[QUOTE=jjimm]
I don’t know about you, but I wear my watch inside my sleeve. I’m sure BA staff do too.
[/QUOTE]
And so do I. I’m just pointing that really, watches should be an exception to this rule altogether, because they’re pretty much required by the job.
[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
“…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?
[/QUOTE]
“… and GorillaMan is not as clever as he thinks he is.” That’s something that should really be amended to all company policies, especially the user agreement for the Dope.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
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?
[/QUOTE]
What? Instead of a wimple? Where’s my lawyer!?
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Considering that, as per the article, she uses the cross for proselytizing, this is–apologies to the person on LJ I lifted this from–an entire packet of rich tea biscuits.
[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it rather sexy (and smart) that a flight attendant would hang a religious symbol between her breasts in order to win me to her god.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
“… and GorillaMan is not as clever as he thinks he is.” That’s something that should really be amended to all company policies, especially the user agreement for the Dope.
[/QUOTE]
Be fair. “…and GorillaMan doesn’t always read things properly” would be much more accurate.
I still think the suggestion of specifically incorporating religious symbolism into a uniform is hardly the solution - who gets to decide what “size and nature” does or does not “compromise or detract from an employee’s professional appearance”?
[QUOTE=GorillaMan]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Hold your horses. I’m not attempting to make any analogies at all. Now, never having been to Heathrow, I don’t know if the BA uniforms have long sleeves. At LAX, where I have been, it is not uncommon to see a customer service worker wearing a short-sleeved uniform shirt with no jacket.
It occurred to me that if a uniformed BA employee were to legitimately wear a visible watch, she could choose one with the religious message of her choice either on the dial or the band. That way, the little whinger wouldn’t need to feel put-upon.
ISTM that if she really wants to wear something to let the customers know how important Jesus is in her life, she might try a christ-like countenance. 
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
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?
[/QUOTE]
No, just their dignity.
Such as it is, working in fast food and all…
[QUOTE=FordPrefect]
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it rather sexy (and smart) that a flight attendant would hang a religious symbol between her breasts in order to win me to her god.
[/QUOTE]
I need to see the breasts before I decide.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
On the other hand…
This is a very stupid point.
[/QUOTE]
It’s a point used by governmental agencies which employ uniformed personel. They don’t want to leav an impression that a religious symbol is part of the uniform or is endorsed by the state. Why is that “stupid” and why should it not be a valid concern for a company which relies on people in uniforms to represent them? What if someone wanted to wear a small, tasteful swastika pin on his lapel? Would the company be out of line for wanting to avoid even the misapprehension that something like that was part of the uniform or in any way endorsed by the company? Do you think they wouldn’t get complaints?
I think it’s interesting that Ravenman considers a “good” argument against BA permitting free expression is that OMG! then they’d have to give it to everyone! but a “stupid” argument is one where BA makes a reasonable, non-discriminatory policy to protect public image.
Also, I think it’s interesting that he’d think calling someone stupid is, in itself, a persuasive argument. But in retrospect, no, it’s not that interesting. Just stupid.
[QUOTE=FordPrefect]
Maybe it’s just me, but I find it rather sexy (and smart) that a flight attendant would hang a religious symbol between her breasts in order to win me to her god.
[/QUOTE]
You might want to click on the OP’s link and take a good look at the woman in question before you say that.
[QUOTE=Kythereia]
Considering that, as per the article, she uses the cross for proselytizing, this is–apologies to the person on LJ I lifted this from–an entire packet of rich tea biscuits.
[/QUOTE]
As I think I said before, if she’s using her time on the plane to witness to people in Business First, she should be fired for not doing her job.
But if she thinks that a great bearded wizard who lives in the sky is going to reach down and touch the soul of someone who just happens to catch a glimpse of a rather tiny piece of jewelry, that’s her own delusion, and it is so harmless to customers that I don’t think its a reasonable policy. Good lord, people, we’re talking about a cross that is what, a half inch in diameter? It’s not like she’s complaining that BA is discriminating against her because she’s not allowed to handle snakes and speak in tongues while on the job.
