Does the CJEU (and perhaps even the ECtHR) have a Blind Spot about Non-Christian Religions?

Full title: 'Of Hijabs and Shechitah/Halal - Does the CJEU (and perhaps even the ECtHR) have a Blind Spot about Non-Christian Religions?'
Speaker: Professor Eleanor Sharpston KC, Advocate General, CJEU (2006-2020) and Goodhart Professor, University of Cambridge (2023/2024)
Abstract: As an AG Professor Sharpston worked on religious discrimination and employment matters, delivering an opinion in one of the first two hijab cases (Bougnaoui) and then the ‘shadow opinion’ in Wabe and Müller, which she posted via Professor Steve Peers’ EU law blog after leaving the Court. She has already compared Achbita and Bougnaoui to the decisions in Egenberger and the Caritas hospital case (IR v JQ) in her festschrift contribution for Allan Rosas. Unsurprisingly, she has been keeping an eye open for further developments in that case law (WABE and Müller, S.C.R.L (Religious clothing) and, most recently, Commune d’Ans (Grand Chamber, 28 November 2023). Additionally, she has also been looking at what the Court has been saying in relation to ritual slaughter of animals (as required for meat-eating observant Jews and Muslims). Notable cases include Liga van Moskeeën, Oeuvre d’assistance aux bêtes d’abattoirs (OABA) and Centraal Israëlitisch Constistorie. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights also addresses these issues: Eweida v UK on religious symbols in the workplace, and the very recent decision (13 February 2024) in Executief van de Moslims van België and Others v Belgium on banning ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning. The cases are constitutionally important in terms of the deference shown to Member States; and in some respects, they are troubling for anyone who is religious and non-Christian.
Discussion chaired by Dr Markus W. Gehring, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Member of CELS.
For more information see:
www.cels.law.c...

[@IKnowNeonLights]

A personal representation of a religion or faith, is only and always that, a personal representation, albeit such a presentation might be quite, highly or extremely eccentric form of. Which is quite rare in most cases, being that such a form if and when true, is more in regards to specific ceremonial and not general acts.
A complex manifold replica of a personal representation of a religion or faith is always closer to the religion or faith as a totality, including the quite, highly, and the extreme version of its specific, or general ceremonial part, which nonetheless always remain quite rare.
Discriminating against one, discriminates against the other. Protecting one, protects the other.
It has a flaw, and the flaw regards to representation. Meaning who does it represent. Such a flaw can be used against who it does and who it does not represent as a conflictual method either way.
The sentence of (the x religious community of x country, city etc etc is gathered here today as a sign of solidarity in regards to ....) shows such a flaw in full force.
Whereas the sentence (the citizens of x country, predominantly of x religion or religions are gathered here today as a sign of solidarity in regards to ........) deals much better with the who it represents part, and puts a valuable stress part on such a who it represents part.
In doing so, I suspect a lot of highly priced liberal convictions within many, will question the visuals of the sentence in regards to who it represents, especially in the form of a thought at minimum, and have the highly priced part of the liberal convictions put into serious doubt by the incovukable constant flashing of a bias sign.
The flaw effects race, sex and gender among a few other possibilities coming up, as the world's population increases.
(((The above supposed intersected sectionality of different cases, having excluded a plausible way of seeing the matter through the a structure based on the opinion put here forward, completely neglects the very basic fact of...
Religious, ceremonial, uniformal, and faith based regalia are always, and the always emphasized here can be attested throughout history, made of clothes, just as actual clothing is made of clothes.
Meaning hats are hats, scarfs are scarfs, dresses, trousers and shirts, are dresses, trousers and shirts, vests, jackets and whole suit's are that also, and so on with amulets, talismans, symbols, jewellery etc etc.
Based on that, the who it represents part can be deducted if and when required, which if and when put against a liberal conviction, can demonstrate if is it such or not.)))