The ECJ is the European Court of Justice.

It has ruled last week on the validity of workplace bans on religious symbols. The cases were from France and Belgium, both about women wearing the hijab.

I was pleasantly surprised by the ruling, I wonder if it has been influenced by the current political climate.

What are your thoughts ?

BBC piece : http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39264845

Don't have any thoughts really.

We don't have these troubles where I work, because people don't seek to impose their political views or religious views on anyone else. We are all grown up enough to be respectful of each other.

Such out right religious dress and symbols belong in a place of worship in my opinion. I agree with the idea of all dressing in a non- religiou fashion at work. I never liked religion being pushed in my face. I have at my age never experianced this before at work. I have worn a religious symbol, the cross all my life, always under my cloths, hidden.

This wouldn't be an issue in the USA, and only if what they are wearing would make it impossible to carry out their job. It isn't uncommon in the NYC area of Muslim women wearing head coverings, even hijabs,

I would agree if the ban was limited to the niqab, which is the face covering, because is not necessary in Islam. But banning the hijab totally is like banning clothes from work. The hijab is a piece of clothing, not merely a symbol of religion.

The bans are about religious and political symbols. If you put something on your head for religious reasons, then it's a religious symbol.

Aesma wrote:

The bans are about religious and political symbols. If you put something on your head for religious reasons, then it's a religious symbol.

I had colleagues who did that, and I didn't feel threatened or offended by it. Felt totally at ease working with them.

WarRI1 wrote:

Such out right religious dress and symbols belong in a place of worship in my opinion. I agree with the idea of all dressing in a non- religiou fashion at work. I never liked religion being pushed in my face. I have at my age never experianced this before at work. I have worn a religious symbol, the cross all my life, always under my cloths, hidden.

What if you were forbidden from wearing the cross as well? In the name of equality.

Aesma wrote:

What are your thoughts ?

If it's a private business, they should be able to mandate or ban whatever apparel they wish as long as it doesn't violate anyone's rights. If it's a government office, then this ban absolutely is discriminatory and the government has no more grounds to ban hijabs than they do to mandate workers wear a crucifix.

One thing people get wrong over and over, possibly deliberately, is believing that separation of church and state means state mandated atheism. Government banning of religious symbols is no different than mandating them.

Aesma wrote:

If you put something on your head for religious reasons, then it's a religious symbol.

What if I just like the look?

cpd wrote:

What if you were forbidden from wearing the cross as well? In the name of equality.

1. That would be splendid
2. You can ear that under your shirt

Best regards
Thomas

BMI727 wrote:

If it's a private business, they should be able to mandate or ban whatever apparel they wish as long as it doesn't violate anyone's rights.

The ownet of a business owas the place. Your usual mantra would be that he can do whatever he want, including filling it with toxic waste.

Wearing a visible religious symbol violates everyone's right of being free from religion.

Best regards
Thomas

Aesma wrote:

The bans are about religious and political symbols. If you put something on your head for religious reasons, then it's a religious symbol.

A hijab is no different than a hat. It is not a symbol the way a crucifix or a Star of David necklace is.

tommy1808 wrote:

Wearing a visible religious symbol violates everyone's right of being free from religion.

It only violates the right of being free from religion if you are FORCED to wear a religious symbol. You are not denied the right if someone else is wearing it & she does not force you to do the same.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I would agree if the ban was limited to the niqab, which is the face covering, because is not necessary in Islam. But banning the hijab totally is like banning clothes from work. The hijab is a piece of clothing, not merely a symbol of religion.

That's not true and you know it, it's only Muslim women who wear them, if non muslim women wore them then you would be right, but they don't.

Kiwirob wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I would agree if the ban was limited to the niqab, which is the face covering, because is not necessary in Islam. But banning the hijab totally is like banning clothes from work. The hijab is a piece of clothing, not merely a symbol of religion.

That's not true and you know it, it's only Muslim women who wear them, if non muslim women wore them then you would be right, but they don't.

