Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
I personally feel the ECHR got it exactly right.

Unless BA lady was wearing a massive blingy pectoral cross, a small bit of discreet jewellery hurts no one. As regards Ms Chaplin the hospital's policy followed what I understand is standard for health workers - your right to display your faith does not trump my disinclination to contract MRSA off your adornments. She was offered the chance to wear her cross inside her clothing but declined: her problem.

And the other two can just get over themselves.

Nicest of all, though, was seeing the secular world display some actual understanding of the rudiments of Christianity, i.e. you do not NEED to wear a cross to be Christian.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
[QUOTE]
And you might have thought Christians could have self-sacrifially put the needs and feelings of OTHERS before themselves that is - first !

Now THAT would be some Witness !

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hairy Biker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
[QUOTE]
And you might have thought Christians could have self-sacrifially put the needs and feelings of OTHERS before themselves that is - first !

Now THAT would be some Witness !

---

I have no doubt that all of these four people do exactly that in their own ways every day of their lives. But those acts don't make the headlines.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Wearing a cross - akin to wearing a brand name I suppose. Would the airline / Euro court have allowed the hijab - headscarf - or the face mask niqab? Where does style, brand, personal belief all meet?

The other refuseniks to provide services, we can only agree about.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
because she is a nurse, and infection control don't let any of us who work in the HNS wear anything other than a wedding band. No watches, no necklaces, nothing below the elbo. Nada.

---

Unbidden images come to mind.

FWIW I'm agreed with that great saint who said "Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." or something like that.

--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
because she is a nurse, and infection control don't let any of us who work in the HNS wear anything other than a wedding band. No watches, no necklaces, nothing below the elbo. Nada.

---

Unbidden images come to mind.

FWIW I'm agreed with that great saint who said "Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." or something like that.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
because she is a nurse, and infection control don't let any of us who work in the HNS wear anything other than a wedding band. No watches, no necklaces, nothing below the elbo. Nada.

---

Unbidden images come to mind.

FWIW I'm agreed with that great saint who said "Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." or something like that.

---

Excellent !

"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary."*

I'd love to use this as a thingie at bottom of my posts !

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
So Mrs Edeida was discriminated against by BA on the grounds of her religion and tey were wrong to do this. We already knew this because they changed their own rules a year later, and Mrs E has carried on working for them all along, now happily wearing her cross.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Midge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aelred of Rievaulx:
because she is a nurse, and infection control don't let any of us who work in the HNS wear anything other than a wedding band. No watches, no necklaces, nothing below the elbo. Nada.

---

Unbidden images come to mind.

FWIW I'm agreed with that great saint who said "Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." or something like that.

---

Excellent !

"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary."*

I'd love to use this as a thingie at bottom of my posts !

---

Be my guest.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Eweida's attitude and behaviour towards colleagues had prompted a number of complaints objecting to her: "Either giving them religious materials unsolicited, or speaking to colleagues in a judgmental or censorious manner which reflected her beliefs; one striking example," said the judgment, "was a report from a gay man that the claimant had told him that it was not too late to be redeemed."....., there is a BA Christian Fellowship group that did not support Eweida's fight, and confirmed that BA was already "making available facilities, time, work spaces, intranet use and supporting Christian charitable activities throughout the world"

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:

Incidentally, all the judges accepted this narrative of Ms Eweida being unhelpful and expecting everything to be arranged in accordance with her whims, because it was specifically cited as a reason to refuse her a single penny/Eurocent of her claim for lost earnings. Whether or not you agree with the ruling, she's not the victim of some monstrous injustice.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
According
to this,

---

quote:

---

"Leave your religion at the door, please. And if you won't and your religion doesn't permit you to work in the way that this jobs demands you do, then please find another job that will."

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Right decision for right reasons IMO

---

Matt, you know I hate it when I agree with you.

Just need to check the Daily Mail website, if they've come all out against it, then I'll know we're both right...

AFZ

I wear a cross necklace at work all the time (It's Kenyan Soapstone that I bought direct from the craftsman in a mountain village... sorry, got carried away, but there is no infection control issue, because it's under my clothes).

