 |
|
|
|
|
September 4th, 2012
08:07 AM ET
Christians take discrimination cases to Europe's top courtBy Richard Allen Greene, CNN Four British Christians urged Europe's top court Tuesday to rule that they faced discrimination because of their religious beliefs. Two women accuse their employers of refusing to let them wear crosses openly at work. Alongside them, a woman who declined to register gay civil partnerships and a man who did not want to give sex therapy to same-sex couples say they were unfairly dismissed from their jobs. Gary McFarlane, the relationship counselor, said he was pleased with the way Tuesday's hearing went. "Today, for the first time, I heard somebody talking about my rights," he said. "Surely I have some rights. I am a member of society. I have some beliefs."
He called it a "tragedy" that the case had gone all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. He blamed "overzealous employers" who "would not consider reasonable accommodation" for his religious beliefs. He never refused to treat a specific couple, raising his religious objections only in the abstract, said Andrea Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, which is supporting him. He and the other three Christians are fighting the British government, saying it failed to protect their rights. The case could help to draw a clear boundary in cases where religious views contradict laws against discrimination. It will have implications across 47 countries on the continent. The court ruling will not be binding in Britain in the way that a Supreme Court ruling would be, but the country is legally obliged to take it into account. The four - Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, who wanted to wear crosses; registrar Lilian Ladele; and McFarlane, the relationship counselor - have lost every round of their battles through the British legal system. They're now making their claims under European human rights law, focusing on guarantees of freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination at work. Eweida, who works for British Airways, said she experienced discrimination from 2006 to 2007, when she started wearing the cross visibly and was transferred to another job. The airline has since changed its policy on uniforms to allow employees to wear religious or charity symbols. But Chaplin, a nurse, ultimately lost her job after her employer changed its uniforms to include V-necks, which made her cross visible. Her manager asked her to remove it for fear it could lead to injury when she was working with patients, according to court papers. She refused. Both women lost their cases in British employment tribunals. Eweida's tribunal ruled that wearing a cross was a personal choice, not a requirement of Christianity, while Chaplin's tribunal found there were legitimate health and safety reasons to bar her from wearing the symbol around her neck. Chaplin said Tuesday that she didn't believe it. "The council that runs risk assessment said they have no previous cases of injury from crucifixes," she said after the hearing concluded. Ladele and McFarlane also lost employment tribunal battles, with the tribunals finding that their employers could require them to perform their jobs. Their employers were entitled to refuse to accommodate religious views that contradicted British laws banning discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, the tribunals found. All four Christians were denied hearings further up the British legal chain, pushing their cases to the European Court in Strasbourg. Its rulings normally take months after a case is argued. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Actually people must think seriously before taking a job that requires confrontation with religious beliefs. If a doctor decides not to attend any person for his/her religious or personal belief.....or a nurse refused to attend a lady to assist birth due to her belief, then what will happen...! People cannot avoid professional responsibility in the name of religion or personal inclination. This might happen in religiously divided countries like Israel or strongly Christian countries in some part of Europe or USA.
With that line of thinking you could apply that to any job, not just the ones you stated. I think everyone is/has bias no matter how much you may think you don't. So in any job you do you may have different beliefs, morals and such that will influence what you say, how you do it and such. So is it wrong to say, as a marriage counselor, to a gay couple wishing to get married: " I am sorry but due to my religious beliefs I don't feel I would be the best person to counsel you". That is just being honest and the last time I checked honesty is still acceptable??? So does the employer fire that person? ask them to lie? or take action against them?
It sounds, feels like most of the comments before mine are shoving their beliefs down my throat. Christians, well most Christians, are very tolerant to other peoples view and put up with idiotic comment like the ones before mine. If my beliefs are sooooooooo terrifying to you, you need to get a thicker skin and grow up. Diversity, Diversity, diversity people. This is what is being preached every where I go and what is being thrown at us every time we turn around and I think it was the minorities that want to learn, but the intolerance that the Christians have to put with is kind of hypocritical don’t you think.
