who else in here thinks that its totally irresponsible of british airways to give a worker unpaid leave for wearing a cross, while others can wear turbans and headscarfs and other religious apparel? sure, the company policy prohibits any uncovered jewerly regardless of whether its religious or not, but the only reason that hijabs, bangles, and turbans can be worn is that they cant conceal them. the employees (except pilots and sometimes cabin crew) arent allowed to wear headwear generally but they allow it if its religious. why cant this apply to jewelry IF it really is about jewelry? if the woman were to make a hat in the shape of a cross, would they ask her to take it off as well? after all, the other type of headwear arent always mandatory either. would BA allow someone to wear a headscarf in place of a company head article for religious tolerance?
2006-11-21 05:24:18 · 11 answers · asked by legal citizen 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Fokker, that wasnt an answer, nor did i answer my own question, since after writing that statement, i showed how british airways used that policy incorrectly. learn to read.
2006-11-22 02:01:00 · update #1
farah, go ahead TRY to prove everyone wrong on a technicality. the HIJAB is muslim (and therefore religious article).
2006-11-22 02:02:20 · update #2
I disagree with it all. The hi-jabs, bangles, turbans all of it. If you can not wear the uniform, in its entirety, you should not be employed there. It is ridiculous that the rules are bent for the "religious apparel". And if they DO allow exceptions for the other religions then the cross should also be an exception.
2006-11-21 05:29:39 · answer #1 · answered by Sunspot Baby 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is a fundamental difference between religious headwear and a crucifix pendant. The headcoverings are a religious obligation to those who wear them. There is no obligation, religious or otherwise, to wear a cross. Therefore, the airline is being absolutely consistent.
The employee involved was clearly in violation of the company's uniform dress code. Companies are allowed to set their own standards for dress. The employee was told to wear the cross under her blouse. She refused. She was offered a non-uniform position where she would be able to wear the cross as she wished. Again, she refused. Seems to me that British Airways went far beyond any reasonable standard to accomodate this employee who simply refused.
2006-11-21 05:42:24 · answer #2 · answered by mzJakes 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nope, British Airways was entirely within their rights.
The employee flaunted the rule on uncovered jewellary--making an exception for a crucifix WOULD be discriminaton. As it is, she was required to follow the same rules as everyone else.
The wearing of a crucifix is not mandatory, nor was the employee prohibited from wearing it. The person was not asked to choose between the tenets of her faith and her job. And finally she agreed to abide by the rules when she accepted the job.
Referring to headscarves and turbans is a smokescreen to conceal the true reason for the dismissal by appealing to the prejudices of Christians and westerners.
2006-11-21 05:33:52 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A headscarf is not a religous symbol. It is a sign of modesty ordained by Islam. There's a difference. Meanwhile, it may not be appropriate to ban somebody to wear a necklace with a cross. But that person knows the rule against jewelery, and it is not a mandate of christianity to wear a necklace with a cross on it. So yes. It's okay.
2006-11-21 05:29:20 · answer #4 · answered by happyfarah88 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If I saw a woman wearing a cross shaped hat, I'd think she had poor fashion taste.
If she really feels the need to irritate others by displaying her religious preference, she should stick to what's allowed. I'm assuming she knew the rules so why was she disobeying them in the first place? I'm sure she could have found a better way to display her opinions.
2006-11-21 05:38:08 · answer #5 · answered by strpenta 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You answered your own question by stating
"sure, the company policy prohibits any uncovered jewerly regardless of whether its religious or not,"
You're not being persecuted although you want to be so get over it
2006-11-21 05:28:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think it's unfair. If you let the Muslims and the Pagans wear what they want, then a Christian should wear what he/she wants too. It's ridiculous. It shows what has happened to their society. They have forgotten their God.
2006-11-21 05:27:51 · answer #7 · answered by . 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
That is wrong. They should either allow everyone to wear their religious gear or not allow it at all.
2006-11-21 05:28:43 · answer #8 · answered by nuthnbettr2do0128 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's a shame huh? Soon they will start gathering Christians up for the camps
2006-11-21 05:32:57 · answer #9 · answered by Midge 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
this is just further evidence of anti- Christian sentiment especially when you consider that England is a Christian country, and you have to ask why the British Queen who is head of the english church stands by and says nothing.
2006-11-21 05:29:14 · answer #10 · answered by Sentinel 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