Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

BA employee to sue company over right to wear cross

124»

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    For this woman it is a religious symbol, it depends on whether you accept that viewpoint or not.

    The Muslims get to wear attire for social grounds (they're not even religious garments) but this woman is denied it. Typical BA, I suppose.


    shes allowed to wear it, shes just not allowed to wear it on top of her clothing

    her fault, not BAs, if they didnt let ehr wear a neckalce yeh it'd be outters, but it isn't so her fault
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    rachie004 wrote:
    Sorry to bring this back up again but it seems that the company has backed down do to the CofE threatening to withdraw its support (and someone said their shares in the company although I'm not sure how that would work - a church having shares in the company?)

    The CoE will have a large investment portfolio in the company, and if that was withdrawn the share price would be clobbered.

    I'm glad that they've finally had the sense to realise that they were in the wrong about this religious discrimination.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    I'm glad that they've finally had the sense to realise that they were in the wrong about this religious discrimination.
    Yeah, cos that's the reason they changed their minds.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    All's well that ends well.

    Blair had the right attitude- there are some fights worth fighting, and some fights not worth fighting. This wasn't worth fighting, especially as anyone with half a brain can see it was blatant religious discrimination which would never have happened had the woman been a Muslim, a Sikh, or a Pastafarian.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    To be honest, it is probably the least important thing in the history of the world. But at least it gave the Mail and the Express a few more column inches for their usual "us Christians are so badly done to" rhetoric. Now onto the annual, "we're not allowed to call it Christmas any more."
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I'm With Stupid wrote:
    To be honest, it is probably the least important thing in the history of the world. But at least it gave the Mail and the Express a few more column inches for their usual "us Christians are so badly done to" rhetoric. Now onto the annual, "we're not allowed to call it Christmas any more."

    Front page of today's Daily Mail is about an alliance of Christians and Muslims who are fighting against attempts to strip Christmas of its Christian meaning. Sounds fair enough, I have never heard of a Muslim offended by a nativity scene or a poster for a carol concert; yet there does seem to be the odd white middle class liberal who tries to ban these things for fear of 'offending Muslims.'
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Disillusioned wrote:
    Front page of today's Daily Mail is about an alliance of Christians and Muslims who are fighting against attempts to strip Christmas of its Christian meaning. Sounds fair enough, I have never heard of a Muslim offended by a nativity scene or a poster for a carol concert; yet there does seem to be the odd white middle class liberal who tries to ban these things for fear of 'offending Muslims.'

    Thats a widespread misconception, which is indeed propagated by the Daily Hate, Express, etc (which I suspect you do not just read the front page of).

    In most cases these restrictions/bans are requested by a member of staff/members of staff/member of the public, then implemented by the "white middle class liberals" you refer to. Whether thats right or wrong is a different matter. But they don't just pluck the idea that muslims/hindus etc take offence out of the air.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    Thats a widespread misconception, which is indeed propagated by the Daily Hate, Express, etc (which I suspect you do not just read the front page of).

    Er I actually read the Times and Telegraph, might pick up the Mail on the train if someone's left it...but only caught the front page of today's Mail so I'm afraid your assumption is a misconception.
    carlito wrote:
    In most cases these restrictions/bans are requested by a member of staff/members of staff/member of the public, then implemented by the "white middle class liberals" you refer to. Whether thats right or wrong is a different matter. But they don't just pluck the idea that muslims/hindus etc take offence out of the air.

    Actually, they do a lot of the time. The example I know best was in my local area last year, the Council (which is actually Conservative) decided that a carol concert poster might 'provoke tensions.'

    Anyway the BA instance seemed a pretty classic example of doing something against Christians for fear of causing offence to others. Banning the religious paraphernalia of one group but allowing it for another was quite clearly discriminatory.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Disillusioned wrote:
    Er I actually read the Times and Telegraph, might pick up the Mail on the train if someone's left it...but only caught the front page of today's Mail so I'm afraid your assumption* is a misconception.

    *I think you mean suspicion. Which you have just confirmed.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    *I think you mean suspicion. Which you have just confirmed.

    I meant what I said.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    THERE

    WAS

    NO

    RELIGIOUS

    DISCRIMINATION


    Let's be perfectly clear about that.

    Shame on BA for caving in. Money talks, obviously...

    Can we expect that all those for whom football is a religion will be allow to wear pendants with their club's crest on it as well?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    THERE

    WAS

    NO

    RELIGIOUS

    DISCRIMINATION


    Let's be perfectly clear about that.

    Shame on BA for caving in. Money talks, obviously...

    Can we expect that all those for whom football is a religion will be allow to wear pendants with their club's crest on it as well?


    i want a be able to carry around a balloon of a flying spagetti monster, or maybe a lightsaber
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    wheresmyplacebo wrote:
    i want a be able to carry around a balloon of a flying spagetti monster, or maybe a lightsaber

    I want to be left alone.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    wheresmyplacebo wrote:
    i want a be able to carry around a balloon of a flying spagetti monster

    Then you could worship me!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    carlito wrote:
    Thats a widespread misconception, which is indeed propagated by the Daily Hate, Express, etc (which I suspect you do not just read the front page of).

    Bollocks.
Sign In or Register to comment.