Christianity over-ruled for gay rights in Europe

[stoicbird]

Christians who refuse to carry out the orders of their employer on religious grounds will be sacked and have no right to appeal. The EU has made the ruling today.

A relationship counsellor and a registrar both refused to deal with gay couples due to their beliefs and were sacked but were hoping for the EU to stand up for christianity. Both of these people were of african origin where christianity hasn't evolved like it has in Europe ( evolved maybe the wrong word, disappeared describes christianity better imo).

I have never been to church for a service but I feel like this is another nail in the coffin of christianity. How can a christians rights be any less important to that of another?

[BigBallinStalin]

We can have a knee-jerky fest without a source to provide details, or

we can have a knee-jerky fest with a source for details.

(Where's the sauce, stoicbird?)

[cookie0117]

Not really the case, its people who take jobs and then decide that the job impacts on their beliefs. They then feel they are the victim of predujuce as they can not discriminate in the way they want.

Treat everyone the same and then you dont lose your job. Also if your a nurse and the rules are no jewelery, then dont wear it even if it has a cross on.

[jonesthecurl]

It's a difficult moral area - but the question is: can you sack someone for refusing to offer councelling?
What if they refuse to help mixed-race couples? Mixed religion? People who weren't married in church?

[chang50]

It's a difficult moral area - but the question is: can you sack someone for refusing to offer councelling?
What if they refuse to help mixed-race couples? Mixed religion? People who weren't married in church?

Doesn't sound like the type of person I would want as a counsellor.

[stoicbird]

We can have a knee-jerky fest without a source to provide details, or

we can have a knee-jerky fest with a source for details.

(Where's the sauce, stoicbird?)

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21025332

[BigBallinStalin]

topic:
Employers' discrimination against the wearing of religious paraphernalia or refusing to perform one's specified job due to beliefs/discomfort against/from particular groups.


Case 1:
(1) "BA made [Nadia Eweida] stop wearing her white gold cross visibly."
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the employers could not enforce such a rule cuz Article 9.
(yet the employer, British Airways, since 2007 allowed employees to visibly wear religious trinkets).


But the rights of the following three were not deemed as violated:
Case 2-4:
(2) " a marriage counsellor, [Mr McFarlane, was] fired after saying he might object to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples "
(3) " a registrar, Lillian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies."
(4) "Ms Chaplin, [a nurse], was transferred to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for failing to remove a confirmation crucifix on a small chain, which she had worn to work for 30 years"

Why:
(2) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(3) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(4) "health and safety concerns outweighed her religious rights"

[BigBallinStalin]

Christians who refuse to carry out the orders of their employer on religious grounds will be sacked and have no right to appeal. The EU has made the ruling today.

Obviously, this is false. They can appeal to that European Court of Whatever.

A relationship counsellor and a registrar both refused to deal with gay couples due to their beliefs and were sacked but were hoping for the EU to stand up for christianity. Both of these people were of african origin where christianity hasn't evolved like it has in Europe ( evolved maybe the wrong word, disappeared describes christianity better imo).

If your religion specifies that one cannot offer marriage counseling advice to homosexuals, then obviously as the employer, I wouldn't want to hire someone who is so inefficient and narrow-minded. Such staff would also harm the reputation of the company, thus possibly diminishing profits, which in turn restricts the company's ability to purchase additional capital and labor in order to satisfy consumer preferences.

If the contract--to which both parties voluntarily agreed--states that one must offer marriage counseling to all types of couples, regardless of skin color, sexual preference, etc., but the employee refuses to abide by his contract, then obviously the employer has the right to fire or appropriately discipline the employee in conformance of the voluntarily agreed upon rules.

There's nothing wrong with that--in this particular circumstance.

I have never been to church for a service but I feel like this is another nail in the coffin of christianity. How can a christians rights be any less important to that of another?

If a religion advocates for withholding services from particular groups of people due to their sexual preferences, then as an employer, I should be free to fire/discipline such an advocate--in accordance with the labor contract.


But let's be honest. Cases #2 and #3 really aren't about religion. They're about:

(a) refusing to do one's job, as specified in the contract, and/or
(b) a particular group within a religion which dislikes or feels too uncomfortable around gays

[2dimes]

Ozzy Osbourne must be relieved about case 1

Case 2 is that written correctly? He was fired for saying "He might object"?

Case 3 I don't care if you marry someone of the same gender. I don't have a problem with you marrying your siblings, parents, pets or inanimate objects. I have a problem with people that don't want to preform whatever type of ceremony being punished.

