London, Jan 11, 2008 (CNA).- A British Airways employee who sued her employer after it required her to cover up a cross necklace while she worked has lost her religious discrimination lawsuit, WorldNetDaily reports.
Nadia Eweida, a check-in worker at Heathrow Airport and a Coptic Christian, was sent home after refusing to remove the cross necklace. British Airways said the necklace was a violation of the company’s dress code.
Eweida charged her employer with religious discrimination, saying that the company allowed religious employees like those adhering to Islam or Hinduism to wear faith-related clothing, jewelry, religious markings, or other items.
The Reading Employment Tribunal had previously ruled against Eweida, but she appealed the decision.
The 56-year-old Eweida, who was placed on unpaid leave, reacted to the ruling, saying, “I’m very disappointed. I’m speechless really because I went to the tribunal to seek justice. But the judge has given way for BA to have a victory on imposing their will on all their staff.”
The story goes on to note that other religions – Islam, Hinduism, etc – are allowed to display their religious symbols because, supposedly, they can’t be concealed, as a cross can. And so, translation: “Look, we’re a post-Christian corporate body and we really don’t like to be reminded of religion at all…but as the other religions might blow something up or cut of a head or two, we’ve decided that we can only discriminate against Christians…”.
Blogs For Victory 
The Constitution does not appeal to a higher power
If John Dickinson were to come back from the dead, I’d say he’d probably have a few words with you. He’d probably give you a fat lip.
~ Jeremiah
What right did they think they had to write the Constitution?
It was based on the Declaration of Independence, which heavily relied on rights given to us by God, and as such, removing any theme of God from the Constitution is like cutting the Constitution from the roots that created it.
Hence, the restriction of Government from respecting an establishment of religion means that, unlike European Nations at that time, the Government could not establish a state religion to be observed by its populations, and that is further endorsed by the restriction of Congress making any law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, as to restricting people who are of the same religion as the “state” preference.
Now, to specify, that Congress is not to create any law prohibitig the free exercise of relition.
The Supreme Court is bound by duty to only enforce the laws of the United States, and not to create them. We are in a situation where the Supreme Court itself violated the Constitution, and is in breach of its founding principals, when they ruled (at any time or place) to restrict the practice of religion by any government employee, including schools that recieve public funding, in any government building or function (like an Alabama Justice paying for and placing a despiction of the 10 Commandments in the Alabama Courthouse).
In the end, its not the authorization of co-mingling of Church and State that the Founding Fathers feared, but instead, that the State be restricted in all forms from prohibiting the rights of the People to express thier religious belief.