One for the Christians...

[staropeace]

This lady wins her case about wearing a cross. I grew up in a very small town where the churches were the social and focal point of most of the town's activities. I cannot hardly believe that folk's would take offense of a piece of jewellry...whether a cross or a star of david,etc.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2013/01/15/british-woman-wins-religious-discrimination-case

[EAST COASTER]

There will always be someone who takes offence at something that others would find trivial. Back in the late 80's there was a type of bread on sale in the UK called "Mighty White". I new a man who delivered bread around the Tottenham area of London and when he went out delivering in his new van which had "Mighty White" and a picture of a smiling boy on the side the local council phoned the bakery and told them not to send that van around there again, they considered it racist.

[guido tkp]

just the title of this post alone, 'one for the christians' shows a lack of understanding about religious freedom....and a lack of empathy for any who don't think exactly like you

good for the lady, she deserved her win, it appears...

bad for 'christianity': the other cases mentioned also seemed ruled upon correctly...those 'christians', together with the ill-titled post, show little understanding of christs (and, more importantly, gods) love and acceptance of others

there is no war against christianity...just the ignorance of those who profess an understanding...but fail to achieve it

[Chuggs]

I'm glad she won her case. I am a Christian, and am not offended by someone being an Atheist, so why are some offended by me being a Christian? Love, and live.

[GNTLGNT]

I cannot hardly believe that folk's would take offense of a piece of jewellry

...asshats come in all shapes, sizes and colors....

[guido tkp]

in my business, the employee handbook states that necklaces must be worn inside the shirt and loose bracelets are not allowed, for safety reasons.

this family run business is not in any way anti-christian. in some cases, in some work envirements, dangling items from necks or wrists could pose a danger.

and we all know about our litigitous society, right ?

i'm doubtful that is the reason here but maybe the co.'s legal dept deemed it so, the article dosn't really say, other than to stae that that is what they argued.

i'm glad she won her case, but we should remember that there may be situtations where a necklace or a bracelet might be an actual hazard to that individual if caught in machinery used everyday.

we should always try and make sure there is a clear distinction of which is which.

either way, it would've been interesting to know if the co. objected to the necklace...or if a customer objected...and the co. used the rule to find a way to overreact.

the other two cases are more problematical...allowing your religion to interfer with the regular, everyday duties of your job could eventually destroy the very fabric of how a seemingly secular business runs...or at least runs effectively

there are many people who sincerely and deeply feel in a certain mannner about many an issue that any organization would be involved in...do we give carte blanche concientious objector status to everybody in the marketplace ?

it would grind most business' to a halt if they tried to pigeonhole every client to specific workers...

my guess is, the court, in those cases, was thinking that the employee knew very well what some of the duties might entail...and if they found that job objectionable, they should've been honest enough to quit...not not do their job and expect a court to let them make up the the rules as they go.

[Shasta]

I don't know, I'm torn about this one.

I have a sleeve tattoo and many places I've worked I've been told it had to be covered. I think that's silly. It's a part of my body. It's not offensive. (Well, unless you ask the lady who just complained to us that she thought Under the Dome was offensive, because she likely just thinks Mr. King is offensive and it's an SK tattoo. I ramble.....) But when I signed up to work at these places, I signed an employee handbook saying that I would cover them, whether I think it's dumb or not.

At least in the US we work in a right to work environment and if some people don't want to follow the rules there are plenty of other people who may like that job. The people who make the jobs get to make the rules. That's just the way it is.

[staropeace]

Just because I said one for the Christians doesn't mean a lack of empathy or understanding for other religions. You are very quick to label a person. You do not know me at all.