I believe it's wrong to force your beliefs on others even if your opinion is progressive.

Case 4 no strong opinion.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's a difficult moral area - but the question is: can you sack someone for refusing to offer councelling?
What if they refuse to help mixed-race couples? Mixed religion? People who weren't married in church?

Ideally, we would want marriage counseling services that hire employees who are best suited in offering advice to select target markets.

For example, it would not be ideal for a marriage counselor, who lacks any knowledge on the intricate customs and cultural idiosyncrasies of a Berber couple, to offer marriage counseling to the Berber couple.

But are Berber couples as 'foreign' as mixed-race couples and homosexual couples? I have no idea, but I would imagine not.

So, what is the optimal level of specialization for marriage counselors?
Who knows. The European Court of Whatever definitely has no idea either.
Therefore, the problem is not resolved.


People may be assuming that if one is good at advising heterosexual couples, then one is also good at advising same-sex couples---but this may not be true. If this is false, then obviously it would not be wise to have counselors offering advice to multiple target markets, for which they lack the requisite skills.

In order to resolve the problem of optimal specialization, then participants in the market of marriage counseling should be free to try different business models for satisfying consumer preferences. If not, then humanity is denied an opportunity to best serve one another.

[stoicbird]

topic:
Employers' discrimination against the wearing of religious paraphernalia or refusing to perform one's specified job due to beliefs/discomfort against/from particular groups.


Case 1:
(1) "BA made [Nadia Eweida] stop wearing her white gold cross visibly."
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the employers could not enforce such a rule cuz Article 9.
(yet the employer, British Airways, since 2007 allowed employees to visibly wear religious trinkets).


But the rights of the following three were not deemed as violated:
Case 2-4:
(2) " a marriage counsellor, [Mr McFarlane, was] fired after saying he might object to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples "
(3) " a registrar, Lillian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies."
(4) "Ms Chaplin, [a nurse], was transferred to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for failing to remove a confirmation crucifix on a small chain, which she had worn to work for 30 years"

Why:
(2) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(3) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(4) "health and safety concerns outweighed her religious rights"

If the nurse had worn the crucifix for 30years without a problem how come there were health and safety concerns?

I agree with you on the other two. It shows that religion has less of an impact on how society is governed. I do wonder though, if followers of a minority religion was in the same predictament whether the ruling would be the same.

[BigBallinStalin]

topic:
Employers' discrimination against the wearing of religious paraphernalia or refusing to perform one's specified job due to beliefs/discomfort against/from particular groups.


Case 1:
(1) "BA made [Nadia Eweida] stop wearing her white gold cross visibly."
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the employers could not enforce such a rule cuz Article 9.
(yet the employer, British Airways, since 2007 allowed employees to visibly wear religious trinkets).


But the rights of the following three were not deemed as violated:
Case 2-4:
(2) " a marriage counsellor, [Mr McFarlane, was] fired after saying he might object to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples "
(3) " a registrar, Lillian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies."
(4) "Ms Chaplin, [a nurse], was transferred to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for failing to remove a confirmation crucifix on a small chain, which she had worn to work for 30 years"

Why:
(2) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(3) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(4) "health and safety concerns outweighed her religious rights"

If the nurse had worn the crucifix for 30years without a problem how come there were health and safety concerns?

How do you know that's true?

I'd imagine that the crucifix increases the risks of contamination since it travels with her 100% of the time--from home to work, etc.
Besides, are the sanitation methods of the hospital 100% suited for cleaning crucifixes? Should such a change be made? Or should she simply be required to remove the crucifix while on duty?

A "yes" to the third question makes the most sense.

I agree with you on the other two. It shows that religion has less of an impact on how society is governed. I do wonder though, if followers of a minority religion was in the same predictament whether the ruling would be the same.

We'll see how it plays out. I'm not sure how the European Court of Whatever handled France's ban on burkas.

[Johnny Rockets]

Christians who refuse to carry out the orders of their employer on religious grounds will be sacked and have no right to appeal. The EU has made the ruling today.

A relationship counsellor and a registrar both refused to deal with gay couples due to their beliefs and were sacked but were hoping for the EU to stand up for christianity. Both of these people were of african origin where christianity hasn't evolved like it has in Europe ( evolved maybe the wrong word, disappeared describes christianity better imo).

I have never been to church for a service but I feel like this is another nail in the coffin of christianity. How can a christians rights be any less important to that of another?

