No hijabs need apply.

seamus

Crazy how this has been blown out of all proportion, talk of "bans" on headscarves.

The ruling is pretty simple and fair IMO. Where an employer applies a broad dress code for their employees, they are under no obligation to accommodate exceptions for people who choose to wear religious clothing or symbols.

Where an employer sanctions an individual employee or discriminates on the basis religion in relation to dress code, then that is illegal.

Which all seems extremely fair - allowing some people to wear religious symbols/clothing while requiring everyone else to stick to a dress code is unfair. And vice-versa; allowing leeway to some staff to wear symbols or statements but disciplining others because their statement is religious, is patently unfair.

pilly

Widdershins wrote: »

Firstly, I wasn't aware of that. Maybe they shouldn't be doing so? Although considering it's the uniform of their lifelong vocation, is that not different in itself? Imo both are the outward signs of extreme cults but at least nuns signed up for it as a job. Are they nurses or carrying out actual religious work in their religious uniforms?

You really don't know the differences between Islamic womens garments and nuns garments?

One applies to women in general, the other to a religious order.
One can include full covering wit just a mesh in the face covering, to breath through.
I don't mean to be sarcastic or argumentative, but maybe you do? It's like a game of spot the difference in primary school!

As for it's just''religious dress''. I think that's a bit demeaning to the situation of abuse where women may not be able to leave the house to go to work if they aren't wearing hijab, and the enforcement of the wearing of this religious dress in strict cultures.

I know a lot of muslim women, not one considers it a situation of abuse. They believe in their religion and wear the hijab for that reason. There are some who don't wear it and it's not considered a big deal in more moderate families.

JupiterKid

Compared to 30+ years ago, not many nuns wear the full habit any more. I haven't seen a nun in the full habit in quite a while.

pilly

seamus wrote: »

Crazy how this has been blown out of all proportion, talk of "bans" on headscarves.

The ruling is pretty simple and fair IMO. Where an employer applies a broad dress code for their employees, they are under no obligation to accommodate exceptions for people who choose to wear religious clothing or symbols.

Where an employer sanctions an individual employee or discriminates on the basis religion in relation to dress code, then that is illegal.

So have you ever seen a dress code that says "no head covering"?

Widdershins

pilly wrote: »

I was comparing the nuns uniform to the hijab, not the more extreme covering you're talking about and no I don't see much difference between them, both are a sign of one's religious persuasion.

In fact I would be more bothered by the nun's uniform and frequently am, they also wear it when teaching children. To me it gives off an air of superiority too. Anyway, that's probably a different issue altogether.

My point really is, say for example a nun went to work in another country and was told she couldn't wear her uniform? There would be uproar!!

It's definitely a muslim bias that's going on here.

I'm honestly not trying to be sarcastic or argumentative here, I really do believe we need to live and let live more. I saw a muslim woman being interviewed about it last night and she said quite simply that it will drive muslim women out of the workforce and how is that going to help integration?

If Catholic women wore nuns habits, it would be comparable to Islamic women and hijab.

I don't think anyone's stopping women from covering their heads. It might be against the workplace dresscode but that code has to apply to other religious clothing etc.

That's adequately tolerant imo.
People should be objecting to garments of oppression at the same time as tolerating the wearing of them.

Widdershins

pilly wrote: »

I know a lot of muslim women, not one considers it a situation of abuse. They believe in their religion and wear the hijab for that reason. There are some who don't wear it and it's not considered a big deal in more moderate families.

If you're brought up with something you tend to accept it. Some have no choice. Some don't wear it, most of the women I know don't, and many of those I know of, are against it.

BalcombeSt4

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Such rules are anything but liberal. Also, the idea that a ruling like the one in the OP will cause Muslim women to suddenly run home to their Husbands and say 'Hah! Not wearing dis shit any more init bruv, laters. I is off to join the pole-dancing club'' is just silly.

I know thats why I said "so-called" liberals. Like the Bill Maher brigade.

challengemaster

challengemaster wrote: »

In the case of a dentist, sure, in the case of other professions though I would disagree. For example, surgeons and surgical staff would need to be much more strict in what is allowed in operating theatres. Similarly I can't see them being allowed into any GMP facility or clean rooms. They simply aren't sterile and wearing a mask over that doesn't change it.

