Wearing Crosses at Work Banned

[Seifer]

My employer is big on acceptance of everyone, including our guests/customers. Therefore, we can wear religious items like crosses or the Star of David, but we have to keep them under our costume. That way, we're allowed to wear religious items that hold meaning to us, but there's no chance of possibly offending someone of another religion.

[Nekojin]

swastika:

depends. do you mean the nazi germany one, or the hindu symbol?
they are similar i know but when you look at both one is clearly not the other

And yet, if you start parading the Hindu symbol about, people will mistake it for the Nazi symbol.

[PepperElf]

swastika:

depends. do you mean the nazi germany one, or the hindu symbol?
they are similar i know but when you look at both one is clearly not the other

[Hyena Dandy]

in my opinion it should be "no jewelry" - but never "jewelry if it's not religious"
if they ban religious jewelry because someone might be "offended" perhaps they're catering to the easily offended too much.

Nah, what you're doing is you're refusing to endorse a religious viewpoint on your property. ANY point. You want your bank/store/etc not to make a point. Any point. And as all employees speak for your store to some degree, you don't want them to wear a religious symbol.

From a philosophical view, would you say that someone in a store should be able to wear a swastika?

The argument for is essentially the same. There's no right to not be offended. You have a right to freedom of speech. The government can't limit that. They can't limit you to never be allowed to wear a swastika. They can say that you can't have it in their place.

[PepperElf]

I think it's perfectly fair to say no religious symbols at all.

I don't think it's fair to say "This symbol, but not that one."

to me that's still discrimination. if you consider it, it could be looked at as promoting atheism over religion.


in my opinion it should be "no jewelry" - but never "jewelry if it's not religious"
if they ban religious jewelry because someone might be "offended" perhaps they're catering to the easily offended too much.


remember, in the 1A it doesn't say anything about "the right to not be offended". sometimes you do have to put up with the fact that other people follow other religions. doesn't mean you have to agree with them. or say that "ok yours might be right and mine wrong" but that they have a right to express it same as anyone else



so just as i have a right to wear a crucifix on a necklace an atheist has a right to wear the FSM on a chain too. actually I might giggle if i see it cos the FSM is kinda cute

[Hyena Dandy]

I think it's perfectly fair to say no religious symbols at all.

I don't think it's fair to say "This symbol, but not that one."

[PepperElf]

Sticky situation indeed. At my work, crosses and Muslim attire are allowed outside shirts, but I was told to keep my pentacle covered as to not 'create a situation'

Indeed discrimination.


and the original case to me is also discrimination.


If all jewelry is prohibited for safety, that's one thing. As is if they're banning ALL jewelry from being seen.


If they're only targeting religious jewelry though... it's against the 1A.



It doesn't matter if we're not "required" by faith to wear it. All that matters is whether or not it's being banned BECAUSE it's religious.

[fireheart17]

I watched last year's...awww, you're making me want to waste several months' worth of evenings watching this year's!! XD That sounds brilliant!

Do they still do Friday Night Masterclasses?

Yes they are still doing Friday night Masterclasses.

The only real major changes to the format this series have been that the "Masterchef vs Master Chef" challenges involve more evenly-matched contestants and challengers, with the challenger receiving less time than the contestant, but to do the same thing (for instance, the theme might be raw food with the core ingredient being kiwi, the contestant has 1 hour, while the challenger has half that)

[SongsOfDragons]

In fact, the latest season of Masterchef Australia has a practicing Muslim contestant on the show. She's proven to be a HUGELY good cook, without relying on "tokenism" votes and she's well-liked by the other contestants. (She has no problem identifying ingredients) The media haven't made a huge spectacle over her so far, the only real emphasis on her has been one short article in TV Week on how she copes in the Masterchef kitchen. The only real issues for her are the use of pork and alcohol. All the meat is halal regardless and that has been the ONLY real change made to accomodate her (which doesn't affect the competition one bit). She just wears her hijab and cooks up a storm. I'm gunning for her to win actually.

