Conquer Club

jonesthecurl wrote: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?

BigBallinStalin wrote: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?)

stoicbird wrote: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.

stoicbird wrote: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).

stoicbird wrote: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?

jonesthecurl wrote: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?

BigBallinStalin wrote: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"

stoicbird wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: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?

stoicbird wrote: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.

stoicbird wrote: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 wrote:

stoicbird wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: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.

stoicbird wrote: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.

BigBallinStalin wrote: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"

mr. CD wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: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.

bedub1 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

stoicbird wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: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.

stoicbird wrote: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.

mr. CD wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: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.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

mr. CD wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: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.

BigBallinStalin wrote:" 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 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:" 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 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:" 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???