Christian Sacked(fired) For Wearing Cross Loses Appeal

Originally posted by Selahobed
reply to post by moocowman

 

Its me, and yes I am used to you guys..... I kinda like the attention actually.. I am agirl after all... Guys hardly ever approach me in real life.. They think i'm a bit scary... Pussies!!!!

I never find pussies scary even when their have a star of David attached.

Back on topic before I descend into the murky depths of my heathen mind,( no mrs by the way , divorced and avoiding them. The sex is the same but the laundry isn't half piling up so I may reconsider )

reply to post by moocowman


To tell you the truth mr moocowman, even though I don't agree with quite a lot of what you say.. I have to say you always come across as knowlegable and articulate, and even when you get attacked by the usual mob, you always come back with grace with facts and I admire you for that... But on this particular subject I agree with you...
I did the reactionary read of the headlines then posted an un worthy comment and I apologise.. And after eading the whole thing I have to conclude that that woman is an attention seeking bigot who deserved the sack....

As for the divorce... Her loss dude

reply to post by Selahobed


Why is it you spell yeshua completely but you drop the O out of god ?

I can't get my swede around that at all, I could perhaps at a stretch understand the tradition of the "secret/personal" name of a deity being kept from the laity but after all if this god ie yaweh jesus is actually real then he bloody well knows who you're talking about.

reply to post by SpiritoftheNightSky

I think that anyone seeking a job where those requirements of the religion conflict with the requirements of the job, and they can not be negotiated, then I do not believe the employer is at fault if the person takes the job knowing that the company is at odds with their religion.

The very conflict that has been highlighted by the appeal for legislation to protect the rights of gays who would be employed by a church.

reply to post by moocowman


O C D ....... Its a jewish thing.. I cant help it... If I didnt then i would be thinking about it in bed the have to fire up my IMAC to edit the post

Im a girl... You guys will never get your "swedes" around us lol x

reply to post by Selahobed


yeah i think the point he was trying to make was -- that stuff isn't real. something atheists today would agree with him on. a chunk of stone isn't a real living being. it's a chunk of stone, even if it's intricately carved, it's still just a chunk of stone. some misinterpreted this to mean that the beings depicted in stone were also not real, which is highly debatable.

anyway, in new testament accounts, it goes even further into explaining the difference between what is real and what isn't, clarifying that the material world isn't real because it is temporary (it's a time scale thing), whereas the divine spark in each of us, that is real and it's not temporary. and these two thing (the temporary and the eternal) have no true meeting of minds, and as such, looking beyond the material is a huge focal point, which would include, avoiding the world of symbols, in exchange for the world of personal relationship and understanding.

reply to post by Selahobed

Im a girl... You guys will never get your "swedes" around us lol x

Agreed

"Undo", I wasn't particularly responding directly to your post. It was just where mine fell in the chronology of the thread. Hope I didn't cause offense.

Back to the thread...
This woman was wearing the livery of her employer, and as such she becomes an ambassador for the company she works for. That means she toes the company line, and says what the company asks her to say. What she says while at work - and usually livery means you are in contact with the customers - is representative of the company. If she is not okay with those terms, she can find work elsewhere.

She chose to change the livery by wearing her personal jewelry - despite company policy - and speaking out on her personal agenda. If the company believes that her proselytizing was outside the scope of their representation, she has misrepresented the company. She should not only be fired, but sued for any damages she may have done to the company's image.

Nobody asked her to remove the cross, they asked her to wear it under her uniform. Her faith is personal, and if wearing the cross is part of her faith she should just tuck it in. She chose to defy the terms of her contract, so she lost her job. As I mentioned previously, her insistence that the company accommodate her, and her subsequent legal action appears to be pre-planned rather than simple indignation.

For those who keep talking about 'turbin' [sic.] wearing people, these people are usually Sikh. The turban is wrapped around their very, very, very, very long hair. You probably wouldn't be able to see the uniform for hair if they dropped the turban. It's a matter of practicality. If they are Sikh, there's a chance they have a ceremonial dagger (Kirpan) under their clothes too. Yes, under their clothes/uniform. They don't insist on wearing that over their uniforms and waving it in people's faces and telling them their version of what 'sin' is. They probably read in their contract that personal items were not allowed. What a concept.

This is a case of religious intolerance. The lady was completely intolerant to anyone else but herself and her own personal beliefs. The airline tried to meet her halfway, but she felt compelled to champion her own crusade against the non-believers.

I'm off to poke a badger with a spoon.

reply to post by Badgered1


yeah well ya see, that's step 1. step 2 will probably be something like, "what do you believe?" and if you don't give the right answer -- too bad for you. i do believe that happened to some unfortunate Bolsheviks, and many millions upon millions of people down thru the centuries. that we are slowly inching toward making the same mistakes in western countries, is kinda scary. because ya know, if they ask me what i believe and tell me my answer better match theirs or i wil not have a job, things could get ugly real fast.

now i've slowly gone insane from an infection my brain, till i was literally dead and i can tell you, torture is not my cup of tea (cause that's what it was like, pure unadultered puke worthy torture, which to me, needs to be abolished from the universe!), dying a slow death from starvation does not appeal to me. i do not want to die a second time from a slow miserable death and i don't feel as if i should have to over something personal like, "what i believe", but if it gets to that point, so the heck be it.

reply to post by Badgered1

It's a matter of practicality. If they are Sikh, there's a chance they have a ceremonial dagger (Kirpan) under their clothes too. Yes, under their clothes/uniform.

