nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

British Airways worker wins case over wearing crucifix at work

Death and Taxes

Interesting case that could have ramifications here:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0115/nadia-eweida-british-airways.html

Nadia Eweida was sent home without pay from the airline in 2006 for wearing a necklace with a small silver cross that the company said violated its dress code.
The court ruled that BA's request for Ms Eweida to remove the cross "amounted to an interference with her right to manifest her religion".

Could this have ramifications here bearing in mind a Sikh applicant to the Garda Reserve was refused the right to wear a turban, and Dunnes Stores settled a case with an employee over alleged unfair dismissal after she was told she could not wear a Hijab to work. Both of those cases could be seen as as an interference with the right to manifest the individuals religion.

Opinions?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

My name is URL

Eweida said: “I’m very happy and very pleased that Christian rights have been vindicated in the UK and Europe.

Christian rights?... well at least she has everyone's best interests at heart and not just her own.

Thomas20

My name is URL wrote: »

Christian rights?... well at least she has everyone's best interests at heart and not just her own.

Jesus it's shocking that Christians should fight for their rights, in Europe no less.
Not like any group of people have done that before, you know gays, blacks, how selfish of them!

CreepingDeath

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Could this have ramifications here bearing in mind a Sikh applicant to the Garda Reserve was refused the right to wear a turban

A small piece of discrete jewelry isn't too bad, sounds like overkill in this case.

But the idea of a "uniform", and the clue is in the name, is that everyone looks the same and will be treated the same.

If you want to join a group, eg. the guards, then you have to change for the group, the group shouldn't have to change for you.

anncoates

It will serve BA right if there is a sudden vampire outbreak in any of their workplaces.

DeepSleeper

A slightly related story...

I flew to the USA with Delta about 10 days ago and after we landed the flight attendant thanked us for flying Delta, asked us to remain in our seats until the aircraft came to a complete stop etc etc and then thanked her colleagues in the cabin crew and thanked flight attendant Jaycee in particular....

I thought this was odd - was it Jaycee's birthday? was Jaycee retiring that day? Then I realised the Jaycee was probably JC... I think she thanked Jesus Christ for his assistance on the flight...

That's odd if you ask me, partly because of the use of the initials... If your faith is so strong that you feel the need to thank Jesus for getting you from A to B safely, then why not say His name instead of using the initials? Because of a fear of a reprimand from Delta? I've no idea, but I think the initials JC are more commonly used in the USA anyway, so maybe that explains it.

BizzyC

Grayson wrote: »

Actually they have to wear the turban and cannot wear hats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastar

Interesting.
I know a few that wear caps, so I thought it was accepted.

pcardin

DeepSleeper wrote: »

A slightly related story...

I flew to the USA with Delta about 10 days ago and after we landed the flight attendant thanked us for flying Delta, asked us to remain in our seats until the aircraft came to a complete stop etc etc and then thanked her colleagues in the cabin crew and thanked flight attendant Jaycee in particular....

I thought this was odd - was it Jaycee's birthday? was Jaycee retiring that day? Then I realised the Jaycee was probably JC... I think she thanked Jesus Christ for his assistance on the flight...

That's odd if you ask me, partly because of the use of the initials... If your faith is so strong that you feel the need to thank Jesus for getting you from A to B safely, then why not say His name instead of using the initials? Because of a fear of a reprimand from Delta? I've no idea, but I think the initials JC are more commonly used in the USA anyway, so maybe that explains it.

or maybe she didn't want to hurt anyones feelings. If she would say thanks to Jesus Christ then The Believers of Saint German Sausage or any other religion would be shouting all over the place and sue Delta for not saying a particular thanks to their God. I dunno. Maybe JC was just a John Conroy from Ballymun.

My name is URL

Thomas20 wrote: »

Jesus it's shocking that Christians should fight for their rights, in Europe no less.
Not like any group of people have done that before, you know gays, blacks, how selfish of them!

I just find it mildly ironic that she, and the various Christian groups supporting her, fought so ardently for her 'rights' while they vocally oppose other people's rights to live as they choose.

That's why I commented on her statement regarding 'Christian rights'

Grayson

NiallSparky wrote: »

Who gives you the right to decide that scientologists are less deserving of religious accomodation than other religions? Who gives anyone that right? It's either be accepting of all religions or none.

Cos they are complete dicks. The rest are partial dicks. Except for those westboro guys, they're cnuts.

And being accepting of religion does not mean that you have to tolerate any old bollox.

I'll tolerate the mainstream ones so long as they don't get too intense. At least they have a bit of pedigree.
But all those jonny come lately religions saying we have invisible aliens stuck to us, but if you give us $$$$ we'll sort you out, feck em.

Grayson

BizzyC wrote: »

Interesting.
I know a few that wear caps, so I thought it was accepted.

