47 replies to this topic

[Robbie333]

bouncer, on 13 March 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

I think this story is ridiculous. I wear a cross, (with a little fella on it tho)....and while its visible if you look...its not visible in a prominent way and I dont wave it about.  Being my usual self, ie a bulldozer in appearance, id be most unhappy if I was told to remove it at work...in fact it wouldn't happen.

So now I can be sacked?

read it and weep

http://www.telegraph...Government.html

              I wear my crucifix every day. It is under my shirt and no one can see it. This is my right. I do not push my religion or jam in your face my crucifix. Why all of these governments want to get in our personal lives I will never understand. I say if I cannot wear my cross then you cannot wear a pendant of any kind. Your astral sign, pentagram or even a horse effigy. Nobody wears any jewlery with a emblem of any kind. Does this even make sense? Man, so much to worry about in this world and we have bull**** like this.

Edited by Robbie333, 13 March 2012 - 03:11 PM.

[Paranoid Android]

On the surface I don't disagree with this.  Technically the Cross is not part of a Christian's essential worship.  Therefore I don't know that it should be held sacred on account of some people who find sacredness in the symbol.  However, as soon as I write this I see two points hovering that are of importance.  The first has perhaps a valid idea behind it -

1- Who in the company decides whether a piece of jewellery is acceptable work wear?

The second, the idea has several issues -

2- It is true that the Cross is technically not a part of Christian essential worship, but by the same token it is also true that the Hijab and the Niqab are equally not essential parts of Muslim worship.  So if the symbol of the Cross is deemed inappropriate then the Hijab and the Niqab (different items, btw, I'm just using these as two examples of adornments) should equally be banned from the workplace.

Good luck ever seeing that happen in the immediate future.  In short, I think a company should expect dress standards.  If they deem that religious icons do not represent their company then that is their choice.  I just ask that they be consistent in their application of their views.

edit:  accidentally sent send before I'd finished writing - hopefully people didn't read only half my post

Edited by Paranoid Android, 13 March 2012 - 03:14 PM.

[bmk1245]

libstaK, on 13 March 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Neither do I and there are plenty of examples of skulls, pentagrams etc in modern jewellery - it's how it is perceived by the beholder that is the issue - and surely that is the beholder's issue alone?

Quite frankly if someone has an issue with a "little fella upside down with three 6s" then they probably wouldn't spend their hard earned money on such a trinket - for those that do - each to his own (although it's seems kinda overdone and try hard IMPO).

I'm not quite sure I understood you correctly, but I agree, I guess
I just imagined "the issue" I would be creating by wearing such "trinket" in presence of devout Christians

Edit: just saw PA's making good points in his post.

[Beckys_Mom]

747400, on 13 March 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Oh of coruse, it might offend Atheists (who seem extremely easily offended) upset at having religion "forced down their throat"....  

I find this  most ridiculous, how you are so quick to  blame all this on Atheists, when the article doesn't state such a thing.. ..For all you know it could be because of other Non Christians from   other faiths...We do not know  what pushed this... But blaming atheists on everything that happens to Christians is  down right ridiculous

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 13 March 2012 - 05:00 PM.

[Beckys_Mom]

Article  reads...

Quote

      They say that Christians are given less protection than members of other religions who have been granted special status for garments or symbols such as the Sikh turban and kara bracelet, or the Muslim hijab.                        

Way I see it... fair is fair... If they allow  other people from other faiths  wear their religious garments... then  what odd's does it make if some Christians wear a simple cross?


I do not know if this is because Non Christians were offended  or not...  I know so many Protestant Christians acted to offended when ever they saw Catholic Christians  wear the cross with Jesus on it...The ignorance towards  knowing why they did was  unbelievable...  Only the intelligent  ones understood  I guess... But  this goes to show you  that even  Christians  can act offended by the same cross if and when they chose...So I wonder  who the cross really did offend?   I guess we will never know

Anyhoo the rule is  stupid... If you are going to take  the cross away, take everyone else's  religious  item away  too.. lets them all have a good cry... No point in singling one group oiut   in my view ...Or just let them wear what they like, it is their life and faith...   From what I know about Christians  a lot of them wear the cross for protection.. Why strip them of that?    


...How many more stupid  idiot laws  do you all need?

[TheBanana]

i am not a christian (im an atheist), but i think that if someone wants to wear a cross to work, they should be able to, unless their place of work did not allow any jewellery for safety reasons.

[P4UL N0153]

As long as we are getting rid of offensive peices of dress, can we please ban Ugg boots too? And crocs?

[Imaginarynumber1]

Instead of a bicycle built for two, how about no bicycles for anybody. Ever. Happy now?

[and then]

Beckys_Mom, on 13 March 2012 - 05:12 PM, said:

Article  reads...



Way I see it... fair is fair... If they allow  other people from other faiths  wear their religious garments... then  what odd's does it make if some Christians wear a simple cross?


