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 
I rarely comment on religious threads because, although I consider myself a pretty mainstream Christian, I’m simply not the kind of person who shoves my religious beliefs in other people’s faces. I pray pretty regularly, sometimes even in public, and no one has ever attempted to stop me or criticize me.
We have publicly accessible places of worship that span dozens, if not hundreds of different slants on Christianity, and anyone is welcome in most, if not all of them. Preachers and, in many cases, lay people can stand up and speak in these public places of worship without repercussion. Heck, Democrats can even campaign in them.
I think Christians who are annoyed by the current state of affairs (and I don’t deny there is a double standard) have two choices at this point: either shut up or fight back, but one way or the other, quit whining about it.
Spook, well said. I completely agree.
The dig on Dems campaigning in there was a bit much, but all-in-all, well said. As for who does and doesn’t “campaign” in a place of worship, you may want to look at Repubs as well.
Go Pats!
We make the mistake sometimes to assume even modern countries such as Great Britain have the same rights as granted to us under our Constitution. I say this with reservations with regards to this case since BlogsforVictory has a tendency to cherry pick articles in order to make a point. But cases like this should be a warning to the U.S to be alert to any group or organization that attempts to tear down the wall between church and state. If the far right American Taliban of the Republican Party gains control of the government; atheist could be the first discriminated against while scientologist, Catholics discrimination etc would follow.
Leave it to Jane to completely miss the point and then resort to more Chrisitan bashing.
Good little liberal.
Jane’s so-called “be aware at attempts to tear down the wall between church and state”, evidently the wall fell for just a brief moment……….
New York State Senator John Sabini (a Democrat) wants to make it mandatory for all New York government schools to serve halal food. For those of you that might not be up to speed, halal food is any food that is permissible according to Islamic law. In other words, this guy wants to use taxpayer money to fund accommodations for the religion of Islam.
“The Halal Food Bill” is said to come before the Senate soon. Last year, Sabini passed a bill that keeps the Muslim holy day of Eid as a non-examination for all government schools. To give you a better idea of the constituents in his district … his District Leader of the Democrat Party is named Mohammad Amunullah.
Well, this proposed legislation is in tune with Mark’s post. PUBLIC MONEY TO BE ALLOTTED FOR RELIGIOUS FOOD! There is no difference between this and public money alloted for a nativity scene at Christmas. The latter would be denied (and those proposing it would be drawn & quartered).
Again more descrimination of Christians and coddling the Muslims.
jane, your post is confusing and illogical…..and of course, laced with leftwing label and misunderstood talking points.
Good little USEFUL IDIOT.
Sabini passed a bill that keeps the Muslim holy day of Eid as a non-examination for all government schools.TiredofLibBullShit | January 14th, 2008 at 11:19 am
So much Swift-boating to do; so little time. You actually helped prove my point. If the state steps in and starts to make accommodations for one religion soon accommodations will be made for even worshipers of old John Wayne movies.
However I must say Sabini’s particular law was not so much about religion as it was useful. The law saved the school district money; but Republicans have showed us the past six years they are not interested in saving taxpayers’ money only in spending it. School district now don’t have to schedule makeup exams with teacher overtime pay for the Moslem kids who would not take exam on Eid. To me this is no difference than my kids not taking exams on Christmas and Jewish kids not taking exams on Yom Kippur.
If you are saying it is also ok for a Jewish teacher to assign a major test on Christmas and flunk all those who don’t take the test and get it back to him or her by the end of day, then I agree with you I did not understand the point of the post.
The dig on Dems campaigning in there was a bit much
Joe, perhaps Republicans do it too. I just can’t recall ever seeing it on the news, whereas news reports and videos of Dems campaigning from the pulpit are pretty common. Maybe Republicans are just more discreet.
Spook,
Did Huckabee not just recently have a couple of stops in a church “delivering a sermon” which is a way of saying “vote for me”.
Both parties use religion when they shouldn’t during a campaign. Which is exactly why Mitt had to waste time in making a “religion speech” instead of explaining why he flip-flops more than John Kerry ever did.
Joe,
I didn’t see the Huckabee campaign stops you describe, but at least he is an ordained minister.
You need to let go of this visceral hatred you have for Romney. It’s not healthy.
All I can say is what the ….. you know what. This is unreal but surprising at the same time.
There was a post on this blogs a few months ago lambasting liberals for trying to give transexuals the ability to sue for this exact same type of discrimination. I can’t see the diffrence, one wants to wear silocone boobs, the other a cross, both groups think they are entitled to employment under their terms, rather than mutually agree’d upon voluntary terms. Using a court system, so that an armed police force will coerce an employer into providing you with payed employment under conditions decided by the employee and government courts against the consent of the employer, is certainly morally wrong, and borders on the definition of slavery.
“There was a post on this blogs a few months ago lambasting liberals for trying to give transexuals the ability to sue for this exact same type of discrimination.” – anarchist
WTF? the same? can’t see the difference? armed police force? slavery?
You got a bad batch in your bong?