Mic wrote, " Christians, well most Christians, are very tolerant to other peoples view and put up with idiotic comment like the ones before mine."
Except, of course, like when a majority of "Christian" voters in North Carolina voted for Amendment 1 – so that not only can't gay folks get married, they aren't allowed civil unions either.
Except, of course, like when a majority of "Christian" voters in Texas did the same thing.
Except, of course, for the 50% od all good republican "Christians" in Mississippi who said that interracial marriage should be wrong.
Need more?
" the intolerance that the Christians have to put with is kind of hypocritical don’t you think." Are you for real? No, I don't think so, and please don't burn down my house and kill me for saying so.
Secularism is a good thing. BUT - lately the idea of secularism has gotten distorted into an atheistic state – meaning discrimination against those who hold religious viewpoints. Atheists want a dictatorship of church of Atheism. A secular state is by definition NOT an atheist state where the govt officially endorses and sets policies on basis of atheistic views. A secular state is only meant to NOT discriminate on basis of religious viewpoints of private citizens. Every private citizen in a secular state is free to practice and promote their religious faith and bring up their children with those values.
Does bring up = brainwash? That was rhetorical.
"Church of Atheism" is a contradiction of terms. Also, you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist who wants to deny rights to others. All we ask for is equal rights and protections under the law – to include protection from religious bigotry.
@FayKname - they are their kids to raise in their faith - none of state's business. would you rather have the state kidnap their kids and brainwash them into the prevailing official state/govt views on religion and politics? shame on you!
It's fine with me if they choose to teach their kids their beliefs, as long as they don't insist that the public schools do so. It's fine with me if they want to worship in public, as long as they don't do it on the public lands for which I pay taxes.
Hindu, precisely how would your so-called "atheistic state" differ from a secular one?
" the idea of secularism has gotten distorted into an atheistic state" If you are not from the USA, it probably sounds scary not to have an Official Religion. It works for us.
Non believers are routinely discriminated against in the US. Bosses who are evangelicals ALWAYS promote evangelicals first, independent of qualifications. The first to be fired are ALWAYS the non believers. It has been this way in the US for a long time and there has never been any recourse.
So are only other religions allowed to be victims of discrimination? In that case. Muslims need to take off their head scarves & and jewish people should not be offered kosher meals in governmental buildings. I'm don't subscribe to a particular relgion.. but it seems that we are pushing rights of certain religions while trying to take away those same rights from others.
First: A cross is NOT religion, it is a symbol. It is not protected under religious rights.
Second: No ones faith gives them license to discriminate against others merely because one may disagree with their lifestyle.
Third: You have a right not to carry out the obligations of your job.
Fourth: I have a right to fire your a$$ for not meeting the obligations and requirements of your employment.
Fifth: Your rights end where mine begin
Would you hire someone wearing a head scarf to cover their hair?
"Would you hire someone wearing a head scarf to cover their hair?" Sure, would you hire someone who looked like Jesus, hair and all?
Christianity is to victims what AA is to alcoholics except some alcoholics actually want to get better. I say bring back the lions to remind today's whining christians what discrimination really feels like.
If the religious can continuously push their beliefs on me then I should be able to continuously demonstrate my non-believing, science based ideas on them. Keep it all out of the workplace.
Absolutely!
I'm fine with this across the board.... again for ALL religions... including wearing head scarfs & Burqa to cover hair...
Wait... if you did that they would be able to sue you for discrimination wouldn't they?
"continuously demonstrate my non-believing, science based ideas on them" Force them to use computers!
@Kude - you are right. The atheists are abusing the administrative apparatus and are discriminating against those who hold religious beliefs. We saw the same in case of threats made by city mayors to Chik-Fil-A. It is a growing trend in America and more so in Europe. We should rename these as Atheistic States of America and European Atheisitc Union.
Sounds good to me...
@Amniculi - you just exposed your real face. you are an atheist militant - not a reasonable secularist. you proved my point.
