|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 14, 2017 11:31:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Mar 14, 2017 11:39:30 GMT
I generally support this. Most every workplace has dress codes. So long as they aren't allowing something I would deem too similar then I'm fine with it.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 14, 2017 14:05:00 GMT
It silly to think that such minor religious symbols would be banned to begin with.
I would love to hear of the time that a person was converted due to a headscarf or a cross necklace
A person that is offended by it is probably a horrible person.
I would get the ruling if it was based on work safety or something but it is clearly saying the belief is not more important than the employer's which is silly.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 14, 2017 14:26:16 GMT
It silly to think that such minor religious symbols would be banned to begin with. I would love to hear of the time that a person was converted due to a headscarf or a cross necklace A person that is offended by it is probably a horrible person. I would get the ruling if it was based on work safety or something but it is clearly saying the belief is not more important than the employer's which is silly. Unless the need is for proselytizing, what difference does it make if the religious trinket or symbol is under the clothes rather than prominent? I would have thought God would still know it was there as would person wearing it. Everything else is just pride.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 14, 2017 14:28:59 GMT
It silly to think that such minor religious symbols would be banned to begin with. I would love to hear of the time that a person was converted due to a headscarf or a cross necklace A person that is offended by it is probably a horrible person. I would get the ruling if it was based on work safety or something but it is clearly saying the belief is not more important than the employer's which is silly. Unless the need is for proselytizing, what difference does it make if the religious trinket or symbol is under the clothes rather than prominent? I would have thought God would still know it was there as would person wearing it. Everything else is just pride. A "trinket" is not used for proselytizing.
It is to publically denote &/or reflect the wearer's faith which is an entirely different purpose. It's right up there with wedding rings.
A person who thinks they're being preached to on the basis of what another person cherishes should become a hermit.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Mar 14, 2017 15:16:50 GMT
Unless the need is for proselytizing, what difference does it make if the religious trinket or symbol is under the clothes rather than prominent? The same difference it would make if, say, a gay employee is obliged to keep his homosexuality under cover and does not flaunt it in front of his customers or co-workers, perhaps?
Anyway how do you keep a headscarf under your clothes? Do you use another headscarf? I'll be scratching my head over this one for a long time, I suspect!
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 14, 2017 15:26:20 GMT
In which case in the case of small such things they can be worn under the clothes, the meaning remains the same to the believer and to their god. If the trinkets and jewellery is really not intended to have an effect on others, than what difference does it make? It is the anticipated, or unanticipated effect on others which is the point.
A wedding ring does not necessarily represent a religion; it more reasonably can be said to represent a person's social position, status and commitment. In any case, even if one considers a wedding ring as a 'religious symbol', there is no reason why wedding rings cannot be made an exception of for obvious reasons and one wonders whether anyone would object to this. It will always be a case of common sense and individual company policy.
Unfortunately proselytizing can, like beauty, easily be in the mind of the beholder. I will admit that proselytizing appears more of an impression where symbols and messages are worn, rather than just garb pertaining to belief. But there is a place for everything and one rule for all seems sensible and proportionate. It is too easy to squeal "religious freedom at threat" when what is being asked for is simply something appropriate for work and less of a distraction
Anyway the judgement does not say what must be done by way of addressing issues of dress, merely what can be made policy, hopefully in a sensible, sensitive and non-discriminatory way, by companies without the risk of legal action. It is a matter of degree. Personally I would not like to be served by someone whose face is hidden, for example, but someone in a turban would not be such a distraction from business. As far as I am aware turbans are rather mandatory in the Sikh religion but nowhere does the Qu'ran prescribe the specific garb worn by some Muslim especially of the more dramatic sort - neither did Jesus say that entry to heaven and God's grace is dependent on crucifixes around the neck or JESUS SAVES paraphernalia (for instance). In fact I believe modesty is rather a virtue. In regards to Jews, there is considerable debate among Halachic authorities as to whether or not wearing a kippah at all times is required. According to the Rambam, Jewish law dictates that a man is required to cover his head during prayer, but there is no mention of any claim that Jewish law dictates that a Jew is required to cover his head at all times.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 14, 2017 15:34:57 GMT
Unless the need is for proselytizing, what difference does it make if the religious trinket or symbol is under the clothes rather than prominent? The same difference it would make if, say, a gay employee is obliged to keep his homosexuality under cover and does not flaunt it in front of his customers or co-workers, perhaps?
Anyway how do you keep a headscarf under your clothes? Do you use another headscarf? I'll be scratching my head over this one for a long time, I suspect!