Fair point, alright , I wonder could they get around it by using sterile pre wrapped Hijabs? Like the scrubs they all change into ?.

seamus

pilly wrote: »

So have you ever seen a dress code that says "no head covering"?

Yeah. Worked for Superquinn back in the day, they had a very detailed dress code. Hats, scarves or head coverings were disallowed unless that was required for food safety.

Most companies with uniforms will have similarly restrictive codes, but they've likely been making exceptions for religious garb.

Sand

I think people trying to make this out as repressive are over hyping the ruling. Employers are allowed to set a dress code for their employees depending on safety or a simple public face they want to present. Employees can either comply with the dress code, or work elsewhere.

All the ruling states is that it is not discriminatory for an employer to exclude ostentatious religious, political or philosophical symbols or items of clothing. It doesn't ban them, it just states that employers banning them is not discriminatory in and of itself.

And as Widdershins have said, if women are in situations where they are not permitted to leave their homes without a hijab, then that is the actual problem that needs addressing. If those women were white a similar situation would be described as and dealt with as domestic/psychological abuse, but because they are not its ignored as just being a cultural choice. Europe has no obligation to enable radical political or religious views, or to normalise the deliberate isolation of women whatever their background.

Donal55

pilly wrote: »

Plenty of nuns work in hospitals and wear the full uniform. What's quite different about their dress? I don't see any difference whatsoever. It's a religious way of dressing.

I would like to see a hospital bring in this ruling and insist that a nun couldn't wear the garb either.

What if the nuns owned the hospitals?? Or ran them in trust.

riffmongous

The OP is unclear, how does it actually work? Is it

a) an employer bans all religious articles and clothes?

b) an employer sets a dress code and items that go against it can't be worn (so a hijab might be ok for women but a hat or skullcap for men is not ?

Donal55

riffmongous wrote: »

The OP is unclear, how does it actually work? Is it

a) an employer bans all religious articles and clothes?

b) an employer sets a dress code and items that go against it can't be worn (so a hijab might be ok for women but a hat for men is not ?

The way I read it was, 'an employer sets a dress code but it must encompass all aspects. For example, no hijab, crucifix, jewish gear etc.' If the above is applied the employer cannot be accsed of being discriminatory.

The case which was found to be considered discriminatory occured when a French employer specifically told a muslim woman to remove her hijab when dealing with a certain client as that client had told her employer he was not comfortable in dealing with her whilst she wore her hijab.

I think its fairly straightforward, is based on treating all employees in the workplace equally, and doesnt leave an employer open to a legal suit.

As someone said previously, if the terms and conditions of a job don't suit you, don't go for it.

Capt'n Midnight

fatknacker wrote: »

Only if fattyholed Irish men observe Ramadan every few months too.

Wouldn't do any good as most people put on weight during Ramadan.

Because they are only starvin' after waiting all day to have a bite.

BalcombeSt4

Well hopefully after the Revolution workers will be in control of the means of production, and won't have bosses telling them what to wear.

Capt'n Midnight

Hijabs aren't a religious requirement of Islam.


But for male Sikh's the turban is a religious requirement rather than just a symbol.


also the ECJ is pretty clear that it's all or nothing regarding bans
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/employers-allowed-ban-headscarves-eu-court-170314092627483.html

However, in a related case in France, the ECJ ruled a customer could not demand that a company employee not wear a hijab when conducting business with them on its behalf.

...
The ECJ said the case turned on whether there was an internal company rule in place applicable to all, as in the G4S instance, or whether the client's demand meant Bougnaoui was treated differently.

The ECJ concluded that Bougnaoui had indeed been treated differently and so the client's demand that she not wear a hijab "cannot be considered a genuine and determining occupational requirement".

Capt'n Midnight

jameorahiely wrote: »

So I can't wear my Fedora to work tomorrow?

yes you can because looser isn't a religion :pac:


Only kidding






But wearing colanders is just totally out.

I think i remember there was a case here were a male wished to wear his turban while working in An Garda Siochana, but it was held that as it wasn't part of the uniform, he could not. In that case he didn't take the job ( may have been as a reserve )

Tbh, while i believe in gardai wearing the uniform, I actually believe that the force should mirror society. Therefore turbans & hijabs, could easily be worn whilst also wearing the uniform.
I feel it would be good for AGS to reflect all members of society, especially these minorities, who may not be as comfortable with gardai.

