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.

---

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 !

---

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.

---

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.

---

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 by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :
 

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.

---

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 !

---

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.

---

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.

---

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"

---

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.

---

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."

---

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).
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.

[ 21. January 2013, 16:25: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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?

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

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.

---

From this we gather:

• 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

Remember kids, if your present day of employment isn't exactly like the one before (and identical to every other day since you took the job) the jackbooted Stormtroopers are just around the corner. Don't say you weren't warned!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
None of your examples is a moral decision. Why not take the example of the nurse required to take part in abortions as the point of argument? Or perhaps someone working in a nursing home who at some future date might be required to euthanise (sp?) a patient.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
From this we gather:

• 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

Remember kids, if your present day of employment isn't exactly like the one before (and identical to every other day since you took the job) the jackbooted Stormtroopers are just around the corner. Don't say you weren't warned!

---

None of your examples is a moral decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
None of your examples is a moral decision. Why not take the example of the nurse required to take part in abortions as the point of argument? Or perhaps someone working in a nursing home who at some future date might be required to euthanise (sp?) a patient.

---

As you;re so keen to have previously-raised examples addressed, perhaps you;d like to answer the one Croesus raised?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
From this we gather:

• 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

Remember kids, if your present day of employment isn't exactly like the one before (and identical to every other day since you took the job) the jackbooted Stormtroopers are just around the corner. Don't say you weren't warned!

---

None of your examples is a moral decision.

---

According to who? Your position is based on the idea that employees are able to substitute their own moral standards for company policy. Why shouldn't we take an employee seriously who claims that a 12 oz. cup is an abomination or that then new corporate logo is insulting to his faith?

I think your position can be summarized as "the law should accommodate my specific moral code, but not things which I personally don't consider to fall under the umbrella of morality". The big problem is that in most pluralisitic, Western societies government has given up the idea of maintaining a Department of Inquisition to patrol the limits of what is and is not a moral decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
And why don't you administer the thread so that we don't have to suffer abuse from dicks like Mousethief?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
And why don't you administer the thread so that we don't have to suffer abuse from dicks like Mousethief?

---

Because I'm not a Host. Your turn to answer a question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:
And why don't you administer the thread so that we don't have to suffer abuse from dicks like Mousethief?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

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?

---

I'm not sure an individual employee should be allowed to dictate terms like that. For instance, say you were hired as a waitress at a "Whites Only" lunch counter in the late 1950s. A few years later public pressure forces your employer to reverse this policy and racially integrate, allowing all races to be served at your luncheonette. Is the employer obligated open a second, still "Whites Only" counter to accommodate its employees who find integration "morally irksome"? Just allow individual employees to only serve white customers, undercutting the new company policy? From the company's perspective the job hasn't changed (serving food), though some employees would say that it has (serving food to non-whites). I'm not seeing a way that an accommodation could be made in a case like that without drastically undercutting the employer's ability to run his business.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

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.

---

And that is not a personal attack?

Well after a decade this is the last ever post I make to this website. If you cannot administer it without partiality it does not deserve the time of day.

You can ban me for life for all I care.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure an individual employee should be allowed to dictate terms like that. For instance, say you were hired as a waitress at a "Whites Only" lunch counter in the late 1950s. A few years later public pressure forces your employer to reverse this policy and racially integrate, allowing all races to be served at your luncheonette. Is the employer obligated open a second, still "Whites Only" counter to accommodate its employees who find integration "morally irksome"? Just allow individual employees to only serve white customers, undercutting the new company policy? From the company's perspective the job hasn't changed (serving food), though some employees would say that it has (serving food to non-whites). I'm not seeing a way that an accommodation could be made in a case like that without drastically undercutting the employer's ability to run his business.

---

But what would be the moral grounds for not serving a non-white person?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by aumbry:

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.

---

And that is not a personal attack?

Well after a decade this is the last ever post I make to this website. If you cannot administer it without partiality it does not deserve the time of day.

You can ban me for life for all I care.

---

Hostly Hat ON
Aumbry, you are not a newbie. You know full well that all discussion of hostly matters is confined to Styx. STOP THIS CRAP NOW.

--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Hostly Hat OFF

---

Thank you to everyone who makes the effort of a good argument. And goodbye for ever.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
What interests me about this, is that some Christians obviously feel that they should be able to break the law. Well, I think sometimes that is justifiable, but it is normally in extreme conditions, isn't it? - one might think for example of the attempted assassination of Hitler, or sheltering Jews in Germany, both of which Christians may have agreed with.

But that seems rather a long way from refusing to counsel gay clients, or do a civil partnership.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
What bothers me is that they make the decision to break the law, for no good reason, then cry 'persecution' when called on it.


 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, their right to discriminate has been oppressed.
 

---

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evangeline:
The very fact that BA has wasted so much time and resources on trying to stop this woman wearing a cross outside her uniform is, actually outrageous and persuades me that there is something to Eweida's claims. I know Eweida was funded by a Christian lobby group and she and they were pushing this all the way but I would have thought that BA might have had a bit more smarts about them.

---

I'm going to come back to this one, because it's wrong by 180 degrees. BA in fact put a lot of time and resources into reviewing and then amending their uniform policy, following Ms Eweida's complaint.

After working for two years without any problem with the policy, she complained, and they agreed a working arrangement while they reviewed the policy (when it must have been tempting to tell her where to get off). Then she started deliberately ignoring that arrangement, so she was offered non-uniform roles at the same pay while the grievance and review were ongoing (again, a remarkably generous offer to a difficult and deliberately provocative employee). She refused those offers, and instead chose to go on unpaid leave. Finally, BA decided after review that their policy could be relaxed to permit her to wear a small cross.

