If You Wear a Cross, You Bear a Cross

**5intheface** · 03-09-2012, 06:52 PM

This week will see four test cases brought before The European Court of Human Rights on behalf of Christians who believe their religious views have resulted in discrimination against them in the workplace.

Two were prevented from wearing crucifixes in their line of duty, one a nurse and the other an employee of BA.

The third, a Registrar, refused to officiate at same sex ceremonies and the last objected to giving advice to gay couples as part of his job as a Counsellor for Relate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/s...?newsfeed=true

Two very different complaints and all four merit deeper investigation of exactly what happened but the outcome of the cases may have a large impact on UK employment law and subsequently, throughout Europe.

What are your opinions on the rights and wrongs of religious rights in the workplace and where is Ireland on this score?

**5intheface** · 03-09-2012, 07:03 PM

The former Relate worker Gary McFarlane's case is an interesting one. He felt he couldn't give sex advice to same sex couples and was sacked on grounds of gross misconduct. He felt that another Counsellor could have taken care of these cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFarla...elate_Avon_Ltd

Didn't seem that unreasonable to me until someone said it was akin to asking Rosa Parks to give up her seat for a white passenger or else wait a few minutes for an alternative bus which imposed no racial seating regulations.

**toxic avenger** · 03-09-2012, 07:51 PM

It's pretty simple - the only people I see getting offended by people wearing religious medals or wearing turbans or whatever are people who desperately want to be offended. I highly doubt that anyone belonging to other faith groups have any problem with small and reasonable manifestations of cultural/religious belief, rather it is a small group of hardcore secularists who cause a fuss where for decades there was none.

In the case of people wearing crucifixes/crosses - if there is no health and safety issue then it shouldn't be an issue - within reason. There are religious types who go overboard, and I'd have no problem with a limit being put on common sense discretion in their cases (e.g. wearing badges or stickers that aren't appropriate for work or with a uniform). A small crucifix or cross is not in that bracket though. I wear a blessed crucifix and a Miraculous Medal myself, but always underneath clothing - I tend to prefer that religion is not worn on the sleeve, and I wonder if everyone who wears them really needs to keep them exposed all the time or whether a part of it isn't a little bit of bloody-mindedness too.

A bit of common sense all around would be nice.

**Sam Lord** · 03-09-2012, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by 5intheface

The former Relate worker Gary McFarlane's case is an interesting one. He felt he couldn't give sex advice to same sex couples and was sacked on grounds of gross misconduct. He felt that another Counsellor could have taken care of these cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFarla...elate_Avon_Ltd

Didn't seem that unreasonable to me until someone said it was akin to asking Rosa Parks to give up her seat for a white passenger or else wait a few minutes for an alternative bus which imposed no racial seating regulations.

I have no problem with people wearing crucifixes, dog collars, hijabs, or whatever. In Canada Sikhs are allowed to wear their turbans in the police force instead of the uniform hat and I don't see why not.

I don't think it reasonable for people to apply for jobs which require them to do one thing and then claim religious reasons or whatever for not being able to do it. It seems to me that the Relate guy walked himself into that one with eyes wide open and I would not have much sympathy:

Although the applicant had found himself capable of assisting same-sex couples in counselling where discussion of sexual issues was not involved, in September 2006 he applied to undertake a diploma course in psycho-sexual therapy (PST) (a new name for sex therapy[7]).

If he had ben doing the job one way for years and they introduced new requirements (same sex sexual counselling) which he felt he was unable to do then I would feel it appropriate that some provision be made. But he appears to have taken on a position knowing that he would be required to provide this counselling.

**Shaadi** · 03-09-2012, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by 5intheface

The former Relate worker Gary McFarlane's case is an interesting one. He felt he couldn't give sex advice to same sex couples and was sacked on grounds of gross misconduct. He felt that another Counsellor could have taken care of these cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McFarla...elate_Avon_Ltd

Didn't seem that unreasonable to me until someone said it was akin to asking Rosa Parks to give up her seat for a white passenger or else wait a few minutes for an alternative bus which imposed no racial seating regulations.