RandomName2

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Such rules are anything but liberal.

Well "religion" beats "women's rights" on the Liberal totem pole (if you're wondering, sexuality beats religion, and race beats sexuality), so I doubt you'd have many Liberals actually lauding anything of the sort.

Besides which this isn't do do with the freedom of the individual, it's to do with freedom for the employer. It's the idea that religion isn't a wildcard in terms of company rules, in relation to clothes at least. To suggest that a self-respecting Liberal would ever back that is ludicrous.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But wearing colanders is just totally out.

I have a feeling that you trivialising the way I choose to express my devotion.

oppenheimer1

It was an interesting ruling, especially in relation to wearing political attire at work. During the marriage equality referendum there were plenty of cafés in Dublin at least where employees were wearing yes equality buttons and it seemed there were many businesses that took a side in the vote.

According to this ruling, if I read it correctly, staff members on the other side could wear vote No buttons t shirts and the like and can't be disciplined.

FTA69

Luis Attractive Wagon wrote: »

.



It's strange that you need to conform to their ways in order for them to integrate. I totally disagree with this. If these women are subjected to more misery due to this rule, it's for them to oppose these ridiculous, stone age rules about dress code, not nanny state rules.

Can you point out where it's noting to do with enforcing across the board and everything to do with sticking it to the muslims? This is what the OP states: "The ECJ ruled today that employers may bar those that wear political or religious garb in the workplace and not be confronted with the word, discrimination", however, he/she has turned it into an anti "hijab" thing with the biased thread title.

Personally, I would have preferred a total ban on clothes completely covering ones face in public. With exceptions to PPE or the likes.

Hang about, I never had to "conform" to anything when I was doing my classes. All I had to do was open the doors and teach whoever came in; I wasn't bending over to accommodate everyone. Likewise the fact they were wearing a headscarf didn't prevent me from teaching or them from learning. I don't see how a hijab restricts anyone from doing anything really. As for face-covering, that doesn't apply when discussing the hijab.

The reason I think it has to do with sticking it to the Muslims so to speak is that it's coming at a time when many institutions are pandering to right-wing populism. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong and it's a genuine attempt to enforce secularism and a harmless ruling on employer's rights to make decisions.

I dislike the notion of the hijab and the rationale behind it, but I also accept the fact that women choose to put it on and feel aggrieved about taking it off and there's no denying that there's a lot of ill-placed hysteria around the issue of Islamic dress.

RandomName2

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It was an interesting ruling, especially in relation to wearing political attire at work. During the marriage equality referendum there were plenty of cafés in Dublin at least where employees were wearing yes equality buttons and it seemed there were many businesses that took a side in the vote.

According to this ruling, if I read it correctly, staff members on the other side could wear vote No buttons t shirts and the like and can't be disciplined.

More the other way round really? It's just that "whatever your employer says you can or can't wear... those are the things you can or can't wear".

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

FTA69 wrote: »

Hang about, I never had to "conform" to anything when I was doing my classes. All I had to do was open the doors and teach whoever came in; I wasn't bending over to accommodate everyone. Likewise the fact they were wearing a headscarf didn't prevent me from teaching or them from learning. I don't see how a hijab restricts anyone from doing anything really. As for face-covering, that doesn't apply when discussing the hijab.

The reason I think it has to do with sticking it to the Muslims so to speak is that it's coming at a time when many institutions are pandering to right-wing populism. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong and it's a genuine attempt to enforce secularism and a harmless ruling on employer's rights to make decisions.

I dislike the notion of the hijab and the rationale behind it, but I also accept the fact that women choose to put it on and feel aggrieved about taking it off and there's no denying that there's a lot of ill-placed hysteria around the issue of Islamic dress.

It's just how I read your post, that you had to accept their ways in order to teach them. Yet if your schools policy was "no religious attire or symbols" then they wouldn't turn up for class. In order to teach them, you would have to conform to their ways. I mentioned earlier that I don't think most people have an issue with the Hijab or similar dress, it's the likes of the Burka that people don't agree with or want in public places.

