Christians taking beliefs to European courts

Two for not being allowed to wear crosses to work, one for refusing to give advise to gay couples and one for refusing to marry a gay couple.

Good luck to them all, What a disgrace, compounded that they also lost employment tribunals. What an absolutely disgusting infrigment of their human rights. Why should they be forced to advise and marry gays if they don't agree with it? Why should they remove their crosses, would we asks Sikhs to remove their turbans?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19472438

Would you mary a gay Turks?

If I was asked too. People shouldn't be sacked for refusing to though. I thought we lived in an equal society where people have choices.

I don't think they have you down as husband material but good to see you are open minded.

I think that freedom of choice should be limited to the job someone is paid to do. If there is an area of the job they are unable to do then they should not do that job. I would not be happy to see a Muslim morgate adviser if it was his belief that due to his religion, he could not lend me money whatever my circumstances. He should not be doing that job. The same goes for Jewish bar man that refuses to sell pork scratchings, a budest butcher that refuses to sell meat, the list goes on.

Why should their careers be limited due to their religious beliefs? Fair enough if it's for security reasons like the Sikh firearms policemen being made to remove their turbans so they can put protective helmets on, but where is the harm in wearing a cross as nurse? The relate guy might be a brilliant counsellor, yet is being forced to do something against his beliefs or be sacked. How is this fair in an equal society? They should have the choice to say no if they find it offensive and they are within their rights to.

I've got no real problem with religious iconography worn by people, but I also accept that it means something very different to them than it does to me.

Where do you draw the line, though? Do we leave it at personal adornment, or do we start allowing people to proselytise in their workplaces? After all, talking about one's religion is just as much a form of expression as outward facing symbols.

Some branch of Christianity has had cultural primacy for over a millennium in this country. They've had their time front and centre. It's gone.

I've got no real problem with religious iconography worn by people, but I also accept that it means something very different to them than it does to me.

 

Where do you draw the line, though? Do we leave it at personal adornment, or do we start allowing people to proselytise in their workplaces? After all, talking about one's religion is just as much a form of expression as outward facing symbols.

 

Some branch of Christianity has had cultural primacy for over a millennium in this country. They've had their time front and centre. It's gone.

We are all liberal people on here Pap. If people want to wear religious iconography, talk about thier beliefs at work or refuse to do something because it's against thier beliefs then we should accept that, maybe we should listen to them as we might learn something!

I think the problem the nurse had was with her hospital's Health and Safety regulations.

Before anyone starts moaning about H & S, nursing staff are not allowed to wear jewelry generally - because there is always a risk that a disturbed patient can grab it and strangle the nurse and, of course, there is an infection risk too.

European Courts have just ruled - British Airways woman has won but the other 3 have lost.

A disgraceful verdict. The European court has decided that the British airways woman was discrimated against, the other 3 werent. What a sick world we live in where people are being prejudice against because of their religion.

Yep it was a H & S issue with the nurse. The other two were considered to be the discriminators in that they didn't treat their service users equally. But the 3 can appeal apparently.

Yep it was a H & S issue with the nurse. The other two were considered to be the discriminators in that they didn't treat their service users equally. But the 3 can appeal apparently.

It's their religious beliefs though, why should they compromise these for political correctness?

We are all liberal people on here Pap. If people want to wear religious iconography, talk about thier beliefs at work or refuse to do something because it's against thier beliefs then we should accept that, maybe we should listen to them as we might learn something!

You should try working for a company that is infested with evangelicals, mate. Literally one day a week was spent fending off their advances.

You should try working for a company that is infested with evangelicals, mate. Literally one day a week was spent fending off their advances.

Having anyone push their beliefs can be very irritating. I don't think it's just evangelicals, though. In a previous job, I got bored with atheists pushing their beliefs, and the BBC seems to push "liberal" opinion quite hard sometimes. But getting irritated that some people don't know when to shut up is different from denying their freedom fo speech, or conscience, or belief.