Strange……
No I can’t see the diffrence. A buisness is someones private property. A job is just some kind of mutualy benficial voluntary arangement. It’s not so much about discrimination as it is about people thinking they are entitled to the product of anothers labor(employment at a certian wage) without their consent.
Both groups went to the courts and sued so that they could arange some sort of involuntary arangement between themselves and some employer. Slavery may be a strong term, but what do you call forcing someone to do something against their will? If you don’t comply with court orders you’ll find out where the armed police come in.
There hasn’t been all that many comments on this tread, so perhaps this isn’t all that much worth saying. But I will anyway…
Has anyone at least contemplated that maybe, just maybe, WorldNetDaily doesn’t have all the facts right? I mean they’re quoting defense lawyers as if they’re paragons of truth. Aren’t defense lawyers supposed to be the scum of the earth? Or is it just defense lawyers that advocate a position you don’t agree with? It seems to me that’s kind of an important question — how objective can “you” be?
Spook: I just can’t recall ever seeing it on the news, whereas news reports and videos of Dems campaigning from the pulpit are pretty common.
Perhaps this report might entertain you.
If I was a Christian, I would keep quiet about this..
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080115/D8U631480.html
JHL,
Why keep quiet about it? It is a shameful episode and if the report is correct then it is clear that particular minister grossly violated the trust his community, his family and God placed in him. He’s got a lot to answer for.
We Christians don’t make the mistake of thinking that because someone says they will uphold Christian morality that there is no chance they won’t – we’re a Fallen race, JHL, and it is only through the grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, that we have any chance at all.
Mark-
The report is correct… Some of the Atlanta-Area Megachurches are incredibly scummy… I remember a couple of years ago there was a pastor (might have been the same guy) who got in trouble for co-mingling of funds… apparently buying a Bentley or two with tithing money is illegal… All of this just goes to support my belief that churches aren’t non-profits…
Also, keefer’s screed about RELIGIOUS FOOD is a wee bit on the chicken-little side… I know that public schools have been providing matza for Jewish students on passover for years, granted, it’s crappy matza. Also, public schools have provided religious people of all creeds the ability to miss school on holidays that aren’t already part of a vacation. Besides, if you’re that indignant about public funds used to fund religious activity, how about the opportunity cost of not transacting any business (not in the retail sense, but in the banking and finance sense) once a week and on holidays… Seems like we could improve our economy if we just didn’t recognize religious holidays at all…
Anyway, I’m going to side with anarchist on this one… I don’t have a copy of the dress code in front of me, but it seems that the employee signed a contract, thereby agreeing to follow the rules of the workplace… She didn’t want to do it and got in trouble… If she didn’t like the policy, then she shouldn’t have signed the contract.
A Job is a Job they say.
Airlines, for the most part, are public companies, and should not discriminate against religion. But you cannot put sexual deviation in the same basket as religion, because if you do, then everyone will want to marry thier donkey, and thats not natural or normal either.
Who is to impose this false morality on a society, except socialist? That was the USSR, they are dead now, the example was set.
Discrimination serves a purpose in society, the Government has no right to impose one morality above all others, its the same as imposing religion. If someone wants to fire people because they are sexual deviants or Catholics, its thier right.
then everyone will want to marry thier donkey, and thats not natural or normal either
js | January 15th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Not me – don’t even own one.
FrmrMarine-
Where does the Constitution reference GOD? I’ll give you a hint… it doesn’t…
No, Rana, they didn’t write God’s name in the Constitution … but their intent was clear. We keep slippin’ away from it, and all we can expect is a not so pretty future.
~ Jeremiah
In 1950, the Florida Supreme Court declared: “A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the Ten Commandments, and the ethics of Jesus, could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. There is not one solitary fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem directly from the basis moral concepts as embodied in the Decalogue….”
There is not one fundamental principle of our democratic policy that did not stem from the Bible. Religion is in the Constitution, it is its backbone, and its moral authority.
The Declaration of Independence makes that perfectly clear.
Further, that the Congress recognized the Bible’s moral precepts.
“In 1781 Congress ruled that a new English edition of the Bible be printed and used by schools. ”
“In 1782, the U.S. Congress voted in favor of a resolution recommending and approving the Bible for use in the schools.”
This is intent, that Congress and the founding Fathers did not intend for the Constitution to restrict the teaching of Relgion in Schools.
The Constitution strictly forbids Government from making laws respecting, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Laws we have today that restrict open prayer in Government Buildings, the Ten Commandments as a display, or the instruction of Christiam morals and principals in Public Schools, are un-Constitutional, because they prohibit the free excercise of Religion.
Here’s one, how is the government using money that I, a non-Christian, give the government to use for religious education not restricting my freedom to not practice or support religion (the Supreme Court found in the early 90s that money=free speech)? Also, how does the government teaching Christian teachings not constitute an establishment of Religion (as prohibited in the 1st Amendment and applied to the states in the 14th)?
For all you go on and on about the “intent of the founders” you are not reading what really matters, the CONSTITUTION!!! The Constitution does not appeal to a higher power, and the only places where it says that there should be no religious test for office and where the government cannot establish religion or restrict the rights of individuals to practice it.
So…. where does the co-mingling of Church and State exist in the constitution?