Christian Sacked(fired) For Wearing Cross Loses Appeal

edited.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by December_Rain]

She has the right to wear whatever religious symbol she wants

The private airlines has the right to enforce dress code, and fire the dizzy bint whom thinks she is special

She has the right to pound the pavement in a recession for a more christian sympathetic company so she can wear her idol symbols.

Case closed...remove your golden idol or go elsewhere

Wasn't the lady with the hijab allowed to wear her's? Then why do they not allow Christians to do the same but in the symbol of a cross?

I'm a Hindu but I believe that being able to wear ornaments relating to your religion should be allowed. They strip us of how we can die, they strip us of being proud of our religion, what will be next?

Maybe, they believe that people will be prejudice will grow. For example, some people will be prejudiced against Christians. They then upon seeing the cross, will be racist or something.

However that can be rectified by stopping the racism. It doesn't mean to take the person's rights and pride away from them by stripping them off their religion.

reply to post by BlackPoison94


Its okay to bash Christians these days, but not okay for you to bash Muslims... So you being a Hindu are prolly safe untill they have finished with the Christians.

Sorry I don't understand. I'm bashing Muslims? I don't think I meant that. I just said that if Muslims are allowed to show their relgion, why can't Christians? Isn't their meant to be an equality in religions?

reply to post by Equinox99


Moocowman has made it his mission in life to discredit any religious
teaching.He wants the world free from religion! Don't you,bad apple

reply to post by poedxsoldiervet


You've got it.If there should ever be another holocaust,the next one
will be against the christians! The christians are considered to be in
the way of "spiritual enlightenment",or free from the chains of religion.
Losing rights and priviledges are the first steps toward, enslaving and
killing, unwanted people.

reply to post by mamabeth

Moocowman has made it his mission in life to discredit any religious teaching.

Nope M, I'd just prefer to live in a world where religion is kept in the home or places of worship and any so called teachings kept there until asked for.

Religion does not need me to discredit it, it has done it itself I'm just helping it along.

He wants the world free from religion! Don't you,bad apple

Nope, but I would prefer"my" world to be free of its' unrequested influence. How can I be a bad apple when the rest of the fruit complain about the decay of the orchard in which only they have ever dwelt ?

reply to post by moocowman

How can I be a bad apple when the rest of the fruit complain about the decay of the orchard in which only they have ever dwelt ?

okay NOW YOU get brownie points for that little insight!

but you don't get brownie points for thinking its okay to interfer with people's jewelry lol

that's so silly i don't even know where to start.

reply to post by BlackPoison94

Wasn't the lady with the hijab allowed to wear her's? Then why do they not allow Christians to do the same but in the symbol of a cross?

This was an employment tribunal, this employer has the same right to insist that it's employees don't wear tea towels or slinkys on their heads whilst at work.

Indeed there no doubt will be some employers that will cave in to religious pressure for the employee to come as you please but in this instance reason prevailed thank god for that.


The poor delude lady has not been prevented from believing what she chooses she can still be an xtian the employer has in no way tried deny her that.

There are many workplaces where individuals can dress how they please and do, all the xtian has to do if she's insistent upon dressing her way is get a job in one of these places.

Originally posted by Kaploink

Originally posted by Equinox99
reply to post by moocowman

 

You're delusional. You say there is no God and get offended because of a cross. Why do you fear something that other people believe? Was she shoving religion down your throat?

Why yes, religious displays at places such as workplaces are shoving religion down ones throat. As the non religious or believers of different faiths can't very well avoid the other co-workers.

Also, I don't think it's fear, but rather an annoyance over the insensitivity that so many religious people show to others.

Education is key. Why is it that Hinduism can incorporate other religions into their culture without this burden?

It is not shoving one's religion down anothers throat. That is like saying having a picture of a monkey on your cubical is pushing evolution down my throat.

Hmmm, freedom of speech censorship. I would understand if I pushed my beliefs on you by talking about it. But wearing a symbol because it bring joy to this persons life? Does that symbol telepathically enslave your mind?

We must learn to deal with religious, cultural, and moral differences.

reply to post by undo

but you don't get brownie points for thinking its okay to interfer with people's jewelry lol

Lol, I've had my family jewels interfered with quite a few times by good lord loving ladies, it would appear that the bodies' impulse to act upon how it evolved beats the instruction to resist its' alleged design every time,

Attention: Woman's civil liberties are being denied!!!