They had a bloke on 5live this morning talking about this. He said that in each case the individuas were given permission to where a cross on their lapels instead as opposed to a cross on a chain. He also went to point out that most Christians agreed with the stance on the crosses on chains (banning them in certain cases) and that the indivduals concerned were pentcostal christians who believe in miracles, symbols etc. He went to make the point that Pentacostals also believe that christians will be persecuted before the second coming of christ, so it is almost as if they welcome any form of persecution because it (in their minds) brings them closer to the second coming.

IMO For health and sefety issues then, religous beliefs should be set aside, however in the case of the counsellor not willing to provide sex thearpy to a gay couple, then surely provision can be made to accomodate their wishes i.e. referring them to an alternative thearapist. I don't see the harm in that.

Didn't we have this thread a couple of months ago?

As I said then, I think religion is pandered to too much. Religion is a personal choice and other people shouldn't be made to accommodate it. If you believe your religion means you must do things that do not fit that job, then you believe that this job is not compatible with your religion. this is the kind of sacrifice a believer should be prepared to make.

Didn't we have this thread a couple of months ago?

 

As I said then, I think religion is pandered to too much. Religion is a personal choice and other people shouldn't be made to accommodate it. If you believe your religion means you must do things that do not fit that job, then you believe that this job is not compatible with your religion. this is the kind of sacrifice a believer should be prepared to make.

To be fair to the complainants, these cases came about due to a uniform policy changeand in the counsellor case, changes to the equality laws in this country. They were already in the jobs before the changes have been made, and in the case of the nurse for 30 years without issue.

You should try working for a company that is infested with evangelicals, mate. Literally one day a week was spent fending off their advances.

My old divisional director was one, he sorted a few of his church mates with jobs in the company. Born Again Christian i think. Very odd man. I didn't like him, not because he was religious or anything he believed in, but because he was a helmet. One of his mates he brought in was a lovely fella and we had a few interesting chats about his beliefs. Some i could understand, some i couldn't but that's his choice. As a liberal country we should understand that and appreciate that they have a voice.

It's their religious beliefs though, why should they compromise these for political correctness?

Don’t nurses whose religion emphasises the sanctity of life compromise their beliefs every time they help out with assisted dying etc?

Or do they just wash their hands and whistle-blow on those that do?

Don’t nurses whose religion emphasises the sanctity of life compromise their beliefs every time they help out with assisted dying etc?

 

Or do they just wash their hands and whistle-blow on those that do?

Do they do this??? How do you know?? And if they do do it, that is also their choice and not for us to judge them on what their beliefs are and what it allows them to do or not.

Having anyone push their beliefs can be very irritating. I don't think it's just evangelicals, though. In a previous job, I got bored with atheists pushing their beliefs, and the BBC seems to push "liberal" opinion quite hard sometimes. But getting irritated that some people don't know when to shut up is different from denying their freedom fo speech, or conscience, or belief.

I'm what you'd call a quiet atheist. That's my view, and I really don't want to push it on anyone else. As someone who likes to discover things for himself, I find the dogma of religious truths to be bloody limiting.

As for denying belief, I ask again, where do you draw the line? I specifically mentioned evangelicals because a specific part of their practice of religion involves getting other people to believe the same things they do. In the contest of beliefs, my belief that they should keep it to themselves or their belief I should believe what they do, who wins?

I'm what you'd call a quiet atheist. That's my view, and I really don't want to push it on anyone else. As someone who likes to discover things for himself, I find the dogma of religious truths to be bloody limiting.

 

As for denying belief, I ask again, where do you draw the line? I specifically mentioned evangelicals because a specific part of their practice of religion involves getting other people to believe the same things they do. In the contest of beliefs, my belief that they should keep it to themselves or their belief I should believe what they do, who wins?

Dont they beleive that it's their mandate from God to preach about it and try and convert people or something? If that's what they believe then good on them. If they believe in something passionately and it's improve their life so it inspires them to do something about it and tell others then i'm all for it. Better than sitting around doing nothing moaning about how bad their life is like a lot of people do. We all watched in wonder at the olympic athletes inspiring a nation with their efforts, this is a similar thing.