That was all years ago. The time and resources that have been spent were entirely down to Ms Eweida attempting to make a big deal out of this and suing for the loss of earnings when she refused perfectly reasonable equivalents while policy was reviewed, despite receiving a number of donations (more than she would have earned over the period, according to the ECHR judges) thanks to all the publicity. If anyone was dragging this out, it wasn't BA.

And the greatest travesty is that BA's careful and considered accommodation of such an obstructive employee was then held against them as evidence that their existing policy was discriminatory.

To be honest, I thought Lilian Ladele had a better case. She could genuinely claim to have suffered a fundamental change in her job which conflicted with her conscience, with no equivalent accommodation for her beliefs. Whether she should have won is another matter, but she definitely had the best case of the four. The law is an ass.
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What interests me about this, is that some Christians obviously feel that they should be able to break the law. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
None of these instances was about them insisting on being entitled to break the law.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What interests me about this, is that some Christians obviously feel that they should be able to break the law. ...

---

No. None of these instances was about them insisting on being entitled to break the law. They are about whether there are, or should be, any limits to an employer's rights to order an employee to go against their own conscience or religion, and to sack them if they don't comply i.e. when at work, does a servant have any title to his or her conscience or is it solely at their master's behest?

---

I can understand how the issues to do with same-sex couples might be about going against conscience or religion, but I completely fail to see how any Christian could argue that wearing a cross is such a matter of faith that being unable to wear it is actually going to cause some kind of moral crisis or involve going against God's teachings.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Indeed; my Exclusive Brethren in-laws would be aghast at the suggestion that a Christian would wear a cross; such a thing would be akin to idolatry for them. So there's hardly a Christian consensus on the issue...
 

---

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
No, there isn't a Christian consensus, but then there isn't on anything, including the relevant subject of gay marriage. Bizarre, unorthodox and even heretical religious beliefs should have as much right to be considered as any others. If people believe they must wear a cross as part of their religious beliefs, that belief should be respected.

And then they should lose their cases because their beliefs don't get to override health and safety, infection control and uniform policy.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What interests me about this, is that some Christians obviously feel that they should be able to break the law. ...

---

No. None of these instances was about them insisting on being entitled to break the law. They are about whether there are, or should be, any limits to an employer's rights to order an employee to go against their own conscience or religion, and to sack them if they don't comply i.e. when at work, does a servant have any title to his or her conscience or is it solely at their master's behest?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
They are about whether there are, or should be, any limits to an employer's rights to order an employee to go against their own conscience or religion

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
They are about whether there are, or should be, any limits to an employer's rights to order an employee to go against their own conscience or religion

---

Surely those limits are set out in the employee's contract of employment? An employer, at least in theory, can't oblige an employee to do something that they aren't contractually supposed to do. Conversely, signing a contract of employment where the job description includes X rather implies you have no conscientious objection to X.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, neither registrars nor counsellors are entitled to discriminate against gays? Nor against black people, or women.

I believe the relevant legislation is known elegantly as Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations.

It outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services, education and public functions on the grounds of sexual orientation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But was her contract amended in that way? Or what it simply the case that she was obliged by the contract to issue licences for marriage which the law change then extended to include CPs?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Which is where Lilian Ladele comes in. In her case, the contract didn't change, but the nature of the work did, as a result of new legislation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure an individual employee should be allowed to dictate terms like that. For instance, say you were hired as a waitress at a "Whites Only" lunch counter in the late 1950s. A few years later public pressure forces your employer to reverse this policy and racially integrate, allowing all races to be served at your luncheonette. Is the employer obligated open a second, still "Whites Only" counter to accommodate its employees who find integration "morally irksome"? Just allow individual employees to only serve white customers, undercutting the new company policy? From the company's perspective the job hasn't changed (serving food), though some employees would say that it has (serving food to non-whites). I'm not seeing a way that an accommodation could be made in a case like that without drastically undercutting the employer's ability to run his business.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
The thing is the ECHR wasn't asked to rule on whether Ladele had been asked to perform duties that weren't in her job description.

---

quote:

---

Marvin - in that particular example, assuming a.) the employee's contract specifically states she's only obliged to serve whites, b.) there's no anti-discrimination statute that would rule such a clause unlawful, and c.) the employer wasn't smart enough to add an 'any other duties that might reasonably arise' boilerplate clause into her contract, then yes, she shouldn't be contractually obliged to serve blacks (regardless of the morality of the situation), and if that undermines the owner's business, then that's his fault for drawing up the terms of her contract in that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Her job as a registrar was to officiate at marriage ceremonies. That has not changed.

---

quote:

---

(a) misses the point. No contract back then would have specifically said "whites only", because that was just understood. Similarly, no registrar contract from a few decades ago would say "opposite-sex only", because that was understood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Marvin - in that particular example, assuming a.) the employee's contract specifically states she's only obliged to serve whites, b.) there's no anti-discrimination statute that would rule such a clause unlawful, and c.) the employer wasn't smart enough to add an 'any other duties that might reasonably arise' boilerplate clause into her contract, then yes, she shouldn't be contractually obliged to serve blacks (regardless of the morality of the situation), and if that undermines the owner's business, then that's his fault for drawing up the terms of her contract in that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, neither registrars nor counsellors are entitled to discriminate against gays? Nor against black people, or women.

I believe the relevant legislation is known elegantly as Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations.

It outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities, services, education and public functions on the grounds of sexual orientation.

---

Odd, isn't it, that Churches are allowed to do exactly that?



 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
According to this, that BA woman is taking out another discrimination claim.

it's about disability but i am fed up with her.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0