Gay Cake Case

[Lovelyricepudding]

The ECHR has ruled that their case was inadmissible. The was the case where the supreme Court ruled Christian bakers should not be forced to say/write something they disagreed with.

My understanding is up to now the case has been based on domestic law which is not the remit of the ECHR. In order to bring a case to them they must pursue a human rights case through the domestic courts first.

[title edited by MNHQ at OP's request]

They said have cross inside uniform.

Kimoko what in your view is wrong with that!

Judgemental?

Yes. And why not.

The religious attire point is dominant, and the point that the actual issue was more than likely to do with the role, the risks to the patient, given where it worn and size.

And apparently an insistence that wearing inside uniform not ok, had to be outside theatre scrubs? Given likely position etc of theatre nurse?

And tbh when she moved around, lights over table moveable etc to get best view of surgery site. Catching the light, swinging forward when she leans over patient, that could well be a distraction don't you think?

I mean genuinely, in that environment and role. You believe that saying ok fine can you tuck under uniform.

Is something you want to see decided as discrimination due to religion, and going forward must be allowed full stop?

Are you totally sure.

I think the right decision was made. A cake is not a human right. He deliberately went to a Christian bakers to force them to go against their beliefs and good for them, they didn't. Not everyone has to agree on the same things and it seems nowadays if you have an opinion on something, that's not allowed.

Cheesemum, just for you ..
I'm saying that at my interview as a medic if I declare I am not willing to perform an abortion..I'm guessing I wont be the first choice for the job..that's it.

Also, I have chipped in my view, as have so many, of course we won't all agree, that is also my point and just as I don't feel i have to negate and squash other views i dont feel i need to defend mine to the death, what we have to be careful of as a society is that we don't smother debate framing it 'phobic' or not politically correct.

Peter Tatchell on GB News at the moment and even he agrees it was the right verdict.

@Mollyollydolly

Peter Tatchell on GB News at the moment and even he agrees it was the right verdict.

Does he agree with us or do with agree with him? I am wondering what this agreement means? Is PT to be condemned by TRA for this or... if only there were posters on these boards who could come on this thread and enlighten us as to whether we are to be condemned or celebrated by this.

@CheeseMmmm

Apparently?

Got anything that turns apparently into did?
Who were in same theatre role , surgeon, not sure who else hangs around the site of surgery.

Here is a link to the full Tribunal report.

www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mrs-onuoha-v-croydon-health-services-nhs-trust-2300516-slash-2019

For true nurse case, I’m not fond at all of the idea of theatre staff wearing jewellery but apparently discrimination was made out because so many high level members of staff were allowed to wear jewellery (or a blind eye was turned) and all other religious articles of clothing were allowed as well (turbans, bracelets, hijabs). So the idea that extraneous clothing poses an infection risk was not actually being followed in practice.it did look like she was being unfairly singled out. I think the obvious solution is to have a policy across the board that no jewellery is allowed. They shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose who gets to wear what.

@WeeBisom

For true nurse case, I’m not fond at all of the idea of theatre staff wearing jewellery but apparently discrimination was made out because so many high level members of staff were allowed to wear jewellery (or a blind eye was turned) and all other religious articles of clothing were allowed as well (turbans, bracelets, hijabs). So the idea that extraneous clothing poses an infection risk was not actually being followed in practice.it did look like she was being unfairly singled out. I think the obvious solution is to have a policy across the board that no jewellery is allowed. They shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose who gets to wear what.

Her employers very clearly did pick and choose. Paragraphs 270 onwards set it out.

The decision also made the point that if it was genuinely based on health and safety that some of the permitted items were potentially more of a risk than her necklace.

My personal preference is that I would prefer if no medical staff made no visible displays of their religious affiliations when treating me but if some are allowed to then why not all?

It certainly makes sense to ban jewellery in theatres. It was one thing that shocked me when I saw a clip of the TW sturgeon who operated on Jazz Jennings - they were wearing dangly earing in theatre.

