The top European Union court ruled on Tuesday that public authorities in member states can prohibit employees from wearing signs of religious belief, such as an Islamic head scarf, in the latest decision on an issue that has divided Europe for years.

The case came to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) after an employee of the eastern Belgian municipality of Ans was told she could not wear an Islamic head scarf at work.

  • HamSwagwich@showeq.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’m not going to read all that, as I started and realized you are, once again, either being disingenuous or your zealotry is clouding your argument, either way, it’s very clearly invalid from the first paragraph as you set up the strawmen again to bolster your flawed position.

    As such, I’ll respond up until then point you go off the rails:

    I said keep religion/mental illness out of the (governmental) workplace. If you need to express your mental illness to everyone in the work place you aren’t fit to work there. You need to seek help. Your display of religious paraphernalia is no different than you viewing porn on your computer/phone where everyone can see it. It’s no different than you wearing other objectionable material. You just have this arbitrary line in your mind at “religion” because that’s your thing and you can’t conceive the fact that it’s offensive to other people. It’s not offensive to you, so it’s ok. But other things are offensive to you, so they aren’t ok. That’s your bias.

    There are things that are offensive to you that are not offensive to me but I’m not the one arguing to allow those things in the (governmental) workplace because I’m not a self centered narcissist who thinks my way is right and any other way is wrong. I want to treat everyone equally, which means no special carve outs for religion. You want to treat religion as a special case.

    That is wrong. Plain and simple.

    • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Welp if you are not bothering to read my replies and pretending you actually understand the meaning of strawman while basing your entire schitck around the least effective ad hominem attacks I’ve encountered then there’s no real reason to continue.

      That you won’t answer even two direct questions to nail down a basic ethical baseline to expand from tells me that even you can’t defend your own position for shit. Not surprising you don’t want to look too closely at your own opinions in the mirror.

      Anyway, it’s been fun.

      • HamSwagwich@showeq.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Let me sum up your argument:

        “My religious views are right. As long as I approve of your religious choices they are ok, but I will arbitrarily draw the line where I see fit and if you disagree with me you are wrong.”

        That’s literally what your argument boils down to.

        • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Not even a little close. Now I just think you’re dumb as shit and don’t know how to read. Are you a bot? Maybe that explains why you just say the same thing over and over.