Because Jesus does not have a problem with someone being gay, perhaps? Quote one New Testament scripture where it states he does.

JRock

[cornpops]

the ECHR ruled in favour of the british airways hostess and said that she had been discriminated against because of her religion. are you ignoring this example for any particular reason?

[Symmetry]

topic:
Employers' discrimination against the wearing of religious paraphernalia or refusing to perform one's specified job due to beliefs/discomfort against/from particular groups.


Case 1:
(1) "BA made [Nadia Eweida] stop wearing her white gold cross visibly."
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the employers could not enforce such a rule cuz Article 9.
(yet the employer, British Airways, since 2007 allowed employees to visibly wear religious trinkets).


But the rights of the following three were not deemed as violated:
Case 2-4:
(2) " a marriage counsellor, [Mr McFarlane, was] fired after saying he might object to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples "
(3) " a registrar, Lillian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies."
(4) "Ms Chaplin, [a nurse], was transferred to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for failing to remove a confirmation crucifix on a small chain, which she had worn to work for 30 years"

Why:
(2) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(3) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(4) "health and safety concerns outweighed her religious rights"

If the nurse had worn the crucifix for 30years without a problem how come there were health and safety concerns?

How do you know that's true?

I'd imagine that the crucifix increases the risks of contamination since it travels with her 100% of the time--from home to work, etc.
Besides, are the sanitation methods of the hospital 100% suited for cleaning crucifixes? Should such a change be made? Or should she simply be required to remove the crucifix while on duty?

A "yes" to the third question makes the most sense.

I agree with you on the other two. It shows that religion has less of an impact on how society is governed. I do wonder though, if followers of a minority religion was in the same predictament whether the ruling would be the same.

We'll see how it plays out. I'm not sure how the European Court of Whatever handled France's ban on burkas.

This was my essential understanding of the ban in the NHS case- dangling jewelry in general was banned due to risk of transmitted infection. As for why it was banned after such a long period- there was an increase in hospital transmitted infections. This was just one step in trying to deal with the problem.

[mr. CD]

topic:
Employers' discrimination against the wearing of religious paraphernalia or refusing to perform one's specified job due to beliefs/discomfort against/from particular groups.


Case 1:
(1) "BA made [Nadia Eweida] stop wearing her white gold cross visibly."
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the employers could not enforce such a rule cuz Article 9.
(yet the employer, British Airways, since 2007 allowed employees to visibly wear religious trinkets).


But the rights of the following three were not deemed as violated:
Case 2-4:
(2) " a marriage counsellor, [Mr McFarlane, was] fired after saying he might object to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples "
(3) " a registrar, Lillian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies."
(4) "Ms Chaplin, [a nurse], was transferred to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for failing to remove a confirmation crucifix on a small chain, which she had worn to work for 30 years"

Why:
(2) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(3) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(4) "health and safety concerns outweighed her religious rights"

About 2 and 3, it's not that easy if you ask me. In my opinion if someone has been working for a long time as counsellor or registrar, even before gay marriage was legal and/or people were coming out as gay, one has the right to have problems with doing that, since their contract has unofficially changed into something they no longer agree to.

[Symmetry]

topic:
Employers' discrimination against the wearing of religious paraphernalia or refusing to perform one's specified job due to beliefs/discomfort against/from particular groups.


Case 1:
(1) "BA made [Nadia Eweida] stop wearing her white gold cross visibly."
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the employers could not enforce such a rule cuz Article 9.
(yet the employer, British Airways, since 2007 allowed employees to visibly wear religious trinkets).


But the rights of the following three were not deemed as violated:
Case 2-4:
(2) " a marriage counsellor, [Mr McFarlane, was] fired after saying he might object to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples "
(3) " a registrar, Lillian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies."
(4) "Ms Chaplin, [a nurse], was transferred to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for failing to remove a confirmation crucifix on a small chain, which she had worn to work for 30 years"

Why:
(2) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(3) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(4) "health and safety concerns outweighed her religious rights"

About 2 and 3, it's not that easy if you ask me. In my opinion if someone has been working for a long time as counsellor or registrar, even before gay marriage was legal and/or people were coming out as gay, one has the right to have problems with doing that, since their contract has unofficially changed into something they no longer agree to.

Did the contract specify that he or she would only give sex therapy or act as a legal registrar to heterosexual couples? I'd be surprised if they
did.

