give me doughnuts: Tatsuma: That is why a kippah, or a niqab, or a kirpan, are in no way similar to a cross as a piece of jewelry. The first three are mandated, while the latter isn't.

The niqab isn't mandated by Islam, just the hajib.

Perhaps, but they are both tasty with harissa and hummus.

fknra:
keep the state out of the church, out of our bedrooms and off our bodies. just cause you don't believe my religion doesn't mean you have the right to tell me i can't wear a symbol of it.

dnrtfa

If showing off your special magic amulet is more important than keeping your head from being pulled into machinery, then you should probably get a different job.

Of course, in the US, public employees have a First Amendment right to wear religious jewelry like that.

Nemo's Brother: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: "The Christian women bringing the case, Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin, claim that they were discriminated against when their employers barred them from wearing the symbols....The 61 year-old, from Twickenham, is a Coptic Christian who argued that BA allowed members of other faiths to wear religious garments and symbols"

If they're allowing people of other faiths to wear symbols and clothing connected to their faith but not allowing Christians to do so, how is that not discrimination?

In the liberal world of insanity, it is never discrimination against Christians..unless the victim is a minority. But then you just play the race card.

The logic behind this law is that it only allows exemptions if your religion requires you to wear it. Since Chirstianity doesn't require us to wear a cross, it's not exempt.

That said, it seems like a silly law and as long as it doesn't interfere with the job (ie: working with machinery or somewhere else where jewelry can get caught) then I don't see the harm in allowing it. But it's also silly to think Christians are being singled out for this for being Christian, it's just how the ruling is structured.

It'll probably get overruled anyways.

Depends of the size of the cross

If the employer allows any other form of jewelry to be worn, then he can't discriminate against religious symbols.

In a work environment where jewelry is a hazard, then the employer has the right to ban it.

In the case of the nurse, I don't understand what reasoning was behind banning the religious necklace she had worn for years. The article didn't go into detail on any of it's examples.

Then we come to the employer's rights. He owns the business, pays the bills, pays the employees and may or may not own even the land it sits on. Should he not have the right to ban forms of dress or decoration he might find offensive?

There was a Cosby Show episode years ago, where his older daughter got a job working in a restaurant which was basically a toned down version of Hooters. She questioned the requirement for her to wear the place's trademark semi-sexy outfit. The show then turned around her RIGHTS to not have to 'display' herself. Naturally, there was no mention of why she applied for a job where she knew the requirement was to dress in a certain way or why she stayed if she found the requirement offensive.

The show basically supported her rights to not be exploited. However, the employer had a specific form of business and dress code. What about his rights to run the legal business of his choosing?

So, if you get a job where the employer finds specific items of jewelry you wear offensive, doesn't he have the right to require you to not do so?

Say you work at a funeral home and you're Goth. Your right to wear skull or demonist jewelry, facial piercings and strange clothing automatically becomes limited.

I did watch a real life medical show one night where one of the black ER physicians insisted in dressing in traditional African garb and insisted it was his RIGHT to do so. While I found it disturbing and annoying, not to say unprofessional, nothing he wore would present any form of hazard. However, considering his place of employment, he stood out like a witch doctor, which would, IMO, damage the confidence of the patients.

No doubt, had the hospital insisted he dress conventionally, he would have filed a lengthy and costly civil rights lawsuit against them.

The RIGHT to express one's beliefs or individuality in the work place is tempered with the rights of the employer. If the employer is the government, then any rules they put down concerning this have to be backed up with non-discriminatory reasons.

Try being a tattoo artist but not have any tattoo's on yourself. You don't hire on to cook in a restaurant if you have food allergies or taboo's concerning some of the food they serve. If you are a vegan, don't work in a butcher shop and then protest the consumption of meat.

Depending on the reasons of the employer banning certain clothing or jewelry in the work place, you are still free to openly display items of your choice off the premises.

I do suspect that if you're Christian and work in an Islamic owned business, you might have a problem displaying Christian symbols. Then again, if you're Islamic and open a business in a predominately Christian area, your rights to ban their religious symbols are compromised.