I don't think this ruling is about homosexual politics. But I would imagine that any workplace would ask for appropriate dress (and behaviour) from any person of whatever background. What might be fine in a theatrical company for instance would raise eyebrows in a bank, and one assumes that a sensible person would appreciate what was expected - without experiencing discrimination.
In so far as headscarves are concerned well, we know now: if there is a non-discriminatory neutral policy for all in place, then the employer can ask that they not be worn, presumably especially in public-facing role. One can only repeat that there is a difference between what can be asked of staff and what will be.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 14, 2017 16:03:05 GMT
You're conflating two issues. The display of the trinket is for their benefit. It let's people know who they are not who they want that person to be.
You blame the wearer for not treating it as a minor issue when it should be the minor issue for the weirdo offended by it. It is very important to the individual.
I'm not saying wedding rings are religious although there would be nothing wrong with them if they were.
I'm saying that it doesn't matter if it's denoting a religion since it is designed to reflect the status of the wearer. It is not designed to be an encouragement for marriage. I'm not sure why a wedding ring would hold anymore significance than anything else that a person wears to reflect who they are.
Society has never been religion free nor should it be since that would remove rights from the individual within society.
This is irrelevant. It is not my or anyone's problem to adjust our thinking to match up with the most paranoid people in society.
Considering there is nothing wrong with proselytizing anyway, it becomes a ridiculous standard to expect anyone who is not atheist to pretend as if they are atheist for the benefit of someone irrationally thinking they are being preached to by a scarf.
I know. That's the issue I have with it. The employer should not have the right to ban an article of clothing on religious grounds unless it affect employment. Te ruling indicates it doesn't have to affect employment and can specifically be adjusted solely on dress code. This means that a Christian employer could make a Muslim employer remove a head scarf while allowing a cross necklace.
You would think people who are afraid of this stuff would want the ruling to be stronger. Maybe it's a case of baby steps.
You are a non-religious person trying to explain to a person who follows the faith that their faith is wrong and this is why you have no problem with the law. I'm not sure why it is so difficult for the non-religious to understand that there is more to the picture than the scant verses they are familiar with. It is entirely possible that cultural, history, practice, and the religion have all come together to make head scarfs for women perfectly acceptable which is something it clearly has done. It is silly to make an argument that "The Qu'ran doesn't say it so they aren't supposed to believe it" when our eyes clearly reveal a deeper picture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 16:12:20 GMT
I couldn't give a flying feck what people choose to wear...
I once wore a Family Cat T shirt to work... on the front it said "bring me the head of Michael Portillo", and on the back it read "all tories are dogshite"... my manager told me not to wear it again... I told him to feck off.
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Mar 14, 2017 16:21:05 GMT
religions are constantly attempting to weasel their way into everyone's faces.
it kinda goes along with the whole 'my god is better than your god' syndrome and why people buy into religion in the first place.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 14, 2017 16:29:41 GMT
Thats a fucking disgrace, EU imperialism is the problem here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2017 16:30:32 GMT
I have mixed feelings about this. While I'm not part of the crowd that feels everything must be banned lest we fear offending one person in the crowd (it's gotten too extreme, insane and unproductive)...I can admit that in certain environments, adhering to uniform codes and barring certain "personal" aspects of identity should at least be considered.
One example that is not scarves for the sake of discussion: I used to work in the medical field. While we were told, rightly so, to not wear perfume, jewelry (especially any that made noise or was flashy or distracting), etc., and even our scrubs were standard,...what I noticed is that getting into the work force, once in there, these were not enforced.
Nurses came in wreaking of perfume, wearing lots of bracelets that were noisy and flashy, rings (we were permitted one on each hand) but they'd be covered in them, and what I never understood, in particular some of the larger women were wearing scrubs that were two sizes too small.
When working in pedi, wearing "fun" scrubs makes sense... But the point is, especially in the medical environment, we're dealing with people who all need to be in a neutral environment.
Having Muslim friends who wear hijabs, while I find that less distracting than the assistants running around with heavy jewelry and their clubbing makeup,...I feel conflicted on what image this may send to people in that environment. Not all environments necessarily must run to such an adherence with neutrality. But I cannot dismiss the fact that it can be distracting for the overall function of some work places.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 14, 2017 16:46:39 GMT
Just recently I saw a quick news article scrolling across my screen with a variety of other news stories to click on. Some man had thought that, given the name of a market, that the market was owned by Muslims, and so he set it on fire.
In all probability, this is what business owners want to avoid. They want their employees to dress neutrally to avoid this kind of behavior.
"Employers are entitled to ban workers from the "visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign" including headscarves, Europe's top court has ruled. But the ban must be based on internal company rules requiring all employees to "dress neutrally", said the European Court of Justice (ECJ)."
