Her crime? Wearing a cross to work. Their claim: No visible jewelry. Her claim: Religious discrimination. Why? Muslims and Sikhs can wear visible signs of their faith, such as the veil, the turban, and the Sikh bangle.
Arguably, those religions are obligated to wear such adornment (although the veil is debateable in Islam), while crosses are optional in Christianity. Still, her argument has some merit. A turban is okay but a necklace isn't?
Britain has had issues with this kind of issue lately, and the natives seem to be getting fed up with policies that favor Islam and other religions over Christianity.
2 comments:
If they have a "no visible jewelry" policy, then metal is prohibited, and cloth is exempt.
Any attendant with a bracelet could argue discrimination, though notice they don't...
Arguably, she doesn't have to display the necklace.
Still, it's better to ask what the point of the policy is. Usually, no visible trinkets and such is supposed to be about having a uniform appearance amongst all of the staff, and warding off anything that might in any way disturb customers.
I can't say anything about the latter, but the former seems like an issue where discrimination could be an issue. No, you can't wear your necklace because we want all of you to have uniform appearance, but a turban is okay.
Post a Comment