Another Company Discriminates Against Gays

bjork wrote: »

First time you've seen that Gozunda is it? Now you have had a chance to read it in full, here is a post I made earlier about it
the cases that were ruled on regarding the denial of services
The first two applicants’ cases concerned the wearing of a cross and chain in the workplace (an airline, and a hospital, respectively).the third applicant Ms Ladele, a civil registrar at the London Borough of Islington, refused to be designated a registrar of civil partnerships. This refusal was in direct violation of the Borough’s ‘Dignity for All’ policy,Does the printer have a "dignity for all" policy that they breeched?
The fourth applicant Mr McFarlane was employed as a councillor in a private sex therapy and relationship counselling service, a member of the British Association for Sexual and Relationship Therapy (BASRT). In violation of the service’s equal opportunity policy, and the BASRT’s Code of Ethics,
Does the printer have a "equal opportunity policy", and the "BASRT’s Code of Ethics"?The Court, as in the third applicant’s case, rejected the applicant’s claim of religious discrimination, deeming as legitimate the employer’s policy of providing counselling services without discrimination
If they have no policy, the ECHR or anyone else can't find them in breech of it> which is the reason in these cases their dismissal was upheld
There isn't a face palm big enough
[/Bhttp://www.iccl.ie/news/2013/01/15/european-court-crucifix-case-draws-%E2%80%9Cbright-line%E2%80%9D-between-religious-freedom-and-discrimination-says-iccl.html

bjork wrote: »

1) the decision was upheld because it was found that the employee was in direct breech of company policy which they agreed to.
2) It was not determined that all companies have to sell their services to everyone and it was that they can refuse to do so if they have a conscientious objection
3) This printer has a conscientious objection
4) Once again it was not because they refused to provide the service to homosexuals, it was because they breached their company policy

A brief summary of the four applicants’ cases:

1) The first two applicants’ cases concerned the wearing of a cross and chain in the workplace (an airline, and a hospital, respectively).

The Court found in favour of the first applicant (Ms Eweida), ruling that the prohibition on wearing a cross and chain in the course of her duties at British Airways constituted a breach of her religious freedom, given that “there [was] no evidence of any real encroachment on the interests of others (para. 95).”

2) In the case of the second applicant (Chaplin), the Court found that, though wearing the cross and chain was a legitimate manifestation of religious belief, in this case the workplace restriction was legitimate, given that she worked in a hospital ward where such apparel was generally prohibited for health and safety reasons, and to avoid cross-contamination.

The second two applicants’ cases concerned the provision of services to same-sex couples.

3) Following the introduction of Civil Partnership in the UK, the third applicant Ms Ladele, a civil registrar at the London Borough of Islington, refused to be designated a registrar of civil partnerships. This refusal was in direct violation of the Borough’s ‘Dignity for All’ policy, which committed the Borough and its staff to provide services to all members of the community, irrespective of age, gender, disability, faith, race, nationality, sexuality, health or income. Ms Ladele’s refusal culminated in the loss of her job. The Court found, however, that the Borough acted in a legitimate manner in applying a policy of equal opportunities, aimed at “securing the rights of others”, and that obliging Ms Ladele to comply with this policy was both legitimate and proportionate.

4) The fourth applicant Mr McFarlane was employed as a councillor in a private sex therapy and relationship counselling service, a member of the British Association for Sexual and Relationship Therapy (BASRT). In violation of the service’s equal opportunity policy, and the BASRT’s Code of Ethics, Mr McFarlane refused to commit himself to providing psycho-sexual counselling to same-sex couples, despite being aware that the company had a policy of not filtering clients. This refusal culminated in the applicant’s dismissal. The Court, as in the third applicant’s case, rejected the applicant’s claim of religious discrimination, deeming as legitimate the employer’s policy of providing counselling services without discrimination.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Ah get over it, it's legal now ffs ......... some people are never happy! :rolleyes:

reprise wrote: »

It is in my living memory yet I am willing to bet that neither jobbridge4life or yourself were alive the last time there was a prosecution or at a time when gay bars or saunas were not trading openly. I distinctly remember the laws being seen as very much antiquated and defunct.

MadDog76 wrote: »

Forget what exactly ......... we all know what slavery did to black people ......... are you really trying to equate being a homosexual in Ireland with what black slaves had to endure??
How can anybody take that comparison seriously ......... pathetic :rolleyes: