Wearing Crosses at Work Banned

[Andara Bledin]

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.

^-.-^

[Nyoibo]

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'

See that, that's discrimination.

[wraiths_crono]

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'

[crashhelmet]

The article omits a very relevant point.

Are crosses banned because they are jewelry and all jewelry is banned by an employee dress code?

Or is some jewelry allowed but crosses are banned because they are religious?

I can support the first because:

A. Employers can have uniform codes.

B. Most Christian sects (at least the one I belong to) do not require adherents to wear crosses. Therefore such a work rule does not prevent me from practicing my religion.

I cannot the support the second because it's clearly religious discrimation to allow employees to wear jewelry but not specific religious jewelry.

I really don't understand why the author failed to clarify if they are talking about blanket jewelry ban or just a ban on crosses. My guess would be the issue is the first one: employers who have blanket jewelry bans. And the author omitted the information to create outrage over religious discrimation where there really isn't any religious discrimination.

I reserve the right to be wrong but it always makes me suspicous of motives when something that essential to the issue isn't mentioned at all.

I read this as it saying the banning of the crosses and crucifixes is solely up to the employer. Should an employer decide to ban them for uniform or dress code purposes, then that's their right to do so. All because they are not a requirement of the religion itself. Now if the Catholic Church, the Church of England, or some other group decide to make it a requirement, the employer will have no choice but to allow it.

When I was working at UPS, they made the decision to ban facial hair. There were coworkers of mine that had worn beards for years and had to shave them off or find work elsewhere. Unless their religious viewpoints required it. One guy happened to be a Muslim and was allowed to keep his, but had to fill out some sort of waiver request to prove/declare it.

Employees should have the right to fight discrimination, if they are in fact being discriminated against. But those are going to be on a case by case basis. This ruling, as it stands, is fair. It's not a requirement of the religion, therefore the employer can "ban" it in their dress codes.

[Dips]

The article omits a very relevant point.

Are crosses banned because they are jewelry and all jewelry is banned by an employee dress code?

Or is some jewelry allowed but crosses are banned because they are religious?

I can support the first because:

A. Employers can have uniform codes.

B. Most Christian sects (at least the one I belong to) do not require adherents to wear crosses. Therefore such a work rule does not prevent me from practicing my religion.

I cannot the support the second because it's clearly religious discrimation to allow employees to wear jewelry but not specific religious jewelry.

I really don't understand why the author failed to clarify if they are talking about blanket jewelry ban or just a ban on crosses. My guess would be the issue is the first one: employers who have blanket jewelry bans. And the author omitted the information to create outrage over religious discrimation where there really isn't any religious discrimination.

I reserve the right to be wrong but it always makes me suspicous of motives when something that essential to the issue isn't mentioned at all.

[Andara Bledin]

This is a sticky situation for certain.

I can see the banning of the open wearing of religious paraphernalia being allowed in the US (I'm not as up on UK law) provided that all forms of open support/declaration paraphernalia was also banned. Because, when you boil it all down, that's pretty much what it comes down to.

However, going by the Article quoted in the article, it specifically states, "in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance." That pretty much covers every location extant (although I suspect that safety concerns would override) and protects pretty much any manner in which a person chose to manifest their religion. Whether the religion has any requirement to wear a sign of observance or not is rendered completely irrelevant for this argument, despite that being the tack the government is going to take in supporting the ban.

^-.-^

[fireheart17]

When I think of any religion, I think of their symbols. Catholics/Christians with the cross and the Jewish with the Star of David, etc. It is significant to their religion. I know it doesn't say directly in the Bible that you have to wear a cross (that I read), but really? Banning it would just seem so wrong and discriminatory. Also, who is really offended someone is wearing a cross, religious or not (I love crosses)?

Except that those symbols are not required to be worn. They are purely optional. It's also easy for someone to wear the cross at a workplace and not be a "true" Christian (for example, they wear it because it's "cool").

The ministers are right-wearing a cross is OPTIONAL. You aren't forced to wear a cross if you're Christian. You aren't kicked out of church for not wearing a cross. Comparing Christians to Muslims and/or Jews is the dumbest thing on the planet.

Muslim hijab can either only be worn during religious festivals, attending a Muslim school and going to mosque, or they can opt to wear it full time. The bare minimum is to cover their head, arms and legs. They do NOT have to cover their face, that is cultural, NOT religious.

Jewish boys wear kippah/yarmulke at a minimum (I don't know if they wear the little vest or not all the time?)

Sikh women and men have the five K's to follow: uncut hair, wooden comb, some form of underpants, a steel bracelet and a small dagger (which can be worn as a bracelet or similar). The bracelet, the dagger and the uncut hair are all visible, while the comb and the underpants are not.

Buddhists don't display any symbols of their faith. At all. Ditto for Hindus (as far as I'm aware).

The comments in that article are nuts. Seriously, they aren't trying to stamp out Christianity, nor are they persecuting you. The fact is, Christianity seems to have become so diluted these days, that just about anything and everything can be claimed in the name of the Lord.

[bex1218]

By the way, I live in America, am a lesbian and Atheist. I do however believe in religious freedom for all. I try not to judge others.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...overnment.html

When I think of any religion, I think of their symbols. Catholics/Christians with the cross and the Jewish with the Star of David, etc. It is significant to their religion. I know it doesn't say directly in the Bible that you have to wear a cross (that I read), but really? Banning it would just seem so wrong and discriminatory. Also, who is really offended someone is wearing a cross, religious or not (I love crosses)?