Were British Airways right to ban the wearing of a Christian cross by an employee?

Question

According to press reports, Sikhs and Muslims are allowed to wear a turban or hijab. Are BA just being crassly insensitive?

My question focuses on the perceived inequality of treatment regarding displays of religious affilitation at such a sensitive period in inter-faith relationships.

Answer 1

I think BA have made a foolish mistake! I for one will think twice before flying with them again!

Equality is what I want from all organisations so that we are ALL free to wear what we wish! That's the point of a free society.

Please note no Christians have been seen shouting outside airports nor burning effigy's of the director of BA. Nor has any ones life been threatened!

I wonder if Muslims could have been so humble if the veil had been banned by British Airways!

Answer 2

Personally I think BA have taken Political Correctness to
Extremes here.
Why not say as a Condition of Employment That no Religeous
Icons or Paraphenalia are allowed to be Worn Inclubing Hijabs,
Turbans etc.
This would then create a Level Playing Field.
After all Religion and it's interpretations is Responsible for most
of the Worlds problems lol

Answer 3

Catholics & Christians should be allowed to wear a crucifix at all times as a mark of their faith.
This is the very first time I have heard of a company not backing down over this matter. My mum had a similar problem at work and they refused to believe it was a mark of her faith and not just jewellery, I think it's disgusting!
Muslims (veils, turbans etc;.), Buddhists (piercings) and so on are all allowed to show their faith in these ways , why not Christians?
Granted some people do wear a cross and chain as a piece of fashion jewellery and it's hard to distinguish but the same can be said of all faiths.
It's just another excuse to bash on christians.

Answer 4

Why can't people get things right. BA didn't say that the woman shouldn't wear a cross, simply that she shouldn't display it in a provocative manner. I wear the sword of Ali on a chain. Not Shia Muslim but Alawite. If I'm wearing a low cut top it may be visible. If I'm wearing another top it may or may not be visible, but I don't consciously make sure that it's on display.
And while we're on the subject, Jack Straw didn't say that the niqab should be banned, he simply said that he would prefer that women coming to his constituency office didn't wear it.
As a language teacher I think it is important that my students can see my lips - it helps with pronunciation, so I can't imagine how one can teach a language whilst wearing the niqab.

Answer 5

Turbans and hijab are traditional and aren't exactly offensive, unless you're wearing something which covers your face.

I think the removal of the cross shows that they are trying to protect likely targets of religious terrorism, albeit in a slightly OTT fashion - if a plane were to be hijacked and the hijacker(s) be of a religion that opposes christianity then an air hostess wearing a blatant symbol of christianity might be a likely target.

Answer 6

In the past BA staff were not allowed to wear a cross due to safety reasons (having a sharp piece of metal hanging around your neck). If their reasons for banning the wearing of this cross was purely on religious grounds then they have lost sight of what multi-culturalism is all about. There are symbols of different religions all over the world: churches, synagogues, billboards etc. I hardly think that a simple cross around someones neck is going to offend anyone.

Answer 7

I don't think they have actually banned it - it just has to be worn under the uniform (scarf). However, I don't think it is wrong to wear a small religious symbol. I don't like burkhas though or a hijab (if that's the one covering the face).
Security is one issue - we have to have a passport photo without hats, sunglasses etc. etc. and so it would be extraordinary for a person to be allowed on an airline with their face covered.
Communication is another issue - in a western Christian country we don't generally cover our faces. When in Rome etc. etc.

Answer 8

BA appear to be perfectly OK to me. After all, they are the employer. Shouldn't an employer be allowed to run his/her own company the way they want without outside interference. It's only this current PC obsession that forces companies to employ people they don't want under terms that they don't want either.

As far as I'm concerned, my company employs the people it wants and isn't concerned with all the PC rubbish. It's only profits that count in business. It's not a charity or part of an equal opportunities game.

Answer 9

Stuff British airlines, undergo in ideas whilst they took the union jack off the tails of their planes and adjusted them with 'ethnic' artwork. Margaret Thatcher become superb to cover a kind up with a handkerchief in disgust. i'm proud to be British and a Christian, if any remote places nationwide is indignant via a pass, hard ****, in simple terms get lower back on a BA plane and piss off lower back from the place you got here from in case you do no longer like it right here.

Answer 10

Haven't heard about this case, but can't think of any possible reason why they should ban it. Health & safety?? (Might fall in someone's tea??) Or it couldn't possibly be because they think it might offend someone of a different religion, could it? That line of thinking is offensive to those of ALL religions. Perhaps it was one of those big 'bling' crosses, in which case the wearer should be allowed to wear it, but under their shirt. Don't want any passengers knocked unconscious.