Worker to sue BA over cross

See here

VS.

Good for her. Diversity gone totally ape, methinks...

[preiffer]

So I take it all kippahs (kippot?) are now banned at BA, also? [ii]

Originally posted by preiffer
So I take it all kippahs (kippot?) are now banned at BA, also? [ii]

What are they???

[preiffer]

The skull-caps that tradditional Jewish followers wear.

Originally posted by preiffer
The skull-caps that tradditional Jewish followers wear.

Aren't they called yamulkes? (sp?)

[preiffer]

Originally posted by catsilversword

Originally posted by preiffer
The skull-caps that tradditional Jewish followers wear.

Aren't they called yamulkes? (sp?)

Yup, and "kipah, kipa, kippa, plural kippot; Yiddish: ????????, yarmlke, yarmulke, yarmulka, yarmelke, less commonly called kapel"...

[Decker]

Well 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...

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.

Originally 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!