And DtC’s point is stupid for a number of reasons: first, we’re not talking about the military here, no matter how much he wants to; second, any fucking moron with half a brain can add one and one together and realize that BA is not endorsing Christianity when an employee wears a cross, no more than BA endorses Islam because some employees may wear a headscarf; and third, I feel completely redeemed by initially calling his point stupid because he followed on with an even more stupid point about someone wearing a swastika on their uniform. I abstain from the roll eyes, but come on, people, that really is a dumb point.
Oh yeah, and GorillaMan cracks me up. That should be amended to all those policies, too.
[QUOTE=Miller]
You might want to click on the OP’s link and take a good look at the woman in question before you say that.
[/QUOTE]
Trying to look at the bright side: at least it takes your eyes off her face. 
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Seems to me if you even have to consider crossing that bridge when you come to it you’re really making an argument for one particulat religion and not really defendin your employees religious beliefs. You’re just defending the ones you like.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
And DtC’s point is stupid for a number of reasons: first, we’re not talking about the military here, no matter how much he wants to; second, any fucking moron with half a brain can add one and one together and realize that BA is not endorsing Christianity when an employee wears a cross, no more than BA endorses Islam because some employees may wear a headscarf; and third, I feel completely redeemed by initially calling his point stupid because he followed on with an even more stupid point about someone wearing a swastika on their uniform. I abstain from the roll eyes, but come on, people, that really is a dumb point.
[/QUOTE]
Your first point doesn’t refute anything. So what if BA isn’t the military? They may still be concerned about religious insignia being associated with the uniform, regardless of whether or not “any fucking moron with half a brain” would realize that BA wasn’t endorsing Christianity. Your third point is that the first point was bolstered by a follow-up point which you’ve also not refuted, and that doesn’t refute the original argument either.
I’ll give you partial credit point for #2, though, because I am certainly willing to let you speak from authority on behalf of fucking morons with half a brain.
[QUOTE=Ravenman]
But if she thinks that a great bearded wizard who lives in the sky is going to reach down and touch the soul of someone who just happens to catch a glimpse of a rather tiny piece of jewelry, that’s her own delusion, and it is so harmless to customers that I don’t think its a reasonable policy. Good lord, people, we’re talking about a cross that is what, a half inch in diameter? It’s not like she’s complaining that BA is discriminating against her because she’s not allowed to handle snakes and speak in tongues while on the job.
[/quote]
No, but she does think that because she’s got a bearded wizard on her side, she has the right to dictate corporate policy to her employer. The rule against personal jewelry is not itself religious in nature. They haven’t outlawed religious symbols specifically, they’ve outlawed anything that is not part of the uniform. There is an exception for people whose religion requires them to wear something that is not part of their uniform, but this cross does not fall into that category. This isn’t a religious requirement, it’s a personal expression. BA doesn’t want their employees to be making personal expressions while on the job. It sort of undercuts the purpose of having your employees wear uniforms if they are not, in fact, uniform.
One assumes that the reasons the military use uniforms and the reasons private enterprises use uniforms are roughly similar, so it does make sense to look at the military’s uniform policies and the reasoning behind them.
True, but not mitigating. Been in an airport lately? Lots of stupid people fly these days.
Not really. The swastika is, after all, a religious symbol. Should a Buddhist working for BA be allowed to wear a swastika pin, if the woman from the OP is allowed her cross pendant?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I didn’t know that, and I’ve spent 10 minutes trying to confirm your statement to no avail. Perhaps you could be kind enough to provide a cite so I don’t look stupid complying with your request.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
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?
[/QUOTE]
From theBill of Rights 1689
http://www.marlowwhite.com/army-AR-670-1-view.html
emphasis mine