The cross is banned,but Hijabs are okay at Heathrow

Story … http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6165368.stm

So a woman expressing herself with a teeny cross representin her Christian faith when employed by British Airways is not okay, but a Hijab is okay?

This is discrimination. This is bullshit.

BA’s statement from the article seems fair enough:

To put it simply: all non-uniform items, which are worn as part of a religious belief, should be concealed wherever possible. I’m suspecting that Sikhs are expected to not have kirpans visible, for instance.

As the article states. Crosses aren’t banned.

Seems perfectly reasonable. Just another god-botherer eager to climb up onto her cross.

Did you read the story?

They’re not banning her from wearing a cross. They’re banning her from wearing a cross visibly, just as they would if the jewellery had been a Star of David or a Crescent. The reason that they don’t ban people wearing headscarves or turbans or whatever is because you can’t wear those items under other clothing.

The woman in that story atually admits that her goal was proselytization. British Airways is a private company that has every right to tell its employees not to preach at the customers.

She is prevented from expressing herself. That is the point. Like its okay to be gay, but don’t tell anybody. Ring a bell ?

Where are all you constitutional rights people ?

Two words.

Private. Company.

This is a woman in the UK, right?

Please link to the constitution that defines such rights?

This is about six different kinds of stupid. Constitutional rights? Heathrow is in ENGLAND, moron, and even in the US, the Constutution only gurantees that your rights can’t be abridged by the GOVERNMENT. This BA policy is not a law, it’s just a private company policy. Can you name any customer service job at all where employees are permitted to “express” themselves in any way they want at all times to customers?

You made a false claim in your OP. Either you didn’t read the story or you didn’t really care. Just admit you were wrong and move on to your next Muslim bashing thread.

We don’t have a written constitution. Oh, and BA is a private company. Oh, and wearing a gay-support badge visibly would be as likely to be banned as an anti-gay badge. Oh, and you’re an idiot.

I quite like this precedent, actually, because employees are allowed to express naturist views - as long as it’s under their clothes. :wink:

If I worked for you in a customer service capacity, would it all right for me to shout FUCK THE WIFE every five minutes? If not, why not? I’m just expressing myself.

Also from the BBC story

BA seem to be trying their best here. The women just wants to make a martyr of herself.

What – the right to wear a cross wasn’t written into the Magna Carta? What were King John and the barons thinking at Runymede?

“Hmm, you’re right, I don’t like the name either. Maybe we should add another N?”

Those scribes couldn’t spell back in the 13th century either.

You couldn’t do that because then you would be enacting some sort of Monty Python sketch and the customers would be laughing too hard to er, be serviced.

FUCK THE WIFE will echo in my head all day now. Thanks. :slight_smile:

Hey, Dutchman, did you know that the US military also requires that religious symbols like crucifixes or Stars of David be worn underneath the uniform? Why don’t you start a thread about it?

I have really had my fill of the majority claiming that they have life so hard. Oh, how terrible it is to be white in a world of Affirmative Action! Oh, the cross we have to bear for being Christian! (heh-heh) Oh, those anti-God Marines who won’t accept a Jesus doll for their Christmas gift charity!

However… while BA might have the legal right to compel this lady not to wear her cross visably, I think that is a bad policy. It would be one thing if this was a gianormous crucifix like the Pope wears, or she was trying to don a CHOOSE LIFE t-shirt or something like that. But the cross showed in the photo really is pretty inconspicious, leading me to question whether there is much substantive difference between wearing a cross under one’s clothes and wearing a symbol so small it is hardly noticable at any distance.

I simply fail to see what harm the display of a small cross is doing. If this woman feels that her faith compels her to not hide what is, in fact, a very small religious symbol, and the display of that symbol really doesn’t bother her work or intrude upon passengers, I think she has a reasonable case that the rule isn’t fair. If she starts making an austentatious show of her religion, that of course is inappropriate, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.

So far as I can tell, the woman can retain a completely professional appearance and wear the necklace. BA should change its policy.

You are so welcome. It is attributed to one of the characters in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. The actual quote is “F-f-fuck da wife!”

So the policy should allow small crosses, but not bigger ones? I’d like to see how you’d phrase that.