Lol, I was giving a sarcastic reply to a sarcastic and idiotic post. Atheist yes, militant no. It's not militancy to stand up against religious bigotry.
@Amniculi - nah – that was a Freudian slip. we know your real face now.
All Christians think they're victims. They think they're victims because they are not allowed to force their beliefs on the rest of us.
And if it was any other religion, you'd be the first to screech about "bigotry"
The whole premise of Christianity is to overcome persecution .. they can't feel like good little Christians if they don't feel persecuted ... real or contrived.
Would the employer not allow someone to wear a life-alert item of jewelry? Emergency workers are trained to look for such items. What if you need something like that? You need to wear it all the time, even to your job.
If I am in a near fatal accident, my crucifix identifies me as Catholic so that, hopefully a priest will be summoned for last rites
Bill,
Why would your wonderful god permit you to be in such a horrid accident? And then force any dependents or loved ones that you may have who are left living to suffer the consequences?
And don't try the free will defense, or we'll have to walk you through how that proves your god doesn't exist again.
Yep. Coming to Obama's America before you know it.
And it's a good thing, too.
Yeah, that's right Amni, you hate discrimination unless you can be the one discriminating. Typical left wing logic
I am not for discrimination of any kind. I do, however, welcome equal protection for everyone from religious bigotry.
My faith requires that I be paid ten times what my coworkers make and that I only work Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. Any bets on how well that will go in court?
Obviously, CNN does not want to post my comments to each person, since it won't post them.
Not saying that is "oppressing me", but I guess I have said enough according to those in charge. In the end, live how you want to, choose not to believe if you wish, but know that there are some of us who will actually stand up and be heard when we see Christians being held back – just as each of you feel that it's your right/duty to say something when you feel you are having the same done to you. Great thing about the U.S., we each have the right to do that....
Have a blessed day.
@Tired
you need to stop using "rude" words. There is a naughty word filter here that prevents posts containing such word fragments as t-it c-um sp-c ho-mo, s-ex etc. Actually there is a long list.
So words like insti-ute and doc-ument are considered by the filter as 'rude' words.
There is zero moderation here.
Ooops: sp-ic, not spc
From a blogger called Helpful Hints
There are no live moderators here. Rather than being deleted, some of your past posts may have included one or more of these:
Bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to get past the CNN automatic filter:
Many, if not most, are buried within other words, so use your imagination.
You can use dashes, spaces, or other characters or some html tricks to modify the "offending" letter combinations.
-
ar-se.....as in ar-senic.
co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, etc.
co-on.....as in racc-oon, coc-oon, etc.
cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
cu-nt.....as in Scu-nthorpe, a city in the UK famous for having problems with filters...!
ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, drift-wood, etc.
ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, etc.
ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
hu-mp… as in th-ump, th-umper, th-umping
jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
nip-ple
o-rgy….as in po-rgy, zo-rgy, etc.
pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
p-orn… as in p-ornography
pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
que-er
ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
sl-ut
sm-ut…..as in transm-utation
sn-atch
sp-ank
sp-ic.....as in desp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
sp-oon
sp-ook… as in sp-ooky, sp-ooked
strip-per
ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, ent-ities, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, etc.
va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
wt-f....also!!!!!!!
There's another phrase that someone found, "wo-nderful us" (have no idea what sets that one off)
@Elmer,
thanks for the list.
spo-on. It's not the problem. It merely evidences the root word: po-on.
A non-obvious ho-mo word is soph0more.
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV
Thanks, I am only paying it forward from Helpful Hints.
Legalized intolerance of Christians. Coming to America (GAG-BARF!) Never forget that BoBo The Wonder Chimp loves all things European.
Scott
Maybe it's time Christians get a taste of their own medicine.
Thank you for confirming my deeply-held belief that the left is not interested in justice. The left in interested in REVENGE.