A hijab acts in the same way as a veil or a scarf on the head, and last time I checked I've seen plenty of non-Muslim women wearing those things voluntarily too. Only the styling differs in that a hijab goes to cover the neck fully whereas a scarf doesn't.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

It only violates the right of being free from religion if you are FORCED to wear a religious symbol. You are not denied the right if someone else is wearing it & she does not force you to do the same.

We live in a world where gay marriage apparently violates the rights of some religious people. Therefore wearing a visible religious symbol violates my right to be free from it.
I see no reason to change that stance before the very last non-secular law is off the books.

Best regards
Thomas

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

A hijab acts in the same way as a veil or a scarf on the head, and last time I checked I've seen plenty of non-Muslim women wearing those things voluntarily too. Only the styling differs in that a hijab goes to cover the neck fully whereas a scarf doesn't.

Exactly. I am old enough to remember the times when many married and widowed women left the house with a headscarf.

Aesma wrote:

I was pleasantly surprised by the ruling, I wonder if it has been influenced by the current political climate.

Judges usually don´t care very much about that. Which is the way it should be. I think i have seen people commenting on the apparent political position when new judges where picked, but i have never seen anything akin to the "My Judge/Your Judge" nonsense the US have for European or German court appointments.

best regards
Thomas

ltbewr wrote:

This wouldn't be an issue in the USA, and only if what they are wearing would make it impossible to carry out their job. It isn't uncommon in the NYC area of Muslim women wearing head coverings, even hijabs,

That is exactly what the ruling was about. The case started when a receptionist in a private company started wearing a headscarf to work, which was against company policy of no overt religious or political symbols visible.

The case has dragged for so long because the policy was not in writing at the time, she claimed it was done on purpose to fire her and the company claimed it had been a long established policy and that she knew from the very beginning (she worked with her head uncovered for 3 years before insisting on wearing it)

JJJ wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

This wouldn't be an issue in the USA, and only if what they are wearing would make it impossible to carry out their job. It isn't uncommon in the NYC area of Muslim women wearing head coverings, even hijabs,

That is exactly what the ruling was about. The case started when a receptionist in a private company started wearing a headscarf to work, which was against company policy of no overt religious or political symbols visible.

Of course the US practice is discriminating for non-religious people. Your employer can tell you want color you can/can´t dye your hair, but not to take a headscarf of? How ridiculous is that? You have just one hair color you wear at work and in your free-time, a head scarf you can just take off coming into work and put it back on when you leave.

best regards
Thomas

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

A hijab is no different than a hat. It is not a symbol the way a crucifix or a Star of David necklace is.

No one wears a hijab for reasons of comfort, utility or fashion. It's worn by Muslim women, for religious reasons only. It's a public display of religion, just as openly sporting a crucifix or a Star of David is.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

A hijab acts in the same way as a veil or a scarf on the head, and last time I checked I've seen plenty of non-Muslim women wearing those things voluntarily too. Only the styling differs in that a hijab goes to cover the neck fully whereas a scarf doesn't.

Last time I checked, plenty of places have dress code that also applies for ordinary scarf wearers too.

The issue here is that a number of people from a certain religious group feel that they are exempted from general rules in the name of their religion.

BMI727 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

What are your thoughts ?

If it's a private business, they should be able to mandate or ban whatever apparel they wish as long as it doesn't violate anyone's rights. If it's a government office, then this ban absolutely is discriminatory and the government has no more grounds to ban hijabs than they do to mandate workers wear a crucifix.

One thing people get wrong over and over, possibly deliberately, is believing that separation of church and state means state mandated atheism. Government banning of religious symbols is no different than mandating them.

In France public workers (of which we have a lot) have always been barred from wearing religious symbols and this isn't in dispute. To become a public worker with the benefits attached (job for life, almost impossible to be fired, etc.) you need to succeed at a competitive exam, strangely people who do that aren't inclined to risk it all by affirming their religion.

Separation of church and state doesn't mean state mandated atheism, it means the state must be neutral. How can it be neutral if its employees are proselytizing ?

BMI727 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

If you put something on your head for religious reasons, then it's a religious symbol.

What if I just like the look?

What if I don't believe you and fire you ? It's a judge you will need to convince.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The bans are about religious and political symbols. If you put something on your head for religious reasons, then it's a religious symbol.

