It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

British Airways Christian Employee Sues over Religious Discrimination

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
This may be a first or perhaps I have missed other similar reports, but Nadia Eweida a British Airways employee says she was sent home for violating one of the Airlines dress codes, specifically the one that prohibits her from displaying a christian cross and she says enough is enough. If Muslims are allowed to wear their religious items she should be too, so she is going to sue British Airways for religious discrimination.



Ya hoo news

LONDON - A British Airways employee was suspended from work for refusing to remove a necklace bearing a Christian cross, a British newspaper reported Saturday.

Nadia Eweida, a check-in worker at Heathrow Airport, told the Daily Mail she was suing the airline for religious discrimination after being sent home for breaching BA's dress code.

"British Airways permits Muslims to wear a headscarf, Sikhs to wear a turban and other faiths religious apparel. Only Christians are forbidden to express their faith," Eweida was quoted as saying.

British Airways said company policy said employees must wear jewelry, including religious symbols, under their uniforms.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Is this a first or have I missed other similar reports?

I think we all knew it was only a matter of time for a suit like this to turn up and perhaps it is long overdue when you consider how Muslims have reacted lately.

You go girl and good luck in your quest for equality within the worlds religious communities.


[edit on 10/14/2006 by shots]




posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Well a headscarf is not jewelry, but a cross is. It has nothing to do with religion it just has to do with the jewelry rules. I don't really see anything wrong with this, honestly.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kacen
Well a headscarf is not jewelry, but a cross is. It has nothing to do with religion it just has to do with the jewelry rules.


A cross is A symbolic representation of the structure on which Jesus was crucified. The same would apply if she wore a ST Christophers medal, you might consider it jewelry while she and others do not, they see it as a symbol of their religion.

Christian Cross


[edit on 10/14/2006 by shots]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I don't think that any Christian is required to display a cross or any other symbol. If the rule is about jewelry, I don't think she will have much of a leg to stand on. It just sounds like tit for tat to me.

Christians are to be known not by their jewelry, but by their lives.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
I don't think that any Christian is required to display a cross or any other symbol. If the rule is about jewelry, I don't think she will have much of a leg to stand on. It just sounds like tit for tat to me.



The very same could be said for Muslims wearing turbins. They are not required to wear them, but insist they have a right to wear them, so where is the difference?

edit to add just for clairty the Sikh are required to wear a turbin according to some sources and they are Indian Muslims not Islamic.

[edit on 10/14/2006 by shots]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
...so where is the difference?


Christians are supposed to know better.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
A cross is A symbolic representation of the structure on which Jesus was crucified. The same would apply if she wore a ST Christophers medal, you might consider it jewelry while she and others do not, they see it as a symbol of their religion.

Christian Cross


[edit on 10/14/2006 by shots]


It doesn't really matter what someone personally classifies it as. In a technical sense, its still jewelry.

Although overall I don't really see the reason why you would have to hide your jewelry.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott


Christians are supposed to know better.


HUH??? Grady you and I very seldom disagree but we certainly do in this case. Why should a Muslim be allowed to wear what they percevie to be a sign of their religion when they want but not christians?



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

The very same could be said for Muslims wearing turbins. They are not required to wear them, but insist they have a right to wear them, so where is the difference?

edit to add just for clairty the Sikh are required to wear a turbin according to some sources and they are Indian Muslims not Islamic.

[edit on 10/14/2006 by shots]


Shots, I commend your efforts, but your a tad off the mark.

Sikh's wear Turbans due to the fact they cannot cut their hair. keeps it out of the way.

Muslims don't wear turbans.

Sikhs are NOT Indian Muslims. They are Sikhs. BIG difference. Thats like saying Christians are really Buddhists.

Muslims are also NOT required to wear a headscarf or veil. It wasn't until the 19th century that the idea of hijab sprang up and it applies to both men and women. The Koran mentions that both men and women must dress modestly, but makes no specific demands on either sex.

This whole veil or not to veil bollocks (which this article is a direct result) is really beggining to get up my nose. Seems most muslims want to wear them only to piss people off as it is not required by Islam to dress like an item off page 658 of the Argos Catalogue "Outdoors Activity" section.....