I'm so sick of all these religious complainers. Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, all of them. No one says you can't believe in your nutty religions. You just can't throw it in the faces of others who might believe differently. You're going to get pushed back if you do. You people don't dominate society as you once did. Get over yourselves. We live in a new world.
Really? LOL Religious symbols are in YOUR face all day long. LOL The only way you will not see them is to blind yourself. Maybe you should wear a sleep mask so you can't see the world around you. Oh wait you might feel something that you think is a religious symbol.
Well said! +1
Edit: Well said Fritz! +1
@fritz - yes only the gays are supposed to be allowed to throw their lifestyles in our face with those gay "pride" parades. and ONLY atheists are supposed to be allowed to advertize their church viewpoint on the massive billboards offending the faith of those who believe. what utter hypocritical nonsense! you want the state ruled according to principles of church of atheism. why dont you admit it?
Hindu, this is a silly statement. You and your religious friends are welcome to throw a parade. Get a permit and go.
Likewise, you're free to not go to a gay pride parade. Nobody's forcing you to watch one. I live in a major East Coast city where they're held just as frequently as they are in most major cities, and I have yet to see one.
I have no problem when you wear your crucifix necklace, just don't be offended by my jesus fish with feet tiara.
Ha ha! I'd love to see that! I'll bet it's cool! :oD And yes, freedom from the threat of hellfire is a great thing. But then we always knew in our hearts and minds that it wasn't real, didn't we? ;oD
You can't wear your cross, Star of David, head dress, and other loose clothing or jewelry at work because it might get tangled in equipment and cause a safety issue. What is it about religion that prevents people from seeing the obvious?
Your first sentence is very true but you clearly have no clue.
Please cite a specific example from the story where the crosses would get "tangled in equipment." The only possible safety issue would be the nurse but even that sounds suspect since how would a small piece of jewelry cause injury to a patient.
@notraitor – many healthcare providers have rules against "dangly" necklaces, religious or not. Many even mandate the use of "breakaway" lanyards etc. It's not to protect the patient. It's to protect the staff. A confused, disoriented, or angry patiient can easily grab a necklace or lanyard. Even a thin chain can cause a decent laceration before it snaps.
Would have been nice if CNN (Communist News Network) reported the full story. Such as this little part: "She was working alongside colleagues who were able to wear religious symbols and attire including the Sikh turban, the Sikh bracelet, the Muslim hijab, and the Jewish skull cap." but was told she could not wear a Cross.
Unlike the cross, wearing those items are required by their religions. There is nothing in Christianity requiring them to wear a cross. Furthermore, she wasn't being told not to wear it, just not to display it.
Now, now, now. You must remember WOW that Communist New Network gets its marching orders from Soros.
Scott
None of the noted items present a dangling hazard when you lean over. Did she consider a reasonable accomodation such as a cross pin or similar that does not present a dangling hazard before crying discrimination?
@Amniculi - what utter nonsense. so you are saying those who are forced to wear and display are OK but those who voluntarily want to wear and display are NOT! what if their church made it mandatory for them to wear, then what? dont you try to fool us with your faulty logic.
@WOW
Where is this article that says this?
The important difference being that no Christian denomination that I'm aware of REQUIRES the wearing of the crucifix or any other jewelry. They are not in violation of any tenet of their religion by not wearing the crucifix as opposed to the other examples you mentioned.
@thevocal: BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19472438
@WOW – If it was a requirement of their religion to wear a cross then they would have a case. It's not, so they don't
Edit: @Hindu
@WOW
Thanks for the link! You're right, she did work alongside of other people of faith that wore religious clothing and articles but they did not interfere in their duties. I think the cross on a necklace could have been easily compromised if she pinned it on her blouse. To me she's just being the typical poor discriminated Christian.
LOL, I have to laugh because you are making SO many assumptions. You have no clue how the Cross is made, the size or the how it was made as a neckless. If they are in fear of it getting caught then simply wear it on a break away safety chain. This situation has nothing to do with safety and the article also stated that this in no way causing any problems in doing her job. So yes she has the same right to display her religious symbol as anyone whom else would or could. The article also does not state that she is not required to wear the Cross by her religion or by her personal belief. I am sorry to tell you TheVoice that you are wrong in your statements.
