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

[Barbirollians]

I am somewhat surprised that Ms Eweida won her case but I can see the ECtHR's point - there were no real countervailing issues . I cannot see how it is unfortunate that the registrar or the relationship counsellor lost their cases. One cannot use one's religious beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against others .

As for the nurse she lost on the facts end of story.

[scottycelt]

I thought the person who had by far the strongest case was Gary McFarlane, yet he lost. I think there is something a bit creepy and even sinister about expecting an employee to act against his conscience and beliefs in the course of his/her work. Of course, many Christians will now understandably avoid such occupations like the plague, which is a great pity.

From an employment point of view, I don't see much wrong with instructing employees not to wear personal symbols at work but, as pointed out elsewhere, this should apply to everyone not just Christians.

As regards genuine importance and protection of minorities, I'd have been much happier if McFarlane had won his case and the other three lost.

[Lateralthinking1]

At a compulsory diversity training course in 2009, a specific example given was the sikh ceremonial dagger. We were told that we could be sacked on the grounds of discrimination if we asked an employee to remove one from his desk. The Government felt this was wholly right. Symbols of that kind have religious significance. Concern about personal security was an excuse for prejudice. To confirm - this was not a matter raised by any individual. It was a fundamental part of the Government's own course to employees.

[Serial_Apologist]

At a compulsory diversity training course in 2009, a specific example given was the sikh ceremonial dagger. We were told that we could be sacked on the grounds of discrimination if we asked an employee to remove one from his desk. The Government felt this was wholly right. Symbols of that kind have religious significance. Concern about personal security was an excuse for prejudice. To confirm - this was not a matter raised by any individual. It was a fundamental part of the Government's own course to employees.

Well those justifying the British courts' decisions would argue the ceremonial sword to be obligatory wear for Sihks, and the crucifix for Christians not, whereas the European court, er....

[Lateralthinking1]

Well those justifying the British courts' decisions would argue the ceremonial sword to be obligatory wear for Sihks, and the crucifix for Christians not, whereas the European court, er....

Visibly?

I've just realised that this is an old thread which has been resurrected following the Court's decision. Unbelievably, the Court has got it right. Most have always worn the burka as a symbol of their faith. A minority took it up sometime during the last decade rather like a tearaway would wear a leather jacket, having previously worn western style clothing. Think in terms of turf wars.

The same is true of the cross. Most wear it as a symbol of their faith. Some use it either to obtain compensation money or as a back door to promoting an illiberal agenda. Courts need to separate the harmonious sheep from any warlike, greedy goats. If a uniform is required for the safety of the employee and others, with appropriate restrictions on accessories, that is fair. If there are requirements in a job to counsel a wide range of people, that is fair too. Of course, such things are only fair if the job description is clear ahead of any interview. People can't be expected to anticipate or guess every single nuance. It really isn't rocket science.

[MrGongGong]

As regards genuine importance and protection of minorities, I'd have been much happier if McFarlane had won his case and the other three lost.

Was he the vegan butcher ?

[Serial_Apologist]

Visibly?

There are just too many variables between each of these cases to be able to elicit general principles from. As long as a person with religious views is not using them to excuse him or herself from duties in the job specification, ramming them down the throats of their work colleagues, or by virtue of their attire either a potential danger to self or others, or obscuring of wearer's identity, I can't myself see anything wrong with wearing at work items indicating belief, whether a cross, yin-yang or hammer and sickle lapel badge or head scarf.

[Lateralthinking1]

There are just too many variables between each of these cases to be able to elicit general principles from. As long as a person with religious views is not using them to excuse him or herself from duties in the job specification, ramming them down the throats of their work colleagues, or by virtue of their attire either a potential danger to self or others, or obscuring of wearer's identity, I can't myself see anything wrong with wearing at work items indicating belief, whether a cross, yin-yang or hammer and sickle lapel badge or head scarf.

I think we agree on this one. On "visibly", I was just questioning whether there is any obligation on anyone with faith to display badges rather than simply to wear them, that is assuming there are obligations to wear them which in most cases I also doubt. A ruling that the cross could be worn but should be hidden suggests that ceremonial swords/daggers could be worn but should be hidden. If that isn't an employers' nightmare, I don't know what would be. Apparently a lot of schoolchildren in India carry them into school too. The Government's reference to wearing a "visible cross" rather than "a cross visibly" was incidentally Freudian!

Flat owners with huge amounts of chutzpah and few scruples should check their deeds immediately. I know that I was prohibited for 13 years from displaying a political poster at election time. In this odd society of ours, that apparently isn't a broad issue.

