Wonder if they’d let her wear a turban with a cross embroidered on it.
Or, just earrings in the shape of a cross. Surely there isn’t a ban on earrings, is there?
Probably not. Which reinforces the fact that she wanted an exception to be made to allow her to position an item of religious symbolism specifically so that it was more prominent and visible to others than the rules would allow.
You are a strangely angry little person.
Considering that you asked “Where are all you constitutional rights people ?”, why is it arrogant for people to point out the UK has no constitution?
“Employees may display small articles (such as jewlery) of their religious faith so long as they do not interfere with one’s work, nor imply that BA endorses any particular religion, and such articles must be of such a size and nature that they do not compromise or detract from an employee’s professional appearance.”
What’s wrong with that? I think it is a much more reasonable policy than “you can’t wear a tiny cross if anyone might see it because OMG think of the chaos that would ensue!!!”
One problem is that it’s hard to wear anything on a uniform without making it look like part of the uniform.
You’d have a better chance of making your point if you compared your solution to the actual policy of, “No visible personal jewelry.” Which strikes me as perfectly reasonable. Is there really a pressing need to alter it?
Anyway, the problem with your policy is that, sooner or later, a Pagan or Wiccan employee is going to want to wear a little pentacle pendant, and then the airline gets a mountain of shit from all the fundies who are currently frothing over this woman not getting to wear a cross.
So I can wear a small symbol of the Church of Satan, just to offset the lady’s cross? If someone asks what it is, I can say it is a religious symbol for that Church - think BA might get a few complaints? So, is BA better off saying none, or passing out a list of ‘accepted’ symbols?
Are you naturally stupid, or did you go to school and study with renowned masters of the art form? You don’t seem to have read your own article (what a shock), and this policy isn’t unjust. I think it’s too bad that businesses feel it’s best that their employees keep their religions to themselves in this way, but there’s no discrimination here.
I used to wear a chain as a tribute to my late grandfather. Nobody else could see it, but that wasn’t the point - the point was that it meant something to me and I knew I was wearing it.
Wristwatches okay with the BA uniform, or does the airline have a standard-issue?
If worn outside the sleeve, I’m sure there’d be an issue.
Unless, of course, BA thinks that a watch of some kind may be necessary for a job in which timing is essential.
“…and wherever possible, items which are not part of standard issue uniform should not be visible”, which brings us full circle to the current situation?
Oh, Gary, must I have to educate you too.
No one here has said the UK has no constitution.
In fact the British do have a constitution
Once again it was arrogant of posters to assume I was referring to the US constitution prior to my response to DtC
I don’t know about you, but I wear my watch inside my sleeve. I’m sure BA staff do too.
What a silly analogy. The purpose of a watch is to keep time. The purpose of visibly and deliberately wearing a cross over one’s uniform is to make an overt religious statement.
But there is no equivalent of the First Amendment in the British Constitution – no formally codified right to free speech or “expression,” so what “Constututional rights” were you referring to?
I just think the woman makes a decent point that a very modest display of one’s own religious faith isn’t the worst thing in the world, and that companies may do better to be just a teensie bit more accomodating of their employee’s religious views.
Speaking of good points…
These are both good points and are well-taken. I’d say let’s cross that bridge when Satanists start becoming flight attendants. But speaking in general, I think that a company should be commended if it defended the religious views of its employees from busybodies who want to criticize other people’s beliefs. That may not be a realistic view of how a large company might react, but it’d be nice to see a business act in a principled manner like that.
On the other hand…
This is a very stupid point.
Was it even arrogant of me, a British person, to assume you were talking out of your ass about the American Constitution? The one where you baited all those “constitutional rights people”, who, being on this board, are going to be American (unless you can point out a British Doper talking about the need to uphold British Constitutional rights, of course) to come and agree with you?
Not that it’s relevant anyway. We’re still talking about a private company policy, not an act of government. Do you think McDonalds is depriving employees of their rights when they make them wear stupid hats?