Outwith theatre I think there should be crosses painted outside hospitals, big banners nearing crosses in hospitals, staff should be encouraged to wear lanyards with crosses so Christians know they are welcome in hospitals. And there should be an allyship scheme where staff who sign up to welcome Christians wear a cross pin-badge....

From the report

It appears that wearing jewellery that was non-compliant with the DCU-P was most rife among doctors and anaesthetists (though the problem was not limited to such medical staff). All that the Respondent’s witnesses were really able to say by way of explanation for this was that doctors and anaesthetists had a different line management structure to nurses

However, in our view that is a very weak explanation. Ultimately reporting lines carry little weight here

The DCU-P applied to all employees including doctors and anaesthetists;

Doctors and anaesthetists also worked in close contact with patients and could infect them and/or be assaulted by them;

Plain rings. These are worn on the fingers and are clearly more likely to touch patients. Of course hands can be washed, but that is as true of a hand that is wearing a ring as one that has touched a necklace. A ring can be washed, but so can a metal necklace

The fact is that common sense tells us a ring worn by a clinician is more likely to touch a patient than a short necklace

Neckties are “strongly discouraged” in clinical areas but the fact is they can be worn without breach of the DCU-P.

Kalava bracelets. These are permitted

Either a bracelet or a necklace could touch a patient. A bracelet is if anything more likely to even if worn above the elbow; at the least the chances are comparable

From an infection control perspective there were a range of relevant items other than necklaces in clinical areas that were permitted and which posed an infection risk. There is no evidence to show that the infection risk they posed was lower than the Cross-Necklace. Indeed, common sense would suggest the risk was at the very least of the same order:

There is no cogent explanation as to why these items are permitted but a fine necklace with a small pendant of religious devotional significance is not. There has been no evidence, for instance, that these items carry a lower infection risk than a necklace

@Lovelyricepudding

It certainly makes sense to ban jewellery in theatres. It was one thing that shocked me when I saw a clip of the TW sturgeon who operated on Jazz Jennings - they were wearing dangly earing in theatre.

Outwith theatre I think there should be crosses painted outside hospitals, big banners nearing crosses in hospitals, staff should be encouraged to wear lanyards with crosses so Christians know they are welcome in hospitals. And there should be an allyship scheme where staff who sign up to welcome Christians wear a cross pin-badge....

Oh, just seen what you did there.

@WeeBisom

For true nurse case, I’m not fond at all of the idea of theatre staff wearing jewellery but apparently discrimination was made out because so many high level members of staff were allowed to wear jewellery (or a blind eye was turned) and all other religious articles of clothing were allowed as well (turbans, bracelets, hijabs). So the idea that extraneous clothing poses an infection risk was not actually being followed in practice.it did look like she was being unfairly singled out. I think the obvious solution is to have a policy across the board that no jewellery is allowed. They shouldn’t be allowed to pick and choose who gets to wear what.

Yeah, it seems pretty clear to me. Likely none of them should have been wearing jewelry, but they were. It's pretty standard that if you don't follow a policy for other employees, if you try and enforce it on one the courts don't tend to support it.

They aren't ruling on safe surgical protocol.

@Tropics4

Cheesemum, just for you .. I'm saying that at my interview as a medic if I declare I am not willing to perform an abortion..I'm guessing I wont be the first choice for the job..that's it.

Not true.

Abortion, fertility treatment, end of life decisions are the 3 areas where conscientious objection is allowed.

I think I've missed something though, you're a medic?

Have you experienced discrimination around employment, job applications, job interviews?

Sorry I missed that you have first hand knowledge. Were they obvious? I'd have thought would not be obvious about it!

What sort of medic are you? My knowledge of goings on in theatre for HCPs, and how messy and well, let's just say not quiet, calm, clean etc it can get at the sharp end are a combo of knowledge from family and my own multiple procedures when school age.

And that was all years ago! Things prob changed (although in area I had all the ops, same area coincidentally as my relative worked in theatre some things can't have changed much I'd imagine!). Orthopaedics in case that wasn't obvious from previous post!

Just correcting the double negative in my earlier post.

My personal preference is that I would prefer if no medical staff made visible displays of their religious affiliations when treating me but if some are allowed to then why not all?

