its good to do research:
"BA's chief executive Willie Walsh has upheld the action against Miss Eweida for failing to comply with "uniform regulations" despite himself coming under fire recently for failing to wear a tie. ... The airline's uniform code states that staff must not wear visible jewellery or other 'adornments' while on duty without permission from management. "
"Eweida keeps talking about "expressing" her faith, but that's not what the hijab and the Kara (iron bangle) are about. Muslims don't wear the hijab to "express" their faith to others, but because they believe that their religion requires them to dress modestly in this way. Sikhs don't wear a Kara in order to express their religious beliefs, but because they believe that their religion teaches them to do so in order to remind them to "do the right action."
In other words, we have certain religious items which people believe their religion requires of them on the one hand but religious items which simply express certain beliefs on the other hand. Are they comparable? Not necessarily. It make sense for an employer to make exceptions in a dress code for items which people think their religion requires, but doing so does not logically or ethically entail making further exceptions for religious items which people simply want in order to "express" their beliefs.
Now, if British Airways wishes to make such an exception that they are free to do so. That might in fact be a very good policy in terms of maintaining good relations with both employees and customers. In this case, however, not doing so is not discrimination against Christians because Christianity does not now and has not ever required adherents to wear a cross necklace."
|
|