Embarrassingly, I think I know this because of a fools and horses episode.

Tigger

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17lNs9EFOYI

Manic Moran

seamus wrote: »

In the case of the Sikh or the Muslim, their chosen garbs would require a deviation from the uniform.

There may also be a practical side of things. Gardai can be expected to get into scuffles from time to time, if the turban (and more specifically, the large amount of hair under it) is considered to be a vulnerability by the Gardai, and thus the short hair may as much be a practical as visual requirement. That may, however, be not a factor in Ireland, depending on what the regulations are for female Gardai.

Similar with beards. Not only can they make a nice grab-handle in the case of long beards, even short ones can also interfere with the seal on a gas mask. Inconvenient, at best, when tear gas is being lobbed around. As I understand it, there are precisely three Sikh soldiers in the US Army who have been permitted to retain their Dastaars and beards: They had to demonstrate that their helmet and mask could be worn effectively over their heads and faces before the uniform waiver was authorised.

NTM

crazygeryy

i don'tknow what's more ridiculous British airways for giving a **** or the woman for taking the case to court.

Show Time

Once the cabin ladies are wearing short skirts and low cut tops who gives a f**k what else they wear with it.

AudreyHepburn

The right outcome in my opinion - it was a small piece of jewellery doing no more harm than a head scarf.

I would have no wish to live in a world I could lose my job merely because I chose to wear a small item of clothing or decoration that meant something to me.

Ghost Buster

Thomas20 wrote: »

Jesus it's shocking that Christians should fight for their rights, in Europe no less.
Not like any group of people have done that before, you know gays, blacks, how selfish of them!

I think you'll find that its Christians (and other religious) who take discriminate against gays and blacks.

philologos

OP: you can read the ruling on the ECHR. The reason in the BA case was because they already allowed turbans and hijab but not a crucifix, and they were inconsistent in their position.

I think the ruling on Lilian Ladelle and the Borough of Islington was the most interesting insofar as two of the seven disagreed on it.

Jester252

Manic Moran wrote: »

There may also be a practical side of things. Gardai can be expected to get into scuffles from time to time, if the turban (and more specifically, the large amount of hair under it) is considered to be a vulnerability by the Gardai, and thus the short hair may as much be a practical as visual requirement. That may, however, be not a factor in Ireland, depending on what the regulations are for female Gardai.

Similar with beards. Not only can they make a nice grab-handle in the case of long beards, even short ones can also interfere with the seal on a gas mask. Inconvenient, at best, when tear gas is being lobbed around. As I understand it, there are precisely three Sikh soldiers in the US Army who have been permitted to retain their Dastaars and beards: They had to demonstrate that their helmet and mask could be worn effectively over their heads and faces before the uniform waiver was authorised.

NTM

Sikh cops in the UK have a turbine designed simlar to the standard bobby hats.

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4034/4530516215_b26ce58b16_z.jpg

I haven't heard any problems due to it and don't see why the guards can do this over here

philologos

Ghost Buster wrote: »

I think you'll find that its Christians (and other religious) who take discriminate against gays and blacks.

Many Christians are gay and black. What's your point exactly?

Grayson

philologos wrote: »

Many Christians are gay and black. What's your point exactly?

Christians don't particularly like gay people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/02/gay-masses-soho-abolished

they also seem to have problems with gays who aren't christian. Things like trying to stop them marrying.
And they don't particularly like women either.

So I think his point was that it's a bit rich for a white christian to say they're being discriminated against when they are in the majority and actively campaign against rights for minority groups. Human Rights are Human Rights, either they apply to everyone or they're pointless.

AudreyHepburn

Grayson wrote: »

Christians don't particularly like gay people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/02/gay-masses-soho-abolished

they also seem to have problems with gays who aren't christian. Things like trying to stop them marrying.
And they don't particularly like women either.

So I think his point was that it's a bit rich for a white christian to say they're being discriminated against when they are in the majority and actively campaign against rights for minority groups. Human Rights are Human Rights, either they apply to everyone or they're pointless.

You might be making a good point if not for the generalising.

Not all Christians feel this way....in fact in this day age I'd hazard a guess that most don't.

philologos

Grayson wrote: »

Christians don't particularly like gay people.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/02/gay-masses-soho-abolished

they also seem to have problems with gays who aren't christian. Things like trying to stop them marrying.
And they don't particularly like women either.

So I think his point was that it's a bit rich for a white christian to say they're being discriminated against when they are in the majority and actively campaign against rights for minority groups. Human Rights are Human Rights, either they apply to everyone or they're pointless.

The ECHR heard her case and ruled it was in violation of Article 9 of the European Convention. It's perfectly in her right to wear a cross.

I disagree with any perspective that says that Christians "don't like gays". That's not true and is a misrepresentation of what most Christians actually believe about sexuality or what the Biblical view is. It's possible to be homosexual and agree with the Bible in respect to the ethics behind sexual acts.

