What if your religion requires all men to wear pink tutus and women eight foot tall hats. By the way there is no new law.I hate religion, but it's quite apparent that it runs deeper than a simple fashion choiceIt's very important to people. Discriminating against religion is a small step below discriminating against race, gender and sexual orientation.
EU companies can ban employees from wearing religious symbols
- Thread starter africanspur
- Start date
Why don't they just choose not to be black? *shaking my head*
I don't follow your point. There is no legislation about no religious symbols in private companies, we are talking about internal rules which are made up by the company itself.
Well that religion sounds like a riot, so I'm extra for that!
To be clear, there is no new law and nothing has changed.
It's not apparent, since a fashion choice - at least in Germany - is part of someone's personality. And the latter is also protected by the constitution.I hate religion, but it's quite apparent that it runs deeper than a simple fashion choice
Do people think there's a new law?
The second paragraph in the article emphasises that it just reaffirms an older ruling.
There are loads in EU countries, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Germany and Italy, and that's just the ones I personally know. Plus, since the Hindu nationalist movement in India and the Brexit vote, more and more are moving to the EU.
Well, they did have to change "Ninja" to "Hero" for the American audience...
It shouldn't be. Unless there is a legitimate reason, like H&S, religious wear should be allowed, in company colours if necessary. If you give it a free for all to ban religious wear, people will use it as an excuse to discriminate unregulated.
Sikhs are not allowed to wear anything over their turbans, so even if there was a helmet that fit over, they wouldn't wear it.
Anyway, a turban is a war helmet, designed to stop swords, so they're pretty hardy, and practicing Sikhs have been exempt from wearing helmets on motorcycles since 1973 in the UK
Apparently, a couple of posters have mentioned a law.
"Oh no, like 85 % of the world is part of a religious group, how can I possibly continue to live if I ever see a working person wear a symbol of their religion?"
Saw a cashier wear the hijab last week at Tescos. Intimidated me so much, did not dare to buy pork ham. Unacceptable. Save us, EU.
Saw a cashier wear the hijab last week at Tescos. Intimidated me so much, did not dare to buy pork ham. Unacceptable. Save us, EU.
Before I jump into this: do you really think that religion and individual fashion choices generally carry the same psychological weight?
Whether the answer is "yes" or "no" the debate is over, but I'm curious..
Thanks.
We’re going round in circles.
“The question isn't whether the policy is right or not from your perspective but whether someone is free to choose his own biased policies within his company”
Are you not arguing for the fact that companies should be allowed to decide on their own policies? The reason I bought up legislation is that most companies can’t decide their own biased policies.
We are talking about internal policies, not the policies that are imposed on them. For example, whether employees have to wear an uniform or where they can smoke within the company's ground.
The thing about hijabs hiding faces and it being a security risk or impersonal, I know loads of people who have a beard one week then are clean shaven the next, totally changing the look of their face, is that a security risk? Or people who dye their hair? Or women who sometimes wear high heels, sometimes don't? What if I don't find the inconsistency conducive for a front of house job, can I sack someone for that?
Hypotheically speaking: if a company's internal policy was "no gays allowed", would you be fine with that too?
Seems a bit mean spirited all this. I'm not religious at all but if people want to wear symbols, does it really matter in the scheme of things? I mean is it really harming anyone else? Live and let live.
Are people visibly gay and is it a potential source of tension within the company?
But those policies are impacted by legislation. A company would be free to choose a smoking area, but they wouldn’t be allowed to let everyone smoke inside while working. You can’t separate purely internal policies.
Either way, I don’t think you’re understanding why I’m talking about legislation, so I’m going to leave it. No one here thinks this a new law that is being enforced.
I don't think there exists a visual cue that makes it 100% certain that you are gay. But that is true for relgious clothing as well. I'm sure there are a bunch of non-Christians that wear crosses because they think that they're cool. Or perhaps ironically.
Whoomp there it is.
And non chrsitians who wear crosses ironically or because it's cool shouldn't have any issue not wearing them if asked. And avoiding tension is an argument against bringing religion and politics within certain spaces, some people can't help themselves.
According to Sharia, muslims are supposed to follow the law of the land if they're in a non-muslim country. And if the said law is inconsistent with Islam or is discriminatory, then muslims are advised to migrate somewhere else or put up with the said law if they can't migrate until they have the means to migrate. However in such a scenario no sin will be committed by muslims in following the said law even if it is against Islam.
