She wants to wear her crucifix over her uniform, contrary to her contract.
BA said in a statement: "British Airways has 34,000 uniformed staff, all of whom know they must abide by our uniform policy.
The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform. Other airlines have the same policy.
The policy recognises that it is not practical for some religious symbols - such as turbans and hijabs - to be worn underneath the uniform. This is purely a question of practicality. There is no discrimination between faiths.
"In Nadia Eweida's case, she is not suspended and we want her to come back to work. We have explained to her the need to comply with the uniform policy like all her colleagues whatever their faith."
BA said Ms Eweida had been offered a non-uniformed post were she would be able to openly wear her cross but had refused to take it.
So what is her problem?
2006-11-23 06:55:23 · 10 answers · asked by Musicol 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Minister - She could've taken a job with BA were this would have been allowed.
2006-11-23 07:05:06 · update #1
she would be the first one to make a scene over a goth wearing a pentagram. sack her, if she doesnt conform with her contract (which she signed) she should pissoff. being a religious nutter does not give anyone the right to special treatment.
2006-11-23 07:07:09 · answer #1 · answered by SAINT G 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
She feels she's fighting for her Religious Freedom. What she's not understanding is that BA is NOT telling her to switch religions or to drop her religion, but to respect the contract she signed. If she can't respect it, then, in my lowly opinion, she should be moved to the non-uniformed post they offered or lose her job. It is not BA's fault if she did not read the contract and if she were an honest person, she would either move to the other post or follow their guidelines like she said she would by signing the contract.
And now, there will be screaming that she is persecuted because of her faith. This is the typical hypocritical event that makes their religion look bad and makes others of that religion suspect to the same dishonesty.
2006-11-23 07:02:48 · answer #2 · answered by Kithy 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Her argument is that people from other religions are able to openly express their beliefs, such as the wearing of the veil or turban by Muslims, or the traditional head piece worn by Jews (sorry, I don't know the name - don't mean to offend anyone). She feels that a cross worn on a necklace is part of her religion and allows her to be closer to God.
The airline's argument is that the turban, veil and Jewish head covering are part of the beliefs of those respective religions. A cross is simply a symbol of the Christian religion and not an actual part of the religion, therefore she has no argument.
2006-11-23 07:02:03 · answer #3 · answered by I Am Legend 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As I comprehend it, the dichotomy is right here: a million. BA workers are representatives of BA, and it will be construed by a few that a BA worker donning a Christian image shows BA to be a Christian business corporation. 2. BA has an open employment coverage that does no longer discriminate in accordance with faith. This situation is a wee bit distinct from Crown corporations, public amenities and authorities places of artwork. BA _is_ a private business corporation with a perfect to contemporary itself the way it needs. in spite of the actuality that, is suspension impressive? it really is a problematical question. A Sikh's turban and a Muslim's hijab are worn by those who pick to placed on them typically out of a conception that God needs them to gown that way. I actually have by no ability heard of a Christian who says that God needs them to placed on a crucifix. each and every crucifix-wearer I actually have ever spoken to about it (admittedly no longer many) says that they do it of their personal free will as a demonstration of their fath. a demonstration of their faith is distinct than a call for. in spite of the actuality that, i'm no longer sensible precisely the position I stand. i'm purely thinking the different aspect. taking section in devil's recommend, because it were... Plus, how am i able to circumvent answering this type of in call for and heroic questioner? ;)
2016-11-29 09:57:52 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I honestly dont know, I've been trying to figure it out. Its got nothing to do with her religion not being allowed, its simply that NO NECKLACE can be worn over the uniform,, makes sense to me... but then my hubby is in the MIlitary and their rules are even stricter so I guess I'm used to it :-)
2006-11-23 07:00:29 · answer #5 · answered by Claire O 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i agree.
She is taking a moral high ground and looking silly for it. I am for the freedom of wearing what you want, but when someone is paying your wages, putting your cross on the inside of your shirt aint that much to ask, she obviosly doesnt need the money that much.
2006-11-23 07:00:52 · answer #6 · answered by Tempo 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Religious freedom should not be an "in-your-face" thing.
I don't know what Nadia's intentions were, but it seems to me like a case of "in-your-face-all-the- time- whether -you-like-it-or-not" kinda thing...don't you think?
2006-11-23 07:08:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
She wants the right to openly express her Faith.
2006-11-23 06:59:20 · answer #8 · answered by Minister 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Her problem is a surfeit of egotism.
2006-11-23 07:40:47 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
god I love saying mass
2006-11-23 07:38:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