EU court: Employers can ban headscarves and religious symbols

[Derrick615 12]

16 minutes ago, Debithius said:

You don't think their part of the world would have done the same thing if we moved there, force us to conform to their culture and way of living? We wouldn't be allowed to say ****.

Lol, rethink your question babes. 

[Delulu Rogers 7,664]

Im confused. Is it banned or up to the decision of the each employer? 

[Debithius 6,056]

1 minute ago, Derrick615 said:

Lol, rethink your question babes. 

Why what's wrong with the question? I didn't really mean force us to hide headscarves, I meant in general, make us conform to their standards.

[kvnrp 48,353]

1 hour ago, Delulu Rogers said:

Im confused. Is it banned or up to the decision of the each employer? 

If the job explicitly requires it to be religiously neutral, the employer can ban all symbols of every religion.

He can't just decide it for fun, he needs a very strong, stated reason to do so.

(and employees getting instantly fired over this should not be possible since other employee protection laws still exist)

[VTV 13,929]

We're evolving. Backwards.

[Economy 52,860]

6 hours ago, Debithius said:

You don't think their part of the world would have done the same thing if we moved there, force us to conform to their culture and way of living? We wouldn't be allowed to say ****.

So because their governments (and some of the individuals) would wanna enforce the same we in turn have to do it to all of them?

 

Way to go lumping and generalizing everyone into 1 group. I swear individualism doesnt exist anymore, ppl are always defined and generalized in groups of ppl

 

Also not every Country is an oppresive Saudi Arabia or such God dam it... theres many countries where things like headscarfs are a thing among some individuals but arent forced and so u wouldnt be forced either if u went there and much of their own population choses not to wear it even if they are muslim. Israel, Lebanon, Jordan for example come to mind

 

Either way, since when does our srandards say u cant wear a headscarf anyway. Literally who the hell does it harm?

[MonsterPaws 2,745]

10 hours ago, Debithius said:

You don't think their part of the world would have done the same thing if we moved there, force us to conform to their culture and way of living? We wouldn't be allowed to say ****.

So you agree that the ban is wrong?

[bionic 50,111]

If this is strictly applied regardless of religion I can get behind this

[Debithius 6,056]

4 hours ago, Economy said:

So because their governments (and some of the individuals) would wanna enforce the same we in turn have to do it to all of them?

 

Way to go lumping and generalizing everyone into 1 group. I swear individualism doesnt exist anymore, ppl are always defined and generalized in groups of ppl

 

Also not every Country is an oppresive Saudi Arabia or such God dam it... theres many countries where things like headscarfs are a thing among some individuals but arent forced and so u wouldnt be forced either if u went there and much of their own population choses not to wear it even if they are muslim. Israel, Lebanon, Jordan for example come to mind

 

Either way, since when does our srandards say u cant wear a headscarf anyway. Literally who the hell does it harm?

My point is that all people are the same no matter where you live, human psyche is the same. 

[Debithius 6,056]

17 minutes ago, MonsterPaws said:

So you agree that the ban is wrong?

No, because this is not a direct ban on these things. I don't care if you wear a headscarf or a religious symbol but if the company has a valid point to ban religious symbols or headscarves, they should be allowed to do so. What's that word Americans keep mentioning...freedom?

[Guillaume Hamon 6,992]

Folks here seem to think it's a condamnation of headscarfs, kipas or crosses as if it was an attack to what these may stand for but it's not about it.

 

 

The idea is to be neutral at work therefore not to have anything representing your personnal views while you're there to work. 

 

 

It often goes way above religions and the values it implied to include politics, unions, philosophies etc.

[alsemanche 97,803]

3 minutes ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

Folks here seem to think it's a condamnation of headscarfs, kipas or crosses as if it was an attack to what these may stand for but it's not about it.

 

 

The idea is to be neutral at work therefore not to have anything representing your personnal views while you're there to work. 

 

 

It often goes way above religions and the values it implied to include politics, unions, philosophies etc.

So basically the company wants you to have 0 personality and be a bland robot who does the work and leaves while showing 0 qualities that do not relate to whatever the task you are doing is. And that's on capitalism. 

Also let's not make excuses for companies that want their employees to have no affiliation with politics or unions. We all know the primary goal of that is exploitation and controlling workers.

[MonsterPaws 2,745]

1 hour ago, Guillaume Hamon said:

Folks here seem to think it's a condamnation of headscarfs, kipas or crosses as if it was an attack to what these may stand for but it's not about it.

 

 

The idea is to be neutral at work therefore not to have anything representing your personnal views while you're there to work. 

 

 

It often goes way above religions and the values it implied to include politics, unions, philosophies etc.

But why draw the line there? Why not include a clause for political symbols, quotes, flags etc.

Why target religious symbols in particular? I understand this is a French obsession with "laicité" but how far must they go?

2 hours ago, Debithius said:

No, because this is not a direct ban on these things. I don't care if you wear a headscarf or a religious symbol but if the company has a valid point to ban religious symbols or headscarves, they should be allowed to do so. What's that word Americans keep mentioning...freedom?

I don't understand how this is free at all. Not to mention this entirely depends on the conception of freedom. For example, the Christian baker case that happened in the US years ago. Does a private business have the freedom to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? (legally this is under contention but morally) You could argue SURE! But one's "freedom" is directly in conflict with another's.

The point is: why the **** is the EU court interfering with personal expression religion? I have my fair share of criticism towards religions but if I see someone wearing a kippa or wearing a cross that literally affects me in no way whatsoever. 

And to echo your sentiment: if a person wants to wear religious symbols or headscarves, they should be allowed to do so. What's that word the French keep mentioning...liberté?

[Debithius 6,056]

15 minutes ago, MonsterPaws said:

But why draw the line there? Why not include a clause for political symbols, quotes, flags etc.

Why target religious symbols in particular? I understand this is a French obsession with "laicité" but how far must they go?

I don't understand how this is free at all. Not to mention this entirely depends on the conception of freedom. For example, the Christian baker case that happened in the US years ago. Does a private business have the freedom to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? (legally this is under contention but morally) You could argue SURE! But one's "freedom" is directly in conflict with another's.

The point is: why the **** is the EU court interfering with personal expression religion? I have my fair share of criticism towards religions but if I see someone wearing a kippa or wearing a cross that literally affects me in no way whatsoever. 

And to echo your sentiment: if a person wants to wear religious symbols or headscarves, they should be allowed to do so. What's that word the French keep mentioning...liberté?

They can wear whatever they want that is their freedom but they just have to find a different job then. Cause with that same freedom a company can choose to do whatever they want as long as it is valid. Also, a valid reason is not discrimination, just like how you are not allowed to have any visible tattos for certain jobs.

 

[Magneto 13,546]

Women shouldn't be told to wear a hijab so we're telling them that they can't 

Make it make sense