Religious Watch logo Religious Watch Forum...
Preaching Tolerance whilst Practising Intolerance
 Home Religious Intolerance News: 2006: 2007: 2008: 2009: 2010: Latest
 Campaigns Family Abuse  
 Forum Clerical Abuse Email: webmaster@religiouswatch.com
 
 

Note that this page does not refresh

Menu
Register
Personal Details
 
Non-Dynamic Messages
Last  40 Messages
Last 100 Messages
Last 250 Messages
Last 400 Messages
All Messages
 
Today's Messages
Yesterday's Messages
 
Days prior to yesterday:
 2      3      4    
 5      6      7    
 8      9      10    
 
Days Ago:
 
Message Number:
 
Dynamic Pages
Return
 
 

bleach    [18774.   Posted 13-Feb-2010 Sat 07:56] View Near Messages
The Only Fair Solution

I think it is a fair decision but what`s interesting is BA should have said it breached a dress code as it was excessive or unsubtle jewellery. A lot of workplaces have a dress code which states (but in formal terms) "bling" jewellery isn`t allowed although the cross isn`t bling they could`ve escaped some legal proceedings by using that scapegoat. But fairplay for them sticking to their decision.

2) I think Nadia Eweida also argued that Muslims who work for BA are allowed to wear Hijabs and the men doppa hats. Yes because it is part of traditional Islamic religion; there is nothing in the bible that says Christians must wear a cross and as Bill Hicks Said "If Jesus comes back; do you think he wants to see a fucking cross".

 


Forum Software.  contact malcolm.smith@dragondrop.com or visit http://www.dragondrop.com

Religious Watch logo
ReligiousWatch.com
 Home Religious Intolerance News: 2006: 2007: 2008: 2009: 2010: Latest
 Campaigns Family Abuse  
 Forum Clerical Abuse Email: webmaster@religiouswatch.com