Judge upholds airline's ban on cross

I think you misunderstood me; I was saying that this would not have been considered such an important/noteworthy case if this had been about political beliefs because they aren’t pandered to in the way that religion is.

Dunno about that. If I saw a political badge on a Dinner Lady, I would just as annoyed as if a woman with a Zorro mask on.
Such deformation of uniform should not be tolerated. It shows a lack of respect for all and only garbage airlines (With therefore no proper maintenance plan) would allow it. So I wouldn’t fly on them.

Yes it would. The uniform rules and the safety rules are quite clear from BA. The judge is 100% correct.
And the other Religious regalia has to be neat and tidy. Thankfully BA seems to mainly employ men as the dinner ladies. I really would object to being served by a Muslim woman with her face covered.
Singapore AL pride themselves on employing lookers. Is that sexist? I think not! It’s one of the things that keep them at the top of the favourite AL to fly with. Even a women appreciates another beautiful woman. So long as they know how to throw me down a shute, then go for lookers and dispell all this additions to a uniform, religious or political or fashion.

I think you misunderstood me; I was saying that this would not have been considered such an important/noteworthy case if this had been about political beliefs because they aren’t pandered to in the way that religion is.

Both of them!

That many? Bet you can’t list them! 😀

. There are some things that you can’t blame Brown for, you know! :p

Both of them!

She sought £120,000 ($A210,000) in damages and lost wages.

..this is when I lost interest, turn the other cheek and all that.

:dev2:

What gets me about this story is that even though the rule was there to be applied to everyone, the lady in question still claims that she was being discriminated against because she wasn’t allowed to wear the cross.

Surely it’s the opposite? She is being treated like everyone else is, so what she is really asking for is special treatment for her religious beliefs.

Somehow I don’t think the case would have gone as far as this if, for example, she had worn a political party pin badge stating her political beliefs….

Yes it would. The uniform rules and the safety rules are quite clear from BA. The judge is 100% correct.
And the other Religious regalia has to be neat and tidy. Thankfully BA seems to mainly employ men as the dinner ladies. I really would object to being served by a Muslim woman with her face covered.
Singapore AL pride themselves on employing lookers. Is that sexist? I think not! It’s one of the things that keep them at the top of the favourite AL to fly with. Even a women appreciates another beautiful woman. So long as they know how to throw me down a shute, then go for lookers and dispell all this additions to a uniform, religious or political or fashion.

What gets me about this story is that even though the rule was there to be applied to everyone, the lady in question still claims that she was being discriminated against because she wasn’t allowed to wear the cross.

Surely it’s the opposite? She is being treated like everyone else is, so what she is really asking for is special treatment for her religious beliefs.

Somehow I don’t think the case would have gone as far as this if, for example, she had worn a political party pin badge stating her political beliefs….

My contacts within BA tell me that the uniform policy said that all necklases must be worn UNDER the uniform and that ALL non-issue badges were banned
Necklesses for H&S reasons and the badges for smartness.
BA goes out of it’s way to cater for the religious requirement of its staff with uniform turbans and head scarfs but all staff must be kept safe and look tidy.
The contact also tells me that there was more to this story than the cross;)

Rgds Cking

It seems entirely reasonable to ban the wearing of any neckwear in case an irate passenger tries to strangle you with it.
Since Christianity doesn’t specifically require the wearing of obvious symbols of faith , unlike the more definite requirements of some other religions , it’s purely a matter of personal choice. These days wearing a cross is infinitely more likely to be a fashion statement than a declaration of faith.
I think the judge was quite right in saying that this wasn’t religious discrimination.

To be fair, Joey, they did ban ALL neck ornaments – not just crosses, which would have been stupid.

And what have the government got to do with it? BA were privatised ages ago. There are some things that you can’t blame Brown for, you know! :p

Ah, didn’t realise that. A decision which only enforces my point of view. I was not suggesting that BA were instructed by the government, simply that that is the ethos created by the government which organisations feel obliged to adhere to in case they fall foul of the law in not dong so.

There are some things that you can’t blame Brown for, you know! :p

Yeah but not much eh !!?? 😉

To be fair, Joey, they did ban ALL neck ornaments – not just crosses, which would have been stupid.

And what have the government got to do with it? BA were privatised ages ago. There are some things that you can’t blame Brown for, you know! :p

I presume BA will ban any passenger outwardly displaying signs of a religious or ethnic content. I utterley despair of this moronic PC, multi-cultural world which has been forced upon us by an equally moronic government.:mad:

Even though this lady was employed by an airline, I think this thread really belongs in General Discussion.