BA banned worker from displaying her Crucifx over her uniform

[VanillaMilkshake]

Cannot believe this has happened - it's PC gone mad!

BA advise they still allow turbans, bangles etc, as it's not practical to cover such religious symblols with the uniform. But banned a Christian worker from displaying a small silver crucifix no bigger than a 5pence piece!

Is England - Britain, not a historically Christian country - And are they not caled British Airways.

I am Christian and I where a crucifx at all times. However in no way do I look down upon or pretend to understand other religions. I belive firmly in freedom of choice - but feel this decision is ridiculous - where will it end?!

Blu, sorrel etc all seem to think it is only a religious thing if the "rules" of your group say it is.

That's really quite oppressive.
Also it is also incorrect to say that no Christian group has it in it's rules.

Message withdrawn

I thought Fuzzy said the veil WASNT obligatory unless you interpreted the Koran literally - someone else has said that if you want to interpret the bible literally then also wearing a cross COULD be percived to be obligatory too (couldnt comment on this as the last bible I looked at had big coloured pictures in it).

Sorry im one of those people who just do pretend singing at weddings and wait for the good bit with the alcohol and the disco

Not BA, so far as I'm aware, but some airlines mandate the exact shade of lipstick that all their female cabin crew have to wear. I'm surprised that so many people find it odd that someone's not allowed to visibly wear individual jewelery.

Agree with bloss on the difference between religious expression and religious obligation. I don't think this particular woman has ever claimed that her cross-wearing is an obligation rather than an expression (I'm happy to be corrected on that if anyone has any information to the contrary). Therefore I don't see that her religious expression should be treated any differently from a non-religious expression (e.g. a CND badge, or one of those Darwin fishy pendants with legs) -- i.e. when she's at work and on work time her personal expressions (religious or otherwise) should be conducted within the limits of the uniform code that she's well aware of.

Mind you, I could get behind the 'loincloths for cabin stewards' movement... (although think of the spilled coffee ouchies)

OK, which branch of Christianity makes wearing a visible cross mandatory?
And of course it's not oppressive! What about my point about the rat or loincloth? Or Bloss's point about going topless? By your reckoning both of these arguments should be accepted by any organisation just because someone says they feel they are part of their Christian duty even if there is absolutely no back up on the books of that religion of by the religion's leaders.
It's like saying a footballer has the right to carry the ball because it is oppressing him to insist he follows the written and agreed rules! (actually am PSML laughing to think of Mrs Whatsit being 'oppressed' by having to wear her necklace under her horrible BA cravat - poor love!)

Oh and just so I dont annoy the person on the irrational thread I do know how to spell perceived - LOL - I just didnt notice it on preview.

There is absolutely zilch in the bible about having to wear a necklace with a cross on it! There is quite a bit in the Koran about covering up. I don't agree with a word of it, but it is there.

As far as I am concerned if you accept a job knowing the dress code you cannot then adapt it to suit your personal beliefs - go find a career that will let you dress how you want.

We all have to make compromises in our professional life.

sorrell - some organisations like the Confraternity of Penitents do make wearing a visible cross mandatory (although the CFP do have an exception if it "impedes the penitent's manner of earning a living", come to think of it).

Just because it isn't dictated in the bible doesn't mean it isn't an important part of the religeon. I disagree that religeous expression is unimportant.

Its not unimportant but you cannot expect to mould the rules to suit your personal beliefs - it is not the MOST important thing in the world (global spread of aids, nuclear threat, child abuse)

Why is her religious expression more important than my (hypothetically, if I were thin enough to be a cabin crew member ) non-religious expression? No one is saying she can't wear a cross, they are saying she cannot, while she is at work, wear any visible jewelery (including a cross).

I don't see why there should be an exception allowing her to wear a cross but not an exception allowing another crew mamber to wear, say, a visible locket containing a photo of their DC, or a visible CND pendant. Uwila, are you arguing that all of those should be allowed, or are you arguing that her religiously-motivated personal expressions are automatically more important, and should automatically be granted greater leeway, than someone else's emotionally-motivated or politically-motivated personal expression?

I don't actually think that BA is wrong in banning necklaces -- all of them. I do however think that the fact that they allow such tings as bengals and turbans is a sign of how unPC it is to be christian these days, and I take issue with that.

I joined this thread when I read some posts saying that wearing the cross was nothing more than a fashion statement, and I definately disagree with that. People who wear the cross do so for a reason. It is an outward expression of there beliefs, and simply a fashion statement. If someone does wear a cross simply as a fashion statement then I as a Christian find their mockery of my religeon to be deeply offensive and would likt them to take it off.

Also, as far as I know, it may have been possible for this women to display her cross within the BA dress code (hair clip, ring, bracelet, lapel pin, earings). And if it is, then those are the item(s) she should be wearing. I agree that she signed up to a contract and she should abide by it.

Ignorant typist I am

It is an outward expression of their beliefs, and not simply a fashion statement.

Mind you, observant sikhs are suppost to carry a small dagger with them at all times, which might be tricky for wannabe cabin crew!

Message withdrawn

Really? That's interesting. Does this dagger need to be made of a sharp metal? How small can it be?

It could be a penknife apparently, but they are forbidden now, presumably, even to observant sikhs.

What about a little dagger shaped piece of rubber in the pocket?

I think I prefer pen knives remain banned.

According to BA uniform code she could, so far as I can see, wear a ring with a cross on it (women are allowed up to three rings with no specified limits on style, men only one, and a man's ring has to be "plain").

Grumpghoul has a point about choosing a job compatable with your beliefs, but what if the employer changes the rules ?

DC, as far as I can tell it is the employee who changed the rules.

Generally they have a clause in your contract which says in the legalese forked tongue (e.g so you dont have a bloody clue what it means) We can change where you work and what you do at our whim - or that was my experience when working for one of the UK majors.

it's not pc gone mad, it's perfectly sensible. as someone pointed out, wearing a cross is not fundamental to any christian sect. it's unfortunate for the conspiracy theorists that some other religions have important items of clothing which cannot be covered but there you go.

and britain isn't a christian country. it is a secular country.

IF BA allowed it's employees to wear small itmes of jewellery - gemstones, initials, etc, but said they could wear jewellery EXCEPT crucifixes, I would be wholly on this woman's side.

If I was the boss of BA, I would, actually, let her wear it because I am not a particularly uniform-enthusiastic person. But BA do have a strict uniform policy which was no doubt covered in her training and contract.

But this has been dragged erroneously into a religion-veil-pc-gone-mad frenzy, afaics.