A hijab is no different than a hat. It is not a symbol the way a crucifix or a Star of David necklace is.

I disagree. In fact I think the exact opposite. You can wear a crucifix without being very religious, maybe not religious at all if it was offered to you as a child by a godmother or something like that, it can just be a necklace. You don't wear a hijab if you're not religious (or forced to do it by community pressure).

tommy1808 wrote:

Wearing a visible religious symbol violates everyone's right of being free from religion

No it does not. Banning religious symbols violates the freedom of religion (and speech) of the person who wishes to wear the symbol. You do not have a right to never have to see something you disagree with, just as you do not get to violate others' freedom of speech based on whether you like what they say. Granted, you're German and don't believe in freedom of speech anyway...

Aesma wrote:

In France public workers (of which we have a lot) have always been barred from wearing religious symbols and this isn't in dispute.

In that case you cannot count yourself as either having or supporting freedom of religion. France is an atheist state just as Israel is a Jewish state and Saudi Arabia is a Muslim one.

Aesma wrote:

Separation of church and state doesn't mean state mandated atheism, it means the state must be neutral.

Banning any religious imagery is anything but neutral.

My religion prescribes a dress consisting of Bermuda shorts and flip-flops, yet my employer doesn't allow it, I'm being discriminated against.

BMI727 wrote:

Granted, you're German and don't believe in freedom of speech anyway...

Yup, because it is an obviously failed concept. We looked at freedom of speech, saw it was a big blunder, and replaced it with freedom to express an opinion. Which gets rid of all the problems associated with freedom of attacking anyone you dislike, as your prefer it.. Which is the only difference between the two concepts.You insist that you shall be allowed to punch people in the face whenever you like it, we got rid of that. Just because you ignore language being just as physically damaging as physical low intensity violence up to threatening peoples lives doesn´t make it so.

You are basically saying "Everyone with health insurance shall pay for my right to offend everybody whom i like to offend". Basically you want the right to steel from them.

As said before, for a first attempt the US bill of rights was a blow, but in the end it just a naive implementation of a good idea. Freedom of opinion is a clear definition, freedom of speech is not. That is why a plausible threat to someones life somehow isn´t covered by it - we would call that a rubber law. Hopelessly outdated, at last 50 years behind the state of the art.

Banning any religious imagery is anything but neutral.

Allowing it is allowing the promotion of religion over the right of your employer to define the company CI.A private company gets to picks it CI anyways, at government jobs the separation of state and crazy people is the CI, and written in the constitution.
And considering that you live in a country where your employer can tell you what you can and can´t do with your body (hair color, piercings, tattoos), the USA is pretty much not qualified in this discussion, as your employers get to decide about employees at a much, much, much deeper level than what the courts just allowed employers to do, as it tells people basically what they can be in their freetime.

To stay in the area of religion, that is pretty much like your employers being allowed to tell people they have to give up their religion if they want to keep their job.

best regards
Thomas

Aesma wrote:

My religion prescribes a dress consisting of Bermuda shorts and flip-flops, yet my employer doesn't allow it, I'm being discriminated against.

Bermuda shorts is actually considered formal-wear in Bermuda, if you wear them with a jacket and knee-high socks (no flip-flops, though). May I suggest a career in offshore reinsurance, or would the suggestion alone be considered religious discrimination? Plenty of French speakers there too, although most of them are from Quebec.

BMI727 wrote:

One thing people get wrong over and over, possibly deliberately, is believing that separation of church and state means state mandated atheism. Government banning of religious symbols is no different than mandating them.

Agreed! I wish that more people would understand this.

zkojq wrote:

Agreed! I wish that more people would understand this.

It is bullshit. Banning religious symbols in public is no different from banning screwing your lover on a market square.

best regards
Thomas

zkojq wrote:

BMI727 wrote:

One thing people get wrong over and over, possibly deliberately, is believing that separation of church and state means state mandated atheism. Government banning of religious symbols is no different than mandating them.

Agreed! I wish that more people would understand this.

