Woman suspended from work for wearing a crucifix!

dirtydog · 20 Nov 2006 at 13:48

She lost her appeal today.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6165368.stm

robmiller · 20 Nov 2006 at 14:28

Good stuff.

leaskovski · 20 Nov 2006 at 15:52

robmiller said:
Good stuff.

ROFL!

The Mad Rapper · 20 Nov 2006 at 15:55

If the facts are exactly as reported, then this is certainly one instance where PC has gone to far.

Al Vallario · 20 Nov 2006 at 15:56

BBC News said:
"It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them."

Oh dear

I'm glad she lost the appeal, to be quite honest.

*av

Moley · 20 Nov 2006 at 16:03

"It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them."

Reminds me of that card you can get with the purple ronnie style Jesus on the front. Says "Jesus Loves You", and inside...

"Everyone else thinks your a ****"

Arcade Fire · 20 Nov 2006 at 16:13

A victory for common sense, or a fiendish demonisation of Christian practices by a politically correct liberal elite hell-bent on eliminating the heritage of this once-proud nation?

You decide!

Van_Dammesque · 20 Nov 2006 at 17:49

Now can we have ALL other visible religous symbols banned (headscarves, turbans, knives, caps et al)?
I am not bothered that their is a text book written centuries ago claiming that they are "required". If she cannot wear a visible religious symbol then no other visible symbols should be allowed, that is absolute equality.

pinkacidbootson · 20 Nov 2006 at 17:52

Its not about religious symbols though, its about wearing jewellery outside of the uniform. I don't really see why she can't just wear it under her uniform, why would anyone around her care whether she is Christian or not?

starscream · 20 Nov 2006 at 18:00

Johanson said:
I don't really see why she can't just wear it under her uniform

Because other people wouldn't know that Jesus loves them then....

robmiller · 20 Nov 2006 at 18:04

leaskovski said:
ROFL!

What's so funny? I agree with the ruling, sorted.

People complain that religion gets pandered to, then when someone does the opposite they're criticised for being politically correct? What on earth is up with that?

inferno · 20 Nov 2006 at 18:08

You guys do realise this woman was a bit wierd to say the least, she used to walk around blessing passengers, other members of staff and passengers!

Glad she lost the appeal

rabanthor · 20 Nov 2006 at 18:11

Arcade Fire said:
A victory for common sense, or a fiendish demonisation of Christian practices by a politically correct liberal elite hell-bent on eliminating the heritage of this once-proud nation?

You decide!

Seems you are one of the many that dont fully comprehend the meaning of liberal.

or you are being sarcastic.

cleanbluesky · 20 Nov 2006 at 18:13

robmiller said:
What's so funny? I agree with the ruling, sorted.

People complain that religion gets pandered to, then when someone does the opposite they're criticised for being politically correct? What on earth is up with that?

I think you'll find that many believe that minority religions are given special privaledges not afforded to Christians and athiests - such as Sikh crash helmet and kirpaan rules...

Personally, I'd agree that this is probably a victory for decency because I don't like any self-righteous religion - but Van_dammesque is right once more with his comments...

Garrett · 20 Nov 2006 at 18:15

Very silly case this. She's allowed to wear any jewelry she wants under her uniform. She just wanted to wear it ontop of her uniform.

Hopes she takes it to Europe and ends up paying her own and BA's costs, the stupid bat.

starscream · 20 Nov 2006 at 18:30

cleanbluesky said:
I think you'll find that many believe that minority religions are given special privaledges not afforded to Christians and athiests - such as Sikh crash helmet and kirpaan rules...

Personally, I'd agree that this is probably a victory for decency because I don't like any self-righteous religion - but Van_dammesque is right once more with his comments...

Well the distinction needs to be made between religious symbols, and religious symbols that are required to be worn. If the cross was a requirement of Christianity, I think an acception would have been made in the BA dress code.

Would would be an interesting case would be if a member of staff who had to wear an item of clothing/jewelry as part of their religion should have to wear it underneith their uniform if possible (obviously can't be done with Turbans etc.)

scorza · 20 Nov 2006 at 18:34

robmiller said:
What's so funny? I agree with the ruling, sorted.

People complain that religion gets pandered to, then when someone does the opposite they're criticised for being politically correct? What on earth is up with that?

Yeah, cos you were so in favour of the dutch burkha ban weren't you? :rolleyes:

"Oh but wait, thats different..."

Dolph · 20 Nov 2006 at 18:39

Van_Dammesque said:
Now can we have ALL other visible religous symbols banned (headscarves, turbans, knives, caps et al)?
I am not bothered that their is a text book written centuries ago claiming that they are "required". If she cannot wear a visible religious symbol then no other visible symbols should be allowed, that is absolute equality.

Do you even bother reading the rest of the thread or any of the news articles....

robmiller · 20 Nov 2006 at 18:43

scorza said:
Yeah, cos you were so in favour of the dutch burkha ban weren't you?

"Oh but wait, thats different..."

Of course it's different. A private company should be able to set any restrictions it likes on its employees' dress codes, why shouldn't it be able to? Surely this is the argument people like you (and me) use to dismiss positive discrimination? (A company should be able to employ whoever the hell they like, etc.)

I'm absolutely stunned at the double standards expressed by the same crowd that normally hates any kind of religious pandering, and it makes it abundantly clear that you do not oppose "PC" measures but rather the rights of minorities.

(Also please shove your ill thought-out rolleyes and learn to comprehend people's posts and opinions, thanks)

scorza · 20 Nov 2006 at 19:11

robmiller said:
Of course it's different. A private company should be able to set any restrictions it likes on its employees' dress codes, why shouldn't it be able to? Surely this is the argument people like you (and me) use to dismiss positive discrimination? (A company should be able to employ whoever the hell they like, etc.)

Should therefore a private company be able to say "our uniform policy doesn't tolerate anything covering the head?" of course it can't, because that would be racial discrimination, which is illegal in this country (unless you're discriminating against whites or Christians :rolleyes:

). Even the champion of the left, Shami Chakrabati agrees that its discrimination.

The facts are that BA accept that its not "merely an item of jewelery", and have made exceptions to their uniform policy for sikhs (turbans) and muslims (hijabs) - obviously they felt that a small cross would be making a mockery of their policy :rolleyes:

Maybe this woman is a bit loopy and should be sacked, but she should not be sacked for wearing a cross.