I don't think it's a muslim issue at all. The OP has just made it so, as have many others in this thread

Get rid of all religious dress and symbols, and while we are at it, knock every single cross from all hilltops, what a bloody idiotic idea, such a disgusting eyesore.

HalloweenJack

I just hope its applied across the board.

That Christian, Jewish and Buddhist or whatever-you're-having-yourself symbols are also subject to this.

222233

HalloweenJack wrote: »

I just hope its applied across the board.

That Christian, Jewish and Buddhist or whatever-you're-having-yourself symbols are also subject to this.

I think theres a big difference between someone who has there face covered and someone who has an object somewhere that represents a religion or a belief.

222233

222233 wrote: »

I think theres a big difference between someone who has there face covered and someone who has an object somewhere that represents a religion or a belief.

The hijab does not cover the face

222233

bubblypop wrote: »

The hijab does not cover the face

Covers a significant portion of the head, it's pretty much the same as wearing a beanie.

54and56

Luis Attractive Wagon wrote: »

It's just how I read your post, that you had to except their ways in order to teach them. Yet if your schools policy was "no religious attire or symbols" then they wouldn't turn up for class. In order to teach them, you would have to conform to their ways. I mentioned earlier that I don't think most people have an issue with the Hijab or similar dress, it's the likes of the Burka that people don't agree with or want in public places.

I don't think it's a muslim issue at all. The OP has just made it so, as have many others in this thread

Get rid of all religious dress and symbols, and while we are at it, knock every single cross from all hilltops, what a bloody idiotic idea, such a disgusting eyesore.

I think freedom of religion should not preclude an employer from implementing a freedom from religion policy by positively avoiding the hiring of anyone who believes in any sort of imaginary being whether that imaginary being is labelled a leprechaun, a banshee, a tooth fairy or a god.

If an employer could do that they wouldn't have any staff wishing to project their religious beliefs on others via the jewellery or headgear they wear.

If you asked a candidate in an interview whether they believed in the loch ness monster and they said "yes" you'd probably have good grounds for not employing them (I'm sure some HR/Employment Law person will confirm) but if you changed label and asked the candidate if they believe some being known as god made a galaxy full of billions of planets in 7 days and they said "yes" you'd be accused of discrimination for not hiring them when both claims are fictional and equally unsupported by any evidence.

222233

222233 wrote: »

Covers a significant portion of the head, it's pretty much the same as wearing a beanie.

And what's wrong with wearing a beanie?

222233

bubblypop wrote: »

And what's wrong with wearing a beanie?

Depending on the job maybe nothing.

In a job such as medicine, psychiatry etc there is first the interaction issue as face to face contact is so important for many people.

Then there is the security issue with a wide range of other jobs (Guards, banks, hospitals, schools)

Then there is the part where it might be against the dress code of that company.

Then there are places where it's fine. Many people have to dress a certain way for work anyway, I know I do. Don't see any issue with this.

FTA69

Luis Attractive Wagon wrote: »

It's just how I read your post, that you had to accept their ways in order to teach them. Yet if your schools policy was "no religious attire or symbols" then they wouldn't turn up for class. In order to teach them, you would have to conform to their ways. I mentioned earlier that I don't think most people have an issue with the Hijab or similar dress, it's the likes of the Burka that people don't agree with or want in public places.

I don't think it's a muslim issue at all. The OP has just made it so, as have many others in this thread

Get rid of all religious dress and symbols, and while we are at it, knock every single cross from all hilltops, what a bloody idiotic idea, such a disgusting eyesore.

Not really, me conforming would imply that I somehow had to alter my classes or my behaviour when I didn't. If they demanded I wear a Kufi hat and opened class with a prayer and banned all pork from the centre that would be asking me to "conform" but I didn't. They just came to class and opened their books.

Likewise, me demanding they remove a headscarf for no reason at all would be churlish and ridiculous. For most women who wear it, being forced into a situation where they have to remove it would be pretty traumatic and as such they probably wouldn't leave the house for anything. It would be akin to asking your mam to do her shopping in a bikini.

I get how Islam is inherently sexist, but likewise I don't see anything particularly liberating about dictating to women what they can and cannot wear.

Most countries, especally, Islamic countries, have their their own laws (cultural/religious) which control the behavior of foreigners....