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I think the BA lady who won her case should not have done so. it turns out there is more than meets the eye as far as she goes. According
to this,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Also from that article:

quote:

---

"Leave your religion at the door, please. And if you won't and your religion doesn't permit you to work in the way that this jobs demands you do, then please find another job that will."

---

I heartily agree with this sentiment. Why do so many Christians find it so hard to follow?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I think the BA lady who won her case should not have done so. it turns out there is more than meets the eye as far as she goes. According
to this,

---

But the fact that someone is annoying and inappropriate is not in itself a reason to deny them their rights.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I think the BA lady who won her case should not have done so. it turns out there is more than meets the eye as far as she goes. According
to this,

---

But the fact that someone is annoying and inappropriate is not in itself a reason to deny them their rights.

---

I think it is IF they are misusing their work time to badger other people about religion and to put down colleagues who are gay.

However eccentric and 'different' we may be, we all work as part of a team and should not override teamwork for our own personal agendas which have nothing to do with our work.

Nor do we have the 'right' to offend colleagues, which seems to me to be what this woman did.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
'If I feel a Christian imperative to love my neighbour as myself, should I leave that at the door at work?'

It is not 'a christian imperative' alone

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

But the employment cases have presumably clarified matters. You can't refuse to work with gay people, or refuse to serve them, or trash them, if you are a counsellor. If you want to do that, go elsewhere.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
One of the most disturbing things I find about the aftermath of this case is to read a lot of people not sticking up for their co-religionists, even if they don't actually agree with them. Do you feel guilty that you don't yourselves wander around wearing personal faith related jewelry?!

I've no idea whether jewelry carries germs or not. But it's clear from the dissenting judgements that in the case of the Registrar, the organisation she worked for had made no attempt even to consider adjusting rotas, to accommodate someone who had been there before this change became law.

On the therapist case, which is local to here, there's two other issues that no one seems to be very vexed about, which I would have thought they should be.

The first is, would you want to receive sex-therapy from a therapist who thought what you were doing was disgusting but felt obliged to dissimulate and pretend otherwise so as to be able to provide therapy to the other people using the service that he or she thought they'd joined the organisation to help?

I would have thought most of us would rather receive therapy from a therapist we thought was in sympathy with who we are, and would expect any competent organisation that matched clients and therapists to have a selection of therapists and to try and fit them with the clients.

The second, is do you really think that an organisation which allows someone to start training with them, should be entitled to sack them for gross misconduct for the reason in this case, rather than to say 'look, your ethos doesn't fit with ours and we think you should go and work somewhere else'? 'Gross misconduct' is the sort of condemnation that goes with theft, embezzlement, spectacular insubordination or seducing a patient. It denotes serious moral turpitude. It should not be available for ideological or philosophical differences.

Nor, though I think in this case this comment may be tangential, should it be available as an excuse for aggressive employers to get rid of people without making them redundant in the normal way or thinning a workforce down on the cheap.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

But the employment cases have presumably clarified matters. You can't refuse to work with gay people, or refuse to serve them, or trash them, if you are a counsellor. If you want to do that, go elsewhere.

---

Yes. This is good news. Hopefully no more grey areas there?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

But the employment cases have presumably clarified matters. You can't refuse to work with gay people, or refuse to serve them, or trash them, if you are a counsellor. If you want to do that, go elsewhere.

---

Yes. This is good news. Hopefully no more grey areas there?

---

No it isn't a good thing: it is an oppressive thing. And no gay person who actually thought about its potential consequences could be in favour of it.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
If I feel a Christian imperative to love my neighbour as myself, should I leave that at the door at work?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
If one can believe that article it sounds as though the complainant was a right pain in the proverbial but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that she was forbidden to wear a cross because of uniform regulations whilst turbans and hijabs were allowed.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

But the employment cases have presumably clarified matters. You can't refuse to work with gay people, or refuse to serve them, or trash them, if you are a counsellor. If you want to do that, go elsewhere.

---

Yes. This is good news. Hopefully no more grey areas there?

---

No it isn't a good thing: it is an oppressive thing. And no gay person who actually thought about its potential consequences could be in favour of it.

