Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Unequal Treatment For Christians?  
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1848 times:

Anyone care to explain the rationale behind this decision?

Quote:
Christian BA employee suspended for wearing cross necklace
13.10.06

A Christian woman has been banned by British Airways for wearing a small cross necklace to work - while muslims and sikhs are allowed to wear headscarves and turbans.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...+wearing+cross+necklace/article.do

49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1840 times:

Quite possible that they have a general ban on necklaces of any kind, independent of whether there are religious symbols attached to them or not.

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1833 times:

Because the Christian woman likely got upset, but won't like blow anything up tonight on her way home . . . .

It's called reverse discrimination . . . happens all the time . . .


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1835 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 2):
Quite possible that they have a general ban on necklaces of any kind, independent of whether there are religious symbols attached to them or not.

Didn't read the article, I see.

Quote:
Under rules drawn up by BA's 'diversity team' and 'uniform committee', Sikh employees can even wear the traditional iron bangle - even though this would usually be classed as jewellery - while Muslim workers are also allowed prayer breaks during work time.


User currently offlineAirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

Doesn't make any sense to me either, wondering if something else was happening that we are not aware of.

Quoting Jpax (Reply 1):
Because if Muslims were told to remove their turbans.

Probably protected by a specific law/court case etc.


User currently offlineShyFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1824 times:

On the surface it would seem so. However, are the accessories worn by the Muslims and Sikhs a required part of thier faith, or are they optional? I know as a Christian, wearing the cross is optional.

User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1810 times:

Quoting ShyFlyer (Reply 6):
On the surface it would seem so. However, are the accessories worn by the Muslims and Sikhs a required part of thier faith, or are they optional? I know as a Christian, wearing the cross is optional.

Why should that make a difference? The fact is, as the article notes, "Her Sikh and Muslim colleagues at BA can show their faith publicly in what they wear, but Nadia and other Christians cannot. All we are asking for is a level playing field for all faiths."


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1799 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 4):
Didn't read the article, I see.

Indeed not, initially.

As it turns out, however, nobody else appears to be allowed to wear necklaces, either:

Quote:
The airline's uniform code states that staff must not wear visible jewellery or other 'adornments' while on duty without permission from management.

While I'd agree, of course, that the exceptions are not entirely consistent...

Quote:
It makes exceptions for Muslim and Sikh minorities by allowing them to wear hijabs and turbans.

Under rules drawn up by BA's 'diversity team' and 'uniform committee', Sikh employees can even wear the traditional iron bangle - even though this would usually be classed as jewellery - while Muslim workers are also allowed prayer breaks during work time.

Not exactly the same, however. An armband is not an overtly religious symbol, and it might be less problematic regarding safety-relevant situations.

Hijabs and turbans are actually cultural symbols more than religious ones, so it's not exactly the same either. What is more, both are culturally mandated within certain groups, while the wearing of a cross necklace is not - it is very much optional. So allowing the former may remove a barrier of access to a career while the latter certainly won't.

Allowing prayer breaks out of sight of the passengers is a minor concession without substantial impact on either passenger service or safety, so it doesn't really figure here.

Preventing harassment of any kind within the workforce through "diversity training" is a completely obvious HR improvement and not a concession of any sort.

I'm not saying the overall result is terribly consistent - but I can understand how they might have come about, up to a point.

The fact remains that a consistent position will require a bit more than just mixing the end result of various concessions to pressure groups.

On the other hand, the artificial and predictable outrage of western religious pressure groups in such instants is rather disingenuous and the attempts to mix prevention of harrassment and the denial of extra concessions for religious demonstration are more than just a bit twisted with a distinct odor of the dark ages...


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1793 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8):
On the other hand, the artificial and predictable outrage of western religious pressure groups in such instants is rather disingenuous and the attempts to mix prevention of harrassment and the denial of extra concessions for religious demonstration are more than just a bit twisted with a distinct odor of the dark ages...

What an unmitigated crock of sh*t.

If BA is going to ban visible Christian symbols worn by its employees while on duty - and I think they have the right to do so - the same rule should apply to all other faiths. The "mandatory/optional" distinction is pure political correctness BS.

We either treat people equally, or suffer the consequences of civil and cultural strife that will be the inevitable outcome of the persistent unequal policies like the one currently in place at BA.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1786 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 9):
If BA is going to ban visible Christian symbols worn by its employees while on duty - and I think they have the right to do so - the same rule should apply to all other faiths. The "mandatory/optional" distinction is pure political correctness BS.

Not for those for whom certain things are perceived as mandatory.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 9):
We either treat people equally, or suffer the consequences of civil and cultural strife that will be the inevitable outcome of the persistent unequal policies like the one currently in place at BA.

