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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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?

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]

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.

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.