Cross row stokes Christian anger

[The Bacon Guy]

BBC News | UK | Cross row atokes Christian anger

British Airways has asked a Christian member of staff to conceal her cross necklace because it contravenes the company's uniform policy. But has it added to a sense of unease among Christians? Crosses may be a fixture around the necks of many Christians, and have even become a fashion accessory for A-list celebrities, but not everyone is happy to see them on display. Heathrow check-in worker Nadia Eweida is on unpaid leave after refusing to cover up her cross necklace. "I believe that it is a very important issue on the matter of expressing Christianity and employees having their say in the way they express their faith," she said. British Airways says all jewellery and religious symbols on chains must be worn under the uniform. But it makes an exception for Sikh turbans and Muslim hijabs because they cannot be covered up.

Personally, I don't think this is discrimination. BA does not allow staff to wear any visible jewelry and this includes the cross. The fact that it allows turbans and hijabs is irrelevant since these are not items of jewelry. The cross contravenes the company's dress code in that it is jewelry, not in that it is a Christian symbol.

Of course, there is a more important underlying question here: So what if it is discrimination? Should a company not have the right to decide its own dress code, whether it is discriminatory or not, without having to consider the threat of legal action? Why should religious tolerance be enforced by law?

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this story and its implications?

[Jack]

"I believe that it is a very important issue on the matter of expressing Christianity and employees having their say in the way they express their faith," she said.

I would want to ask her "why"? There is no christian imperative to show signs of your faith. Where is there a commission to go forth and "show your faith with jewelry"?

Should a company not have the right to decide its own dress code, whether it is discriminatory or not, without having to consider the threat of legal action?

Nearly every company I've ever worked for required some kind of uniform or particular clothing. It's an image thing, and falls under that attitude (for me, at least) of, "if you don't agree with the company rules, work elsewhere". A job isn't like citizenship. I don't agree with the "love it or leave it" attitude when it comes to the country, but on a lesser scale of your job, I think it applies.

Why should religious tolerance be enforced by law?

It shouldn't, not as such anyway.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Companies should be able to do as they please.

Anyone who sees this as discrimination is deeply confused.

IN FACT.

If that company were to ALLOW the cross necklace, THAT would be discrimination.

Let's say I work at a grocery store and I have a uniform. They request that employees don't wear any bling. It's unprofessional, distracting, and possibly offensive. It's a freggin business and this request makes sense.

Now, I accidentally wear my favorite rapper's bling; a large necklace with the words, "Pimp-Daddy."

I'm told to conceal or remove the bling. Fine. Cool.

The next day, Tommy brings in his bling with the rapper, IceCubes. For whatever reason, an EXCEPTION is made for IceCubs bling.

THAT would be BAD.

Allowing a cross necklace for ANY reason when a dress code had already been set would be BAD.

[Compugasm]

Underwear on the outside of your clothing was a celebrity fashion accessory for a while, I didn't see that catching on at British Airways.

[rmnunez]

I suppose the distinction between jewelery and attire is important, though it does seem discriminatory to allow things to be worn that identify the faith of some employees while forbidding this to others of different faiths. I understand the logic in British Airways policy, as the rule is to conceal items of attire that identify religious faith, except when they cannot be concealed (like the traditional Hindu headgear). A crucifix is something that can easily be concealed, so its sensible to require discretion.

[phoenix_fire]

I really only have one thing to say about this.

Why should religious tolerance be enforced by law?

Affirmative Action.

[The Bacon Guy]

what about it?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Why should religious tolerance be enforced by law? Anyway, what are your thoughts on this story and its implications?

Why should any tolerance be enforced by law? Let's just treat each other however we f*kin feel like.

I wonder if British Airways employees wear wedding rings...

[phoenix_fire]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Why should any tolerance be enforced by law? Let's just treat each other however we fuckin feel like. I wonder if British Airways employees wear wedding rings...

That was my point exactly.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: PH Why should any tolerance be enforced by law? Let's just treat each other however we fuckin feel like.

And why not? Shouldn't a private business have the right to set its own policy for whatever reason it sees fit? For example, if it finds that customers are put off by being served by Muslims in the hijab, but attracted by employees wearing the cross, why should it sacrafice profits for the sake of tolerance?

Quote by: PH I wonder if British Airways employees wear wedding rings...

That's irrelevant. Wedding rings are not likely to affect the company's image, since customers are very unlikely to take issue with them. Clearly visible jewelry such as necklaces and bracelets are more likely to give the company a bad image.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy And why not? Shouldn't a private business have the right to set its own policy for whatever reason it sees fit? For example, if it finds that customers are put off by being served by Muslims in the hijab, but attracted by employees wearing the cross, why should it sacrafice profits for the sake of tolerance?

What if I think my customers wouldn't like blacks? What if I think my customers wouldn't want some pooftah with a British accent? Hell, What if I don't want any (random ethnicity) in MY establishment, even as customers?

Quote by: The Bacon Guy That's irrelevant. Wedding rings are not likely to affect the company's image, since customers are very unlikely to take issue with them. Clearly visible jewelry such as necklaces and bracelets are more likely to give the company a bad image.