That wasn't really my point, though. The point is that based on your logic and arguments up until now, a company should be allowed to decide against hiring gays. And they wouldn't need to explain their reasoning. Even if there is no visual cue, the CEO could simply say "I can tell that he's gay, and that's a no go". The CEO wouldn't even have to be correct. Just "looking gay"(based on his/her criteria) would be enough.
What if the owner was anti immigration, so wanted no people of colour at all, whether they were born there or not, because it would give the wrong impression of the owners political views?
People are visibly different races and it can be a potential source of tension within the company.
Indeed I didn't get your point because the conversation wasn't about hiring, it feels like whataboutism. Companies currently do not have to explain their recruitment reasoning and everyone is partially judged on their appearance, so i will avoid your trap and tell you that it's a silly one, your look and whether it fits with the company will be a major point and they won't tell you.
If you picked up all that, don't work for that person. It's not as if you are going to impose new employees on them or that you should.
Ok if we're gonna be pedantic: should a company be able decide that it's against company policy to be gay and failure to comply is a sackable offense, with no legal repercussions?
Sure, but if companies are allowed by law to sack people for any reason they want, then it obviously makes it easier to implement shitty policies. The "no religious symbols" is a good example of this.
Ah, you have the "just switch jobs" perspective. That explains a lot. We disagree so fundamentally about workers' rights that I would be stuck for the rest of the night if we were gonna slip into that. We'll just have to agree to disagree
Pretty sure that would be overt discrimination and therefore illegal in most civilized parts of the world.
Not really. There has always been migration of Sikhs to North America and Europe, especially prompted by the riots in the mid 80s. The current nationalist movement hasn't particularly made a strong enough additional case for emigration however, despite the current farmer protests.
Don't make up points to support arguments.
Edit: My Two cents on the issue. As long as there are no safety or security threats, does the attire really matter.
Which law are you talking about and in which country?Ah, you have the "just switch jobs" perspective. That explains a lot. We disagree so fundamentally about workers' rights that I would be stuck for the rest of the night if we were gonna slip into that. We'll just have to agree to disagree
Well I won't take a job with a dress code, if I don't want to follow it, I also wouldn't want to work for a company that I deem racist or homophobic.Ah, you have the "just switch jobs" perspective. That explains a lot. We disagree so fundamentally about workers' rights that I would be stuck for the rest of the night if we were gonna slip into that. We'll just have to agree to disagree
There would be a legal repecussion because unlike the instauration of a dress code, homophobia is a discrimination forbidden by law. Now if you think that no internal rules should ever be applied that's your opinion.
Welcome to the West, where, unlike the backward middle east and Asia, you are free to practice your religion and are free from discrimination for your belief.
If I'm not gay, can I stop gay symbols in my office? Like if anyone has a small rainbow flag I can say I'm not gay, I don't believe in gay, so take your gay away from my office, you gay.
FREEEEDOM.
If I'm not gay, can I stop gay symbols in my office? Like if anyone has a small rainbow flag I can say I'm not gay, I don't believe in gay, so take your gay away from my office, you gay.
FREEEEDOM.
Last edited:
I'd say going by the picture posted earlier maybe hiyabs are somewhat universally accepted (and even that is probably a very optimistic thing to say), but I have no doubt that anything beyond that is bad for business in the majority of places.
What I'm also interested in is the question how far are employers allowed to go based on (a change in) appearance. Say a bank teller got a clearly visible tattoo. Or insists on some other dress code violation?
How did you determine this?
Weird takes on this.
Companies aren't allowed to discriminate against one religion, and the immediate thought is "Ah, companies can use this to discriminate against muslims"
The Luxembourg court said employers had to show a “genuine need” for the ban, such as “the legitimate wishes” of customers or users, or “the adverse consequences that that employer would suffer in the absence of that policy”.
Companies aren't allowed to discriminate against one religion, and the immediate thought is "Ah, companies can use this to discriminate against muslims"
The Luxembourg court said employers had to show a “genuine need” for the ban, such as “the legitimate wishes” of customers or users, or “the adverse consequences that that employer would suffer in the absence of that policy”.
But that's a vague statement. How far is it willing to go in accepting complaints from customers or users?
I don't know?
However, i'm tempted to guess that isolated incidents with customers complaining doesn't qualify as genuine need, nor do i honestly believe that companies are actually eager to enforce policies that can easily end up hurting them more by being portraited as "fuelled by racism" in media.
There will always be some, but there's not really much you can do about it.
I know people who have specifically moved here because of that. Their lived experiences are worth more than point scoring in an argument. If you're gonna accuse someone of lying, be sure he is or you look a twat