• Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not that simple. There has to be a valid purpose for a dress code. “Oppressing Muslims” is not a valid purpose.

    • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And I already mentioned a valid reason. I think no religion has a place among a secular state’s officers and I think they are well within their right to ban religious symbols. As long as they don’t do so selectively that is.

      Practice your religion in your freetime or look for a job elsewhere.

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Or, we do the sensible thing, and expect the people in our society to tolerate each other. So long as the “symbol” is not interfering with the performance of their duties, there is no compelling reason to prohibit it.

        If it offends someone that the clerk issuing their driver’s license is wearing a headscarf, or a crucifix, or carrying a kirpan, the problem is not the state, nor the dress code, nor the clerk. The problem is the whiny little removed offended at the idea that the state would dare to employ someone with a different personal worldview.

        Same goes for non-state employers, which is what the ruling is actually about. If your customer has a problem being served by your employee for wearing a turban or a yarmulke, the real problem is that you’re treating this person as your customer, rather than as a hateful, trespassing bigot.

        The takeaway from this ruling is that the state recognizes, respects, and protects homogeneity over diversity. It supports and promotes sameness over individuality. It caters to the whiniest bigots among its populace, and to hell with any religious minority, or anyone who even looks like they might be a member of a religious minority.

        The reality is that bigotry is a mental health issue. Rather than cater to their disease, Europe should be encouraging bigots to seek professional help. There is a fairly simple treatment option becoming popular in Canada that has achieved startlingly good results for the treatment of bigots. It’s nearly 100% effective, with no significant side effects in the treatment of chronic bigotry.