Worker to sue BA over cross
Posted: 14 Oct 2006, 20:00Page 1 of 1
Posted: 14 Oct 2006, 20:11Good for her. Diversity gone totally ape, methinks...
Posted: 14 Oct 2006, 20:11So I take it all kippahs (kippot?) are now banned at BA, also? [ii]
Posted: 14 Oct 2006, 20:12Originally posted by preiffer
So I take it all kippahs (kippot?) are now banned at BA, also? [ii]
What are they???
Posted: 14 Oct 2006, 20:30The skull-caps that tradditional Jewish followers wear.
Posted: 14 Oct 2006, 21:15Originally posted by preiffer
The skull-caps that tradditional Jewish followers wear.
Aren't they called yamulkes? (sp?)
Posted: 14 Oct 2006, 21:25Originally posted by catsilverswordYup, and "kipah, kipa, kippa, plural kippot; Yiddish: ????????, yarmlke, yarmulke, yarmulka, yarmelke, less commonly called kapel"...Originally posted by preiffer
The skull-caps that tradditional Jewish followers wear.
Aren't they called yamulkes? (sp?)
Posted: 14 Oct 2006, 22:17Well it would seem that if the religion mandates it it ought to be allowed but if it is optional then ALL optionals are allowed or none. Be fun for Satanists...
Posted: 15 Oct 2006, 11:17Turbans, Skull Caps, etc are surely more significant that a cross - according to those people's beliefs they are required to wear them all the time, and they cannot be sensibly covered by the BA uniform. But the cross is only a piece of jewellery (all be it potentially with some significance to the wearer) which their beliefs do not require them to wear conspicuously.
I would say BA being sued for such an issue is a great shame, and of its self an indication of diversity gone wrong.
I would say BA being sued for such an issue is a great shame, and of its self an indication of diversity gone wrong.
Posted: 15 Oct 2006, 18:01Originally posted by sailor99
Turbans, Skull Caps, etc are surely more significant that a cross - according to those people's beliefs they are required to wear them all the time, and they cannot be sensibly covered by the BA uniform. But the cross is only a piece of jewellery (all be it potentially with some significance to the wearer) which their beliefs do not require them to wear conspicuously.
I would say BA being sued for such an issue is a great shame, and of its self an indication of diversity gone wrong.
Of course it's diversity gone wrong!