and I am sure that many of the people you have met in the last week have their own private beliefs and did not regale you with them. Most people don't.

I'll stick with reckoning that digging into people's private beliefs for the sake of mocking them or discriminating against them is wrong and beyond nosey. Even though I don't agree with their beliefs. An it harm none, etc.

As for the legality of discriminating against people based on whether they have any religious beliefs at all, I have no idea, it's an unusual circumstance. I suspect it would be so self-defeating as to never require a legal case, but yeah, it would be interesting to see what became of it.

Widdershins

Fleawuss wrote: »

There is of course the Achilles heel of religion. They aren't about just private beliefs: they want to put it out in the public sphere by ringing bells, having muezzins singing over speakers, deciding who can and cannot get married, who can and cannot access child care and birth control, what is acceptable sexually, what days public houses may open, what ethics apply in hospital, whose child should be buried in "consecrated" ground and whose thrown into a pit, and on and on and on.

If religion remained in the private sphere then no one would really give a damn about prayers to Allah, Jedi or Jesus. But dear me they do insist on chopping the rejectionists to pieces, killing apostates and trying to control those who want nothing to do with them. Anti discriminatory legislation isn't there to protect religions from atheists; it's there because religions have persecuted each other.

Religion should not be connected to political movements, the law or governance of any kind outside of the place of worship and the homes of its adherents. It almost invariably is, though.

Fleawuss

Samaris wrote: »

I am not sure that it is me misunderstanding. What you are talking about is evangelical organised religion. What I am talking about is belief. Belief does not require converts. Belief merely requires faith. Evangelical organised religion does require converts, but many who are nominally part of a religion and have faith in a supreme being (or several) do not subscribe to that and just get on with their lives.

You can call them wrong, sure, but they are doing you no harm and I am sure that many of the people you have met in the last week have their own private beliefs and did not regale you with them. Most people don't.

I'll stick with reckoning that digging into people's private beliefs for the sake of mocking them or discriminating against them is wrong and beyond nosey. Even though I don't agree with their beliefs. An it harm none, etc.

As for the legality of discriminating against people based on whether they have any religious beliefs at all, I have no idea, it's an unusual circumstance. I suspect it would be so self-defeating as to never require a legal case, but yeah, it would be interesting to see what became of it.

I know full well you are talking about a personal claim to belief without any follow through into reality outside the consciousness of the believer. That isn't religious faith. It's simply a personal opinion. It's probably a type of solipsism to religious belief. In your own terms it would be self defeating. It's simply a person saying I believe in the carrot god. Or Jedi.

The other point isn't an unusual circumstance. As I've pointed out it has been tested. Your suspicion that it would be self defeating needs explanation.

.........

What out people who wear pioneer pins at work, should they be banned ?

RandomName2

Fleawuss wrote: »

You genuinely don't get it.

Samaris wrote: »

I am not sure that it is me misunderstanding.

Jesus Christ you're both right.

Religion wants control of the public sphere. Belief can be private. Asking someone's religion in a job interview to weed out faiths you don't like is wrong.

......... wrote: »

What out people who wear pioneer pins at work, should they be banned ?

You really have to ask?

.........

RandomName2 wrote: »

You really have to ask?

yes, if it's OK with you, I'm interested in different people opinions if they should or not, so should they or not and why ?

Donal55

......... wrote: »

What out people who wear pioneer pins at work, should they be banned ?

Or the Fainne?
This EU ruling covers political expression also.

.........

Donal55 wrote: »

Or the Fainne?
This EU ruling covers political expression also.

sure, so should people be allowed to wear either at work or not ?

Donal55

......... wrote: »

sure, so should people be allowed to wear either at work or not ?

For 99.999% of us it will be carry on as normal.
Until someone complains to the Thought Police and then the **** will hit the fan.

54and56

......... wrote: »

What out people who wear pioneer pins at work, should they be banned ?

If they join an organisation which prohibits the display of any political, religious or non work related symbols including clothing or tattoo's etc then yes, I'm paying you to project the values of my business not your own personal values. You can do that on your own time if you wish.

54and56

RandomName2 wrote: »

Asking someone's religion in a job interview to weed out faiths you don't like is wrong.

You really have to ask?

I don't ask anyone what their religion is. I ask if they believe in a selection of imaginary beings one of which is loosely described as "god". Anyone ticking any of the boxes doesn't proceed any further in the interview process. I don't discriminate between people who believe in the loch ness monster, leprechauns or god.

I don't want any employees who blindly believe in something for which there is no evidence. I need to be able to trust that they will assess situations based on the available evidence and make decisions which will impact (positively or potentially negatively) my business. End of.

People who are happy to make decisions based on some form of "trust me" are of no value to me.