I honestly don't see this need to make Europe the most free or balanced society...

The simple truth is that if you distinguish yourself as being different (fashions being the more obvious statement), then you're setting yourself up to be a target for criticism in any society. Everyone accepts that walking around Tehrain in a mini-skirt and tube top would be foolish.

222233

FTA69 wrote: »

Likewise, me demanding they remove a headscarf for no reason at all would be churlish and ridiculous. For most women who wear it, being forced into a situation where they have to remove it would be pretty traumatic and as such they probably wouldn't leave the house for anything. It would be akin to asking your mam to do her shopping in a bikini.

I don't imagine it would be "traumatic", I didn't find it traumatic when I had to take off my coat in school.

FTA69 wrote: »

I get how Islam is inherently sexist, but likewise I don't see anything particularly liberating about dictating to women what they can and cannot wear.

It's not really dictating what women can and can't where though, it's enforcing a dress code that may or may not permit a headscarf or any clotting item for that matter. It's like saying there is something wrong with making school children wear a uniform, there has to be rules sometimes. For instance in hospital it could be potentially unhygienic. No one is telling them what they can or can't wear in the privacy of their own home or out and about.

Donal55

Luis Attractive Wagon wrote: »

It's just how I read your post, that you had to accept their ways in order to teach them. Yet if your schools policy was "no religious attire or symbols" then they wouldn't turn up for class. In order to teach them, you would have to conform to their ways. I mentioned earlier that I don't think most people have an issue with the Hijab or similar dress, it's the likes of the Burka that people don't agree with or want in public places.

I don't think it's a muslim issue at all. The OP has just made it so, as have many others in this thread

Get rid of all religious dress and symbols, and while we are at it, knock every single cross from all hilltops, what a bloody idiotic idea, such a disgusting eyesore.

See, its not really that the OP, me, made this a muslim issue.
The ECJ made a ruling and Al Jazeera and many others, including the Muslim cleric from Dublin who took to the airwaves yesterday decided that this was a Muslim issue.

oppenheimer1

RandomName2 wrote: »

More the other way round really? It's just that "whatever your employer says you can or can't wear... those are the things you can or can't wear".

Not if your employer says you can wear political badges, then they have to allow employees to wear ones they might not agree with.

Donal55

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Not if your employer says you can wear political badges, then they have to allow employees to wear ones they might not agree with.

This ruling would have gone down like a lead balloon in Harland & Wolff during the 70s.

end of the road

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I think freedom of religion should not preclude an employer from implementing a freedom from religion policy by positively avoiding the hiring of anyone who believes in any sort of imaginary being whether that imaginary being is labelled a leprechaun, a banshee, a tooth fairy or a god

of course it should and it does. rightly so. you want to bann religious symbols and garments from your business, you can do so as long as it is across the board. but if you don't want to hire someone because they believe in a religion, then that's just tough.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

If an employer could do that they wouldn't have any staff wishing to project their religious beliefs on others via the jewellery or headgear they wear.

or any staff at all, in this country at least. after all, the majority put catholic on forms when the question of religion is asked, so going on that alone employers will only have about 14% of the country as potential candidates if lucky.

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

If you asked a candidate in an interview whether they believed in the loch ness monster and they said "yes" you'd probably have good grounds for not employing them (I'm sure some HR/Employment Law person will confirm) but if you changed label and asked the candidate if they believe some being known as god made a galaxy full of billions of planets in 7 days and they said "yes" you'd be accused of discrimination for not hiring them when both claims are fictional and equally unsupported by any evidence.

and rightly so as it would be discrimination. it is illegal to refuse to hire someone on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, gender, and so on. that is correct and just.

Mountainsandh

mike_ie wrote: »

Maybe it's just my simplistic view of things, but, in my opinion, living in a country where you are being FORCED to wear a hijab is oppressive. But living in a country where you are FORBIDDEN to wear a hijab is equally as oppressive. Women jailed (or worse) in Afghanistan for not wearing a burqa are being oppressed, because they have no choice. Women in Europe do have a choice. Until you take it away, of course, which is what has just happened here.

But Mike, they do have a choice.
They can choose to live in a place where their religious attire is tolerated, encouraged, or discouraged.
They can choose to apply for a job that will enable them to dress as they wish, or a job that will impose a dress code.