The comments on race are also ridiculous. Black Christians and Christians of other ethnic groups make up most Christians. Unless they are self-hating? :rolleyes:

Edit: Women also comprise most church attendees.

Grayson

philologos wrote: »

The ECHR heard her case and ruled it was in violation of Article 9 of the European Convention. It's perfectly in her right to wear a cross.

I disagree with any perspective that says that Christians "don't like gays". That's not true and is a misrepresentation of what most Christians actually believe about sexuality or what the Biblical view is. It's possible to be homosexual and agree with the Bible in respect to the ethics behind sexual acts.

The comments on race are also ridiculous. Black Christians and Christians of other ethnic groups make up most Christians. Unless they are self-hating? :rolleyes:

So, christians are all for gay marriage and want to extend the same rights that straight people have to gay people? Course they don't. They are quite happy seeing people discriminated against. They were quite happy when homosexual sex was illegal. It was only 1993 when it was decriminalised.

And I never said anything about black christians.

Ireland has become more liberal and is now quite liberal for LGBT people, but it's been in direct relation to the decline of the church. If the catholic church held the same sway that they did 40 years ago, gay people would still be put into prison for having gay sex.

philologos

Grayson wrote: »

So, christians are all for gay marriage and want to extend the same rights that straight people have to gay people? Course they don't. They are quite happy seeing people discriminated against. They were quite happy when homosexual sex was illegal. It was only 1993 when it was decriminalised.

And I never said anything about black christians.

Ireland has become more liberal and is now quite liberal for LGBT people, but it's been in direct relation to the decline of the church. If the catholic church held the same sway that they did 40 years ago, gay people would still be put into prison for having gay sex.

Most Christians aren't for redefining marriage no. Or at least most Christians and Scripture agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.

There are also people who are homosexual or have same-sex attraction in the church who agree with this.

This thread is about the right to freedom of religion, so why are you and Ghost Buster derailing this?

Edit: Ghost Buster made spectacularly ignorant claims that Christianity is anti-black and you made the ridiculous claim that it is anti-women. So I'll call you out on your lies.

ejmaztec

Grayson wrote: »

So, christians are all for gay marriage and want to extend the same rights that straight people have to gay people? Course they don't. They are quite happy seeing people discriminated against. They were quite happy when homosexual sex was illegal. It was only 1993 when it was decriminalised.

And I never said anything about black christians.

Ireland has become more liberal and is now quite liberal for LGBT people, but it's been in direct relation to the decline of the church. If the catholic church held the same sway that they did 40 years ago, gay people would still be put into prison for having gay sex.

I think that any improvement in the treatment of gays in Ireland is directly related to Ireland's membership of the EU and changing Western trends in general over the decades.

Ghost Buster

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You might be making a good point if not for the generalising.

Not all Christians feel this way....in fact in this day age I'd hazard a guess that most don't.

Though the church they are members of generally do

Ghost Buster

philologos wrote: »

Most Christians aren't for redefining marriage no. Or at least most Christians and Scripture agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.

There are also people who are homosexual or have same-sex attraction in the church who agree with this.

This thread is about the right to freedom of religion, so why are you and Ghost Buster derailing this?

Edit: Ghost Buster made spectacularly ignorant claims that Christianity is anti-black and you made the ridiculous claim that it is anti-women. So I'll call you out on your lies.

And how many women exactly have made it to the top position in the main world religions then?

LordSutch

I wonder will Fiona Bruce (BBC News) be allowed to wear her cross now that this ruling has been made?

She was told by her employers to remove it a year or two ago.

ejmaztec

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Though the church they are members of generally do

Same as the supporters of political parties who don't support every single party policy, but still vote for the party in an election despite it.

Grayson

philologos wrote: »

Most Christians aren't for redefining marriage no. Or at least most Christians and Scripture agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.

There are also people who are homosexual or have same-sex attraction in the church who agree with this.

This thread is about the right to freedom of religion, so why are you and Ghost Buster derailing this?

Edit: Ghost Buster made spectacularly ignorant claims that Christianity is anti-black and you made the ridiculous claim that it is anti-women. So I'll call you out on your lies.

But you said I was saying christians were racist. I never siad it, so I think it's fair to point out that you were making stuff up.

As for antiwomen, there are no female priests. Women weren't even allowed study in catholic institutiuons till the 60's. These changes came about because of a change of public opinion. Not because the chuirch had changed.

CoE voted against women bishops.

And whetever the reasons for catholics discriminating against gay people by denying them the right to marry, they are still discriminating against them. It can't be defined as anything but discriminating.

And I didn't derail the thread. I responded to someone elses post. So stop making up crap and trying to make this look like a vendetta. You are not being persecuted.

Edit: The Church of England voted, not the CoI.