I do not know if this is because Non Christians were offended  or not...  I know so many Protestant Christians acted to offended when ever they saw Catholic Christians  wear the cross with Jesus on it...The ignorance towards  knowing why they did was  unbelievable...  Only the intelligent  ones understood  I guess... But  this goes to show you  that even  Christians  can act offended by the same cross if and when they chose...So I wonder  who the cross really did offend?   I guess we will never know

Anyhoo the rule is  stupid... If you are going to take  the cross away, take everyone else's  religious  item away  too.. lets them all have a good cry... No point in singling one group oiut   in my view ...Or just let them wear what they like, it is their life and faith...   From what I know about Christians  a lot of them wear the cross for protection.. Why strip them of that?    


...How many more stupid  idiot laws  do you all need?

Agree completely BM. As to the bolded point - I'm breaking them as fast as ever I can and they never seem to stop making new ones!

[and then]

Mr. Scratch, on 13 March 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

As long as we are getting rid of offensive peices of dress, can we please ban Ugg boots too? And crocs?

Mr Scratch I hope that was a joke.  I have a friend who would...well..if she thought you were responsible for taking her shoes, she'd gut you like a fish and smile while doing it.

[Arbenol68]

libstaK, on 13 March 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

Ok so one of the women is a Nurse and the other a Flight Attendant.  What I would like to know is - do all the fellow employees abide by a no jewellery requirement?  If not, then this is a clear case of discrimination - who gets to decide which jewellery is appropriate and which is not?

This is the key issue here. Is the banning of wearing crosses part of a wider ban on all jewellery within that job, or are they being singled out? If the ban applies to all employees and is a condition of employment then there can be no objection.

Something else raised in the article is that adherents to other religions appear to be given more leeway when it comes to items associated with their faith. This is just plain wrong. The British government tends to pander to those religions but not christianity. Maybe it's because they make more noise about it and accuse people of being prejudiced - a sure fire way of getting someone to backtrack.

[and then]

Arbenol68, on 13 March 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

This is the key issue here. Is the banning of wearing crosses part of a wider ban on all jewellery within that job, or are they being singled out? If the ban applies to all employees and is a condition of employment then there can be no objection.

Something else raised in the article is that adherents to other religions appear to be given more leeway when it comes to items associated with their faith. This is just plain wrong. The British government tends to pander to those religions but not christianity. Maybe it's because they make more noise about it and accuse people of being prejudiced - a sure fire way of getting someone to backtrack.

In America  the one sure way to shout down opposition on any point - just call the person racist.  Guilty as charged, no trial you're done...

[Beckys_Mom]

and then, on 13 March 2012 - 09:07 PM, said:

[/b]
Agree completely BM. As to the bolded point - I'm breaking them as fast as ever I can and they never seem to stop making new ones!

No prizes guessing why you completely agree with  BM here lol I do what I can best - View all as fair as possible...single no one out.. that's my motto lol

[Mr Walker]

Arbenol68, on 13 March 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

This is the key issue here. Is the banning of wearing crosses part of a wider ban on all jewellery within that job, or are they being singled out? If the ban applies to all employees and is a condition of employment then there can be no objection.Something else raised in the article is that adherents to other religions appear to be given more leeway when it comes to items associated with their faith. This is just plain wrong. The British government tends to pander to those religions but not christianity. Maybe it's because they make more noise about it and accuse people of being prejudiced - a sure fire way of getting someone to backtrack.

Actually there can be and is in australian law. The right to religious expression under austrlaian law supercedes a company's right to make a general ban on the wearing of jewellery. The freedom of religious expressionion in  amulticultural country being seen a s a more basic human right than a company'ss right to set certain arbitrary standards. Thus a person must be allowed to wear any religius icon, as a general principle, as an expression of religious freedom, EVEN if a company has a general ban on jewellery. They canot be fired or refused hiring on this ground, as long as they have the other requirements to do a job. The same aplies in schools to students. BUT if the ban is a reasonable requirement of health and safety in order to do a specific job, then a general ban may be enforceable. Even then certain exemptions may be made; the sikh turban and some forms of religious attire such as the hajib /burka being examples CAse law evolves on case histories, and so far  the australianan judicairy has expressed a considerable tolerance, for individual rights based on religious freedoms. So, for example, a teacher in a catholic school, and certainly in a state school, could not be disciplined for wearing a star of david or a crescent (or a burkha or a sikh form of attire,) IF that was worn as a form of religious expression.

Many schools would actually encourage this diversity, as an example of multiculturalism.

Edited by Mr Walker, 14 March 2012 - 01:03 AM.

[Fluffybunny]

The title on this thread is misleading, and that is not a nice or appropriate thing to do. This ban does not have anything to do with all christians in all of Britain as the title would imply.

There are plenty of jobs that do not allow the wearing of jewelry, it applies to many industries and primarily is a safety issue. In the medical field rings can tear gloves exposing medical personnel to blood and bodily fluids, having a necklace can swing out when you are leaning over a patient and either get contaminated or be contaminated. Earings can interfere with scopes...every hospital I have been to has some kind of jewelry dress code.

People who work around power tools have issues where jewelry can get caught in equipment causing injury. Even long hair is disliked in heavy machine shops where a person could lean over a lathe or a mill and get hair caught in the equipment causing severe injury or death.

In the computer industry many places do not allow techs to wear necklaces, as they can drop into the computer equipment and cause electric shocks.

Most places have a dress code of one sort or another and they can have that code simply because they want a uniform look from their employees, and as an employer, that is their right.