It's not quite as simple - although the current state of affairs would indeed make me long for a greater level of consistency - and severely downgrading the relative priority of perceived impediments to people's expression of their respective superstitions may very well be a step into the right direction.

After all, Having people around me and in charge of my safety who believe in an afterlife paradise (of various kinds) could very well make me feel rather uneasy in light of 9-11 and other events...  mischievous 

I might very much prefer not being confronted with the weird superstitions the crew may individually choose to adhere to...!


User currently offlineBobster2 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1766 times:

If your job requires you to conform to a dress code, and your religion forbids you to conform to the dress code, you need to find another job. (In the context of this thread "you" refers to Muslims and Sikhs).

On the other hand, if the employer drops the dress code for one group, they should drop it for all groups.

[Edited 2006-10-14 06:21:31]

User currently offlineZippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5549 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1752 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
Because the Christian woman likely got upset, but won't like blow anything up tonight on her way home . . . .

It's called reverse discrimination . . . happens all the time .

I've got to go with ANCFlyer on this one. Only rationale is BA dress/uniform code. Otherwise, it is another attack of When political correctness goes from bad to much worse!

I'm Jewish and someone wearing a crucifix doesn't offend me in the least, and, if Muslims want to wear turbans and other symbols of their religion than so be it. What's the problem?

Totally different than if this employee started preaching the New Testament at the airport (her work station).

Also I personally have no problems or issues when it comes to Santa Klaus, Kreshes or Menorahs during the holiday season. Honestly, I'm less than enthusiastic when during the holiday season I have to be bombarded by The Little Drummer Boy or some of the other more intense holiday tunes. But, let me stop here as I'm flying off course (off topic).



I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1751 times:

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 11):
If your job requires you to conform to a dress code, and your religion forbids you to conform to the dress code, you need to find another job. (In the context of this thread "you" refers to Muslims and Sikhs).

On the other hand, if the employer drops the dress code for one group, they should drop it for all groups.

Probably the bst reply I've seen so far. You should follow the dress code, and indeed the current regulation is unfair.

Lucas  Smile


User currently offlineShyFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1746 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 7):
Why should that make a difference?

If a clothing item is optional in a particular religion or culture, the person wouldn't be in hot water (for lack of a better term) with their religion or culture should they not wear said item. That is my speculation on why BA management made the decision they did. Not that I agree with it though.

Quoting Bobster2 (Reply 11):
On the other hand, if the employer drops the dress code for one group, they should drop it for all groups.

Exactly.  yes 


User currently offlineZippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5549 posts, RR: 13
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1738 times:

Quoting Halcyon (Reply 13):
On the other hand, if the employer drops the dress code for one group, they should drop it for all groups.

Agreed but this can happen   

  

and yes, two legged bovines will also be able to wear less!   




[Edited 2006-10-14 07:01:01]


I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineHalcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1719 times:

Quoting Zippyjet (Reply 15):

and yes, two legged bovines will also be able to wear less!

So here I am not feeling good already, and now here I am after throwing up at that picture! Send it back it back to the depths of Hell where it came from! I was mildly interested at first, and now my eyeballs have been permanently seared shut! The pain!  banghead   crazy   faint   sour   talktothehand   tired   yuck   yuck   yuck  That is the smilie representation of how my stomach feels now!


User currently offlineBA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11154 posts, RR: 59
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1703 times:

You can't compare the two. One is a religious symbol, the other is a piece of cloth.

Some Muslim women wear a headscarf to cover up their hair.

Some Sikhs wear a turban to hold up their hair as they are not allowed to cut their it, so the cloth is used to hold the long hair together and make it manageable.

They are not religious symbols, they are just pieces of cloth used to serve a specific religious purpose.

If a Muslim woman wanted to, she could wear a cardboard box over her head to cover her hair and the purpose would be served.

Banning employees from wearing a necklace with the word Allah written in Arabic or a necklace with a crescent and star on it (not too common, but they do exist) would be the equivalent of banning a necklace with a cross on it.

If BA wants to ban necklaces with religious symbols on them, by all means, let them do it. In fact, I'd support it.



"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26815 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 1671 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 7):
Why should that make a difference? The fact is, as the article notes, "Her Sikh and Muslim colleagues at BA can show their faith publicly in what they wear, but Nadia and other Christians cannot. All we are asking for is a level playing field for all faiths."