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
kudos to this person and good luck in her lawsuit.


as it has been pointed out, it is not required that christians wear a cross as a headscarf or turban may be required to be worn by some religions. point is that should not matter as it is a persons religion and if they wish to wear a symbol of it there shoud be no rules stopping it, unless it is a safety issue such as an auto mechanic wearing anything long and dangly hanging free, is a danger to their life due to the possibility of getting caught in moveing parts thus stangleing them.

we supposidly live in a free society that permits religious freedom. unfortunately more and more in recent time that freedom only exists for some religions while other religions are oppenly critisized and tend to suffer some persecution, as well as being told what they can or can't do. this in and of itself can cause yet more rifts between differant religions. may here would bring up things like look at what is happening in the world today in regaurds to the muslums, or that in the far distant past the catholics had the inquisitions. this is EXACTLY why freedom of religion is so important. these things are created when there is NO freedom of religion, when one religion gets total controll and outlaws other religions.

this isn't even a totaly new thing. for generations one religion has been forced into criminal status because they believe in multiple marriages as part of their religion. of course we can argue that poligimy is illigal but why is it illigal? oh i can hear the shouts of exploitation of females but though there are some cases of that i am sure there are many more who do not feel exploited. of course we only hear of the outrage and abuse, but what we don't hear is when everything is fine. heck as long as all parties involved in such an arrangement are ok with it why should we care what they do? isn't that what all the fuss about gay marriage is about? the right to do what they feel is right for themselves? or is it just another case of i'm right therefore you are wrong?

in fact if you look at it through history you will notice quite a lot of the most brutal regimes are the result of not haveing religios freedoms or the right to practice whatever religion or lack of one. in europe of long ago they had the catholic religion ruled and no other religion was tolerated thus begetting the inquisitions. as well as in the ussr of more recent times had the lack of religion enforced causeing purges and persecution. also i will state that if any religious group can do or have something then everyone else should have the right to do it or have something simmiler as well. for example one religious group carries daggers, in fact when i was in high school they had to conciel them, thus every other student should have been alowed to carry knives of simmiler size and had them concealed as well. thus eliminateing a source of hate for that group.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Muslims are also NOT required to wear a headscarf or veil. It wasn't until the 19th century that the idea of hijab sprang up and it applies to both men and women. The Koran mentions that both men and women must dress modestly, but makes no specific demands on either sex.


Thanks for the info on the Sikhs first.

Now moving on to the head scarfs etc., that is my point they insist they must wear them yet are not required to wear them yet the airlines allow it and that bugs me to no end. Why should they be allowed to insist they have a right because they base it on their religion, yet at the same time refuse to allow a christian the right to wear a religious symbol of their choice?



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Just to add.. Sikhs sprang up as a derivative of Hinduism at the same time as the Islamic incursion into the sub continent. They are usually rather big buggers and used to be extremely talented warriors, thus, they were used to fight the Muslims.#

Calling a Sikh a Muslim is likely to get you hurt..



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Now that the story is being carried by more sources I found something that kind of surprised me. I had thought she probably was some young girl but that is not the case she is 55 years Old


Source

Link has picture of her also and get this the man that approved this action came under fire recently for not wearing a tie. Hmmm wonder if he suspended himself??? I doubt it


OOOps left off some important info, there are MP of who think this is stupid and claim they will throw away their BA VIP cards and fly other airlines if BA does not back down.

[edit on 10/14/2006 by shots]



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 06:31 PM
link   
like many people here, ive already heard this story all over the news. Does anyone else feel like the modern day media is pushing religion into a new place...in my eyes it seems the media is pushing all religions into a stereotype etc..tbh why cant people in the modern world get along. It seems that in keeping one person happy upsets another. I guess all we can hope for in the near future is something that will destroy all barriers between religion and will bring us all together



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I think some are missing the point, all employers have rules for their employees and if BA have a dress code that states no visable jewelry then this employee is in breach of that code. Its got nothing to do with religion or anything else, this person and the media are making it so. I'm sure she read and signed a contract of employment, so her employer are correct on their course of action.



posted on Oct, 14 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
I dont see the big deal in this at all, in fact, I think that if the woman was violating the dress code, BA had every right to do what they did.

Lets not forget people, this lady wasn't fired, she was sent home for the day. Also, they aren't telling her they cant wear the cross, they're telling her to wear it under her clothes, how is that unreasonable?

Why does she feel the need to wear it outside of her clothes?

She entered into the dress code agreement when she accepted employment there - for her to pick and choose which rules apply to her is insane, Im sure this lawsuit will be thrown out.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mezzanine
Lets not forget people, this lady wasn't fired, she was sent home for the day. Also, they aren't telling her they cant wear the cross, they're telling her to wear it under her clothes, how is that unreasonable?

Why does she feel the need to wear it outside of her clothes?


Didn't you hear? The cross is in! She has to represent. Let people know.

I don't really care what people have on them. They can have items on them that mean certain things about who they are but that's as far as it gose. If someone is wearing a cross it's not going to hurt me. I don't feel offended.




top topics



 
0

log in

join