I watched last year's...awww, you're making me want to waste several months' worth of evenings watching this year's!! XD That sounds brilliant!

Do they still do Friday Night Masterclasses?

while I 100% agree that's discrimination, I can sort of see where it's coming from for two reasons: 1) it can be assumed that the pentacle is just a pretty piece of "costume jewellery" (depending on the pentacle you're wearing) and therefore falls into the line with most jewellery policies. This isn't helped by some "alternative" (but not necessarily Pagan) stores selling pentacles. Which leads me into point #2) the assumption that your religion/belief system is not real, or is in fact another name for Satanism...

It doesn't change the fact that it's still discrimination.

Surely Satanism is also a viable and therefore protected religious choice?

[fireheart17]

What religious attire/jewelry should do is remind the wearer of the way they should be living according to their religious beliefs. But I do agree that sometimes it seems to be more of an advertisement of someone pretending to be such and such religion. Not always, mind you. But enough of the time.

QFT. I wonder what reaction I'd get wearing my Thor's Hammer necklace...(there's a guy down here who hand-made all these awesome pendants and whatnot, including Thor's Hammers. My boyfriend has a heavier chunkier one, so I wear the less chunky one)

Also, I've tended to notice that those who use their jewelery/attire to "convert" others tend to be Christian in origin. I'm sorry, but that's what I've noticed. Most Muslim women do not actually make a huge deal about their religion. same deal with Sikhs.

In fact, the latest season of Masterchef Australia has a practicing Muslim contestant on the show. She's proven to be a HUGELY good cook, without relying on "tokenism" votes and she's well-liked by the other contestants. (She has no problem identifying ingredients) The media haven't made a huge spectacle over her so far, the only real emphasis on her has been one short article in TV Week on how she copes in the Masterchef kitchen. The only real issues for her are the use of pork and alcohol. All the meat is halal regardless and that has been the ONLY real change made to accomodate her (which doesn't affect the competition one bit). She just wears her hijab and cooks up a storm. I'm gunning for her to win actually.

Sticky situation indeed. At my work, crosses and Muslim attire are allowed outside shirts, but I was told to keep my pentacle covered as to not 'create a situation'

while I 100% agree that's discrimination, I can sort of see where it's coming from for two reasons: 1) it can be assumed that the pentacle is just a pretty piece of "costume jewellery" (depending on the pentacle you're wearing) and therefore falls into the line with most jewellery policies. This isn't helped by some "alternative" (but not necessarily Pagan) stores selling pentacles. Which leads me into point #2) the assumption that your religion/belief system is not real, or is in fact another name for Satanism...

It doesn't change the fact that it's still discrimination.

[telecom_goddess]

Sticky situation indeed. At my work, crosses and Muslim attire are allowed outside shirts, but I was told to keep my pentacle covered as to not 'create a situation'

that is definitely discrimination. They can't allow some religious symbols and not others cause they aren't as acceptable in their eyes.

[jedimaster91]

Hell, my grandmother and aunt still attend the Uniting Church of Australia services on the weekend. None of them wear crosses. My great-aunt and uncle are both Mormons (my uncle spent one weekend explaining the basics of Mormonism to my dad.) and my great-uncle actually takes one of the teenage groups on the weekends (or something like that). None of them wear crosses or otherwise make statements regarding their faith.

Very, very few LDS wear crosses. The ones I know who do are converts, and it's more of a carry over from their previous religions (heck, I own a cross necklace I got from my grandmother, a devout Catholic). They're just not as central to our faith as in other Christian religions. That being said, we do have our own symbols/jewelry that we wear. Almost every LDS kid I know has at least one CTR (Choose the Right) ring. Recent years have seen CTR necklaces and bracelets as well. But most people don't recognize the CTR shield as a religious thing unless you are LDS or know someone who is.

What religious attire/jewelry should do is remind the wearer of the way they should be living according to their religious beliefs. But I do agree that sometimes it seems to be more of an advertisement of someone pretending to be such and such religion. Not always, mind you. But enough of the time.