@WOW
Look at you, making assumptions about me making assumptions! Apparently you know how the cross was made and what size it is, right? I mean, if the size of the cross was something that you would pound into the ground in your front yard I could see it would be a little difficult to pin it on her blouse but most crosses that I have seen are quite that big. Like I said, all this nonsense, if in fact it was a safety issue, could have been avoided with a little compromise. She would get to display her cross proudly pinned on her blouse for everyone to see and the employer would be satisfied. What is so wrong about my statements?
Perhaps she can get a cross tatooed on her forehead. Just think how that would make baby Jesus happy!
@ John – sweet.
Or how about we channel the power of Jesus to super-heat the cross and then fuse it into her forehead?
Living in freedom to be a good, moral and ethical person without the indoctrinated fear of eternal punishment is true freedom. I hope you all can find the real freedom that Atheism offers.
In case you didn't read the article, it's atheists that are discriminating here.
"In case you didn't read the article, it's atheists that are discriminating here."
in case you didnt read the article, it isnt.
You want a dictatorship of church of Atheism. A secular state is not by definition an atheist state where the govt officially endorses and sets policies on basis of atheistic views. A secular state is only meant to NOT discriminate on basis of religious viewpoints of private citizens. Every one is free to practice their religious faith and bring up their children with those values. Lately the idea of secularism has gotten distorted into an atheistic state - meaning discrimination against those who hold religious viewpoints.
How are atheists discriminating? The people refusing service were the ones discriminating. And you don't know what the beliefs are of her bosses.
Tell that to all the victims of the Soviet gulags and the Chinese and North Korean secret police.
Time to get off the Soros/Moveon/Media Matters koolaid
@kude
So all of the judges that heard the cases are atheists? What are the odds of that? If company policy dictates that no one can wear necklaces then the nurse has no case. If the therapist states that he does not want to give counseling to gay people, that's his choice, but if he didn't make that clear then obviously there might be some confusion.
atheism is a cop-out. it doesn't tell you the answer you went looking for in the first place
Crude Kude, find the word "atheist" in the article. Or retract your statement if you have the guts to.
@Dude - we do not need to see the word atheist. we know those who are allergic to religious views and values are mostly atheists. dont you try to fool us by faulty logic.
Atheism in itself is a form of religion. Stop thinking you are above others just because they have faith. You are just as delusional as the rest of the world. Regardless, I will agree with you that breaking the chains of religious control is extremely freeing and liberating. There are many different ways to believe. Whatever gets you through the night as long as you don't try to shove it down my throat, that includes your atheistic interprestations.
@jmjb: atheism isn't a religion, look up the defintion.
@hindu: you know the old saying about assuming something? " it makes an ASS of U and ME" logic isn't faulty if it is true logic, nowhere in the articule does it identify these peoples bosses as being atheist. thus your statement doesn't hold a grain of salt.
@johnny: atheism doesn't promise answers, it's simply people that don't believe in ANY GODS. that's it, we accept no gods and accept it is our own responciblity to make our lives as fruitful as we can and attempt to make the world a better place for our children.
Hindu, you too, find the word "atheist"in the article. As to your fallacious claim, stupid, notice how Muslims are allergic to Christians, and vice versa.
So go fsck yourself, stupid.
"Atheism in itself is a form of religion. " I must admit that in addition to knowing there is such a thing as Gravity, I also believe in it. Is that what you mean, or do you imagine that I rise early on the Atheist Sabbath to attend Atheist Church, where we read from an Atheist Bible? You just sound so . . .stupid. It's like saying "Disbelief is a church."
"atheism is a cop-out. it doesn't tell you the answer you went looking for in the first place" Oh, I found THAT answer. It's "Christians like to hold power over others as a whip." Now my question is "Why can't they be decent to each other?"