Christian rights cases go before Strasbourg court - a case of double standards?

[AjAjAjH]

It's those who put a fish symbol on the backs of their cars who worry me. They all seem to be terrible drivers.

That's why I have mine in the front window.

A friend of mine has a fish logo on his car with a cross where the eye should be. he calls it his 'cross eyed fish'.

[Tony Halstead]

Our daughter used to have a scruffy old 'beat-up' Teddy bear with squinty eyes whose name was 'GLADLY'...
One of her favourite hymns at school was 'Gladly the Cross I'd Bear'.

[ahinton]

Oh come off it. I'll grant you your second sentence but to suggest otherwise regarding how most people view someone wearing a cross is a tad disengenuous.

Really? Have another think about that, with specific reference to the fact that a large proportion of people when faced with someone wearing an item of jewellery designed in the form of a cross would probably not even notice it at all! I really do not believe that it's anything like as big a deal as you appear to want to make it out to be -and certainly less of one than would be the case in respect of certain Muslim wearers of the kind of headgear that a far larger proportion of onlookers really would notice (and that's very specifically not intended as any kind of comparative value judgement).

[Serial_Apologist]

I've known many, many people who wear crucifixes, of both sexes, who hold no particular religious views, least of all Christians. Asked they have told me that the items have been left them by relatives, or that wearing a cross "looks nice". Go down any main street of a Friday or Saturday night, or watch the frequently presented footage on TV of drunken people staggering about on high heels, and many of them will be wearing cricifixes. I'm sure they must all be Christians!

[MrGongGong]

Childish. But I expect no less. I thought that the primary schools were back.

no more than your initial comment really
there really isn't a "strong chance" of confusion is there ?

the cross wearing thing is only a part of this though
the others want something else entirely

[ahinton]

I've known many, many people who wear crucifixes, of both sexes, who hold no particular religious views, least of all Christians. Asked they have told me that the items have been left them by relatives, or that wearing a cross "looks nice". Go down any main street of a Friday or Saturday night, or watch the frequently presented footage on TV of drunken people staggering about on high heels, and many of them will be wearing crucifixes. I'm sure they must all be Christians!

Indeed - precisely the point that I was trying to make!

[Resurrection Man]

Really? Have another think about that, with specific reference to the fact that a large proportion of people when faced with someone wearing an item of jewellery designed in the form of a cross would probably not even notice it at all!....

Which makes the action by their employers and the Government lawyers even more questionable and biased, surely.

I've known many, many people who wear crucifixes, of both sexes, who hold no particular religious views, least of all Christians. Asked they have told me that the items have been left them by relatives, or that wearing a cross "looks nice".

Quite possibly. But there are also very many for whom the wearing of a cross to signify their Christianity is important to them. Why should they be denied that action and yet other religions are at liberty to wear whatever ?

Go down any main street of a Friday or Saturday night, or watch the frequently presented footage on TV of drunken people staggering about on high heels, and many of them will be wearing cricifixes. I'm sure they must all be Christians!

Maybe. I have no experience of wandering down main streets at night staring closely at young girl's cleavage in the gloom and so must defer to your greater expertise in this area.

[ahinton]

You had written that
"Lawyers for the Government are believed to be arguing that "In neither case is there any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally [recognized] form of [practicing] the Christian faith".
To my response
"a large proportion of people when faced with someone wearing an item of jewellery designed in the form of a cross would probably not even notice it at all!...."
you replied

Which makes the action by their employers and the Government lawyers even more questionable and biased, surely.

I do not see the compatibility here. You did not mention "employers" of those who wear crosses to work and if any seek to ban their employees from doing so then one would hope that the victims would have due recourse to legal defence; you mentioned only what "lawyers for the Government" are arguing and, if indeed they are arguing against "any suggestion that the wearing of a visible cross or crucifix was a generally [recognized] form of [practicing] the Christian faith", what is "questionable" about that?

To Serial_Apologist's statement
"I've known many, many people who wear crucifixes, of both sexes, who hold no particular religious views, least of all Christians. Asked they have told me that the items have been left them by relatives, or that wearing a cross "looks nice"" you responded

Quite possibly. But there are also very many for whom the wearing of a cross to signify their Christianity is important to them. Why should they be denied that action and yet other religions are at liberty to wear whatever?

Whilst I agree in principle that there does indeed need to be that level playing field, the mere fact that "there are...very many for whom the wearing of a cross to signify their Christianity is important to them", when taken in isolation, risks missing the point, which is that it is the significance or otherwise not to the wearer but to the observer that counts in terms of legal rights in such matters because the objections to cross-wearing emanate from those observers, not from the cross-wearers.

I have no experience of wandering down main streets at night staring closely at young girl's cleavage in the gloom and so must defer to your greater expertise in this area.

Your unwarrantably sexist remark here takes no account of the fact that some men wear crosses, too.

[David Underdown]

But the wearing of a cross is not a required manifestation of Christianity (unlike, say, the five Ks of Sikhism - hope I've got that right)

[MrGongGong]

But the wearing of a cross is not a required manifestation of Christianity (unlike, say, the five Ks of Sikhism - hope I've got that right)

I had forgotten that the cross wearing woman had refused the suggestion that she wore it but concealed so it's not the "wearing" that is the issue .........

[Resurrection Man]

But the wearing of a cross is not a required manifestation of Christianity (unlike, say, the five Ks of Sikhism - hope I've got that right)

That's not what Article 9 says.

Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.


Freedom to manifest...ie to say to the world that I am a Christian. None of the 'limitations' above apply in the case of these four.

[MrGongGong]

Freedom to manifest...ie to say to the world that I am a Christian. None of the 'limitations' above apply in the case of these four.

According to the article you link to only 2 of these four people are complaining about not being able to wear crosses (actually they are able to BUT not to have it visible)
the other cases concern the registrar who refuses to officiate at same-sex civil partnership ceremonies , which is a bit like a vegan getting a job in the butchers and refusing to touch meat !
and
the counsellor who refuses to work with same sex couples........ which does beg the question WHY get that job in the first place ?

how many satanists are allowed to display their religious symbols ?
hummmm

[Bryn]

MrGG, I think you might find that those refusing to work with same sex couples were in their jobs before the requirement to carry out such duties was introduced. It will be interesting to see how that aspect is dealt with.

[MrGongGong]

MrGG, I think you might find that those refusing to work with same sex couples were in their jobs before the requirement to carry out such duties was introduced. It will be interesting to see how that aspect is dealt with.

Indeed it will
It does seem a bit stubborn to try and stay in a job where you are required to do something that goes against your fundamental beliefs ?

[Flosshilde]

It's siumply another attempt by christians to claim that they are uniquely discriminated against, just as white, heterosexual males complain that they are discriminated against because, they say, equalities legislation covers everyone but them.

Both claims are nonsense.