RE: Head Scarves & Other Religious Symbols (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Dvr22999874 -> RE: Head Scarves & Other Religious Symbols (3/15/2017 12:32:42 AM)

Edwird.................ah, now I ( sort of) understand. I have to admit I was always a bare-assed atheist, so it really never made a lot of sense to me. But yes, I agree with other correspondents that regardless of your religion, there are times when it really is necessary that a persons face be bare, recognisable and photographable ( is there such a word ?), such as banks, post offices, checkpoints, airports etc.



Edwird -> RE: Head Scarves & Other Religious Symbols (3/15/2017 12:57:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

Yep !!...............public schools here are on the same lines as your public schools there, whereas when I lived in Windsor ( England) there was a public school about 3 kms away that is different to any public schools in either U.S. or Australia..................you may have heard of it ? Eton ?
But don't your judges and military get sworn in on bibles or something ? I am pretty sure ours (Australian) do. All I had to do was put my name on the bottom of a contract and I am sure there was no mention of god in any way, even though it was in French. And looking back on it, I have to think that we were a pretty ungodly lot !!


I've read British spy fiction, how could I not know of Eton!?

Reminds me of a joke from Brit fiction of some sort: four public school boys in a room; a lady walks in, one kid from Brighton grabs a chair, a kid from another school opens it in front of the lady, the third kid waves hand for her to sit, . . . the bloke from Eton sits in it. Or something like that.

In any case, yes, the bible is still invoked sometimes, but then think about all the Jews in this country. All I have to do is remember that and so there must have been a 'plan in place' for some years now, including skipping whatever religious book entirely.

But who cares? It's a one time event and there are oftentimes much worse excruciating twists and turmoils to get through on the way to signing on with many companies. If you don't believe in the bible, there is no amount of your claiming such for two seconds that will change it.

The OP was about head wear, outer clothing, etc., not about initiation procedures. I'm not saying the two aren't related at all, but the initiation procedures and public presentation are different things, the latter which is the issue addressed with the EU law.



Edwird -> RE: Head Scarves & Other Religious Symbols (3/15/2017 1:33:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome
It's a classic example of competing freedoms, where no sensible argument is entirely right or wrong.


I am far from a legal or US constitutional expert (though there be no shortage of proclaimants to the latter on any US politico forum or blog), but I think the notion of "competing freedoms" should be kept it mind, here, thanks for bringing that up.

So then we should just go about it as we would consider any other of 'competing freedoms,' then. That's my vote.

Though in the case of 'exercise of religion in public' the term "competing impositions and intrusions" comes more to mind.



WickedsDesire -> RE: Head Scarves & Other Religious Symbols (3/15/2017 4:37:50 AM)

Fair comment jlf1961 Incidentally Trump, being the fine Christian that he is, did use the 5th amendment 97 times during his second divorce so as not to admit to adultery..was the bulk of those 97 occasions.

Head scarves *shrugs – I have no problems with them – and this seem to be the crux of the whole ruling, not turbans, harry potter wizard hats etc It does seem to me to single out one particular religion. Burkas I obviously do have a problem with.

Then you get into the realms of crosses, patron saint medallions thingies, rosary beads, which people can wear due to their religion, or for fashion purposes.

"In its first decision on the issue of women wearing Islamic headscarves at work, the European court of justice in Luxembourg ruled the garments could be banned, but only as part of a general policy barring all religious and political symbols."

"Nor can customers simply demand workers remove headscarves if the company has no policy barring religious symbols, the court ruled on Tuesday.
It ruled that a company’s wish to project a neutral image was legitimate and allowed internal rules banning political, philosophical or religious symbols."

Now what if a priest, of Nun came into a shop/place of business.




Edwird -> RE: Head Scarves & Other Religious Symbols (3/15/2017 5:03:38 AM)


Or a Rabbi.

In any case if they "came into a shop/place of business" they are customers, not employees. The various laws or proposals under discussion involve employees, as best I can tell.

But since on the subject, the garb of Nuns or Priests or Rabbis is required by the profession, they are 'clerics' in the old sense and loosely in the same sense today.