Actually, it does make a difference. Wearing a cross is not a religious duty, most devout Moslem women believe that wearing a scarf over their hair is and Sikhs do have to carry their traditional weapons (be happy they aren't carrying the knife). They are not making religious statements, as this woman is, they are performing their religious duties. In a country without a Constitution, it makes it even more difficult to speak to whether BA can determine what speech is and isn't allowed. Of course, you likely think that business can regulate employee speech any time they want.

Quoting BA (Reply 17):
Banning employees from wearing a necklace with the word Allah written in Arabic or a necklace with a crescent and star on it (not too common, but they do exist) would be the equivalent of banning a necklace with a cross on it.

Makes sense, though I have a major issue with private business infringing on free speech rights.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1584 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 10):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 9):If BA is going to ban visible Christian symbols worn by its employees while on duty - and I think they have the right to do so - the same rule should apply to all other faiths. The "mandatory/optional" distinction is pure political correctness BS.
Not for those for whom certain things are perceived as mandatory.

"Perceived" as mandatory? So we are going to be governed by "perceptions" of what is and is not mandatory?

The wearing of religious dress and religious symbols is a highly personal choice. While I respect anyone who wears a headscarf as a symbol of their religious belief, if an employee is permitted to wear anything visible that is worn because of religious belief, ALL employees must be allowed to do the same. Either BA bans it all or allows it all, the policy must be uniformly applied.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 10):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 9):We either treat people equally, or suffer the consequences of civil and cultural strife that will be the inevitable outcome of the persistent unequal policies like the one currently in place at BA.
It's not quite as simple

Sure it is. Equality is one of the easiest concepts around.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 18):

Actually, it does make a difference. Wearing a cross is not a religious duty, most devout Moslem women believe that wearing a scarf over their hair is and Sikhs do have to carry their traditional weapons (be happy they aren't carrying the knife).

Oh, are you now speaking for all Christians? I know Christians who DO believe wearing the cross IS a religious duty.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 18):
Of course, you likely think that business can regulate employee speech any time they want.

Still trying to put words in my mouth, eh?


User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13200 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 1570 times:

First France, now the UK. PC'ism running the world.
I could understand such a rule existing for staff flight crew in or going to/from certain Islamic countries (Saudi Arabia being the best example) because of laws banning any references to any religion but Islam or to make one less of a target of certain terrorists. Having a necklace kept hidden could be a ligitment safety issue too, to prevent an angry pax or customer grabbing it and hurting you.
If the rule as with this Christian woman with BA was mandated by any USA airline (with the exceptions I suggested above), millions of religious Americans would bury that airline with tons of e-mails and snail mail letters in protest. For many Christians and persons of other faiths, jewelry with references to their faith is very important to them or it may have deep sentimental value to them (from a spouse, parent or close relative).
If one is wearing a simple, relatively small Cross, Star of David or similar religious symbol and it isn't on general display, and they are not shoving their faith on others, then let it be. Quit harassing the Christians and other religious.


User currently offlineSpeedbirdie From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 929 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1564 times:

What the hell is wrong with everyone?
As I stated in the civil-aviation version of this thread, its about UNIFORM GUIDELINES, not f*cking religion...
I wear a St Christopher. I work for BA. I adhere to my UNIFORM standards by covering it up. If she cant read her f*cking manual on UNIFORM standards, then she should not be in the job.
This is really starting to piss me off. BA have done nothing wrong here. Why cant everyone else see that?



Never give up..
User currently offlineMarco From United Arab Emirates, joined Jul 2000, 4169 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1550 times:

It's just some more political correctness gone wrong. I don't see the harm in a Christian woman wearing a cross, or a Muslim woman wearing an Allah necklace, or a Jew wearing a star of David. These are signs of belief in God and no one should be offended. Regarding the veil, I don't agree with it in its essence but that's a different issue. Maybe one day people in the west will wake up and smell the coffee that this political correctness has gone to far and might cost them alot, maybe they wont. I hope they do before its too late.


Proud to be an Assyrian!
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1550 times:

Quoting Speedbirdie (Reply 21):
This is really starting to piss me off. BA have done nothing wrong here. Why cant everyone else see that?

because we don't agree with you.

BA evidently lets some employees wear articles of a religious nature, and doesn't let others do the same thing.


User currently offlineTRVYYZ From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 1375 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 1533 times:

Quoting Marco (Reply 22):
I don't see the harm in a Christian woman wearing a cross, or a Muslim woman wearing an Allah necklace, or a Jew wearing a star of David. These are signs of belief in God and no one should be offended.

Maybe one day people in the west will wake up and smell the coffee that this political correctness has gone to far and might cost them alot, maybe they wont. I hope they do before its too late.

 checkmark 

"Happy Holidays" something i learnt after coming here.


