EU companies can ban employees from wearing religious symbols

[africanspur]

EU companies can ban employees wearing headscarves, court rules

Private employers in the EU can ban people from wearing religious symbols, including headscarves, in order to present an image of neutrality, the bloc’s highest court has ruled.


Seems like a very negative and disappointing step for them to take and can't believe this is still a point of discussion to be honest.

 

[stevoc]

If a company decides to ban it's employees from wearing any and all sorts of religious paraphernalia then I don't see the problem really. They would be treating all their employees the same regardless of their religion.

 

[SirAF]

If a company decides to ban it's employees from wearing any and all sorts of religious paraphernalia then I don't see the problem really. They would be treating all their employees the same regardless of their religion.

This.

 

[Sky1981]

All religion, but let's face it, the Hijab wearer is the main target.

I'd struggle to think any religion that requires identifiable symbols, probaly a sikh turban?

 

[OleBoiii]

All religion, but let's face it, the Hijab wearer is the main target.

I'd struggle to think any religion that requires identifiable symbols, probaly a sikh turban?

Maybe a neckless shaped like a cross? Although those are not that common(and you usually don't see them anyways).

 

[Sky1981]

Maybe a neckless shaped like a cross? Although those are not that common(and you usually don't see them anyways).

Except that it's not mandatory. You can easilly take it off during work hour.

Taking Hijab off is not an option for Muslim, and it can't be hidden.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

All religion, but let's face it, the Hijab wearer is the main target.

I'd struggle to think any religion that requires identifiable symbols, probaly a sikh turban?

You can't ask a Sikh man to not wear his turban, they wore them instead of helmets during WWII, with bullets flying around, to fight fascism and allow the conditions for the EU.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

All religion, but let's face it, the Hijab wearer is the main target.

I'd struggle to think any religion that requires identifiable symbols, probaly a sikh turban?

Seems like it. I'm not religious at all, agnostic at best.

But what about freedom of religion? Seems a little oppressive.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Plus, baptized Sikhs also wear a steel bracelet and a ceremonial dagger.

 

[izec]

Seems like it. I'm not religious at all, agnostic at best.

But what about freedom of religion? Seems a little oppressive.

Freedom of religion has its limits if it clashes with the law.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

Freedom of religion has its limits if it clashes with the law.

Thats the point. If they are changing the law to limit freedom of religion, then the law is an ass.

 

[George Owen]

All religion, but let's face it, the Hijab wearer is the main target.

I'd struggle to think any religion that requires identifiable symbols, probaly a sikh turban?

What about Jews and their funny hats?

If it's the same for all, so be it.

Anyway, I don't think many companies will want to partake in this shit. Majority of sensible companies will let people to dress as they want as long as they do their jobs.

 

[Sky1981]

Seems like it. I'm not religious at all, agnostic at best.

But what about freedom of religion? Seems a little oppressive.

It's a gray area...

Hijab is ok , but Burqa? Full Face eyes only?

At some point it has to be regulated. You can't expect people working with full burqa, but at most times it should be given freedom if it's a hijab, it's hard to draw a line.

 

[Sky1981]

What about Jews and their funny hats?

If it's the same for all, so be it.

Anyway, I don't think many companies will want to partake in this shit. Majority of sensible companies will let people to dress as they want as long as they do their jobs.

Most companies would have some... cough... profile that fit their company image.

E.g. clean shave, no visible tatoos, and goes without saying some EU companies would "avoid" hiring a muslim girl with hijab.

Most man / woman can man a cashier or work as clerk, the deal breaker is more often on how you look.

 

[Sweet Square]

The ban on religious and political symbols can be justified by the “employer’s desire to pursue a policy of political, philosophical and religious neutrality with regard to its customers or users, in order to take account of their legitimate wishes”, the court said in a statement.

 

[Dumbstar]

All religion, but let's face it, the Hijab wearer is the main target.

I'd struggle to think any religion that requires identifiable symbols, probaly a sikh turban?

Muslims are always the target. Always.

But Sikhs always bore the brunt. Always.

 

[groovyalbert]

What about Jews and their funny hats?

If it's the same for all, so be it.

Anyway, I don't think many companies will want to partake in this shit. Majority of sensible companies will let people to dress as they want as long as they do their jobs.

They're called kippahs - think they stopped calling them "our funny hats" a while back.

 

[11101]

All religion, but let's face it, the Hijab wearer is the main target.

I'd struggle to think any religion that requires identifiable symbols, probaly a sikh turban?

This whole thing in the EU started off over the Christian cross. The Hijab just makes for a better story to stoke the flames.

 

[do.ob]

Does this change anything? No one will openly make use of this ruling, they will simply not hire someone whose appearance they don't like.

 

[Sky1981]

Does this change anything? No one will openly make use of this ruling, they will simply not hire someone whose appearance they don't like.

Yes but this law would make muslims can't sue ever.

Some could have become muslims after they're employed and decided to wear one now. Some muslims too can suddenly started to wear one at one point.

In indonesia it's quite normal for muslim women not to wear one. Our president and first lady dont wear one despite being a muslim. Most hotel employees dont wear one, but when they want to start wearing one against the company image policy that's when it becomes a problem legal wise.

 

[OleBoiii]

Except that it's not mandatory. You can easilly take it off during work hour.

Ah, I didn't spot the 'mandatory' part.

Taking Hijab off is not an option for Muslim, and it can't be hidden.