The only time I saw anyone like that tending the store was when we visited a monastery when I was a wee lad, one of the old gents in his robes or whatnot sold my dad two jars of the most phenomenal jam I remember ever having tasted. Got to hear some pretty good chanting, too.

All of them wearing employee outfits, of course.



vincentML -> RE: Head Scarves & Other Religious Symbols (3/15/2017 10:29:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

I think the employer has the right to require damn near anything. Shit like this is why nobody wants to start a company here. They can have a dress code, and actually require the wearing of a uniform. Fast food joints do. Higher end eateries might require waiters to wear a suit and tie.

And there is always the option of firing. Most states are "at will" which means they can fire you because of your eye color if they choose.

When you are at work you are selling yourself. I think it is a good idea to respect the buyer's wishes, don't you ?

T^T

I posted a link to the EEOC discussion on this issue in the OP. Please read it.



vincentML -> RE: Head Scarves & Other Religious Symbols (3/15/2017 10:35:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird


Almost every pro sports team in the US has a prayer group and sometimes a prayer meeting before games, but that is always aside from the team as a whole. I think the public school sports teams eventually recognized the value in that approach and have taken that avenue themselves.

Only if student led is my understanding. Faculty cannot participate.



vincentML -> RE: Head Scarves & Other Religious Symbols (3/15/2017 10:52:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
So, my question directed at my country's citizens:

which do they wish takes precedence:

the company's control of its own image, or

the employees' civil rights?

Maybe I have it wrong.


Is ostentatious display of one's religion in every situation a 'civil right'? I'm not a federal court judge, so my estimation one way or the other wouldn't matter in any case.

As to the First Amendment's reference to "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"; does that mean such 'exercise' is to be allowed at all times, in all places, in any circumstance? I think the intention was that one should be allowed to attend whatever service they chose at whichever Christian church, but easily applied also as to services held at whichever Temple or Mosque or Synagogue, etc.

It's a bit of a stretch for me to think that they intended that you be able to bring your church into the workplace.




To clarify . . . from the EEOC link in the OP . . .

Title VII prohibits among other things:

* disparate treatment based on religion in recruitment, hiring, promotion, benefits, training, job duties, termination, or any other aspect of employment (except that "religious organizations" as defined under Title VII are permitted
to prefer members of their own religion in deciding whom to employ);

* denial of reasonable accommodation for sincerely held religious practices, unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship for the employer;

* workplace or job segregation based on religion;

* workplace harassment based on religion;

* retaliation for requesting an accommodation (whether or not granted), for filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC, for testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an EEOC investigation or EEO proceeding, or for opposing discrimination.



longwayhome -> RE: Head Scarves & Other Religious Symbols (3/15/2017 1:46:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: longwayhome
It's a classic example of competing freedoms, where no sensible argument is entirely right or wrong.


I am far from a legal or US constitutional expert (though there be no shortage of proclaimants to the latter on any US politico forum or blog), but I think the notion of "competing freedoms" should be kept it mind, here, thanks for bringing that up.

So then we should just go about it as we would consider any other of 'competing freedoms,' then. That's my vote.

Though in the case of 'exercise of religion in public' the term "competing impositions and intrusions" comes more to mind.



I wouldn't necessarily argue with that.

The other side of the coin from "competing freedoms" is of course "competing impositions and intrusions".

The term "competing freedoms" just sounds more positive.

I'm not really bothered about people wearing headscarves, frankly there are more important issues to get riled about, but I do recognise the value of neutrality as well.

Discrimination and violence on the basis of religion has been part of the UK's very recent past, and not just in Northern Ireland, so it's not entirely straightforward. We all like to think that we have moved past that but there are still cases which emerge often linked to politics, sport or corporate cultures. In such an environment where the name of the school you went to identifies you, and has to be blocked out of recruitment processes to ensure non-discriminatory practices, neutrality is a more attractive proposition.

I would accept however that banning the wearing of headscarves (or other religious or political symbols) in specific public facing jobs is unlikely to tackle the issue.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875