this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
406 points (97.0% liked)

Europe

8324 readers
3 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe πŸ‡ͺπŸ‡Ί

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, πŸ‡©πŸ‡ͺ ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Doorbook@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What defines public work place? If the church get tax breaks for being non-profit aren't they consider public?

[–] herrvogel@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean the answer is really not that complicated. If the checks are being paid by the government then it's a public work place. It's a pretty clearly defined thing.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ahriboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago

Now do it on Zionist symbols please

[–] Zerush@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Religious symbols where they belong, in churches, temples and religious institutions, in public places, administrations, public libraries, schools and universities have absolutely nothing to do with, there they can result in offense or discrimination for people of another or no faith. Sad politicians making an oath on the Bible (in Spain they do it on the constitution, without additions like "with the help of God"). Religion is a true social backwardness, the proof is theocracies, there are none in the world where basic human rights are respected and where social progress is possible.

[–] vodkasolution@feddit.it 3 points 1 year ago

I'll have a triple large double popcorn while Italy get this...

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


The Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling came after a Belgian woman alleged the local municipality where she worked had infringed her religious freedom by telling her she couldn't wear a hijab.

The latest case arrived at the court after a Muslim employee of the eastern Belgian municipality of Ans was told she could not wear a headscarf at work.

The municipality then amended its terms of employment, saying they required employees to observe strict neutrality, which means any form of proselytising is prohibited and the wearing of overt signs of ideological or religious affiliation is not allowed for any worker.

Hearing the case, the Labour Court in Liège said it was uncertain whether the condition of strict neutrality imposed by the municipality gave rise to discrimination contrary to EU law.

In August France's Education Minister Gabriel Attal said state school pupils would be banned from wearing abayas, loose-fitting full-length robes worn by some Muslim women.

The garment had been increasingly worn in schools leading to a political divide over them, with right-wing parties pushing for a ban while those on the left voicing concerns for the rights of Muslim women and girls.


The original article contains 369 words, the summary contains 192 words. Saved 48%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί