BA offends christians

[Pondlife]

From the BBC

Ms Eweida said she was standing up for her faith
A Heathrow Airport employee has said she plans to sue British Airways for religious discrimination in a row over the wearing of a cross necklace.
..............

John Andrews, communications officer for the diocese of Bath and Wells, said: "I think BA are being extremely offensive to members of the Christian faith."

[Mailman]

Imagine the outcry if BA tried to ban veils!

The woman has a point, if sihks can wear their turbins, and muslamies can wear headscarves or come in like it halloween or dress as a set prop from star wars then whats the problem with a small cross?

Actually what she should have done was to play the race card. Opps thats right, it dont apply to her cause she is white innit

Mailman

[Mordac]

Imagine the outcry if BA tried to ban veils!

The woman has a point, if sihks can wear their turbins, and muslamies can wear headscarves or come in like it halloween or dress as a set prop from star wars then whats the problem with a small cross?

Mailman

I would guess the descrimination laws are designed to protect non-native religions, not native ones, since it was probably assumed they didn't need protection. If that is the case, you can descriminate against Christians all day long and the law can't touch you.

Still it's not all bad news.

Chico.

[zathras]

if sihks can wear their turbins, and muslamies can wear headscarves or come in like it

The covering of the face in certain Muslim communities is not a religous requirement, it is a cultural one. The most extreme comes from the Wahadi sect of Islam originally based in Saudi Arabia

The wearing of a cross is an expression of religous faith.

Turbins are a requirement of the Sikh religion.

Apart from obvious problems when someone covering up in a society where 80% of communication is non-verbal, there are other problems with the veil.

[TheOmegaMan]

I can deduce a great deal from nipple hardness and orientation. Consequently I require all women to be topless in a one-to-one situation providing that they are lookers. Saggy breasts really skew my intuition.

[Dundeegeorge]

Good attempt

I can deduce a great deal from nipple hardness and orientation. Consequently I require all women to be topless in a one-to-one situation providing that they are lookers. Saggy breasts really skew my intuition.

at a beard there JW, but we know you're a bender, remember.....

[Forumbore]

The covering of the face in certain Muslim communities is not a religous requirement, it is a cultural one. The most extreme comes from the Wahadi sect of Islam originally based in Saudi Arabia

The wearing of a cross is an expression of religous faith.

Turbins are a requirement of the Sikh religion.

Apart from obvious problems when someone covering up in a society where 80% of communication is non-verbal, there are other problems with the veil.

Polly Toynbee explains this rather well in todays Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists...924022,00.html

[BoredBloke]

I thought this was going to be along the lines of

"I pity da fool who wears da cross.....I ain't gettin' on no plane sucka!"

[Mailman]

The covering of the face in certain Muslim communities is not a religous requirement, it is a cultural one. The most extreme comes from the Wahadi sect of Islam originally based in Saudi Arabia.

And coming to a street near you soon.

Anyway...absolute twaddle...the veil in this country is not a cultural sign, it is a religious sign...one used to say "IM SPECIAL, IM A MUSLIM, DONT YOU GO OPPRESSING ME!".

The wearing of a cross is an expression of religous faith.

Which is exactly what the veil is IN THIS COUNTRY.

Turbins are a requirement of the Sikh religion.

And should be banned when riding a motorbike. Having said that Ive never seen a sikh riding a motor bike yet, although maybe the ones I have seen (but not realised) realise that perhaps a turbin aint gonna do squat when you hit the road with your fat head?

Mailman