.........

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

If they join an organisation which prohibits the display of any politician, religious or non work related symbols including clothing or tattoo's etc then yes.

organisations such as ?

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

You have an absolute right to believe in whatever imaginary beings you want on your own time but if I'm paying for your time you don't.

What do you mean, can you explain ?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Donal55 wrote: »

Or the Fainne?
This EU ruling covers political expression also.

The Fainne is not political.

.........

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I don't ask anyone what there religion is. I ask if they believe in a selection of imaginary beings one of which is loosely described as "god". Anyone ticking any of the boxes doesn't proceed any further in the interview process. I don't discriminate between people who believe in the loch ness monster, leprechauns or god.

I don't want any employees who blindly believe in something for which there is no evidence. I need to be able to trust that they will assess situations based on the available evidence and make decisions which will impact (positively or potentially negatively) my business. End of.

People who are happy to make decisions based on some form of "trust me" are of no value to me.

lol, then they are going to have fun easily suing your imaginary business under the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015. Any genuine employer knows this legislation very well. Something a fantasist such as yourself clearly doesn't.

Donal55

Laylah Clever Principal wrote: »

The Fainne is not political.

Could it be in certain parts of east belfast??

54and56

......... wrote: »

organisations such as ?

Any business you care to mention.

......... wrote: »

What do you mean, can you explain ?

I mean I'm paying for you to think objectively based on evidence and facts not to make decisions based on blind faith.

54and56

Laylah Clever Principal wrote: »

The Fainne is not political.

The Fainne is not something relevant to the job I'm employing you to do so on my time whilst I'm paying you you are not entitled to wear it or any other symbol communicating your willingness or sympathy to anything. I'm paying you to work, nothing else.

.........

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Any business you care to mention.

No large professional business operates like this. Name some that have this policy ? (and provide links)

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I mean I'm paying for you to think objectively based on evidence and facts not to make decisions based on blind faith.

You're not paying me anything, and never will be, except in your dreams.

54and56

......... wrote: »

lol, then they are going to have fun easily suing your imaginary business under the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015. Any genuine employer knows this legislation very well. Something a fantasist such as yourself clearly doesn't.

Nothing I do in my recruitment process is in breach of the EEA. I treat everyone equally. I don't discriminate between one religion and another as I hire no one who believes in any imaginary beings of any sort because to do so would be detrimental to my business and to the employment of others.

.........

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Nothing I do in my recruitment process is in breach of the EEA. I treat everyone equally. I don't discriminate between one religion and another as I hire no one who believes in any imaginary beings of any sort because to do so would be detrimental to my business and to the employment of others.

If you think that complies with the Employment Equality Acts 1998–2015, you have exposed yourself again as a complete bluffer and fantasist.
You don't even have the most basic grasp of employment procedures.

54and56

......... wrote: »

No large professional business operates like this. Name some that have this policy ? (and provide links)

I have no idea what other businesses policies are nor do I care. Why don't you back up your assertion by providing evidence that "No large professional business operates like this"? It's a sweeping claim which is easy to make without any evidence...........oh hang on, that seems to be a common enough thing for you to do

......... wrote: »

You're not paying me anything, and never will be, except in your dreams nightmares.

Fixed that for ya

.........

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I have no idea what other businesses policies are nor do I care. Why don't you back up your assertion by providing evidence that "No large professional business operates like this"? It's a sweeping claim which is easy to make without any evidence...........oh hang on, that seems to be a common enough thing for you to do

and yet you claimed . . .

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Any business you care to mention.

but you can't name one that has the policies you claim, any business has.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Fixed that for ya

You're fantasising again.

Really, this is too easy. I'm bored.

54and56

......... wrote: »

but you can't name one that has the policies you claim, any business has.

Why would I?? I only know the policies I employ in my business. It's over 20 years since I worked for another company and that was in the UK.

I'm just glad the ECJ has confirmed employers are in fact within their rights to prevent employees from displaying religious symbols. Common (which isn't in fact very common at all) sense has prevailed!!!

......... wrote: »

You're fantasising again.

You're the one who introduced dreaming etc into the conversation, not me

......... wrote: »

Really, this is too easy. I'm bored.

If you say it enough times it might be true

“An internal rule of an undertaking which prohibits the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign does not constitute direct discrimination,” the court said in a statement.

Unless you get the ECJ to reverse it's ruling you've lost the argument here.

C'est la vie.

Night night.

Personally, I suspect this is more of a reaction to the idea that Islamic Religion and Islamic cultures are not strongly integrated. For many westerners we've seen the Islamic faith as being different to modern christianity, whereas others, consider them to be quite similar. In that Religion, and culture, are separate for every religion.

