An employee has been forced to go on "unpaid leave " over a row concerning the banning of her wearing a cross an chain around her neck in view. The BA statement also said that other forms of religious symbols such as the Turban etc were ok because they couldn't be covered! Views please?
2006-10-15 00:33:20 · 21 answers · asked by Sir Sidney Snot 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
ed sawyer,I'd be interested to know what your views on the burqa on Muslim women are.THe burqua isn't a required part of their attire,only the hijab.So,if a Muslim was wearing a burqua as a flight attendant,then she should be required to take it off too.
2006-10-15 00:42:58 · answer #1 · answered by Serena 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋
I dont think we need to go as far as boycotting BA, the service that they provide is great in comparison of other airlines!
As for the recent incident I do find it compeletly loopy. I cant see why others can wear turbins, headscarves ect whilst a christian cant wear a cross around their neck which can be noticed. It is barmy and is exactly the reasons why the political group BNP is growing in numbers. Unfortunatly this will end up going to a court and decided upon by a judge and it could have all been avoided by BA insisting that no religious symbols , necklaces, headscarfs, bhinds, nose piercings etc to be worn in the work place, and put everyone on an equal footing.
When I was a student I worked at Heathrow and had a nose piercing and was told to take it out unless it was for religious reasons; you can guess my reaction to this!
2006-10-15 00:43:20 · answer #2 · answered by A_Geologist 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
What I'm really curious about is whether the same people who, as Sikhs, are allowed to wear their turbans, are also allowed to wear their "karas", or bracelets, another symbol of their religion, on their right wrist. If it turns out that they are, then there'll be no doubt about this being manifest discrimination by British Airways. The current excuse is that there is a ban on jewellery. The "kara", to me, would be the acid test.
2006-10-15 01:00:19 · answer #3 · answered by Doethineb 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
properly, if it quite is actual, and if there wasn't the different reason (like i do no longer understand, say case in point a secure practices challenge, because of fact a crucifix is steel, and steel may be by some ability risky...). So, if the clarification is completely non secular intolerance, then that is ok to boycott. i understand that throughout specific activities, gamers are no longer allowed to positioned on crucifixes, watches or rings interior the sphere, because of fact that is risky for their very own actual integrity. A soccer (soccer) goalkeeper broke his finger for wearing a marriage ring. He become going to capture a ball, and the ring become caught interior the internet of the purpose, and he fell, and so broke his finger. yet that does no longer mean there become an intolerance for married men.
2016-10-19 10:31:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was suggested on a BBC1 programme this morning that on Friday next everyone Christian or not wear a cross. This is supposed to be a free world (granted only in part) so does this mean I can't wear a Maltese cross or a 4 leafed clover or a shamrock or a jade elephant or a Star of David or .... Well I could go on for a long time.....
2006-10-15 00:42:00 · answer #5 · answered by Deborah Mc 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That is a definite double standard. At least a cross is not ugly like a burka ,or unsanitary like a turban
2006-10-15 02:28:58 · answer #6 · answered by samssculptures 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
BA gone bananas, that's for sure.
What have they got against the Christians?
Why do they pander to a certain other religion?
Why do they not employ a whole load of veil clad hostesses?
Why not change the name to Islamic Airways?
Fly with BA?
Never.
On a technical point to 'Caicos Turkey'.
Is the Sikh 'kara' visible to the public like the veil?
2006-10-15 00:48:36 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
That's ridiculous. it's much more than unfair. It's about denying equal rights. Let's flood BA with letters and e-mails of complaint, if they receive some thousand of those maybe they'll realise they have to change their behaviour.
2006-10-15 20:47:54 · answer #8 · answered by Grilla Parlante 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Christians are not required by faith to wear a cross but they are required to proclaim the Gospel and that means "not hiding their light behind a bushel" or the cross behind a shirt.
This is rediculous BA!
2006-10-15 00:46:11 · answer #9 · answered by paulnewbyhq 2 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Private companies have the right to make a uniform code and enforce it as they see fit. I cannot wear any jewelry at my job - not even my wedding band but I'm not getting all bent out of shape about it.. I just put it back on when my shift is over. She can do the same.
2006-10-15 00:42:16 · answer #10 · answered by genaddt 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