What if your wedding ring has a cross on it? Jewelry is just decoration. A person's faith shows in their behavior and ethics.

Now I'm not saying that a company should allow a two kilo wooden cross on somebody's neclace, but an earring with a cross on it isn't controversial...

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: PH What if I think my customers wouldn't like blacks? What if I think my customers wouldn't want some pooftah with a British accent? Hell, What if I don't want any (random ethnicity) in MY establishment, even as customers?

Then don't hire any blacks, pooftahs with British accents or (random ethnicity)s. It should be your right as a business owner to hire and serve whomever you wish for whatever reason you wish. Of course, it's unfair on the people whom you refuse to hire or serve but it is the business owner's right to be unfair. Of course, those who support an overly authoritarian society could argue that fairness should be enforced by law and that racist hiring policies should be illegal. I disagree with this, but that is another matter.

The fact is that there is no argument to support enforcement of religious tolerance. Practicing of religion is a choice that people make and it is therefore up to them to deal with the consequences of their choice. If companies refuse to hire blacks, there is nothing a black person can do to change this. However, people who don't like the response they get to their religious beliefs always have the option to change or conceal these beliefs. If they are not prepared to do this, they should be prepared to deal with the possible negative consequences of their religious convictions.

Quote by: PH What if your wedding ring has a cross on it? Jewelry is just decoration. A person's faith shows in their behavior and ethics. Now I'm not saying that a company should allow a two kilo wooden cross on somebody's neclace, but an earring with a cross on it isn't controversial...

It's not to do with the controversy of Christian images, it's to do with the wearing of jewelry in general. The company policy is for no jewelry to be worn, because, I assume, it would affect the company's image to have their employees draped in chains and bracelets. Now you're probably right that a small cross is unlikely to affect BA's image in any way. However, the company has elected to ban all jewelry (probably for the sake of convenience) and there is no reason that they should have to waste time and money in adjusting and making exceptions to company policy.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy the company has elected to ban all jewelry ...

Even wedding rings and watches? ALL earrings? A truly universal policy or just a means of discrimination against the religious?

Unlike you, I think that past societal practices of prejudice have been harmful and were rightly addressed by legislation. I think that telling someone to leave your establishment and don't come back because you don't like their color or religion should be disallowed by law.

Now, maybe if they smell bad...

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: PH Even wedding rings and watches? ALL earrings? A truly universal policy or just a means of discrimination against the religious?

I honestly don’t know if watches and rings are disallowed. However, wedding rings are, in general, unobtrusive and watches are functional. Things such as earrings, necklaces and bracelets are more likely to be flashy and to affect the image of the company. The policy is a ban on jewellery, possibly with a few general exceptions. However, the company should not be forced by law to waste time and money in making specific exceptions to their policy. If you’re going to work for BA, you should conform to their standards, whether you think they are fair or not. It’s a business, not a democracy.

Quote by: PH Unlike you, I think that past societal practices of prejudice have been harmful and were rightly addressed by legislation. I think that telling someone to leave your establishment and don't come back because you don't like their color or religion should be disallowed by law.

Unlike you, I believe in freedom. Guess it's just a difference of opinion.

Quote by: PH Now, maybe if they smell bad...

I assume that was flippancy but let's look at it anyway. If someone smells bad, it is probably because they choose not to shower. This choice is likely to put off customers and it is therefore within the business's rights to demand that the employee either shower or leave the company. Correct?

If someone wears a religious image, it is their choice. If the company has reason to believe that this choice is likely to deter customers, is it not their right to demand that the religious imagery be removed, or that the employee in question leaves the company?

[phoenix_fire]

Actually, Bacon, in the US you can get sued for racially discriminatory hiring practices. There has been much argument in the past concerning hiring quotas and the use of quotas in college admissions.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Unlike you, I believe in freedom. Guess it's just a difference of opinion.

One guy's freedom is another guy's tyranny I guess...

[rmnunez]

United statian anti-discrimination laws are designed to correct for innate characteristics only. Innate means "born with" and these are features holders acquire and retain involuntarily (ethnicity or race, birth defect and genetically transmitted afflictions). Anti-discriminatory regulations for the workplace and academia have extended coverage to preclude gender, handicap, sexual and age discrimination. There is no regulation precluding religiously-premised discrimination.

[Jack]

I can't hear the topic of cross wearing without thinking of the George Carlin routine in which he wonders, "if Jesus had died in another fashion, would christians be wearing little electric chairs around their necks?"
I hope my boss doesn't mind my new necklace that says, "I Love Satan!" Hey, it's just a little religious jewelry. :rolleyes:

[JohnMK]

She lost.

Airline worker loses crucifix appeal - Europe - MSNBC.com

LONDON - A British Airways worker has lost an internal appeal against the company’s refusal to let her wear a Christian cross over her uniform, BA said on Monday. Check-in staffer Nadia Eweida was told in October she must not display a small necklace crucifix over her clothes. She was instead instructed to hide it under her blouse or cravat.

If BA were my airline, I'd let her wear it.

[pahl]

My view on this is you shouldent be allowed to not hire blacks because they are black, ban religious symbols because they are religious symbols or ban foreign flags because they are foreign flags.

But you should be able to ban jewellry because its the dress code.