Ooh interesting thanks for links and excerpts!

Always happy to say I'm wrong if clear I am

I'll read the link as the excerpt seems woolly to me. It seems to talk about both in general and in I'm assuming theatre.

I'll have a look. If they were allowing all and sundry in theatre then for fucks sake appalling and I'll be looking into what the hosp did about it obviously because that's just shit.

(FYI looked into this as time including various trusts rules, Im pretty sure plain band wedding rings are ok but think there was some stuff around that).

@KimikosNightmare

Just correcting the double negative in my earlier post.

My personal preference is that I would prefer if no medical staff made visible displays of their religious affiliations when treating me but if some are allowed to then why not all?

What if your religion is... Seen by many as to do with things that are against your religion?

Just thought this earlier so throwing it out there!

What if your religion is... Seen by many as to do with things that are against your religion?

Just thought this earlier so throwing it out there!

I'm not sure what you are asking.

I'm an atheist. I think all visible indications of what religious beliefs a person has should be banned in schools, hospitals and work places - definitely work places such as council offices, courts where people generally have to go to rather than choose to go to.

I would ban state funded religious schools.

Interesting document!

Right at beginning, this is interesting.

Photos requested to be included as evidence vv late, hosp person said didn't show what was said they did. Tribunal said ages to put these in evidence, why didn't?

Anyway tribunal said nope not having as evidence.

I'm not sure what significance you think that has.

The Tribunal were satisfied on the evidence presented that the rules about what was and wasn't acceptable might as well have been filed down the back of a radiator for all the regard being paid to them or logic applied in making them.

The Respondent didn't even try to refute that the rules were applied inconsistently- beyond the silly assertion that monitoring of doctors was a different line of management.

Read to page 13 and have formed opinion.

Sounds personal to me. That the woman who was on at her all the time in a clearly nasty way just had it in for her.

Whether it was two way, who 'started it', just an instant mutual dislike I have no idea.

Reading between the lines sounds like the woman who was from what I read was harrassing/ bullying/ hated.... The nurse. Used her power to make her life at work shit, probably wanted her to give up and get a different job, suspect knew devout RC and so knew cross would be big issue and so used that as a reason to threaten her etc.

She may have tried other things first before cross, which didn't have same impact. If she's removed cross suspect woman would have found another excuse to carry on at her.

Feels that way to me.

Obv could be wrong!

With cake case as well, feels like maybe previous antagonism. I'm pretty sure customers knew their cake would cause strong reaction. Either way, the customers clearly wanted a row, and the bakers were up for a row.

The fact that their cake was related to gay marriage, which became legal last year iirc. Jan maybe.

That this happened 7 years ago and still they're at it. I think initial ruling, took to our supreme court who didn't change ruling. Then onto Europe court.

I mean obv I understand getting really single minded and so I can kind of understand.

OTOH gay marriage legalised (which will have really pissed off and upset the bakers so imagine they were ha!), the expense effort stress and just having it part of life 7 years. Must have been shit for both parties tbh the prolonging etc.

To spend so long feeling (as must have?) angry, let down by legal system, that had to keep going and win, and so on. These things consume your life.

And we each time he loses it's going to have made him even angrier etc.

@KimikosNightmare

I'm not sure what significance you think that has.

The Tribunal were satisfied on the evidence presented that the rules about what was and wasn't acceptable might as well have been filed down the back of a radiator for all the regard being paid to them or logic applied in making them.

The Respondent didn't even try to refute that the rules were applied inconsistently- beyond the silly assertion that monitoring of doctors was a different line of management.

Oh the pic it was the photos stuff that was peculiar.

Did the hosp get clobbered for the jewelry everything thing?

In the end hosp found nurse was victimised and had been constructively dismissed.

From what I read that sounds right judgement.

And indirect discrimination I think as well against NHS.

I agree that reading between the lines there may have been an element of personal antagonism/ bullying.

The nurse had been working for many years with no issue. It did read as if some- one had taken against her but this was the only "fault" that could be pinned on her.