This kind of legal ruling allows society to have the option to push back public demonstrations of religious dress/symbology.

Personally, I think its a good thing. Discrimination seems to have taken on a life of its own, whereby all forms are wrong, and injust. However, Islam has shown itself incapable of being observed quietly in the background. While there are many believers of a "religion of peace", there are many others that promote their religion as they direct themselves in extreme manner, either violently or through speech. (Christianity just did it earlier, and have mostly gone past that development.)

Until Islam develops into a more "quieter" religion, I have no issues with having some forms of discrimination like this ruling about Appearance. There is a rather large difference between the Mormons magic underwear and the Islamic behavior of proclaiming to everyone around them, that they are Muslim. And BTW, I have travelled in the M..East, and I have seen Islam in a local environment... I have zero desire for that to be the case here too. There are far worse situations than having a few laws which regulate behavior and encourage migrants towards integration.

end of the road

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I don't ask anyone what their religion is. I ask if they believe in a selection of imaginary beings one of which is loosely described as "god". Anyone ticking any of the boxes doesn't proceed any further in the interview process. I don't discriminate between people who believe in the loch ness monster, leprechauns or god.

I don't want any employees who blindly believe in something for which there is no evidence. I need to be able to trust that they will assess situations based on the available evidence and make decisions which will impact (positively or potentially negatively) my business. End of.

People who are happy to make decisions based on some form of "trust me" are of no value to me.

how do you know the candidates applying for an imaginary job in your imaginary business don't see what you are up to, and lie and tick "no" .

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

Nothing I do in my recruitment process is in breach of the EEA. I treat everyone equally. I don't discriminate between one religion and another as I hire no one who believes in any imaginary beings of any sort because to do so would be detrimental to my business and to the employment of others.

but you don't know you aren't hiring people who believe in imaginary beings, because they will be clicking no on your question form or whatever it is you have

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I suspect this is more of a reaction to the idea that Islamic Religion and Islamic cultures are not strongly integrated. For many westerners we've seen the Islamic faith as being different to modern christianity, whereas others, consider them to be quite similar. In that Religion, and culture, are separate for every religion.

This kind of legal ruling allows society to have the option to push back public demonstrations of religious dress/symbology.

Personally, I think its a good thing. Discrimination seems to have taken on a life of its own, whereby all forms are wrong, and injust. However, Islam has shown itself incapable of being observed quietly in the background. While there are many believers of a "religion of peace", there are many others that promote their religion as they direct themselves in extreme manner, either violently or through speech. (Christianity just did it earlier, and have mostly gone past that development.)

Until Islam develops into a more "quieter" religion, I have no issues with having some forms of discrimination like this ruling about Appearance. There is a rather large difference between the Mormons magic underwear and the Islamic behavior of proclaiming to everyone around them, that they are Muslim. And BTW, I have travelled in the M..East, and I have seen Islam in a local environment... I have zero desire for that to be the case here too. There are far worse situations than having a few laws which regulate behavior and encourage migrants towards integration.

whether islam develops into a quieter religion or not is no justification for discrimination. if you are happy for discrimination on the basis of what islam is supposibly then what other forms of discrimination might you be in support of. this ruling, which is simply clarification of existing laws, isn't going to make any difference in terms of islam and those who wish to push it. ireland isn't going to become like the middle east in terms of anything as we have plenty of laws and therefore have no need for discrimination and it's supporters, like we never had such need for either.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

The Fainne is not something relevant to the job I'm employing you to do so on my time whilst I'm paying you you are not entitled to wear it or any other symbol communicating your willingness or sympathy to anything. I'm paying you to work, nothing else.

Jeez, relax. I never said anything other than the Fannie is not a political symbol. What rules you want about club badges, blood donor pins, pioneer pins, club emblems or whatever, is your business and I couldn't give a toss what they are.

And you aren't paying me anything. You couldn't afford me.

Fleawuss

The interesting stuff lies ahead.

222233

Graces7 wrote: »

Interesting idea. For me considering my hair or lack thereof status it would be degrading and traumatic.

And a head covering is far more hygienic than free floating hair. Nurses used to wear headcoverings..

Makes me deeply thankful I am retired and can do as I like

it's to do with an employment situation though, it's not an attack on an individuals circumstances if a business have a dress code, granted I'm sure in certain situations they may be lenient with staff like in the case you described where you would feel degraded. But in some jobs it just can't be allowed, I can't wear a hat to work, no one where I work can wear a hat because of the nature of our job, sometimes I would like to dress a certain way or maybe wear a hat but I just can't and so I don't thats how it is.

In terms of hygiene that's dependant on the material and the personal hygiene of the person wearing it.