---

Well, go on and explain for all us thickos who can't work out why being allowed to discriminate against people would be a good thing.

Not to mention why not being allowed to discriminate is oppressive, of course.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If my job changes to one I'm no longer willing to do for whatever reason, then yes, the correct course of action is for me to find another job. Employers do this sort of thing all the time - start to require weekend or evening working for example. When your contract changes, it's generally true that you either accept the new contract or find a new job, because the job under the old contract doesn't exist any more.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If my job changes to one I'm no longer willing to do for whatever reason, then yes, the correct course of action is for me to find another job. Employers do this sort of thing all the time - start to require weekend or evening working for example. When your contract changes, it's generally true that you either accept the new contract or find a new job, because the job under the old contract doesn't exist any more.

---

Well Karl you might be letting your employer off the hook if he changes your terms and conditions of employment without your agreement. Why should you be expected to do something you find morally irksome if it was never part of your original contract?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
Well Karl you might be letting your employer off the hook if he changes your terms and conditions of employment without your agreement. Why should you be expected to do something you find morally irksome if it was never part of your original contract?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If my job changes to one I'm no longer willing to do for whatever reason, then yes, the correct course of action is for me to find another job. Employers do this sort of thing all the time - start to require weekend or evening working for example. When your contract changes, it's generally true that you either accept the new contract or find a new job, because the job under the old contract doesn't exist any more.

---

Well Karl you might be letting your employer off the hook if he changes your terms and conditions of employment without your agreement. Why should you be expected to do something you find morally irksome if it was never part of your original contract?

---

This might be tangential - do you actually know that the terms and conditions or the contract of employment actually changed in these cases? Dealing with all people equally may not have been explicitly included in the contract, but it's not in mine either - I'd still expect to be in trouble if I refused to fix someone's computer because they were working in termination of pregnancy on grounds of opposing abortion.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
Even under the present legislation people are not all dealt with equally for the purposes of marriage. The state does not allow marriage in certain cases of consanguinity. If I became a registrar now and then down the line the state decided that brothers and sisters can get married (probably a Liberal Democrat policy if one could be bothered to read their manifesto) then do you think I should be obliged to marry them even though when I became a registrar it was nowhere on the radar?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
Even under the present legislation people are not all dealt with equally for the purposes of marriage. The state does not allow marriage in certain cases of consanguinity. If I became a registrar now and then down the line the state decided that brothers and sisters can get married (probably a Liberal Democrat policy if one could be bothered to read their manifesto) then do you think I should be obliged to marry them even though when I became a registrar it was nowhere on the radar?

---

I think that it is an incredibly dangerous situation when agents of the state start feeling their personal judgment can and should be substituted for the law of the land. Arbitrary application of the law is a hugely destructive practice.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
that leads eventually to something like the Third Reich.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
It is far more dangerous when agents of the state adopt the state's policy without any thought to the moral consequences. That is the "I was only obeying orders" defence.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
that leads eventually to something like the Third Reich.

---

You lose. Thanks for playing. There's the door.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
that leads eventually to something like the Third Reich.

---

You lose. Thanks for playing. There's the door.

---

Can you never resist dumb one-liners?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
that leads eventually to something like the Third Reich.

---

You lose. Thanks for playing. There's the door.

---

Can you never resist dumb one-liners?

---

Against asinine, fucked-up, stupid comments like yours? Probably not.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I addressed the comment, not the person. Unlike some.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
Well if your employer (if you have one) makes some post contractual changes to your conditions of employment then I expect you will resign without further ado. It is no different than a nurse with strong catholic views being sacked because he or she is suddenly expected to undertake abortions when that was never part of her original remit. If individuals have to change their moral code for fear of losing their jobs because of employers who know full well that they are effectively changing the terms of their employment then that leads eventually to something like the Third Reich.

---

• Replacing the 10 oz. cup with a 12 oz. cup ---> Hitler
• Tranfer to the East Side branch office ---> liquidating the ghettos
• New business cards with new logo ---> Reichstag fire
• Change in paid leave policy ---> Final Solution