Except it's incorrect. Mandated atheism would mean that people could be punished for being religious. Banning religious symbols at workplaces is very far from it. And honestly, nowadays when everybody gets offended by just about everything is doesn't seem to be such a bad idea (can't believe I'm actually writing this, it hurts)

tommy1808 wrote:

zkojq wrote:

Agreed! I wish that more people would understand this.

It is bullshit. Banning religious symbols in public is no different from banning screwing your lover on a market square.

best regards
Thomas

Can everyone please stick to the facts? No one is banning anything.

The only thing the court has ruled is that employers (including the government and other public agencies) can mandate a no-overtly religious symbol policy while at work.

Anyone can wear crosses, hijabs or yarmulke (or a Vote Merkel T-shirt) anywhere as long as their employer doesn't have a uniform policy against that.

As soon as you're off the clock you can wear your turban back.

JJJ wrote:

Can everyone please stick to the facts? No one is banning anything.

I was just addressing that nonesense I quoted and that was quoted. Even if we banned religious symbols in all public places, it would be no worse than making sex in public illegal.

The only thing the court has ruled is that employers (including the government and other public agencies) can mandate a no-overtly religious symbol policy while at work.

Anyone can wear crosses, hijabs or yarmulke (or a Vote Merkel T-shirt) anywhere as long as their employer doesn't have a uniform policy against that.

As soon as you're off the clock you can wear your turban back.

And that makes US outrage about it even more rediculous, considering that US employers get a say in what piercings, tattoos and hair color you can have, that you also have (or not) in your free time, which is still about 75% of your time.

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

he can do whatever he wants, including filling it with toxic waste.

Gross.

The ruling is actually far from most of what's being debated here.

It mandates consistency and evenhandedness:

An employes can accept the wearing of religious identification.
An employer can also mandate that no religious identification can be worn on the job.

But an employer cannot ban just the symbols of some religions.
Either no ban or a ban of all religious symbols.

That is the whole point of the ruling!

Airstud wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

he can do whatever he wants, including filling it with toxic waste.

Gross.

Yup. Ayn Rand is gross.....

Best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

It is bullshit. Banning religious symbols in public is no different from banning screwing your lover on a market square.

Unless "in public" means something different in Germany than it does in the USA (or anywhere else that I know of) this is utter nonsense.

No one is banned from wearing religious clothing or symbols in public in the United States. That includes when shopping or conducting business as a patron or customer, traveling on any form of public public conveyances, etc.

However, the owners of businesses may uniformly ban or (in some instances) require religious dress by employees or the outward show of religion. Government employees should never give the overt expression of religion (by speech or clothing, symbols). However, there are some exceptions such as Chaplains serving in the military and in hospitals, prisons, etc.

Performance of sexual acts or display of genitalia in public is banned as a matter of decency, except in limited cases of an artistic nature (nudes in museum artwork, the theatrical performance of "Hair" and in cinemas rated for adults).

The fact that you are unable to recognize such distinctions is evidenced by your choice of words/language in your post.

Uncouth and ungentlemanly. I regret that I am sometimes guilty of it also.

tommy1808 wrote:

We looked at freedom of speech, saw it was a big blunder, and replaced it with freedom to express an opinion.

...as long as it is an opinion you agree with.

You, like many leftists, only defend the freedom of those that you agree with which is to say that you do not defend freedom at all. Your stance makes you no different than ISIS or the Westboro Baptists.

tommy1808 wrote:

It is bullshit. Banning religious symbols in public is no different from banning screwing your lover on a market square.

It is different. In the US one big difference is that the latter is not blatantly unconstitutional.

WildcatYXU wrote:

Mandated atheism would mean that people could be punished for being religious. Banning religious symbols at workplaces is very far from it.

Unless that workplace is for the government.

WildcatYXU wrote:

And honestly, nowadays when everybody gets offended by just about everything is doesn't seem to be such a bad idea (can't believe I'm actually writing this, it hurts)

Nobody has a right to not be offended.

tommy1808 wrote:

And that makes US outrage about it even more rediculous, considering that US employers get a say in what piercings, tattoos and hair color you can have, that you also have (or not) in your free time, which is still about 75% of your time.

