Originally posted by FMFI am not being deceitful. It is there for all to read. If you have a differnt
That someone who opposes the policy has angrily accused ministers and the courts of doing something or other, does not alter the facts about what the U.K. government's stance is, and does not alter the fact that your OP was deceitful, and that you have been caught red handed.
opinion of what the article says then you can give your opinion. Why would
I post the link if I was trying to be deceitful?
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't think there'll be many employers that will exercise the right that the linked news article is about.
I am an employer and I do not stop my employees from wearing crosses around there necks. I find it no less silly than wearing rotating bow ties.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI have no real idea why you behave the way you do on this forum.
Why would I post the link if I was trying to be deceitful?
You said "The government in England is attempting to ban the wearing of a cross or a
crucifix openly at work". This is patently false. As another poster said, you either misread the article, or you were attempting to get away with a pretty crude deception.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by FMFI concur.
I don't think there'll be many employers that will exercise the right that the linked news article is about.
There are however certain jobs where it is reasonable to ask people not to wear a cross.
Or at least not to wear one openly (ie visible over clothing as opposed to invisibly under it)
And I would happily say the same applies to any religious garb whether it's a 'requirement'
of the religion or not.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe article is about British employers' right to enforce a dress code on their premises. It is not about "the government in England [...] attempting to ban the wearing of a cross or a crucifix openly at work".
But think this through: what are we going to ban next? Cleavage? IT's nor a
requirement to show your mammarial glands as part of your sexual identity. This goes to show how nonsensical this argument it.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat is the truth? Why do they want to stop these women from wearing a
Which is no defence at all because everyone over the age of 5 knows (or should know) that
newspaper headlines lie and distort and exaggerate so much and so badly that nothing they
say can be trusted or relied upon.
And it is certainly not true that the 'reason' for the governments stance is worrying about offending
Muslims.
cross or crucifix.? I guess you live there and know all about it. I am just
stating the way I understand it. Tell us all about it please.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThe British government is NOT attempting to ban the wearing of a cross or a crucifix openly at work. One has to wonder why you persist with this falsehood.
What is the truth? Why do they want to stop these women from wearing a
cross or crucifix.? I guess you live there and know all about it. I am just
stating the way I understand it. Tell us all about it please.
13 Mar 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI suppose it depends on the nature of your business. Would i be put off if i went to the
I don't think there'll be many employers that will exercise the right that the linked news article is about.
doctor and discovered that he wore a large beard in imitation of his prophet, although
its not a requirement of faith? would I be offended if the nurse wore a burka? am i
really that concerned when i go for a burger and the girl who serves me wants to wear
a depiction of Jesus death around her neck? Nope i dont care what religious convictions
they express as long as the doctor gives good medical advice, the nurse is caring and
the girl is pleasant.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by FMFI know that but the article or the header rather is misleading for it gives the impression
The article is about British employers' right to enforce a dress code on their premises. It is not about "the government in England [...] attempting to ban the wearing of a cross or a crucifix openly at work".
that the government is.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI would most likely need to have a dress code if I were an employer and owner of a private business - as you say, it would depend on the nature of that business. I would also welcome the government's efforts to uphold my right to enforce my dress code.
I suppose it depends on the nature of your business.
13 Mar 12
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo it doesn't, robbie. I wasn't mislead by the 'header'. twhitehead wasn't mislead by it. Nor were you. One only had to read 6 lines into the text to understand what the article was about and what "England"s government policy actually was. I think RJHinds has been busted on this one. There's a character on the Debates Forum called whodey who has tried this sort of thing repeatedly.
I know that but the article or the header rather is misleading for it gives the impression that the government is.
And anyway, how can "Christians do not have a right to wear a cross or crucifix openly at work" seriously be equated with ""The government in England is attempting to ban the wearing of a cross or a crucifix openly at work"? It's daft.
What the article clearly means: 'Christians do not have a right to wear a cross or crucifix openly at work - so if your employer bans in it in their dress code then you have to accept it or find an employer that has a different workplace policy.'
This is not in any shape or form the same as 'The British Government wants to ban the wearing of a crucifix openly at work."
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThe truth is it's complicated.
What is the truth? Why do they want to stop these women from wearing a
cross or crucifix.? I guess you live there and know all about it. I am just
stating the way I understand it. Tell us all about it please.
It's a balancing act between freedom of expression (religious or otherwise) and anti-discrimination
laws and rights of employers to decide on the companies client facing image and the rights of
people not to have religion forced down their throats particularly when vulnerable.
And it's made more complicated by the nature of the legal framework the balancing act is taking place
in.
The government is not (as FMF keeps saying) trying to ban people from wearing crosses or any other
religious symbol at work. What they are doing is supporting the employers right to do so if the employer
sees fit.
This is obvious from the article in the telegraph.
Although the telegraph does print quite a lot of bull on the subject of religion.
It's not a particularly secular paper. (or accurate or truthful come to that)
(note secular here does not mean atheist, it's like your government is supposed to be according to the first amendment.
not making any laws or decisions based on or in favour of any religion so as to safeguard the religious freedoms of everyone
and not just whoever happens to be in a majority.)
13 Mar 12
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFI think it is a misleading header and I am also willing to believe that RJH was misled by
No it doesn't, robbie. I wasn't mislead by the 'header'. twhitehead wasn't mislead by it. Nor were you. One only had to read 6 lines into the text to understand what the article was about and what "England"s government policy actually was. I think RJHinds has been busted on this one. There's a character on the Debates Forum called whodey who has tried this sort The British Government wants to ban the wearing of a crucifix openly at work."
this. He's a Republican, he'll believe almost anything.
13 Mar 12
Christians do not have a right to wear a cross or crucifix openly at work
is not the same as
Christians are being banned from wearing the cross or crucifix openly at work
i.e. Anyone can still wear a cross or crucifix at work if the employer allows them to, but if not, then the person does not have the right to fight against it.
13 Mar 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt sounds like many of you people over there are afraid of the violence you
The truth is it's complicated.
It's a balancing act between freedom of expression (religious or otherwise) and anti-discrimination
laws and rights of employers to decide on the companies client facing image and the rights of
people not to have religion forced down their throats particularly when vulnerable.
And it's made more complicated by the ...[text shortened]... uard the religious freedoms of everyone
and not just whoever happens to be in a majority.)
might receive from radical Muslims if they get insulted in some manner. I
doubt your government would be so quick to pull this stunt against Muslim
women.