Why Shouldn't Christians Be Allowed To Wear Their Crucifixes At Work If They So Wish?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113639/Lynne-Featherstone-launches-assault-right-wear-cross-work.html

[bazwillrun]

This is pretty laughable...we never had this problem crop up until we had all these muslims and other culture changers over here...

unless there a real elf'n'safety reason, they should be able to wear them

[Mamyalynne]

Small neat unobtrusive items such as crosses etc should be allowed as long as they don't interfere with the job in hand.

Crucifixes I would not wear to work.

[THECORBYLOON]

That link is four years old.

[Mamyalynne]

I started work full time in 1970 and my employer was very strict about what we could and couldn't wear including jewellery.

[ichkeria]

Yes, the words "Liberal Democrat minister" at the start are a bit of a giveaway.

So what was the upshot? I couldn't really get a lot of sense out of the link: there were 4 cases I think mentioned: two involved wearing things, and two involved discrimination against gays. It wasn't clear to me exactly what was what ...

[andy-hughes]

I am not sure to be honest AOG.

Anglicans would wear a cross, and Catholics would wear a crucifix - but I see no reason why they should not be allowed to wear them.

If there is a blanket ban on jewellery of any kind, for H & S reasons, then that is fine, but otherwise, there seems to be no valid argument for this - not even the 'potential offence' of other religious groups.

I can fully understand the rejection of the court on the basis that Christians are not required to wear a cross / crucifix as part of their religion, but that surely should not bar them from wearing one simply because they choose to?

Unsure where the argument comes from - have I missed something here?

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

For once I agree with everything you say Andy, I also cannot understand that the Mail now wishes to republish this story.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/pictures/index.html

10th story down under 'today's headlines'.

[jackthehat]

All those stories are years out of date.

[ichkeria]

The top story is also from March 2012.

Maybe all the others are too. I was too depressed by the headlines to bother checking :-)

[TWR]

Does British Airways Come to mind on this Issue?

[Mamyalynne]

Nadia Eweida (British Airways employee) is mentioned in the article linked to in the OP.

[TWR]

Here we go again afraid of upsetting the tribes, what next demolish our churches to suit them? how about complaining about the fecking "ROCKETS" that we see in every city that's destroying the landscapes, is this Britain or Pakistan? I think we have given enough to please this dam lot.

[B00]

Do you go to church TWR?

If so you're one of the few that still do...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2586596/Just-800-000-worshipers-attend-Church-England-service-average-Sunday.html

[andy-hughes]

TWR - // Here we go again afraid of upsetting the tribes, what next demolish our churches to suit them? how about complaining about the fecking "ROCKETS" that we see in every city that's destroying the landscapes, is this Britain or Pakistan? I think we have given enough to please this dam lot. //

I can't find anything in the link that mentions Muslims, or any connection with the issue - can you?

[Baldric]

///Here we go again ///

The article IS 4 YEARS OLD and was posted in error by the look of it

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

/// I can't find anything in the link that mentions Muslims, or any connection with the issue - can you? ///

It's not rocket science Andy, apart from the few heath and safety reasons, who else would be offended?

[andy-hughes]

AOG - //andy-hughes

/// I can't find anything in the link that mentions Muslims, or any connection with the issue - can you? ///

It's not rocket science Andy, apart from the few heath and safety reasons, who else would be offended? //

That's probably a reasonable assumption - but I suspect this is the government acting 'in case of offence' which is a ludicrous position.

If any religion is offended by anyone wearing a cross / crucifix, surely it is for them to speak up, and then the issue can be discussed.

Anticipation is no way to formulate government policy.

[Prudie]

This has at least prompted me to look up Lynne Featherstone - who lost her seat in 2015 and now sits in the House of Lords. She has a had some rather dubious claims to fame and I'm sure this was just a career ladder climbing attention grabber.
All old hat now anyway.

[hc4361]

It was a suggestion by one minister that never came to fruitiion.

We can wear our crosses and fishes if we want to.

[Baldric]

///but I suspect this is the government acting 'in case of offence' which is a ludicrous position///.

See posts @1554 & 1450