"It said "an employer's desire to project an image of neutrality towards both its public and private sector customers is legitimate" - but national courts must make sure this policy of neutrality had been applied equally to all employees."
Some companies in the US don't allow employees to wear gang colors. Where I worked at one company, I was not allowed to wear a political button, and I had no contact with the public. The business owners wanted the employees to focus on business when they were on the clock, not a co-worker's political view. At another company, the dress code required me to wear a suit, even though I had no contact with the public, and spent a good bit of my time in a darkroom handling photographic chemicals that could stain clothing. My view is that if someone is paying me money to do a job, they have the right to impose a dress code. And I have the right to quit the job if I don't agree with the dress code.
I now drive a car with no bumper stickers on it; my former car was loaded with "save the planet" stickers and "vegetarian" stickers and "co-exist" stickers, and I became a moving target in that car. Now in my 'urban camo' beige car, no one is inspired to road rage.
In an increasingly volatile world, it just makes sense for businesses to want to appear neutral.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 14, 2017 17:07:14 GMT
In which case, not being for the benefit of anyone else, it makes no difference whether it is hidden or not. People might just not be that interested and think the notification a distraction, inappropriate or unprofessional depending on cases. I would. It can be very important for someone wearing it and still be hidden. No one mentions 'offence'; it is simply what is appropriate in a business or professional setting. There is a time and place for everything. In which case why bring it up?
Indeed; but we are not talking about 'society' - we are talking about the commercial space in particular and the implementation of a non- discriminatory company policy when and if it is felt necessary. Indeed; and this is why notions of religious persecution and taking away religious freedom in society at large can be seen as an overreaction to a reasonable need of a business enacted in a non-discriminatory way. As I already said the feeling of proselytizing seems stronger when symbols and jewellery are involved. In so far as clothing is concerned all that is being decided here by the court is the right for a company to assert a appropriate clothing policy the same for all (but not dictated by a customer) if that is what is needed. I don't think an employer would look to a general dress code unless it was a commercial matter so I don't see your objection here. In other cases regular anti-discrimination laws would apply. This is a 'slippery slope' argument and so a fallacy. And no one is 'afraid' of religious dress. Speaking for myself I just want to do business, and work, in a company where dress is professional, appropriate and not distracting. There may be legitimate times in a work situation when head scarves are simply not appropriate, yet when badges and trinkets are less contentious. The ruling is not deciding what company policies must be, just what they can legitimately be - as already noted. This has nothing to do with validity of faith, just the appropriateness of its presentation in some work places. In the case of the Qu'ran I can only say what is not to found there. Where faith is used as justification for the affectations of dress it is first base to actually check upon what actual authority the insistence can be made. And, while head scarves may be 'perfectly acceptable' in most cases, as the court ruling recognises, this is not always the case and there is now no reason why they have to be 'made' acceptable despite reasonable doubts, when there is no prior discrimination demonstrated or intended against any specific religious group . With this important proviso, I cannot see any issue in a sensible and sensitive set of rules being in place for reasons of business in general. Which is really all the judgement recognises.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
![](http://storage.proboards.com/6692551/images/CTEdkGf0wmfSETIzYiXk.gif)
|
Post by althea on Mar 14, 2017 22:13:32 GMT
It's the part where she lost her job for breaking an "unwritten rule" that I find outrageous. Introducing a rule after the fact sounds very much like discrimination, even if it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 14, 2017 23:00:25 GMT
I agree in principle that an employer should be able to enforce a dress code that they deem appropriate. I fail to see why a headscarf would be an issue though.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Mar 14, 2017 23:09:01 GMT
I don't have a problem with this. As long as people know what the dress codes are when they apply for the job they can make the decision whether or not the job is compatible with their beliefs. I spent five years working in the back office of a company and had to wear a suit and tie to work even though I never saw a client because that was their dress code. I knew that when I accepted the job and even though I don't particularly like wearing a suit and tie I did so because that was a condition of working there.
I accept that a religious symbol/article of clothing is perhaps more significant than a tie, but then if your religion is that important to you you will find a job that doesn't conflict with your religion. Jewellery is a dirt trap and whether it's a cross on a chain or a wedding ring if you're working in the food preparation business for example your jewellery should all be removed or worn under your clothes - no exceptions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2017 8:52:17 GMT
In my workplace, people are allowed to wear hats, as long as they have an utterly ridiculous and irrational reason for wearing their hat. I support freedom of expression for someone to show their commitment to their imaginary friend of choice with a silly hat, but if that is the case, I should have the right to express my love of the San Jose Sharks ice hockey team with a hat of my own. Or even better, I wonder if this funny Viking hat had religious significance: ![](http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mCGcUkdbmAPZHBbAdQxq2YA.jpg)
|
|