Current Events > European Court of Justice rules businesses can fire for wearing Hijab

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hijab-can-be-banned-at-work-rules-eu-court-g8px0mlms

Businesses can sack Muslim women wearing the hijab headscarf if they work face-to-face with customers or if the wearing of the religious clothing causes workplace conflicts, the EUs highest court has ruled.

The decision was met with claims that it would fuel Islamophobia at a time when countries, such as France, are restricting religious freedom to combat extremism.

The European Court of Justice judgment follows two cases in Germany where two Muslim women were told to remove their headscarves or face suspension.

A prohibition on wearing any visible form of expression of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace may be justified by the employers need to present a neutral image towards customers or to prevent social disputes, said the Luxembourg judges



---

Good
Most places won't abuse this tho and would fear the backlash from usign it

Doesn't seem great. If they are doing their job, who cares what they are wearing?

---

Cpt_Pineapple posted...

where are all the conservatives defending religious freedom?

They only want freedom for Christians.

---

Yurop

Cpt_Pineapple posted...

where are all the conservatives defending religious freedom?

@Patty_Fleur

---

This seems bad.

Do they also ban yarmulkes and cross imagery jewelry?

---

Disgraceful ruling.

---

WesternMedia posted...

Businesses can sack Muslim women wearing the hijab headscarf if they work face-to-face with customers

I can understand this.

WesternMedia posted...

or if the wearing of the religious clothing causes workplace conflicts

Not sure I understand this.

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

Not sure I understand this.

You couldn't wear certain outfits doing certain work
Like burqa doing factory work with certain machines

Is that what "workplace conflict" means? When I read that I feel like it's a personal dispute between employees.

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

Is that what "workplace conflict" means? When I read that I feel like it's a personal dispute between employees.

Most likely
But like I said businesses sure as fuck are not going to fire someone for this unless it's a literal last resort like they have 'infidels will burn' on their shirt or something extreme
If they wanted you gone for being Muslim they'll sure find a legal way to fire you

Hahaha yeah sacking Muslim women

---

nothanks1 posted...

Most likely
But like I said businesses sure as fuck are not going to fire someone for this unless it's a literal last resort like they have 'infidels will burn' on their shirt or something extreme
If they wanted you gone for being Muslim they'll sure find a legal way to fire you

The court decision makes that a legal reason to fire someone though.

---

Cpt_Pineapple posted...

where are all the conservatives defending religious freedom?

Cheater87 posted...

They only want freedom for Christians.

Dont see the problem. Businesses are allowed to do it, it doesnt mean every business is going to start firing people for wearing one.

---

Pretty fucked up tbh.

---

SomeLikeItHoth posted...

Dont see the problem. Businesses are allowed to do it, it doesnt mean every business is going to start firing people for wearing one.

More than 0 will though which is the problem

---

I find it very alarming that many posts in this topic dont see this as anything but a fucked up thing.

---

Tbh it's been that way in my country for years. This does not mean that the standard that the employer has to reach for firing someone is a very easy one (it really is not), it just ensures that the option is there for limited professions.

MorbidFaithless posted...

This seems bad.

Do they also ban yarmulkes and cross imagery jewelry?

It would. For example judges are prohibited from wearing any religious items when overseeing a courtroom, regardless of which religion it is from.

---

MorbidFaithless posted...

This seems bad.

Do they also ban yarmulkes and cross imagery jewelry?

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/top-eu-court-says-headscarves-can-be-banned-work-under-certain-conditions-2021-07-15/

Its response was that such bans were possible if justified by an employer's need to present a neutral image.

"A prohibition on wearing any visible form of expression of political, philosophical or religious beliefs in the workplace may be justified by the employer's need to present a neutral image towards customers or to prevent social disputes," the court said.

That justification must correspond to a genuine need on the part of the employer, it said.

In the case of the care centre employee, the court said the rule at issue appeared to have been applied in a general and undifferentiated way, as the employer also required an employee wearing a religious cross to remove that sign.

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

I can understand this.

Da fuck in what way?

nothanks1 posted...

Good

Um what?

---

s0nicfan posted...

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/top-eu-court-says-headscarves-can-be-banned-work-under-certain-conditions-2021-07-15/

as the employer also required an employee wearing a religious cross to remove that sign.

I don't like this either but it's not like a key tenet for a set of people in the religion to WEAR the cross

---

how much of a chance they ban christian symbolism. i'm thinking 0?

yeah fuck them and fuck defending this.

---

Religious fundamentalists can go fuck themselves.

---

pogo_rabid posted...

Religious fundamentalists can go fuck themselves.

So we should strip freedom away from citizens who arent extremists?

---

I4NRulez posted...

So we should strip freedom away from citizens who arent extremists?

Depends on the freedom you're talking about. If your religion has a dress code, it's extremist bullshit. Same goes for mormons and the hasidic community.

Also equating any of that enforced garb to freedom lol. "I want the freedom to impose a dress code on females because god told me to"

---

MorbidFaithless posted...

This seems bad.

Do they also ban yarmulkes and cross imagery jewelry?

