Against.
I’m not a religious person, and I don’t mind to see no signs of it (on people), nor do I care that people wear them.
If we ban these things, but allow other expressions of whatever people believe in, or feel good about, then there’s a sliding scale possibility.
Tattoos, buttons, caps with logo’s on them, bracelets, earrings, earrings, make-up.
As long as we (try to) respect each other we’re good.

Absolute bullshit. This ruling affects women and pretty much only women. (The numbers of men that might be affected by this wouldn’t even register on the meter.
And although it directed at religious symbols, what about the Muslim woman who has lost her hair due to medical reasons?
This is yet another idiotic dictum that attempts to control how people dress. It gives all sorts of gross power to racist/misogynist bosses.

What’s a religious symbol?

My daughter has a Magen David (Jewish Star) necklace. Does this mean that she can’t wear it?

What about people who wear crucifix necklaces and bracelets?

What about Catholics who put ashes on their forehead for Ash Wednesday?

What about people (lots of them) who have gotten tattoos of crosses and various other symbols on their arms and hands?

What about people who wear T-shirts with religious sayings and symbols? Are those banned too?

This is utterly ridiculous and unenforceable.

“The European Union’s top court ruled that companies in the bloc can ban the visible wearing of religious symbols, including headscarves, but noted that employers will need to justify any restrictions, Reuters reported.”

It doesn“t say they will, it says they can. Since they would need to justify any restrictions, maybe an example of when they can or will would be for safety reasons. For example, working around machinery where a hat or headscarf would get caught and could be a safety hazard. Just looking at possibilities. I was a full time union rep for over a decade, so I have dealt with things like this, where things are not always one way because they may look that way.

If someone had a headscarf or hat on and it got caught, and the employee got injured, the employer is ultimately responsible.

@jca2 that would make sense, and likewise they should require anybody with long hair to keep it pulled up in a way so that it doesn’t hang.

Negative view of this decision.

That’s legal loopholes for you….a company is a private business. That’s just how it is unfortunately.

A woman at my work is a muslim with a head scarf, and I literally heard a guy say “I ain’t working with her kind.” She claims she’s also been told to go back to her country etc.

History just repeating itself. It’s basically “make the brown people act white or I don’t want them around.”

Against. It’s a bit surprising for me as an American to think this is even a thing in 2022.
And I agree it will primarily affect women but what about Sikh men or Jewish men? Religious discrimination is what it feels like.

@canidmajor I was coming on to say what @KNOWITALL just said. It strongly affects men as well. There was a case in Britain not long ago about Sikh bus conductors being told they couldn’t wear their turbans on the job. And as KIA says, Jewish religious men wouldn’t be allowed to wear yarmulkes.

I believe that France still bans the wearing of any religious symbol or attire in public schools and maybe government buildings.

It’s a very different interpretation of the separation of church and state which the US still struggles with in other ways.

Yeah, both of you are right, @janbb and @KNOWITALL. I saw “headscarf” and just saw red. I completely spaced on the men (sorry, fellas) and to add to that, there are religious indicators of visible facial hair as well.
This whole thing is just wildly awful.

The “it’s applied to all so it’s not discrimination” argument is pure BS. These are laws targeting Muslims specifically and we all know it. No different than literacy tests for voting that were “applied to all” but were clearly targeting black voters. Fear of the “Islamization of Europe” is common in a number of European countries. They are not good at reacting to demographic shifts. And this is another clumsy decision.

When I first read it I really wasn’t sure what I felt, I’m still not sure. I think if there is a good reason, like @janbb mentioned safety, then it is ok. I could see an employee trying to insist on wearing their headdress, bracelet or necklace and wanting an exception for religious reasons. This ruling gives the company the law on their side for the safer measures they see fit.

Also, the company can require a uniform or dress code for many reasons. If the religious garments or jewelry might hurt their business they could possibly use it as a reason.

Regarding schools, which @janbb mentioned, but I had thought about it also, I have always been in favor of not allowing religious garments in public school, and probably I can be persuaded to not allow religious jewelry either. My feeling is the rules save the girls from the religious oppression that their families might be trying to raise them in. Not to mention other children might be cruel.