[Beef Oven]

As an Agnostic Christian I am pleased with the decision regarding the wearing of a cross. Shame the decision was taken in the wrong court.

[Resurrection Man]

There are just too many variables between each of these cases to be able to elicit general principles from. As long as a person with religious views is not using them to excuse him or herself from duties in the job specification, ramming them down the throats of their work colleagues, or by virtue of their attire either a potential danger to self or others, or obscuring of wearer's identity, I can't myself see anything wrong with wearing at work items indicating belief, whether a cross, yin-yang or hammer and sickle lapel badge or head scarf.

When you say 'too many variables' I'm sure whether you are referring to all 'aspects' of these cases (because not all the cases revolved round the wearing of a religious item)...which seems to be the case as you refer to 'is not using them'...but then in your closing words, you say 'wearing the items'. I'm interested in this statement..As long as a person with religious views is not using them to excuse him or herself from duties in the job specification, Are you referring to wearing items or much broader in context?

[Serial_Apologist]

When you say 'too many variables' I'm sure whether you are referring to all 'aspects' of these cases (because not all the cases revolved round the wearing of a religious item)...which seems to be the case as you refer to 'is not using them'...but then in your closing words, you say 'wearing the items'. I'm interested in this statement..As long as a person with religious views is not using them to excuse him or herself from duties in the job specification, Are you referring to wearing items or much broader in context?

I was thinking of their ideas, rather than what they could be wearing, RM. Should have expressed myself more clearly.

[Flosshilde]

Of course, such things are only fair if the job description is clear ahead of any interview. People can't be expected to anticipate or guess every single nuance. It really isn't rocket science.

As far as I can remember most public sector job application packs include the employer's anti-discrimination/equal opportunities policies. And discrimination in providing services to the public is covered by legislation, so anybody applying for such jobs should/would be aware of it.

[scottycelt]

As far as I can remember most public sector job application packs include the employer's anti-discrimination/equal opportunities policies. And discrimination in providing services to the public is covered by legislation, so anybody applying for such jobs should/would be aware of it.

Yes, that is certainly the case now, though these so-called 'anti-discrimination/equal opportunities' laws might well appear quite discriminatory to some.

The law states (rightly) that no retail employee should be forced to work on Sundays if they do not wish to do so for any reason whether religious or otherwise. Of course, when potential employees make this clear when interviewed they can kiss goodbye to any chance of employment, but at least the law is prepared to officially back the rights of the individual in such cases.

Not, apparently, in cases like that of Gary McFarlane who simply declines to give sexual counselling to gay couples because it is contrary to his beliefs. In his case, the law says 'tough luck, pal, if you want to keep your job you can stuff your conscience and beliefs' (or words to that effect).

No doubt there are plenty of other counsellors who will provide the 'service' and in any case how can a 'counsellor' possibly give supposed personal advice on something he doesn't even believe in himself?

In such cases the law is blatantly unfair and discriminatory and indeed an ass!

[Flosshilde]

Not, apparently, in cases like that of Gary McFarlane who simply declines to give sexual counselling to gay couples because it is contrary to his beliefs. In his case, the law says 'tough luck, pal, if you want to keep your job you can stuff your conscience and beliefs' (or words to that effect).

I've forgotten who he works for, but I think that if it was a Christian organisation they would be exempt from the law (not something I agree with). Otherwise it's perfectly reasonable to expect him to either comply with legislation & his employer's requirements or resign.

No doubt there are plenty of other counsellors who will provide the 'service' and in any case how can a 'counsellor' possibly give supposed personal advice on something he doesn't even believe in himself?

Counselling doesn't, usually, involve giving advice, but helping the client discover the answer to their problems.

[scottycelt]

I've forgotten who he works for, but I think that if it was a Christian organisation they would be exempt from the law (not something I agree with). Otherwise it's perfectly reasonable to expect him to either comply with legislation & his employer's requirements or resign.



Counselling doesn't, usually, involve giving advice, but helping the client discover the answer to their problems.

What do you mean Christian organisations exempt from the law? News to me, Flossie!

McFarlane was sacked because he declined to counsel on particular sexual matters, though he had no difficulty in discussing other issues with gay couples.

If a gay counsellor had declined to discuss sexual matters with a heterosexual couple and, instead, had preferred to hand the matter over to a colleague would there have been such a hullaballoo about 'discrimination'...?

I very much doubt we would even have heard about it ...