They have a choice !

Just like I have a choice to live in a country where my children have to wear a uniform going to school, and have to attend religious education in school. These two things jar with me, as I grew up in a different situation.
But it's my choice to remain. All things considered, I'm happy to remain, and make a life in Ireland with my family.

I had to work in Eason's for a while, we used to have to wear these awful skirts and shirts. God I hate skirts. I took the job at the time anyway. No one forced me in, and no one had to force me out because I didn't refuse to wear the skirt.

You take a job as it comes. The job, and whoever owns the company, get to decide what they think is appropriate, and that's what the judgement confirmed.

It's not at all taking away a choice, in fact, it's putting them in a situation where they have to choose.

That's ok. That's grown up life. We make choices depending on our convictions, our aspirations, in all aspects of life.

There is no reason why the attachment to a garment connected to your religious beliefs should have the power to change the rest of society.

Prime Irish Beef

RiderOnTheStorm wrote: »

MAY bar wearing..... They don't have to. Its not a law or recommendation. Just that they can do it, and it won't be discrimination. And, if they do bar religious garb, it will have to include all religious garb & icons, including Christian crucifix , Jewish skull cap, and turban.

Holy sh*tcakes, not the turban.

Bring back "no knickers Wednesday"!!

LaChatteGitane

222233 wrote: »

Depending on the job maybe nothing.

In a job such as medicine, psychiatry etc there is first the interaction issue as face to face contact is so important for many people.

Then there is the security issue with a wide range of other jobs (Guards, banks, hospitals, schools)

Then there is the part where it might be against the dress code of that company.

Then there are places where it's fine. Many people have to dress a certain way for work anyway, I know I do. Don't see any issue with this.

What's so wrong with this ?
http://media.worldbulletin.net/news/2016/08/25/hijabscotland.jpg

Nothing AFAIK.

Junkyard Tom

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well "religion" beats "women's rights" on the Liberal totem pole (if you're wondering, sexuality beats religion, and race beats sexuality), so I doubt you'd have many Liberals actually lauding anything of the sort.

I don't understand what you're trying to say and I've read it several times.

BlaasForRafa

FTA69 wrote: »

I dislike the notion of the hijab and the rationale behind it, but I also accept the fact that women choose to put it on .

They don't "choose" to put it on, they're indoctrinated. There's a big difference there.

The Backwards Man

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

They don't "choose" to put it on, they're indoctrinated. There's a big difference there.

So that makes them less human than you or me then yeah? Great.

BlaasForRafa

The Backwards Man wrote: »

So that makes them less human than you or me then yeah? Great.

Read my post again, did I say that? No I didn't. Putting words in someone elses mouth is a poor form of debate.

The Backwards Man

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Read my post again, did I say that? No I didn't. Putting words in someone elses mouth is a poor form of debate.

Read it a dozen times, still reads the same, maybe you didn't mean it that way but I doubt it. Next time take the word choose out of inverted commas so people won't think you're statig they are incapable of making their own choices just because they are Muslim

JupiterKid

Many Muslim women freely choose to water the hijab and that's fine. But quite a lot are pressured or outright forced to by their husbands/parents/siblings and that's not right. And what woman would freely choose to wear the burka? It's oppressive garb and has no place in the West.

BlaasForRafa

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Read it a dozen times, still reads the same, maybe you didn't mean it that way but I doubt it. Next time take the word choose out of inverted commas so people won't think you're statig they are incapable of making their own choices just because they are Muslim

Did you really read it a dozen times? I doubt it, I think you had your mind made up instantly and instead of dealing with what I actually said you responded to what your bias thought that I had said, big difference.

Indoctrination by parents, families, peers and religion can be a powerful thing, it's these elements that treat people and especially women who adhere to these religions as less than human. It is they that you should be focusing your ire on, not those who point out their predicament.

Junkyard Tom

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Indoctrination by parents, families, peers and religion can be a powerful thing,

You weren't indoctrinated?

suicide_circus

It's a pointless ruling really, you're just creating martyrs.

Tokyo

If the aim of this ruling is truly neutrality in the workplace, I'm curious what will happen to the first business who, after implementing this rule, decides to put up a Christmas tree in the office...