It'd be more like the bus driver refusing to drive a bus with Rosa Parkes on it because he was somehow morally offended by treating her as an equal.

When you're the bus driver, you don't get to pick and choose the passengers based on your own version of morality.

**5intheface** · 03-09-2012, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Shaadi

It'd be more like the bus driver refusing to drive a bus with Rosa Parkes on it because he was somehow morally offended by treating her as an equal.

When you're the bus driver, you don't get to pick and choose the passengers based on your own version of morality.

Pretty good analogy either way in the case of the Registrar and Counsellor.

As for the other 2 cases, speaking as someone of no faith, religious symbols (within reason as most are) would pass me un-noticed. However, in one of these cases, it seems the complainant was offered several alternatives to what was, rightly or wrongly, considered a health and safety matter.

**fluffybiscuits** · 03-09-2012, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by toxic avenger

It's pretty simple - the only people I see getting offended by people wearing religious medals or wearing turbans or whatever are people who desperately want to be offended. I highly doubt that anyone belonging to other faith groups have any problem with small and reasonable manifestations of cultural/religious belief, rather it is a small group of hardcore secularists who cause a fuss where for decades there was none.

In the case of people wearing crucifixes/crosses - if there is no health and safety issue then it shouldn't be an issue - within reason. There are religious types who go overboard, and I'd have no problem with a limit being put on common sense discretion in their cases (e.g. wearing badges or stickers that aren't appropriate for work or with a uniform). A small crucifix or cross is not in that bracket though. I wear a blessed crucifix and a Miraculous Medal myself, but always underneath clothing - I tend to prefer that religion is not worn on the sleeve, and I wonder if everyone who wears them really needs to keep them exposed all the time or whether a part of it isn't a little bit of bloody-mindedness too.

A bit of common sense all around would be nice.

Over all your most of your points make perfect sense, its all about striking a reasonable balance between the two and if they are discreet I dont see an issue with it. I would go so far as to say if someone wants to wear a lapel or badge of some sort let them its not going to harm me but if they start shoving it down my throat I would take issue with it. As you say common sense would be nice but alas the world we live in seems to be seriously lacking in that at the moment! Secularism is the way forward for the world but discrete religious symbols pose no issue. The case about the minister refusing to officiate at his job because of religious objections should be thrown out on his ear. He is paid to do a job and not pick and choose who he works with. If someone in work turned around and said he didnt want to deal with a blackman/Jewish person etc they would be fired or disciplined. He is in the wrong line of work if he is thought he would not have to deal with gay couples..

**C. Flower** · 03-09-2012, 11:26 PM

I don't mind individual religious symbols (personal), but I do mind them in non-religious institutions - crucifixes on the walls of Council chambers, for example.
I think people should be able to wear what they like. If there is a very definite health and safety issue, then I think people should wear safe clothes or not do the activity.

**fluffybiscuits** · 03-09-2012, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by C. Flower

I don't mind individual religious symbols (personal), but I do mind them in non-religious institutions - crucifixes on the walls of Council chambers, for example.
I think people should be able to wear what they like. If there is a very definite health and safety issue, then I think people should wear safe clothes or not do the activity.

Believe it or not safe clothes are the last form of defence in the prevention of accidents bar construction. Employers have to eliminate or minimise any risk before they even consider personal protective equipment! Weird system in Ireland!

**Holly** · 04-09-2012, 03:13 AM

You might not want to be a passenger with an airline company that promotes an image of flying on a wing and a prayer.

**5intheface** · 04-09-2012, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Holly

You might not want to be a passenger with an airline company that promotes an image of flying on a wing and a prayer.

Yip, a bit like the look of horror on my face when I looked at the the fuselage of a plane I was boarding to see the livery 'Spanair' emblazoned in huge letters.