But then again, I've also found several of these cases oddly offensive to Christianity, given that as far as I can see, arguing that you should refuse to do your job when homosexuals are involved isn't quite the key message of Christian faith these people are making it out to be.

[bedub1]

<Removed>

[Symmetry]

topic:
Employers' discrimination against the wearing of religious paraphernalia or refusing to perform one's specified job due to beliefs/discomfort against/from particular groups.


Case 1:
(1) "BA made [Nadia Eweida] stop wearing her white gold cross visibly."
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the employers could not enforce such a rule cuz Article 9.
(yet the employer, British Airways, since 2007 allowed employees to visibly wear religious trinkets).


But the rights of the following three were not deemed as violated:
Case 2-4:
(2) " a marriage counsellor, [Mr McFarlane, was] fired after saying he might object to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples "
(3) " a registrar, Lillian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies."
(4) "Ms Chaplin, [a nurse], was transferred to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for failing to remove a confirmation crucifix on a small chain, which she had worn to work for 30 years"

Why:
(2) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(3) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(4) "health and safety concerns outweighed her religious rights"

If the nurse had worn the crucifix for 30years without a problem how come there were health and safety concerns?

How do you know that's true?

I'd imagine that the crucifix increases the risks of contamination since it travels with her 100% of the time--from home to work, etc.
Besides, are the sanitation methods of the hospital 100% suited for cleaning crucifixes? Should such a change be made? Or should she simply be required to remove the crucifix while on duty?

A "yes" to the third question makes the most sense.

I agree with you on the other two. It shows that religion has less of an impact on how society is governed. I do wonder though, if followers of a minority religion was in the same predictament whether the ruling would be the same.

We'll see how it plays out. I'm not sure how the European Court of Whatever handled France's ban on burkas.

This was my essential understanding of the ban in the NHS case- dangling jewelry in general was banned due to risk of transmitted infection. As for why it was banned after such a long period- there was an increase in hospital transmitted infections. This was just one step in trying to deal with the problem.

The Cross wasn't banned. Dangling jewelry was banned. Then to attempt to skirt the ban, somebody claimed their religious beliefs of an imaginary friend is more important that health and safety.

This worked out exactly how it should. Your bigoted religious ideology doesn't trump human rights.

While I agree, I also think this may be more of an example of a bureaucracy working to apply an overarching rule in the BA case, and probably partly in the NHS case, although I see that ruling as fair.

The "I won't do my job if it means dealing with the gays" cases are more about an application of bigotry that I would hope Christians would see more about the bigotry and the offensive application of the excuse "I'm only offended by gays because I follow Jesus".

I sincerely hope that argument doesn't hold much play with Christians. They were bigots and Christians, not bigots because they were Christian.

[BigBallinStalin]

topic:
Employers' discrimination against the wearing of religious paraphernalia or refusing to perform one's specified job due to beliefs/discomfort against/from particular groups.


Case 1:
(1) "BA made [Nadia Eweida] stop wearing her white gold cross visibly."
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the employers could not enforce such a rule cuz Article 9.
(yet the employer, British Airways, since 2007 allowed employees to visibly wear religious trinkets).


But the rights of the following three were not deemed as violated:
Case 2-4:
(2) " a marriage counsellor, [Mr McFarlane, was] fired after saying he might object to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples "
(3) " a registrar, Lillian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies."
(4) "Ms Chaplin, [a nurse], was transferred to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for failing to remove a confirmation crucifix on a small chain, which she had worn to work for 30 years"

Why:
(2) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(3) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(4) "health and safety concerns outweighed her religious rights"

About 2 and 3, it's not that easy if you ask me. In my opinion if someone has been working for a long time as counsellor or registrar, even before gay marriage was legal and/or people were coming out as gay, one has the right to have problems with doing that, since their contract has unofficially changed into something they no longer agree to.

You could be right, hence

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184320#p4026038


People may be assuming that if one is good at advising heterosexual couples, then one is also good at advising same-sex couples---but this may not be true. If this is false, then obviously it would not be wise to have counselors offering advice to multiple target markets, for which they lack the requisite skills.

In order to resolve the problem of optimal specialization, then participants in the market of marriage counseling should be free to try different business models for satisfying consumer preferences. If not, then humanity is denied an opportunity to best serve one another.

[Symmetry]

topic:
Employers' discrimination against the wearing of religious paraphernalia or refusing to perform one's specified job due to beliefs/discomfort against/from particular groups.