[guido tkp]

yeah...probably, shasta...

but when you factor in how many people now have tattoos...it certainly makes life more difficult if you hire in the real world: if i have a position open and i have the perfect candidate...and i can't hire 'em because some rule book, written an eon ago, says tat's are, as chris isaak once intoned, a bad, bad thing...i'm basically having to pass over a more qualified candidate for a lesser one

then there's the whole "lets relax the rule, 'cause so many people have tats"...but be vague enough not to really know what is or is not accepteable...so, i could hire you one day, find out you're a great employee...easy to train, great w/the customers...and have to let you go another because some toad doesn't like SK or his books.??

nah...there should be some form of reality that we can all be able to get along in

take the lady in this story...if the picture out of the paper is accurate...i'd probaly have to tell her she cannot wear the necklace as it is unless she gets a longer chain and wears it under her shirt/uniform...for, as the rule book states, safety reason alone...

i wonder if that would affect, or change, the ruling from the court: was she given the option of wearing it on a longer chain, underneath...and if they did give her that option...and would that mean she really only wanted to flaunt her religion, as opposed to just wanting a constant reminder of a deep an abiding faith...

we live in a world where the average customer rules...unfortunately, they are so often just that...average

[Shasta]

yeah...probably, shasta...

but when you factor in how many people now have tattoos...it certainly makes life more difficult if you hire in the real world: if i have a position open and i have the perfect candidate...and i can't hire 'em because some rule book, written an eon ago, says tat's are, as chris isaak once intoned, a bad, bad thing...i'm basically having to pass over a more qualified candidate for a lesser one



Why can't they just cover it? Most tattoos are pretty easily covered. I have an entire ARM covered in tattoos and I don't seem to have a problem covering them.

[shipwreked]

I don't view this as a win for Christians. There is no call to wear implements of torture and execution as jewelry in Christianity. Perhaps a win for fashion.

[shipwreked]

just the title of this post alone, 'one for the christians' shows a lack of understanding about religious freedom....and a lack of empathy for any who don't think exactly like you

good for the lady, she deserved her win, it appears...

bad for 'christianity': the other cases mentioned also seemed ruled upon correctly...those 'christians', together with the ill-titled post, show little understanding of christs (and, more importantly, gods) love and acceptance of others

there is no war against christianity...just the ignorance of those who profess an understanding...but fail to achieve it

4 points for unintentional irony!

[Frank-ly realistic]

Stephen and I both grew up in the same small home town together, Did Stephen ever mention that the High School Principle, Mr. Higgins, had prayer over the loud speakers every morning before classes started? ... or that "Uncle Mert", our Senior English teacher played the organ/piano Sundays at the First Baptist Church?

[Moderator]

Possibly, but if he did, I don't recall hearing or reading about it.

[guido tkp]

i would think (maybe even hope), SW'd, that a good measure of christians do not view the cross as a definition of torture and/or execution...but, rather, one of overcoming such mortal issues to achieve a higher, purer goal...thus the symbolism

[tenngolfer]

I'm glad she won her case. I am a Christian, and am not offended by someone being an Atheist, so why are some offended by me being a Christian? Love, and live.

Agreed, same here, everyone is free to make there own choices.

[shipwreked]

i would think (maybe even hope), SW'd, that a good measure of christians do not view the cross as a definition of torture and/or execution...but, rather, one of overcoming such mortal issues to achieve a higher, purer goal...thus the symbolism

Heaven forbid that any believer forgets what the cross is at its most base definition, and the measure of love extended to us through it. You won't find a single cross in our house and you'd never catch me wearing one. I have a rough enough time pondering what *Jesus achieved* on it, and why, during our monthly communion services.

[doowopgirl]

Who said I like your Christ, but not your christians?

[guido tkp]

dunno...but if the quote had been : "..but not some of your..."

the answer might be someone very smart

there are, i believe, an equal amount of bad eggs within each distinctive carton in gods shopping cart

...enough bad eggs to go around, indeed...

[the_last_gunslinger]

It was a Gandhi, I think.

[guido tkp]

yes...you're right, LG: it was sid...sid ghandi...second nephew removed from the sister of the brother of the maid of the daughter of the guy who waxed the car of that other ghandi...

smart chap, that sid