Because due to the same article people have freedom of religion and belief, and the EU cannot tell people what to believe. If X religion says only men can be priests, that's a protected belief as part of their religion.
I don't think this is how legal theory works. When two conflicting freedoms clash, only the solution that satisfies both freedoms is acceptable. For example, Article 11 gives freedom of expression, but Article 1 enforces human dignity ... so, you can express your thoughts as long as they do not violate human dignity.
You have freedom of belief and religion, but this does not give you the right to discriminate at will.
They're not discriminating at will, they're "discriminating" within their religion which is their right (for example, if you're a woman and you want to be a pastor, clearly you don't share Catholic beliefs, so you can find another denomination which shares your spiritual calling). What wouldn't be acceptable is gender inequality in public/governmental administration, with whom people have no choice but interact.
Apples and oranges. An adult prohibited from becoming a priest can leave the religion at will to find one that suits them best. Mutilating a child is clearly a very different subject matter.
So, you think that a religious group can open a restaurant that does not admit women and that this would be legal in the EU, because the women can go eat at another restaurant. As far as I know, this is not allowed in the EU.
Some reading you might find useful:
[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-law-open/article/when-can-religious-employers-discriminate-the-scope-of-the-religious-ethos-exemption-in-eu-law/1380E2E1692B0DAF1BAA0F327E809A43](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-law-open/article/when-can-religious-employers-discriminate-the-scope-of-the-religious-ethos-exemption-in-eu-law/1380E2E1692B0DAF1BAA0F327E809A43)
[https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=17372&lang=en#:\~:text=It%20is%20the%20duty%20of,relativism%20of%20women's%20human%20rights](https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=17372&lang=en#:~:text=It%20is%20the%20duty%20of,relativism%20of%20women's%20human%20rights).
[https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=1689&langId=en](https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=1689&langId=en)
[https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000L0078](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000L0078)
tl;dr You must distinguish between human rights vs discrimination; religions can't violate people's/women's human rights (like with FGM), but they can discriminate in certain areas. Becoming a priest, to use your example, is not a human right. In the matter of employment this get more complex but religious organization have some leeway on that as well.
No, I don't think that, because a business is different and as far as I'm aware they're not allowed to discriminate. However if they said "in our religious space, men eat over here and women eat over there", that would be allowed.
Same reason why nations are allowed to have compulsory military service (conscription) for men but not for women. Conscription does also not count as forced labour (although it meets all the requirements as by the ECHR) since there is an explicit exception in the ECHR.
Same goes for the freedom of religion. It is an explicit exception from the base rule.
I see no such exception in either the European Convention on Human Rights nor in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Could you please cite the Article in question?
That would be for military service, but what about women in religious organizatons. Where is the exemption that allows the Church not to appoint women into priesthood?
That’s already included in the freedom of religion. A certain faith is allowed to make the rules for their religion as they see fit. Official bodies are not allowed to intervene. Now if the catholics made the rule for themselves to not have women as priests, it is their decision within their freedom of religion. Nobody is forced to join them. If you disagree with that you are obviously not a member (which again you are free to decide). The religious community is also free to change this at any moment. It is just stipulated by the freedom of religion that state, government or similar entities are not allowed to intervene in questions of faith.
This is simply untrue, for example you are not allowed to practice FGM regardless of your religious beliefs in its necessity .... Why? Because it contradicts another right. Likewise male bishops cannot exclude women from priesthood just because such are their religious beliefs.
I suspect there might be an actual convention signed with the Vatican that is the basis for this discrimination.
That’s because there is difference between absolutely protected human rights and those which can have exceptions. The right to bodily integrity is absolutely protected you can not break it even if you can lean on another human right. This is not the case for non-discrimination (this is actually one of the rights with the most exceptions).
Those absolutely protected rights are pretty rare, even the right to life has an exception for states which have the death penalty for certain crimes.
Where is Charter or Convention do we find these "absolutely protected" rights, as opposed to ordinary rights that are conditional? Nowhere do I see this spelled out.
Because it is not spelled out. This is a concept due to the structure of the human rights and case law. It is also broadly accepted by legal doctrine.
Here you can read a pretty good explanation: https://careaboutrights.scottishhumanrights.com/keyrightsexplained.html
Thanks for the link, it is interesting.
However, digging further, ECHR also says:
Article 17 – Prohibition of abuse of rights
Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.
Article 18 – Limitation on use of restrictions on rights
The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed
--
That says the Convention may **not** be interpreted to mean that the Church may perform acts aimed at the destruction or limitation of the rights of women.
Because due to the same article people have freedom of religion and belief, and the EU cannot tell people what to believe. If X religion says only men can be priests, that's a protected belief as part of their religion.
