No hijabs need apply.

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 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!!

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 wrote: »

Religious people are generally happier and more successful

Great point, well argued.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Samaris wrote: »

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

I'm not sure I can say this any more simply than I already articulated but just to correct you again I DON'T HAVE A BELIEF SET. There is literally nothing "I believe". I'm hopeful about some things e.g. that the people I love genuinely reciprocate that love, that Liverpool FC will one day win the Premiership and that good always wins over evil but I do not "believe" anything.

Is there any part of that you don't get?

Samaris wrote: »

That it includes all religions should actually be enough to get you under the discrimination acts in Ireland.

Wrong. Its nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It's selection criteria based on weeding out people whose decision making is not exclusively based on logic and reason regardless of why that is. If the day comes where I am forced to positively discriminate towards hiring religious people I'll obey that law but until then..........

Samaris wrote: »

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.

No it's not. It's not even a bit like that. You are putting 2 + 2 together and getting 598. I would never make the argument in defence of my recruitment policy that you are suggesting I'd make.

Thought this might be relevant somewhat to this thread. It seems that the Ultras of Swedish football team AIK have begun to use the Niqab to their advantage. A Swedish law, which took 4 years to pass, prohibits people from being masked at sporting events, which would include some of the AIK Ultras. They've gotten around this by donning the niqab and are protected by religious freedom it would seem. Some loophole they're using!

https://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/639393/sweden_just_banned_the_usage_of_masking_at_sports/