Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 14 Mar '17 19:55
    European Court of Justice says a firm’s internal ban on wearing “any political, philosophical or religious sign” does not constitute “direct discrimination”.

    European companies can ban employees from wearing religious or political symbols, including the Islamic headscarf, the E.U.’s top court ruled on Tuesday in a landmark case.

    The European Court of Justice (ECJ) said it does not constitute “direct discrimination” if a firm has an internal rule banning the wearing of “any political, philosophical or religious sign”.

    http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/eu-court-rules-workplace-headscarf-ban-legal/article17461188.ece

    The march of secularism continues. This of course does not only affect Muslims, also Sikhs, Jews and others who wear outward symbols of their religion.
  2. 14 Mar '17 20:24
    I find it interesting hoe European countries hold the EU as a higher power compared to its country's courts.
  3. 14 Mar '17 20:27
    Originally posted by Eladar
    I find it interesting hoe European countries hold the EU as a higher power compared to its country's courts.
    Do the Federal courts take precedence over State courts?
  4. 14 Mar '17 20:38
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Do the Federal courts take precedence over State courts?
    So European nations give up their sovereignty to join the EU?
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    14 Mar '17 20:52
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    European Court of Justice says a firm’s internal ban on wearing “any political, philosophical or religious sign” does not constitute “direct discrimination”.

    European companies can ban employees from wearing religious or political symbols, including the Islamic headscarf, the E.U.’s top court ruled on Tuesday in a landmark case.

    The European Co ...[text shortened]... not only affect Muslims, also Sikhs, Jews and others who wear outward symbols of their religion.
    Euros consistently enforce discriminations that would be unacceptable in the US.
  6. 14 Mar '17 21:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    So European nations give up their sovereignty to join the EU?
    Its a federation of countries the same as the USA is a federation of States. I also notice that you did not answer my question, Do Federal courts have precedence over State courts? and of course the answer is yes. Why would you expect it to be any different in any other federation like the European Union?
  7. 14 Mar '17 21:05 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Euros consistently enforce discriminations that would be unacceptable in the US.
    Its not considered a direct discrimination if it applies to everyone.
  8. 14 Mar '17 21:07
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Its a federation of countries the same as the US is a federation of states. I also notice that you did not answer my question, Do federal courts have precedence over State courts? Why would you expect it to be any different in the European Union?
    US states do not have sovereignty.

    So the EU requires European nations to give up sovereignty, is this correct?

    Is the EU a nation as the USA is a nation?
  9. 14 Mar '17 21:09
    An idiotic ruling, of course. Since any garment may arbitrarily be considered "religious" a ban on religious garments is either a ban on all garments or simply a statement that garment restrictions may be set up arbitrarily.
  10. 14 Mar '17 21:10 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Eladar
    US states do not have sovereignty.

    So the EU requires European nations to give up sovereignty, is this correct?

    Is the EU a nation as the USA is a nation?
    The EU is a federation of National Sates. Whether they give up a degree of sovereignty I cannot say. Its the same as the USA in respect that Federal courts trumps State courts, although instead of States we have countries. Why this should be problematic I cannot say.
  11. 14 Mar '17 21:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    An idiotic ruling, of course. Since any garment may arbitrarily be considered "religious" a ban on religious garments is either a ban on all garments or simply a statement that garment restrictions may be set up arbitrarily.
    What a silly argument, how is a baseball cap to be arbitrarily considered religious. Out with it you lefty loon.
  12. 14 Mar '17 21:12
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    An idiotic ruling, of course. Since any garment may arbitrarily be considered "religious" a ban on religious garments is either a ban on all garments or simply a statement that garment restrictions may be set up arbitrarily.
    Its not idiotic, its a perfectly rational argument. If it applies to everyone then it cannot be considered directly discriminatory.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    14 Mar '17 21:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Its not considered a direct discrimination if it applies to everyone.
    That baloney doesn't work here. https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers to make a "reasonable accommodation" to a religious practice:

    When does Title VII require an employer to accommodate an applicant or employee’s religious belief, practice, or observance?

    Title VII requires an employer, once on notice that a religious accommodation is needed, to reasonably accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship. Under Title VII, the undue hardship defense to providing religious accommodation requires a showing that the proposed accommodation in a particular case poses a “more than de minimis” cost or burden. Note that this is a lower standard for an employer to meet than undue hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which is defined in that statute as “significant difficulty or expense.”