Even at work, it could be more comfortable for everyone if people are dressed similarly and religion and cultural differences aren’t right in your face.

Arguments on both sides are good, so it’s a difficult topic, but look at Iran, women are removing their headscarf at risk to their lives.

@JLeslie I briefly wondered if this is a reaction to the situation in Iran. To give those affected an ‘out’.

@KNOWITALL I don’t think it had to do with Iran, but I don’t know when the case was brought in relation to what’s happening in Iran. The ruling doesn’t affect Iran, it’s just the EU.

Generally, I think assimilation is a positive thing, especially when it means giving people more freedom, but it can be turned on it’s head and viewed as oppression I guess. I’m not talking about assimilation to the point of losing one’s culture and religion altogether, but we can have both.

People immigrate to western countries for a reason. The top reasons from my perspective seem to be religious freedom and opportunity to work, but I’ve never seen real data about it.

@JLeslie I’d be interested in the opinions of religious groups affected by this.
Like do any of your Jewish friends wear the headpiece to work? None of the Jews I know have so I’m not sure. Muslims and Sikh’s often do here in the States, though.

I think if it is a private company then that company can implement those kinds of restrictions. On the other hand, I see a lot of people that have the opportunity to leave that company for one that is much more people friendly and even boycott that non-humanitarian crap company.

@KNOWITALL Most orthodox married women I’ve known wear a wig, and that’s just a handful of women who I have worked with, unless I just didn’t realize someone was being observant. Once in a blue moon I see a hat. Same with men, I’ve only known a couple who wore a yarmulke. Most Jews aren’t observant to those customs.

Similar with people I have worked with who are from Iran or some other middle eastern or Muslim country, I can only think of two in 50 years who wore a hijab out of many dozens of friends and work associates.

I have what will probably sound like a self-contradictory position on stuff like this. I think one of the mistakes we make is trying to match what is moral with what is legal. It’s a mistake when the right does it AND when the left does it.

I think the Muslim position on women’s dress codes ranging from headscarves to how much skin they’re allowed to show in some countries to hijabs to full burkas are all based in oppressing women and are wrong.

HOWEVER, while laws making sure it’s a woman’s choice to wear these things are important, laws seeking to ban them outright are wrong. Yes, I get that the pressure even a muslim woman in a western country would receive from her family is intense, but if she chooses to wear them, society should not ban them.

But the government banning them vs a private entity banning them are very different things to me. As long as the private entity were completely open and transparent about their policy, I think they should be allowed to do so. If you think a hijab is oppressive and want to ban them in your place of employment…fine. I think you’re the one doing the moral wrong. It’s no different than banning a necklace with a cross…or a yarmulke. You’re wrong…but I defend your legal right to BE WRONG because you’re a private entity.

So I think the demand of the religion is wrong, but it’s also wrong to ban them, and its wrong for the government to get involved other than maybe a rule demanding that IF you’re going to have a rule, you have to state so upfront and clearly. Clear as mud?

@Entropy So, what about banning religious expression at work like crosses on desktops and pictures of Jesus on a wall? The first time I ever saw such things was when I moved to North Carolina. It was so odd to me to see it in the workplace. It felt weird.

@Entropy I agree 100%.

Additionally as a Christian, I wear no symbols of my religion ever. Nor do I have religious items on my car, desk or anywhere other than home.
I believe it’s my job to live my beliefs rather than display them, but I do understand some religions compel the displaying of those symbols.
(Secretly I admire the items. It would be an interesting social experiment to wear various items for reactions. Not disrespectfully but from sheer curiousity.)

I think there are a lot of angles on this one. I guess when you don’t guarantee religious freedom, you can pass any law you like. I’m a bit curious why the “European Union” made this decision and not each individual country. All-in-all, I see it as a way to force people to compromise their religious beliefs.

@KNOWITALL I really like that experiment!

What about priests at the vatican – some of whom live in Rome. Will they be able to wear their cassocks and collars?

@elbanditoroso Their employer is the Vatican so . . . it doesn’t apply !

Against. The whole damn world is going insane.