To be getting....

[MilitaryWag]

...heartily sick of religious zealots whinging on about their 'human right' to wear a crucifix around their sodding necks at work. All the way to the European Court of Human Rights. Get a grip and consider those whose human rights really ARE being abused. Idiots!

Has this actually happened?

However, being allowed to practice your religion is a very important right and probably makes up most of the reason as to why many people's human rights are abused (then gender, then sexuality), so YABU.

talking of getting a grip....

I have no issue with people wanting to practice their religion. Let them get on with it...in church!

People wear necklaces at work. I have done. Why can't people wear pendants? That's what a cross or crucifix on a chain is. They wear rings/bracelets/earrings even those disgusting pins etc through their noses, eyebrows etc. Is wearing a necklace something to be forbidden?

It's not a question of being 'religious'. I'm not 'religious but I do believe. There is a difference.

It's all really silly tbh. That's the best way I can think of to describe it. It's a fucking necklace FFS. Who the actual fuck cares about a necklace?! I'm not belittling the religious perspective by calling it that btw, simply that really, this is an issue that does not matter. Just let them wear their crosses.

While I think it's ridiculous to have taken this issue to the ECoHR, I think it's equally ridiculous that employers/government have taken the other side.

If I worked with someone who was preaching to me daily and trying to convert me or something, I think have something to say about it, but that's not what this is, is it?

In which case you MUST take turbans from Sikhs and all the manner of scarves from Muslim women etc etc - in the interests of parity. ban one religious adornement ban them all.

However the OP is WRONG - she's miss-read headline. The article its self is just drumming up hysteria - its all 'reported' 'preparing to''allegedly'.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113304/Governments-legal-fight-AGAINST-right-wear-cross-work-brings-accusations-sidelining-Christianity.html

The Government was last night accused of ?sidelining? Christianity for preparing a legal fight against believers having the right to wear the cross at work.

In a move branded ?extraordinary? by Christian groups, the Government was reported to be ready to argue against two British women at the European Court of Human Rights.

It is set to defend the right of employers to ban the cross as it is not a ?requirement? of the Christian faith to wear it. Bosses could then sack workers who insisted on wearing the symbol.

The move would potentially scupper the case being brought by two Christian women, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, who claim they were discriminated against when their employers stopped them wearing crosses

In some cases jewelry is banned in a place of work so these people demand to be able to wear a crucifix. They are turned down so they take their emplyers to court.

I'm not religious either btw.

I don't read the Daily Mail...... I prefer to read news rather than endless drivel about travellers/immigrants/working mothers

Yeah, and all those zealots banging on about their 'human right' not to have to see someone wearing a crucifix around their own necks. They need to get a grip and realise there are more important things than what someone chooses to wear!

Is this the issue with the nurse and the BA worker?

I personally don't care what people wear to signify their chosen religon, but in the case of the nurse she wouldn't be allowed to display any necklace. (Health and Safety, stops unhappy patients stranglng us)

But... we have to be naked from the elbow down -so no wrist watches and only a single plain wedding ring. But I've seen men with the broad bangles (I think Sikh but not 100% sure) and they are allowed to.They would trap as much dirt/soap as a wristwatch surely?

It was the first one in google love - save your bile for getting worked up about something important - like that gun toting nutter who killed 12 today - ah but thats ok, he's squaddie having a break down so storming tooled up into a civilians house is ok. Doubly ok because they are little brown people and it'll all be 'collateral damage'.

@Oddboots You have missed the point.

A yank goes crazy with a gun... old news

70isa- there was a ruling last year that ment that an employer could insist on bare lower arms, if absolutely needed, this was fought and lost by some religious groups.

OP every human right is worth fighting for, they have been hard won and should not be eroded in any way.

It is you that miss the point about human rights. It is to important for individuals to decide, if there is doubt, it needs to be taken to the ECHR.

Human Rights are to easy to abuse. This country is top of the pile when it comes to stupid interpretations of these 'rights'. These hard won rights need to be recognised in those places that have a shocking record in the treatment of their own people. Banning someone from wearing a cross to work and then being taken to court over it makes a mockery of it all.

YANBU. Mind you, I don't know where the "human rights" have come into it. Both women were working in jobs where jewellery was not allowed - one because of a uniform policy, the other because of health, safety and hygiene. They were standard policies for all other employees, so why do these women think they are so special that they don't have to abide by the rules?