On 25-Jan-09 14:08, Warp wrote:
> Kenneth <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>> (It always seems to take some unfortunate person
>> or persons, who have been denied rights and freedoms, or worse, to bring such
>> things to a head and force a change. It's a shame that in most cases, change
>> can't be effected otherwise.)
> 
>   On the other hand, it's a fine line between freedom of religious
> expression and, sometimes, safety regulations.
> 
>   For example, if in some kind of food preparation establishment there's
> a rule, related to food hygiene and safety, that all workers handling the
> food must not wear long-sleeved shirts (because long sleeves may touch
> the food products, increasing risk of contamination), and someone has the
> religious conviction that he must wear long-sleeved shirts (I suppose I
> don't have to mention such religion by name), which one in this case should
> be imposed, the freedom of religious expression, or the safety rule?
> 
>   Now guess if this has been a real case, and guess what the court of
> law (in a western European country) ruled.
> 
I would hope that the court ruled that if your religion prohibits you to 
work at some place you seek another job. Otherwise any jew or muslim 
could apply for a job in a pig farm and force the company to change over 
to sheep. I am not entirely sure however if common sense prevailed in 
this case.

Post a reply to this message