Liverpool FC Forum

by **The Manhattan Project** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 7:13 am

Ms Eweida said she was effectively "forced" to take unpaid leave after refusing to conceal the symbol.

After Monday's decision, she said: "I am fairly disappointed but I'm looking forward to the next stage because the cross is important and the truth will be revealed.

"It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them."

It's the dress code.

They offered her a different job where she could wear the cross, but she rejected it.

If she doesn't want to abide by the rules that BA reasonably apply to it's uniformed staff, then she can leave.

BA's argument is to apply it's dress code.

The woman's agenda is to glorify Jesus.

I'm with BA on this one. If she wants to show people that Jesus loves them, then she should go to church and sing. But preaching is not the thing to do at an airport.

by **66-1112520797** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:05 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:
Ms Eweida said she was effectively "forced" to take unpaid leave after refusing to conceal the symbol.

After Monday's decision, she said: "I am fairly disappointed but I'm looking forward to the next stage because the cross is important and the truth will be revealed.

"It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them."

It's the dress code.

They offered her a different job where she could wear the cross, but she rejected it.

If she doesn't want to abide by the rules that BA reasonably apply to it's uniformed staff, then she can leave.

BA's argument is to apply it's dress code.

The woman's agenda is to glorify Jesus.

I'm with BA on this one. If she wants to show people that Jesus loves them, then she should go to church and sing. But preaching is not the thing to do at an airport.

Bamaga man thinks you have a good point.

by **dawson99** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:56 am

But the man stood next to her can wear his turban... so he should take that off too?

come on people, this isnt about colour, its about common sense, its about freedom. We didnt kill all nazis so that we could live in a nazi state.

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:05 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:
Ms Eweida said she was effectively "forced" to take unpaid leave after refusing to conceal the symbol.

After Monday's decision, she said: "I am fairly disappointed but I'm looking forward to the next stage because the cross is important and the truth will be revealed.

"It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them."

It's the dress code.

They offered her a different job where she could wear the cross, but she rejected it.

If she doesn't want to abide by the rules that BA reasonably apply to it's uniformed staff, then she can leave.

BA's argument is to apply it's dress code.

The woman's agenda is to glorify Jesus.

I'm with BA on this one. If she wants to show people that Jesus loves them, then she should go to church and sing. But preaching is not the thing to do at an airport.

Agreed. At the end of the day she doesn't have to publicly display it. If she had been wearing it underneath her clothing and kept it a personal icon there would never of been a problem.

by **dawson99** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:20 am

Thats absolute rubbish. one law for us, oe for others who would take it to supreme court and probably get a million pound settlement, she gets offered a job hidden away.

by **jkop** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:53 am

dawson99 wrote:But the man stood next to her can wear his turban... so he should take that off too?

come on people, this isnt about colour, its about common sense, its about freedom. We didnt kill all nazis so that we could live in a nazi state.

Im in agreement with you dawson99. :nod

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 10:57 am

I think the problem also lies with the fact that a Turban is a compulsory dress for Sikhs whereas for Christians wearing a cross is optional.

by **dawson99** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:08 am

the cross is compulsory for HER beliefs tho or she would take it off. just because her faith is as srtong as a sikhs, doesnt make it any less important

by **taff** » Tue Nov 21, 2006 11:31 am

An awkward one as I get the feeling this is to make a point at these tense times, how long has she worked there and why is this an issue now.

A bit of devils advocate of course but why the big deal at this moment in time. I agree with BA as well which is rare as I hate them

by **The Manhattan Project** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:53 am

But the man stood next to her can wear his turban... so he should take that off too?

No, because BA's policy makes allowances for reasonable matters such as something worn on the head, which cannot be practically hidden. In this case, they weren't telling the woman that she couldn't wear the cross, but simply that she had to cover it. It's not discrimination because the policy refers to jewellery, but she's decided to take it as an attack on her faith.

by **112-1077774096** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:22 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:
But the man stood next to her can wear his turban... so he should take that off too?

No, because BA's policy makes allowances for reasonable matters such as something worn on the head, which cannot be practically hidden. In this case, they weren't telling the woman that she couldn't wear the cross, but simply that she had to cover it. It's not discrimination because the policy refers to jewellery, but she's decided to take it as an attack on her faith.

its a difficlut one this but christians only really have the cross to show their faith, what if she wants to show that she is christian?

muslims can be seen as muslim because they wear their veil, sikhs because they wear their turban etc, i understand that these things can not be hidden as its not easy to hide your veil or head scarf, but the fact is that they can visibly show their religion by their dress, but a christian does not have an item of clothing to signify their religion, so surely if that person wants to show they are chistian then there should be no problem with a cross.

you can either show religion or you cant, if they decide that its not important for people to show their religion then they should also ban wearing of headscarfs and turbans or force them to be hidden (i know this is not possible to hide them).

all three things i mention are a sign of faith, but why is it just the christian that can not show here faith?

by **The Manhattan Project** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:30 am

its a difficlut one this but christians only really have the cross to show their faith, what if she wants to show that she is christian?

muslims can be seen as muslim because they wear their veil, sikhs because they wear their turban etc, i understand that these things can not be hidden as its not easy to hide your veil or head scarf, but the fact is that they can visibly show their religion by their dress, but a christian does not have an item of clothing to signify their religion, so surely if that person wants to show they are chistian then there should be no problem with a cross.

you can either show religion or you cant, if they decide that its not important for people to show their religion then they should also ban wearing of headscarfs and turbans or force them to be hidden (i know this is not possible to hide them).

all three things i mention are a sign of faith, but why is it just the christian that can not show here faith?

BA haven't said that the Christians can't show their faith.

This woman has made it into a religious matter when it actually isn't.

BA's policy only regards jewellery. It's not a policy on religion.

If Christians had to wear some kind of hat, then she may have been allowed to wear that. But because the cross was considered "jewellery" she wasn't allowed.

The fact that Christians have no headgear that might symbolise their faith is not the concern of BA. If she did have some kind of visible headgear that couldn't hidden yet constituted a vital part of her faith and BA banned that but not the turban, only THEN would she have a legit argument about being discriminated.

If I worked in the same position as this woman and wore a huge Saturday Night Fever-type macho medallion around my neck, I would fully expect BA to ban that too because it's jewellery. But it doesn't mean they have a discriminatory attitude against disco.

by **112-1077774096** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 5:58 am

my understanding is not that its jewellry, but that the jewellry is a and thats why it cant be displayed

by **The Manhattan Project** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 6:19 am

According to these BA statements, it's only about jewellery.

"Our uniform policy states that these items can be worn, underneath the uniform. There is no ban

This rule applies for all jewellery and religious symbols on chains and is not specific to the Christian cross"

by **112-1077774096** » Wed Nov 22, 2006 7:06 am

ok fair enough, but a cross is a religious artifact and an argument can probably be made that as a religious artifact it should not be classed as jewellery, it should be put in the same category as a jihab and a turban and allowed to be worn as a sign of faith

Liverpool FC Forum

Racist thoughts?

Who is online