[HYHYBT]

Whether you like it or not, the government must be secular in nature and this sounds like they're arguing over their right to advertise their religion not practice their religion. Big difference.

There is, and there isn't. There especially isn't if, as what I've quoted tries to do, this is moved from what employers can do onto the government. It's akin to (though not precisely the same, especially in a work environment) as telling people they must keep their religious affiliation a secret. "It's ok to *be* a (whatever) as long as you stay in the closet about it" is no more right for a religion than for anything else.

But, again, since this is *not* about the government banning the expression, but instead is about an employer doing so, it's not quite the same.

On the other hand, employers have entirely too much leeway in what they can ban to begin with, under the (often false) excuse that if you don't like it you can work somewhere else, as has been covered extensively in other threads. Certainly, saying "you can't wear that at work" is much more reasonable than telling people what they can and cannot do off the clock, yet they're usually allowed to get away with that.

[fireheart17]

That's the thing, however, in that the law as stated doesn't require that any observation actually be mandated by the religion. Plus, the institution in question has already allowed for head coverings which, as has been discussed, is a cultural issue, not religious.

^-.-^

I was referring to facial coverings, not head coverings. If you're Muslim and female, you ARE required to wear head coverings during certain religious festivals such as Ramadan. I'm going to hazard a guess, but it would be the same for Jewish festivals?

Bit of a sticky situation for sure. However, sounds like it could have been resolved more amicably if the subjects in question weren't zealots. Whether you like it or not, the government must be secular in nature and this sounds like they're arguing over their right to advertise their religion not practice their religion. Big difference.

Agreed. And if you're wearing it to advertise your religion, you're also doing it wrong. You don't need to advertise Christianity, they're pretty good at doing that themselves.
Hell, my grandmother and aunt still attend the Uniting Church of Australia services on the weekend. None of them wear crosses. My great-aunt and uncle are both Mormons (my uncle spent one weekend explaining the basics of Mormonism to my dad.) and my great-uncle actually takes one of the teenage groups on the weekends (or something like that). None of them wear crosses or otherwise make statements regarding their faith.

Woman #2 was fired because she wouldn't tuck her cross into her shirt. Thats straight up bitching that she's not allowed to advertise her religion, not that she's not allowed to practice it.

I can see a safety issue behind that as well. If you're working in an environment and you have something that's not clipped onto/tucked under your shirt, you swing forward and it can easily catch onto a shredder/other machinery and cause injury.

I must admit I'm becoming quite tired of this bizzarre Christian persecution complex some people have. The government is not suppose to be Christian. Get over it. You're not being victimized because you have to follow the rules.

As am I. This might also seem a little strange, but ironically they are acting just like other minority religions in the country when confronted about certain ideals (I'm looking at this from an Australian standpoint). They're quite happy to knock down Muslims, Buddhists and so on for wanting certain rights/objects, (there's a small-scale shitstorm down here about building a Buddhist Temple in the middle of a region that's mostly hills with very few houses nearby) yet the second something is denied to THEM, they start crying poor about it.

[Gravekeeper]

Bit of a sticky situation for sure. However, sounds like it could have been resolved more amicably if the subjects in question weren't zealots. Whether you like it or not, the government must be secular in nature and this sounds like they're arguing over their right to advertise their religion not practice their religion. Big difference.

Woman #1 was suspended because she refused to comply with the dress code when asked to take the cross off. You're Doing it Wrong. If you think your employer is discriminating against you in a fashion this minor, the correct course of action is to take it straight to the proper authority. Not throw a shit fit on the spot in the face of your employer and give them a reason to suspend/fire you.

Woman #2 was fired because she wouldn't tuck her cross into her shirt. Thats straight up bitching that she's not allowed to advertise her religion, not that she's not allowed to practice it.

I must admit I'm becoming quite tired of this bizzarre Christian persecution complex some people have. The government is not suppose to be Christian. Get over it. You're not being victimized because you have to follow the rules.