    7. How does an employer learn that accommodation may be needed?

    An applicant or employee who seeks religious accommodation must make the employer aware both of the need for accommodation and that it is being requested due to a conflict between religion and work.

    Employer-employee cooperation and flexibility are key to the search for a reasonable accommodation. If the accommodation solution is not immediately apparent, the employer should discuss the request with the employee to determine what accommodations might be effective. If the employer requests additional information reasonably needed to evaluate the request, the employee should provide it. For example, if an employee has requested a schedule change to accommodate daily prayers, the employer may need to ask for information about the religious observance, such as time and duration of the daily prayers, in order to determine whether accommodation can be granted without posing an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business. Moreover, even if the employer does not grant the employee’s preferred accommodation, but instead provides an alternative accommodation, the employee must cooperate by attempting to meet his religious needs through the employer’s proposed accommodation if possible.

    8. Does an employer have to grant every request for accommodation of a religious belief or practice?

    No. Title VII requires employers to accommodate only those religious beliefs that are religious and “sincerely held,” and that can be accommodated without an undue hardship. Although there is usually no reason to question whether the practice at issue is religious or sincerely held, if the employer has a bona fide doubt about the basis for the accommodation request, it is entitled to make a limited inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the employee’s claim that the belief or practice at issue is religious and sincerely held, and gives rise to the need for the accommodation.

    Factors that – either alone or in combination – might undermine an employee’s assertion that he sincerely holds the religious belief at issue include: whether the employee has behaved in a manner markedly inconsistent with the professed belief; whether the accommodation sought is a particularly desirable benefit that is likely to be sought for secular reasons; whether the timing of the request renders it suspect (e.g., it follows an earlier request by the employee for the same benefit for secular reasons); and whether the employer otherwise has reason to believe the accommodation is not sought for religious reasons.

    However, none of these factors is dispositive. For example, although prior inconsistent conduct is relevant to the question of sincerity, an individual’s beliefs – or degree of adherence – may change over time, and therefore an employee’s newly adopted or inconsistently observed religious practice may nevertheless be sincerely held. An employer also should not assume that an employee is insincere simply because some of his or her practices deviate from the commonly followed tenets of his or her religion.

    9. When does an accommodation pose an “undue hardship”?

    An accommodation would pose an undue hardship if it –would cause more than de minimis cost on the operation of the employer’s business. Factors relevant to undue hardship may include the type of workplace, the nature of the employee’s duties, the identifiable cost of the accommodation in relation to the size and operating costs of the employer, and the number of employees who will in fact need a particular accommodation.

    Costs to be considered include not only direct monetary costs but also the burden on the conduct of the employer’s business. For example, courts have found undue hardship where the accommodation diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees’ job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, or causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work. Whether the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law will also be considered.

    To prove undue hardship, the employer will need to demonstrate how much cost or disruption a proposed accommodation would involve. An employer cannot rely on potential or hypothetical hardship when faced with a religious obligation that conflicts with scheduled work, but rather should rely on objective information. A mere assumption that many more people with the same religious practices as the individual being accommodated may also seek accommodation is not evidence of undue hardship.

    If an employee’s proposed accommodation would pose an undue hardship, the employer should explore alternative accommodations.


    It's highly unlikely that wearing a headscarf couldn't be "accommodated" without "undue hardship".

    That every religious person's right to practice their religion is curtailed doesn't make it any less of a discrimination.
  14. 14 Mar '17 21:16
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    What a silly argument, how is a baseball cap to be arbitrarily considered religious. Out with it you lefty loon.
    Like this:

    Aummmmmmmmmmmmm. A revelation! Baseball caps are a sign of God! Mantle be praised!
  15. 14 Mar '17 21:18
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    The EU is a federation of National Sates. Whether they give up a degree of sovereignty I cannot say. Its the same as the USA in respect that Federal courts trumps State courts, although instead of States we have countries. Why this should be problematic I cannot say.
    You want to have it both ways. If you do mot have sovereignty then you are not a country.

    The EU needs to be considered a single country and have their olympic representation awarded accordingly.