Actually it isn't ridiculous, which you would know if you read the first word of the First Amendment.

Klaus wrote:

An employes can accept the wearing of religious identification.
An employer can also mandate that no religious identification can be worn on the job.

There's nothing wrong with this, provided that the "employer" is not the government.

Klaus wrote:

But an employer cannot ban just the symbols of some religions.
Either no ban or a ban of all religious symbols.

This part is okay provided that the "employer" is the government.

BobPatterson wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

It is bullshit. Banning religious symbols in public is no different from banning screwing your lover on a market square.

Unless "in public" means something different in Germany than it does in the USA (or anywhere else that I know of) this is utter nonsense.

No one is banned from wearing religious clothing or symbols in public in the United States. That includes when shopping or conducting business as a patron or customer, traveling on any form of public public conveyances, etc.

However, the owners of businesses may uniformly ban or (in some instances) require religious dress by employees or the outward show of religion. Government employees should never give the overt expression of religion (by speech or clothing, symbols). However, there are some exceptions such as Chaplains serving in the military and in hospitals, prisons, etc.

Performance of sexual acts or display of genitalia in public is banned as a matter of decency, except in limited cases of an artistic nature (nudes in museum artwork, the theatrical performance of "Hair" and in cinemas rated for adults).

The fact that you are unable to recognize such distinctions is evidenced by your choice of words/language in your post.

Uncouth and ungentlemanly. I regret that I am sometimes guilty of it also.

Well Islamists everywhere want to cover the head or even the whole body of women, or better remove them from the street altogether, in the name of decency.

BobPatterson wrote:

Performance of sexual acts or display of genitalia in public is banned as a matter of decency, except in limited cases of an artistic nature (nudes in museum artwork, the theatrical performance of "Hair" and in cinemas rated for adults).

The fact that you are unable to recognize such distinctions is evidenced by your choice of words/language in your post..

And in what Universe is "decency" an objective value?

BMI727 wrote:

tommy1808 wrote:

We looked at freedom of speech, saw it was a big blunder, and replaced it with freedom to express an opinion.

...as long as it is an opinion you agree with.

Keep you strawman. As long as it is an Opinion, which has an objective definition. And not the utterly failed "freedom of speech" that goes "Welcome to America, we have freedom of Speech here - and this is the list on things you can´t say!"

You don´t have freedom of speech, you have the freedom whatever a majority of people doesn´t think you can not say.

"I got mayself a Macmillan 50 cal and now i am going to drive to DC and see how many Congressman and Senators i can pick of - maybe i am even lucky and get the president into my crosshair" is just speech.
"I have a Bomb - give me 50.000 US" is also just speech.
"Fire" in a crowded theater is also just speech.

All of them are not opinions though...

tommy1808 wrote:

And that makes US outrage about it even more rediculous, considering that US employers get a say in what piercings, tattoos and hair color you can have, that you also have (or not) in your free time, which is still about 75% of your time.

Actually it isn't ridiculous, which you would know if you read the first word of the First Amendment.

It is almost cute that you try to use the wording of a document, you don´t like, to debunk a point i wasn´t making.
If human rights are universal, an employer doesn´t have any more rights to violate those rights than the government has.

Apparently human rights are human made rules with no universal character in BMI727´s world too - at least when employer "rights" are concerned.

best regards
Thomas

BMI727 wrote:

Klaus wrote:

An employes can accept the wearing of religious identification.
An employer can also mandate that no religious identification can be worn on the job.

There's nothing wrong with this, provided that the "employer" is not the government.

Klaus wrote:

But an employer cannot ban just the symbols of some religions.
Either no ban or a ban of all religious symbols.

This part is okay provided that the "employer" is the government.

BS. Working for the government is not a right.

If a rule for active military servicemen calls for no visible tattoos they don't care if you're Maori and form part of your religion. You're still not getting the job.

If uniform rules call for keeping your head uncovered while at work they won't care if it's a Muslim veil, a Sikh turban, a kippah or a Giants cap. Work uncovered or apply somewhere else.

If uniform rules call for no overt political or religious signs keep your Che Guevara T-shirt or large crucifix covered by other clothing.