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.
Options
BA employee to sue company over right to wear cross
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
A committed Christian plans legal action against her employers British Airways after the airline ruled that displaying a cross breached uniform rules.
Heathrow check-in worker Nadia Eweida claims she was effectively "forced" to take unpaid leave after refusing to remove the Christian symbol.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13547103,00.html
Well call me biased if you will but I don't think she has a case. No jewellery can be openly displayed when wearing an uniform. There is no distinction between religious and non religious item, and she can still wear the cross concealed under her uniform.
Opinions?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
But since everyone seems to be sueing each other for religious discrimination, this ain't any different.
Too me it seems like a publicity stunt, like those two Asians on the plain.
Good old ITV started their 5 o'clock bulletin today by specifically saying this woman ^ and the one suspended recently for wearing a veil in a classroom were suspended for their religious beliefs. Twats.
Of course it's only come out because of the veil incident. Something similar has cropped up, from a different perspective, so the media can make another bogus and wholeheartedly false report about it
Although, to be fair she does have a case for religious discrimination. As stated in the Sky News article BA allow:
It appears the 'religion card' is the new race card.
I honestly think in the last few years we've moved backwards instead of forwards. Everyone is becoming so militant it's ridiculous.
Christianity doesn't have a religious equivalent to the Hindu turban. If it did, it would be allowed by BA. It is the policy of BA to allow religious garments but not jewellery. Therefore Christianity is not being discriminated against in any shape or form.
If it's no jewellry then it's no jewellry, not with naff exceptions.
I always thought the turban was a Sikh thing.
The policy is still discriminatory. BA should have a fixed uniform for everybody regardless of religion. Fair enough, it might be important to some Muslim BA workers to wear a hijab - if I decide it's important to me that I wear a baseball cap do you think my request would be accommodated? If I had 'visions' and prophesised that we should all wear baseball caps to please God and other people joined up would we be allowed to wear baseball caps to work?
I'm fed up of religion being used as a pretext for people being treated differently. Meanwhile as you said in the past few years we have moved backwards - rather than religion becoming increasingly a private and personal thing as it should be in a civilised society it is increasingly intruding into public life.
The sooner we clear up the wishy washy status quo and make a clear separation between religion and the State starting with the disestablishment of the C of E the better. Only then can religion be clearly defined as a private matter with no place in state schools, government buildings and if they comply, businesses dealing with the public.
Which I think is the same in nearly all work places?
Talk about going over the top - she was asked to remove it for what I assume is health & safety and NOT because BA are discriminating against her because she is a Christian.
If it became a recognised religion, or a recognised trend within a recognised religion, then yes.
With regard to discrimination, you're right from a certain angle. But rather than being discrimination against Christians it's against everyone whose religion does not call for certain garments to be worn. It's even a discrimination against atheists and agnostics when you think about it.
Though when it comes to this particular incident no discrimination took place.
Agree 100% there.
I'm pretty sure other religions have jewellery in the shape of a significant symbol to their faith. They are asked to cover theirs too. If they aren't the woman has a case. If not, she doesn't.
Is that relevant? BA could incorporate that into their unifrom, like some schools have, but the action which triggered the OP is related to jewellery and that is not something wchi is even mentioned in the Bible to my knowledge.
She could, but she wants to wear it over her uniform, and seems just to be kicking up a fuss for no reason. It's the media people, they're just looking for a story!
I don't think it's relevant, tbh.
The hijab is kind of tricky because it's not in itself a religious symbol, but a garment used to maintain a religious standard which some might see as secular modesty. No-one feels comfortable about saying 'You must uncover your hair'. The crucifix is nothing but symbolic and/or jewellry.
Which I think was the point. Certainly it's harder to hide a hijab...
Exactally.
Bloody Media arses. If it was someone doing the same with a necklace WITHOUT a cross on it - would they bother?
Is it really the point?
If she is a devout Catholic then it's like asking a Muslim woman to remove her veil while talking to them. I know Catholics who wear their cross with pride and would take offence to people asking them to put it away. I'm speaking hypotetically of course.