But aren't Muslims also rapidly becoming more and more secular? I know plenty of Muslims, both men and women, who don't wear any form of religious clothing or symbol.

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Thats the point. If they are changing the law to limit freedom of religion, then the law is an ass.

What about non muslim's freedom of religion? I know that's a bit of a difficult subject in and with islam, but it works two ways.

You can practice your religion in your own time. If you want to show that you support an ideology that men can't be expected to show restraint if women don't cover up and women who don't wear a headscarf are ****** that can be treated as such, you can't expect an employer to let you represent the company or whatever organization like that.

 

[Adisa]

It's a bullshit law.

 

[The Corinthian]

What about non muslim's freedom of religion? I know that's a bit of a difficult subject in and with islam, but it works two ways.

You can practice your religion in your own time. If you want to show that you support an ideology that men can't be expected to show restraint if women don't cover up and women who don't wear a headscarf are ****** that can be treated as such, you can't expect an employer to let you represent the company or whatever organization like that.

What the feck is this

 

[VorZakone]

You can't ask a Sikh man to not wear his turban, they wore them instead of helmets during WWII, with bullets flying around, to fight fascism and allow the conditions for the EU.

Is that a good thing? Should everything be tolerated? I would have no problems with forcing everybody to wear a helmet in war against fascism if it increases your survivability rate. Once the war is over you can wear it again.

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

What the feck is this

A head scarf is much more than an individual dress choice.

 

[VorZakone]

I wonder how far they're willing to go in defining neutrality though? When are you neutral?

 

[OleBoiii]

I wonder how far they're willing to go in defining neutrality though? When are you neutral?

 

[Moby]

Is that a good thing? Should everything be tolerated? I would have no problems with forcing everybody to wear a helmet in war against fascism if it increases your survivability rate. Once the war is over you can wear it again.

If you had seen a Sikh turban you'd know it isn't always practically feasible either. Not just a matter of someone doing it for the sake of it.

 

[Moby]

A head scarf is much more than an individual dress choice.

Nice of you to assume the thought behind every Muslim person wearing a scarf. No generalization here.

 

[Dr. Funkenstein]

Nice of you to assume the thought behind every Muslim person wearing a scarf. No generalization here.

Some are oppressed into wearing one, others are voluntarily part of the oppression, some don't want comments from muslim men. Whatever, it's not neutral and not without consequences. I don't so why others like employers, who have freedom of religion too, should have to support that.

 

[Dumbstar]

What the feck is this

What he's saying is Muslim women in the West have no choice of their own. These doctors, lawyers and even politicians are forced to wear the hijab by MEN. Just the way Funkyman likes to think of all women I guess because that's where his head seems to be at.

 

[The Corinthian]

A head scarf is much more than an individual dress choice.

Some are oppressed into wearing one, others are voluntarily part of the oppression, some don't want comments from muslim men. Whatever, it's not neutral and not without consequences. I don't so why others like employers, who have freedom of religion too, should have to support that.

I mean, this is generalising and stereotyping as they come. It’s also absolute horseshit. You just come across as an ignorant bigot.

 

[berbatrick]

The gay cake cases in the US inevitably became free speech cases. Free speech of the owner who doesn't want to wish gay customers for their wedding.
Someone (I think Corey Robin) pointed out how the actual writing and decorating of the cake was done by workers, not the owners, but the writing on the cake was taken as the owners' speech rather than the workers.

You start with corporate personhood, and you now have safe-space-needing corporations with homophobic principles that must be protected, or strongly-held religious beliefs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.) or, in the EU, with strongly-held anti-religious beliefs.

 

[Foxbatt]

Some are oppressed into wearing one, others are voluntarily part of the oppression, some don't want comments from muslim men. Whatever, it's not neutral and not without consequences. I don't so why others like employers, who have freedom of religion too, should have to support that.

Don't be ruddy ridiculous. This is Europe you are talking about. Not Saudi Arabia. No one who is working is forced to wear a hijab.

I wonder how The Sikhs are going to feel about it?

 

[Cascarino]

I think it’s crazy in a world where I see minion tops on a weekly basis we’re focusing on religious symbols.

 

[VorZakone]

I mean, this is generalising and stereotyping as they come. It’s also absolute horseshit. You just come across as an ignorant bigot.

This is also tiring to hear though, because that's completely disregarding the instances where Muslim women have been threatened or heavily criticized for leaving Islam etc. I'm not saying Islam is the problem here, but some men go quite far in their disdain for Muslim women behaving more freely.

 

[Peter van der Gea]

Is that a good thing? Should everything be tolerated? I would have no problems with forcing everybody to wear a helmet in war against fascism if it increases your survivability rate. Once the war is over you can wear it again.

It's their choice to wear them because it was their religion. They were volunteers, they didn't have to fight, don't let them fight like that, they won't fight, and the British would have lost some of the best military men they had.

 

[Dan_F]

I don’t really understand the viewpoint that it’s fine as it’s treating all religions the same. I’m as atheist as they come, but I’m struggling to see any positive in this law.

 

[ivaldo]

Seems like it. I'm not religious at all, agnostic at best.

But what about freedom of religion? Seems a little oppressive.

Though it isn't exactly on topic, you're either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Agnosticism deals with knowledge and certainty, while atheism/atheism deals with what you believe. Unless you believe there is a god, you're more than likely an agnostic atheist. Any practical thinking person, whether they believe in god or not, will consider themselves agnostic.