Case 1:
(1) "BA made [Nadia Eweida] stop wearing her white gold cross visibly."
The European Court of Human Rights ruled that the employers could not enforce such a rule cuz Article 9.
(yet the employer, British Airways, since 2007 allowed employees to visibly wear religious trinkets).


But the rights of the following three were not deemed as violated:
Case 2-4:
(2) " a marriage counsellor, [Mr McFarlane, was] fired after saying he might object to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples "
(3) " a registrar, Lillian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies."
(4) "Ms Chaplin, [a nurse], was transferred to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for failing to remove a confirmation crucifix on a small chain, which she had worn to work for 30 years"

Why:
(2) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(3) ??? (do the job which you agreed to do in the contract?)
(4) "health and safety concerns outweighed her religious rights"

About 2 and 3, it's not that easy if you ask me. In my opinion if someone has been working for a long time as counsellor or registrar, even before gay marriage was legal and/or people were coming out as gay, one has the right to have problems with doing that, since their contract has unofficially changed into something they no longer agree to.

You could be right, hence

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184320#p4026038


People may be assuming that if one is good at advising heterosexual couples, then one is also good at advising same-sex couples---but this may not be true. If this is false, then obviously it would not be wise to have counselors offering advice to multiple target markets, for which they lack the requisite skills.

In order to resolve the problem of optimal specialization, then participants in the market of marriage counseling should be free to try different business models for satisfying consumer preferences. If not, then humanity is denied an opportunity to best serve one another.

As far as i understand the man was a sex counselor, not a marriage counselor. He simply seems to have made an argument that he was incapable of performing his job.

[BigBallinStalin]

" a marriage counsellor, [Mr McFarlane, was] fired after saying he might object to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples "

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21025332

But that's a good point, which further supports my argument. If a marriage counsellor who specializes in sexy therapy advice finds himself inadequate for advising gay couples, then firing him was a bit extreme--assuming that was all that occurred. Either way, the ECHR's upholding of the employer's decision was fine but could be problematic. It seems to be snuffing out this discovery of better serving consumer preferences.

[Symmetry]

" a marriage counsellor, [Mr McFarlane, was] fired after saying he might object to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples "

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21025332

But that's a good point, which further supports my argument. If a marriage counsellor who specializes in sexy therapy advice finds himself inadequate for advising gay couples, then firing him was a bit extreme--assuming that was all that occurred. Either way, the ECHR's upholding of the employer's decision was fine but could be problematic. It seems to be snuffing out this discovery of better serving consumer preferences.

Meh- if he couldn't do his job, and he told his employers that he wouldn't do it, why employ him as a sex counselor?

[Viceroy63]

" a marriage counsellor, [Mr McFarlane, was] fired after saying he might object to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples "

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21025332

But that's a good point, which further supports my argument. If a marriage counsellor who specializes in sexy therapy advice finds himself inadequate for advising gay couples, then firing him was a bit extreme--assuming that was all that occurred. Either way, the ECHR's upholding of the employer's decision was fine but could be problematic. It seems to be snuffing out this discovery of better serving consumer preferences.

Meh- if he couldn't do his job, and he told his employers that he wouldn't do it, why employ him as a sex counselor?

Hmmmm; I am going to go out on limb here and say, "For straight couples, maybe?"

Call me cooky, crazy; But perhaps the best marriage counselors for gay partners should be, I don't know, Maybe, GAY???

[Symmetry]

" a marriage counsellor, [Mr McFarlane, was] fired after saying he might object to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples "

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21025332

But that's a good point, which further supports my argument. If a marriage counsellor who specializes in sexy therapy advice finds himself inadequate for advising gay couples, then firing him was a bit extreme--assuming that was all that occurred. Either way, the ECHR's upholding of the employer's decision was fine but could be problematic. It seems to be snuffing out this discovery of better serving consumer preferences.

Meh- if he couldn't do his job, and he told his employers that he wouldn't do it, why employ him as a sex counselor?

Hmmmm; I am going to go out on limb here and say, "For straight couples, maybe?"

Call me cooky, crazy; But perhaps the best marriage counselors for gay partners should be, I don't know, Maybe, GAY???

But he was a sex therapist, not a marriage counsellor. Also his argument wasn't that he couldn't do it because he was straight, his argument was that he couldn't do it because he was Christian.

Unsurprisingly that didn't stand up in court any more than being a bartender who refuses to serve say, Jews or Muslims "because" he's Christian.