User currently offlineScamp From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 533 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1517 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 3):
It's called reverse discrimination . . . happens all the time . .

Yes, yes, of course it is. Poor little Christians...nobody loves 'em. Boo-hoo.

Quoting Jpax (Reply 1):
Because if Muslims were told to remove their turbans

Oh, give me f*ckin' break! Since when is a turban a religious symbol akin to a cross or even a Star of David.



If it pisses off the right, I'm all for it.
25 Elite : Muslims would demand the person be executed... AND
26 Klaus : Both turbans and headscarves are not religious symbols, they're cultural ones.
27 Post contains links Halls120 : You're kidding, right? and... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3309723.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3328277.stm And for the Si
28 TRVYYZ : Doesn't make a difference. You could argue it is not the same, but at the end of the day it is the same. These cultural symbols are related directly
29 Post contains images Scamp : You're comparing a head covering to the most important symbol for a major religion?!?!? It's official...I have now heard it all.
30 Post contains images Jpax :    You apparently dont know much about world events, do you? Remember when the Pope opened his mouth about Islam, and how much violent protests and
31 N1120A : The most religious Christians I know, both Protestant and Catholic, don't wear crosses. Just emulating you, oh great one.
32 Post contains images Halls120 : I was simply responding to Klaus' preposterous claim that the head scarf for Muslims and turban for Sikhs were simply cultural symbols. Hey, I'm not
33 Aerorobnz : It is part of most airline's company dress code (including my own)that no necklaces, anything more than stud earrings or more than one bangle can be w
34 Klaus : They are. The cross, the crescent moon and david's star signify "christianity", "islam" or "judaism". A head scarf has been a traditional garment in
35 Santosdumont : When the subject is delicate, as in this case, it seems that even-handed consistency is best. The fact that Mr. Walsh upheld the ruling to suspend the
36 Halls120 : What part of "Because the headscarf is such a visual symbol of the Muslim woman" and "Let living in His presence, with mind rid of impurities be your
37 N1120A : I answer them all the time, you just have selective reading comprehension.
38 Halls120 : Actually, you don't. At least in a substantive manner, that is. But let's see if you can stay on point in this thread. In your opinion, does BA allow
39 Klaus : You missed the point again. Religions have always adopted cultural peculiarities they had been confronted with, and none of that has ever made them t
40 Halls120 : So - you agree that BA is allowing the wearing of the headscarf and the turban because of their religious significance, yet you have no problem with
41 N1120A : In my opinion, they allow them because they are neither. They allow turbans partially for safety (you wouldn't want a Sikh tripping over his hair) an
42 Klaus : a) Clothing is not jewelry. While the former can be integrated into a uniform, the latter has various connotations, religious or not. b) The emblem o
43 Halls120 : Did you even read the article linked at the beginning of the thread? "The airline's uniform code states that staff must not wear visible jewellery or
44 Post contains images Klaus : The lady in question simply claimed that the necklace with the cross was no jewelry - which is objectively false, whatever she may want to believe. I
45 N1120A : I didn't. I stated that turbans are a safety item because they are.
46 Post contains images Halls120 : I agree. The question is, of course, why BA has the regulation in place in the first place. Nice to see that simple discrimination isn't a big deal t
47 Scamp : 1) don't believe everything you read, Sparky; 2) there's a vast difference between a cross and a turban; 3) someone in the world will always be offen
48 Halls120 : What is the "vast difference"? I'm asking in all seriousness.
49 Klaus : She isn't "discriminated" by the standing (and by herself accepted!!) uniform regulations preventing her from wearing jewelry. It's a uniform!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Salvation Necessities For Christians posted Fri Apr 28 2006 05:00:23 by Sleekjet
A Simple Question For Christians Part 2 posted Sun May 1 2005 14:25:05 by TedTAce
A Simple Question For Christians posted Fri Apr 29 2005 01:38:28 by OzarkD9S
Substandard Treatment For Single Guys? posted Sat Dec 11 2004 02:00:07 by Matt D
Funny Joke For Christians posted Wed Mar 3 2004 03:08:50 by Bruno
For Christians Only posted Tue Sep 11 2001 23:10:51 by Matt D
Something For Christians To Ponder.... posted Mon Aug 6 2001 19:30:55 by DE727UPS
Iran Eyes Badges For Jews And Christians - Hoax posted Fri May 19 2006 17:58:50 by Windshear
Evangelical Christians To Start Lobby For Israel posted Wed Apr 5 2006 06:01:33 by RJpieces
Cons. Christians Issue Gay Warning For Spongebob posted Fri Jan 21 2005 06:51:41 by Tbar220