You could be next. Be on the lookout. It doesn't seem important until it effects you, I know. But I'm just trying to give you firmly-in-the-box folks a heads up.

What effects one, effects all.

reply to post by moocowman

The poor delude lady has not been prevented from believing what she chooses she can still be an xtian the employer has in no way tried deny her that.

She is no more deluded than you are. Where did you get your evidence before you start calling this lady delusional? Do you seriously think because you are not religious that you are some sort of genius?

I will admit, there are many delusional people in this world. Those are the people that live in a little bubble thinking their feces don't stink. I hate to break it to, you are one of those people.

reply to post by Equinox99

It is not shoving one's religion down anothers throat. That is like saying having a picture of a monkey on your cubical is pushing evolution down my throat.

This isn't about taking a monkey to work, it's wearing a monkey at work when the dude who pays your wages insists that you wear his squirrel comprende ?

reply to post by Equinox99

She is no more deluded than you are. Where did you get your evidence before you start calling this lady delusional?

I saw her on TV or newspaper discussing this jesus fellow (the one that appears in the bibles) and how he speaks to her.

As a rule when an individual informs a shrink of the voices in their head when no other person is around. The shrink often considers delusion, of course one cannot rule out her picking radio up signals from the fillings in her teeth, but hey what the hell she's pretty insistent.

Of course she may indeed not be delusional the jesusyahwhe god may very well be real, if so great she could take him to a shrink and prove a case.

Did I read the same article everyone else did? Or did no one read the article?

www.guardian.co.uk...

Eweida was originally suspended from work as a BA check-in clerk when she refused to wear a cross on a necklace underneath her uniform rather than on top of it. This breached stated uniform policy, which stated that no one was allowed to wear visible adornments around their neck. But Eweida and her Christian activist backers managed to foment such a backlash that BA was forced into changing the policy. Now she can wear her cross visibly, and the airline offered her £8,500 compensation and a return to her job, with her point successfully made.

She refused to work on Christmas Day even thought she signed a contract knowing full well she might have to work this day. She used her religion to demand special treatment. She was rude and judgmental toward collegues. She tried to push her religious beliefs onto others and discriminated against those that didn't follow her beliefs.

The tribunal also heard how Eweida's attitude and behaviour towards colleagues had prompted a number of complaints objecting to her: "Either giving them religious materials unsolicited, or speaking to colleagues in a judgmental or censorious manner which reflected her beliefs; one striking example," said the judgment, "was a report from a gay man that the claimant had told him that it was not too late to be redeemed."

This wasn't about a woman being fired over wearing a cross as you can see the article says she won this case and was even awarded money.

reply to post by virraszto

Did I read the same article everyone else did? Or did no one read the article?

Indeed but for some reasons many xtians choose to ignore it or hold the belief that their beliefs supercede contractual obligations.

Personally I think the woman was probably out to stamp her pious feet and jump on the gravy train that is shunting its' way through the UK in the guise of racial/religious intolerance and earn a fast buck for jesus.

Maybe for some it's easier to pick certain things they like from a text (and ignore the rest) and go with that as truth, instead of reading the whole thing and then making an informed decision.



[edit on 12-2-2010 by virraszto]

reply to post by moocowman

Hey Moocowman.
Your title is misleading. She wasn't sacked for wearing a cross, she was suspended for refusing to conform to uniform policy:

BA's uniform policy was strict and allowed only mandatory religious items that could not be covered up by the uniform, and that management had approved.
.../...
Following the introduction of a new uniform policy in 2004, allowing open-necked shirts, Eweida's cross became visible, in breach of the policy. However, she refused to remove the cross, so BA sent her home, in line with the policy.

The lady's issue with BA has more to do with their refusal to consider a small cross as a religious symbol. From their point of view, a small cross on a chain falls into the category of "adornments around the neck", which the policy didn't allow. Maybe she should have showed up with one of those huge crucifixes that nuns wear in horror movies, as they're harder to conceal. But then again, she would have had to prove that this ornament is mandatory to her faith:

Requests for approval were assessed on their merits and pending an outcome the member of staff concerned was required to observe the policy as it stood. The policy made some obvious allowances, for example for turbans, which had to be of a specified colour.

source:
www.personneltoday.com...

Moocowman said:

Personally I think the woman was probably out to stamp her pious feet and jump on the gravy train that is shunting its' way through the UK in the guise of racial/religious intolerance and earn a fast buck for jesus.

I agree completely with this statement.


[edit on 12-2-2010 by jeanvaljean]