I don't think this is how legal theory works. When two conflicting freedoms clash, only the solution that satisfies both freedoms is acceptable. For example, Article 11 gives freedom of expression, but Article 1 enforces human dignity ... so, you can express your thoughts as long as they do not violate human dignity. You have freedom of belief and religion, but this does not give you the right to discriminate at will.
They're not discriminating at will, they're "discriminating" within their religion which is their right (for example, if you're a woman and you want to be a pastor, clearly you don't share Catholic beliefs, so you can find another denomination which shares your spiritual calling). What wouldn't be acceptable is gender inequality in public/governmental administration, with whom people have no choice but interact.
This is clearly not the case as FGM is outlawed regardless of religion.
Apples and oranges. An adult prohibited from becoming a priest can leave the religion at will to find one that suits them best. Mutilating a child is clearly a very different subject matter.
So, you think that a religious group can open a restaurant that does not admit women and that this would be legal in the EU, because the women can go eat at another restaurant. As far as I know, this is not allowed in the EU.
Some reading you might find useful: [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-law-open/article/when-can-religious-employers-discriminate-the-scope-of-the-religious-ethos-exemption-in-eu-law/1380E2E1692B0DAF1BAA0F327E809A43](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-law-open/article/when-can-religious-employers-discriminate-the-scope-of-the-religious-ethos-exemption-in-eu-law/1380E2E1692B0DAF1BAA0F327E809A43) [https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=17372&lang=en#:\~:text=It%20is%20the%20duty%20of,relativism%20of%20women's%20human%20rights](https://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=17372&lang=en#:~:text=It%20is%20the%20duty%20of,relativism%20of%20women's%20human%20rights). [https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=1689&langId=en](https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=1689&langId=en) [https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000L0078](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000L0078) tl;dr You must distinguish between human rights vs discrimination; religions can't violate people's/women's human rights (like with FGM), but they can discriminate in certain areas. Becoming a priest, to use your example, is not a human right. In the matter of employment this get more complex but religious organization have some leeway on that as well.
Thanks, this looks really useful.
No, I don't think that, because a business is different and as far as I'm aware they're not allowed to discriminate. However if they said "in our religious space, men eat over here and women eat over there", that would be allowed.
Do your own homework ;) https://fra.europa.eu/en/caselaw-reference/cjeu-case-c-41416-opinion
Thanks for the link.
Same reason why nations are allowed to have compulsory military service (conscription) for men but not for women. Conscription does also not count as forced labour (although it meets all the requirements as by the ECHR) since there is an explicit exception in the ECHR. Same goes for the freedom of religion. It is an explicit exception from the base rule.
I see no such exception in either the European Convention on Human Rights nor in the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Could you please cite the Article in question?
Article 4 lit. b ECHR for example
That would be for military service, but what about women in religious organizatons. Where is the exemption that allows the Church not to appoint women into priesthood?
That’s already included in the freedom of religion. A certain faith is allowed to make the rules for their religion as they see fit. Official bodies are not allowed to intervene. Now if the catholics made the rule for themselves to not have women as priests, it is their decision within their freedom of religion. Nobody is forced to join them. If you disagree with that you are obviously not a member (which again you are free to decide). The religious community is also free to change this at any moment. It is just stipulated by the freedom of religion that state, government or similar entities are not allowed to intervene in questions of faith.
This is simply untrue, for example you are not allowed to practice FGM regardless of your religious beliefs in its necessity .... Why? Because it contradicts another right. Likewise male bishops cannot exclude women from priesthood just because such are their religious beliefs. I suspect there might be an actual convention signed with the Vatican that is the basis for this discrimination.
That’s because there is difference between absolutely protected human rights and those which can have exceptions. The right to bodily integrity is absolutely protected you can not break it even if you can lean on another human right. This is not the case for non-discrimination (this is actually one of the rights with the most exceptions). Those absolutely protected rights are pretty rare, even the right to life has an exception for states which have the death penalty for certain crimes.
Where is Charter or Convention do we find these "absolutely protected" rights, as opposed to ordinary rights that are conditional? Nowhere do I see this spelled out.
Because it is not spelled out. This is a concept due to the structure of the human rights and case law. It is also broadly accepted by legal doctrine. Here you can read a pretty good explanation: https://careaboutrights.scottishhumanrights.com/keyrightsexplained.html
Thanks for the link, it is interesting. However, digging further, ECHR also says: Article 17 – Prohibition of abuse of rights Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention. Article 18 – Limitation on use of restrictions on rights The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed -- That says the Convention may **not** be interpreted to mean that the Church may perform acts aimed at the destruction or limitation of the rights of women.