Indeed, here we have another volatile situation where religion demands special reverence and exemption from laws that apply to others but should somehow not apply to them.

I foresee this one due to boil up again should an employer (it will probably be a government department by proxy) observe the obvious that if one person can wear a turban then another has the right to wear a chelsea beanie .

Yet again, if a Sikh has the right to carry a weapon then so do I, we simply cannot continue as a society to suspend laws or act it in a bias manner doling out religious privilege.

Im not sure if people read the story, the headline was a little misleading. From what is sounds like to me this woman was a [female dog] at work and demanded to have christmas off even though she said she would work christmas when she got the job. When she got fired it looks like she made up the claim about being fired for her cross and that is why she lost in court.

yeah i think the point he was trying to make was -- that stuff isn't real. something atheists today would agree with him on. a chunk of stone isn't a real living being. it's a chunk of stone, even if it's intricately carved, it's still just a chunk of stone. some misinterpreted this to mean that the beings depicted in stone were also not real, which is highly debatable

reply to post by undo


"Come to Him as a LIVING STONE, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by G-d and precious"...... Powerfull stuff.... We are the stones, and like Him if He was rejected, then so will we be for no servant is greater than his master.... In other words we are to be living examples... Not to be side- traked by symbols coz they aint real... We are... And we have the task of showing the love of G-d (I know moocowman.. I cant help it) without judging...

YOU know luv....

reply to post by moocowman


wellllllllll, does a sikh's dagger hurt anybody? i guess that might be considered carrying a concealed weapon which would be against other laws. but i mean, people in karate know, anything can be a deadly weapon. to me, these kinds of ideas have lost their usefulness (forcing people to be like drones/clones of each other, like some kind of ........of.........

this!

reply to post by undo

because ya know, if they ask me what i believe and tell me my answer better match theirs or i wil not have a job, things could get ugly real fast.

But this is the very thing that the anglican church has split over and the Roman catholic church is being held accountable to EU human rights laws.

The churches have been doing this for a very long time, there was a poster quite recently on ATS (can't remember who at the mo) who told how he had taken a job with some charity but was then later forced to convert to xtianity or lose the job.


There is absolutely no reason to get all ugly about these issues, we only have to apply reason, common senses and fair play for all concerned and things could work out fine.

Those of a religious bent that are intent on kicking and screaming and insist on parading their beliefs strike me as empty vessels who don't really believe what they claim to have faith in.

Correct me if I'm wrong (my memory is slow 2 day) but was it not jesus that said something like " That which we cling to shall surely be lost " ?

sikh! this guy is cool, btw.

reply to post by moocowman

" That which we cling to shall surely be lost " ?

depends on what it is and who's defining "cling"
our definition cling may differ significantly.

reply to post by undo

wellllllllll, does a sikh's dagger hurt anybody? i guess that might be considered carrying a concealed weapon which would be against other laws.

C'mon Undo you know that's not the point, we simply cannot have a law that can be suspended should a person be of a particular religious persuasion.

Her's a hypothetical -

There is a law (in the UK) preventing the carrying of dangerous weapons, lets say nest week some clever so and so creates an actual working light saber. This weapon becomes immediately illegal but yet the argument for religious privilege can be claimed by those that profess to be a jedi (bonafide religion in the UK) in order to carry the weapon.

We simply cannot deny this when we already suspend the law to allow a sikh to a carry a weapon this is how we end up with battles in the EU courts. Either justice and fair play will prevail or religious intolerance will escalate.


The Borg took commands from their leader ( a woman Borg no less) the intention was to assimilate the free thinking individuals into the hive mentality to eliminate the illogical destructive elements of individuality and create harmonious unity where all is one under the leader.

No unlike the flocks of Yhahweh assimilating or destroying those who would not comply to the way of thinking of their leader.

Needless to say the appeal to reason was the primary tactic of the free thinking and highly compassionate secular tolerant humans who had rid themselves of religion.

The irony being that one of their own was none other than an artificial lifeform (Data) with aspirations to emulate human thinking.

I know this woman all too well. I had to fire a woman just like her when I was in human resources. She made the claim that because she was black and Christian that she was fired. This was not the truth.

She was such a disruption to work practice that nearly everyone refused to work with her and during breaks people tried to hide from her as she descended upon them with condemnation with her bible flapping in the wind. Even the other Christians fled from her.

She was very much like this woman....

If this lady would have stuck to her original contract, which said she'd work on Christmas - unless she could find a stand-in (this is where she might have thought about not alienating her colleagues by being so militant) - and worn her crucifix under her uniform - as agreed - there would be no issue. She chose to make it an issue.
This is where she simply becomes a militant, and not a person of faith. If here personal religious beliefs are greater than the will of her employer she was in no way compelled to stay with the company.

There is no religious persecution here. There is company policy and her failure to follow it.

[edit on 12-2-2010 by Badgered1]

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by moocowman

 

" That which we cling to shall surely be lost " ?

depends on what it is and who's defining "cling"
our definition cling may differ significantly.

Was it not your jesus that taught "Whatever you ask knowing it will be done ---"

Then the opposite must be true no ? Surely when we cling (covet,fail to let go of) we act as though it could be lost and this comes from fear the opposite of faith.

We see this most easily demonstrated in personal relationships where one clings to the other stifling out of fear of loss to eventually push away nevertheless.

To my mind, anyone that genuinely has faith truly believed would not only reject material symbols of that belief but in fact would go to lengths to understand why they believe what they do and therefor relish it more when answers are found.