that muslim women in england who refused to remove her cloth mask from her face[cant remember what its called] has lost her appeal and has been sacked by the school.my q is should she of been sacked or not.
2006-11-23 23:41:44 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Etiquette
maria l .please explain you say as in rome which is true then you say she could not have been sacked.but she has rightly so too
2006-11-24 00:55:09 · update #1
I really do not know. The veil might have been an article of modesty, you know, to her. But wearing that clearly differentiates religion and there is the big question of equality and uniformity. It is very debatable. We have to look at both points of views.
2006-11-23 23:50:13 · answer #1 · answered by Hardrock 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes indeed common sense prevails at last though the damages are sometimes irreversable. The best is to do things which can be acceptable in the society you are living in. After all they say"when in Rome do as Romans do", this saying fits in all circles it be Spiritual, Social, Political or even Economical. In short, she could not have been sacked.
2006-11-23 23:51:29 · answer #2 · answered by Maria L 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a school has a dress policy or uniform for the students, then it is reasonable for the staff to have the same conditions. It would be no different than a school that says students cannot have multicoloured hair, the staff cannot have multicoloured hair either.
2006-11-24 01:33:00 · answer #3 · answered by auntynoall 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that may not as sparkling decrease because it might seem.... In us of a of america while you're wronged (somebody steals your money, they carelessly reason your loved ones death, they unfastened your pants...) you the traditional guy have the the final option to deliver fit (no pun meant) interior the court docket against them. you could ask despite you pick and you may desire to justify what you're requesting. seems previous Roy there had extreem psychological soreness at somebody loosing his famous pants. perhaps they meant that lots to him. (What in the event that they have been a pair bill Clinton gave him with... nicely, consequently he substitute into laundering them), or what in the event that they have been those Churchill wore while he met the Queen.... You and that i don't understand why he thought he needed fifty 4 million, yet it somewhat is for the prefer to pick; precise? Now as to him not being allowed to be a choose for loosing his case in court docket... would not a banker save money interior the financial enterprise? would not a NASCAR driving force bypass to the save in his spouse's motor vehicle on Tuesday? The choose is permitted to sue somebody, and he's permitted to unfastened. (He in all probability had a team of legal experts helping him with the fit with the aid of the way!) His facet did not win. finished deal. Now: "for my area" i think of judges could be allowed to take a user-friendly experience attitude to such circumstances and make awards for this reason. Roy's choose could have provided him US$50 for a sparkling pair of pants. (yet what could he award interior the dry cleaners lost an unique pair of Elvis' britches?) ok, my finished element is, till you're in court docket and pay attention the reasoning in the back of the award quantity being sought, you do not somewhat understand what the case is approximately. And in basic terms because of the fact he did not win in this argument that doesn't propose he's not a resonable choose daily in his court docket room. i don't understand why, yet he made a mistake. have not all of us?
2016-10-13 00:39:04 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