I'm assuming the ruling is broad enough that the answer is yes.

Edit: it's also not a ban, it's just saying you can be fired for doing it.

---

pogo_rabid posted...

Depends on the freedom you're talking about. If your religion has a dress code, it's extremist bullshit. Same goes for mormons and the hasidic community.

Also equating any of that enforced garb to freedom lol. "I want the freedom to impose a dress code on females because god told me to"

So we should ban religious expression because some people abuse it? I have a sneaking suspicion a lot of the same people cool with this are fine with their religion telling people what to do.

---

_HayleyWilliams posted...

So we should ban religious expression because some people abuse it? I have a sneaking suspicion a lot of the same people cool with this are fine with their religion telling people what to do.

So what? You gotta start somewhere. When the precedent gets set, and they're next on the chopping block, they won't have a leg to stand on.

---

pogo_rabid posted...

So what? You gotta start somewhere. When the precedent gets set, and they're next on the chopping block, they won't have a leg to stand on.

Next step is banning things that people deem "unprofessional". Black hair? Fire them. Cultural Tattoos? Fire Them. Different Language? Fire them.

---

pogo_rabid posted...

So what? You gotta start somewhere. When the precedent gets set, and they're next on the chopping block, they won't have a leg to stand on.

Or they just put you on the chopping block first and they win

---

pogo_rabid posted...

Depends on the freedom you're talking about. If your religion has a dress code, it's extremist bullshit. Same goes for mormons and the hasidic community.

Also equating any of that enforced garb to freedom lol. "I want the freedom to impose a dress code on females because god told me to"

So the solution to the "extremist bullshit" is to forcefully make these women not wear a hijab?

Also, the majority of muslim women wear hijab by choice, and you are taking away these women's choice by forcing them by this blatantly racist ruling.

---

Damn that sucks

---

I don't see how this is any worse than for example Saudi Arabia banning all non-Islamic religious symbols and restricting worship to privacy.

---

MorbidFaithless posted...

This seems bad.

Do they also ban yarmulkes and cross imagery jewelry?

I believe that's exactly it.
Like, they already have rules against crosses, now those rules also apply to hijabs as well.

It's not that they wanna make a new rule that only applies against muslims.
It's that if they already have this Rule against Christian iconography, it may now be applies equally.

---

Some businesses will allow their employees to wear hijab. Some will not. This ruling will keep government out of that decision. I am not in favor of censorship, which this is a form of, but we are constantly being reminded by many members here on CE that censorship is Ok as long as the government is not doing it.

Somebody pull up that xkcd Free Speech cartoon that usually gets thrown around.

---

ROBANN_88 posted...

I believe that's exactly it.
Like, they already have rules against crosses, now those rules also apply to hijabs as well

You're telling me a cashier in germany couldn't wear cross ear rings? They could be fired for that?

As an atheist American, that terrifies me.

---

Seems bad to me

---

Lorenzo_2003 posted...

I am not in favor of censorship, which this is a form of, but we are constantly being reminded by many members here on CE that censorship is Ok as long as the government is not doing it.

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech aren't the same thing.

---

MorbidFaithless posted...

You're telling me a cashier in germany couldn't wear cross ear rings? They could be fired for that?

...Not based on this ruling (other rules might apply).

They have to demonstrate that the need for bans on visible religious items and/or clothing (for which you can get fired if you do not follow that policy) is necessary for the job by the employers need to present a neutral image towards customers or to prevent social disputes (as mentioned in the article) in such a way that the need by the employer outways the need/rights of the employee.

This is not an easy threshold to prove.


---

Ilishe posted...

I don't see how this is any worse than for example Saudi Arabia banning all non-Islamic religious symbols and restricting worship to privacy.

I mean if you're decision is "Well, it's not as bad as what Saudi Arabia is doing" i think you gotta reevaluate things.

---

Total_Lost2 posted...

...Not based on this ruling (other rules might apply).

They have to demonstrate that the need for bans on visible religious items and/or clothing (for which you can get fired if you do not follow that policy) is necessary for the job by the employers need to present a neutral image towards customers or to prevent social disputes (as mentioned in the article) in such a way that the need by the employer outways the need/rights of the employee.

This is not an easy threshold to prove.

Right. All this does is establish the precedent that the hijab doesn't get special exemptions to rules that already apply to other religions in this specific, narrow instance. Regardless of where you stand on government as it relates to religion and whether you think this is censorship, giving all religions equal treatment under the law should be the baseline we expect with those rules.

---

Serious Cat posted...

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech aren't the same thing.

If we are relating this to the US (I know the topic focuses on Europe), then freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as well as the rights to assemble and petition the government, are all covered by the First Amendment. This, of course, has to do with the governments involvement or lack thereof.


---

ROBANN_88 posted...

I believe that's exactly it.
Like, they already have rules against crosses, now those rules also apply to hijabs as well.

It's not that they wanna make a new rule that only applies against muslims.
It's that if they already have this Rule against Christian iconography, it may now be applies equally.

No, they should abolish the rule. Fascists ban religion.

---