Dont they beleive that it's their mandate from God to preach about it and try and convert people or something? If that's what they believe then good on them. If they believe in something passionately and it's improve their life so it inspires them to do something about it and tell others then i'm all for it. Better than sitting around doing nothing moaning about how bad their life is like a lot of people do. We all watched in wonder at the olympic athletes inspiring a nation with their efforts, this is a similar thing.

Dont Jehovah Witnesses have to convert / save a certain number of people in order to be admitted to heaven?

Dont they beleive that it's their mandate from God to preach about it and try and convert people or something? If that's what they believe then good on them. If they believe in something passionately and it's improve their life so it inspires them to do something about it and tell others then i'm all for it. Better than sitting around doing nothing moaning about how bad their life is like a lot of people do. We all watched in wonder at the olympic athletes inspiring a nation with their efforts, this is a similar thing.

Many of them do believe that they are doing God's work by a relentless policy of recruitment. Thing is, they're never comfortable enough in God's power to be up-front about what their endgame is, which in many cases, is to have you crying your eyes out in front of a complete bunch of strangers confessing all your sins. Or afterward, making outrageous demands on the lives of their members.

It's also very interesting to see what happens when people leave an evangelical church. Many organisations have a distinct in-group/out-group philosophy. All those friends you thought you had? Gone.

Before anyone asks, I've never been a member of any church; I'm not an embittered survivor or anything. I have seen people come out the other end, and I have seen born-agains circle the temporarily-downhearted like sharks in a feeding frenzy. It's not pretty - irreconcilable with the notion of cuddly, mostly harmless Christians.

But then, that's religion all over. In many ways, the teachings of Holy Books are fundamentally irreconcilable with modern life, as the ongoing schism in Anglicanism is doing a good job of illustrating.

Many of them do believe that they are doing God's work by a relentless policy of recruitment. Thing is, they're never comfortable enough in God's power to be up-front about what their endgame is, which in many cases, is to have you crying your eyes out in front of a complete bunch of strangers confessing all your sins. Or afterward, making outrageous demands on the lives of their members.

 

It's also very interesting to see what happens when people leave an evangelical church. Many organisations have a distinct in-group/out-group philosophy. All those friends you thought you had? Gone.

 

Before anyone asks, I've never been a member of any church; I'm not an embittered survivor or anything. I have seen people come out the other end, and I have seen born-agains circle the temporarily-downhearted like sharks in a feeding frenzy. It's not pretty - irreconcilable with the notion of cuddly, mostly harmless Christians.

 

But then, that's religion all over. In many ways, the teachings of Holy Books are fundamentally irreconcilable with modern life, as the ongoing schism in Anglicanism is doing a good job of illustrating.

They could save all the leg work and give them two litres of Gin to achieve that.

Do they do this??? How do you know?? And if they do do it, that is also their choice and not for us to judge them on what their beliefs are and what it allows them to do or not.

There have been a number of cases where hospital staff, because of their strong religious convictions, have whistle-blown on colleagues involved in assisted dying. I can only assume that others with the same convictions have found a way to accommodate their beliefs within their jobs, or have, indeed, compromised their beliefs.... rather like 'good' Catholics do every time they practice non-ordained birth control.

Mother Teresa said that ‘suffering was a gift from God’. Others believe that suffering is a ‘test’ to be endured. Each to his own, I say, but having seen my father die from cancer, I, myself, do not share these sentiments; and, if me or one of my loved ones ever find ourselves suffering similarly, the last thing I want is our treatment being compromised by a zealot’s religious convictions.

A disgraceful verdict. The European court has decided that the British airways woman was discrimated against, the other 3 werent. What a sick world we live in where people are being prejudice against because of their religion.

You're trying just a little too hard at the moment. Take a break and come back refreshed.

You're trying just a little too hard at the moment. Take a break and come back refreshed.

Quite.