Wearing Crosses at Work Banned

[fireheart17]

I watched last year's...awww, you're making me want to waste several months' worth of evenings watching this year's!! XD That sounds brilliant!

Do they still do Friday Night Masterclasses?

Yes they are still doing Friday night Masterclasses.

The only real major changes to the format this series have been that the "Masterchef vs Master Chef" challenges involve more evenly-matched contestants and challengers, with the challenger receiving less time than the contestant, but to do the same thing (for instance, the theme might be raw food with the core ingredient being kiwi, the contestant has 1 hour, while the challenger has half that)

[PepperElf]

Sticky situation indeed. At my work, crosses and Muslim attire are allowed outside shirts, but I was told to keep my pentacle covered as to not 'create a situation'

Indeed discrimination.


and the original case to me is also discrimination.


If all jewelry is prohibited for safety, that's one thing. As is if they're banning ALL jewelry from being seen.


If they're only targeting religious jewelry though... it's against the 1A.



It doesn't matter if we're not "required" by faith to wear it. All that matters is whether or not it's being banned BECAUSE it's religious.

[Hyena Dandy]

I think it's perfectly fair to say no religious symbols at all.

I don't think it's fair to say "This symbol, but not that one."

[PepperElf]

I think it's perfectly fair to say no religious symbols at all.

I don't think it's fair to say "This symbol, but not that one."

to me that's still discrimination. if you consider it, it could be looked at as promoting atheism over religion.


in my opinion it should be "no jewelry" - but never "jewelry if it's not religious"
if they ban religious jewelry because someone might be "offended" perhaps they're catering to the easily offended too much.


remember, in the 1A it doesn't say anything about "the right to not be offended". sometimes you do have to put up with the fact that other people follow other religions. doesn't mean you have to agree with them. or say that "ok yours might be right and mine wrong" but that they have a right to express it same as anyone else



so just as i have a right to wear a crucifix on a necklace an atheist has a right to wear the FSM on a chain too. actually I might giggle if i see it cos the FSM is kinda cute

[Hyena Dandy]

in my opinion it should be "no jewelry" - but never "jewelry if it's not religious"
if they ban religious jewelry because someone might be "offended" perhaps they're catering to the easily offended too much.

Nah, what you're doing is you're refusing to endorse a religious viewpoint on your property. ANY point. You want your bank/store/etc not to make a point. Any point. And as all employees speak for your store to some degree, you don't want them to wear a religious symbol.

From a philosophical view, would you say that someone in a store should be able to wear a swastika?

The argument for is essentially the same. There's no right to not be offended. You have a right to freedom of speech. The government can't limit that. They can't limit you to never be allowed to wear a swastika. They can say that you can't have it in their place.

[PepperElf]

swastika:

depends. do you mean the nazi germany one, or the hindu symbol?
they are similar i know but when you look at both one is clearly not the other

[Nekojin]

swastika:

depends. do you mean the nazi germany one, or the hindu symbol?
they are similar i know but when you look at both one is clearly not the other

And yet, if you start parading the Hindu symbol about, people will mistake it for the Nazi symbol.

[Seifer]

My employer is big on acceptance of everyone, including our guests/customers. Therefore, we can wear religious items like crosses or the Star of David, but we have to keep them under our costume. That way, we're allowed to wear religious items that hold meaning to us, but there's no chance of possibly offending someone of another religion.

[Hyena Dandy]

depends. do you mean the nazi germany one, or the hindu symbol?

Either one. They should be treated the same as other jewelry, should they not?

[Duelist925]

Either one. They should be treated the same as other jewelry, should they not?

The swastika as used in buddhism, hindu, etc, yes. The reversed version, used to the nazi's, not so much.

The swatika in its original useage was a religious symbol, and this could be considered protected under the same anti discrimination laws that cover crosses, stars of david, etc.

The swastika as used by the nazi party is more a symbol, of, well, the nazi regime, and thus a symbol of hatred and bigotry. It'd be akin to wearing a klan hood, or wearing a burning cross--not a religious symbol, but rather one of oppression, and thus, most likely not protected under most discrimination laws.

[Hyena Dandy]

It is. It's completely abhorrent.

And having it implies that the store-owner (or what not) endorses that viewpoint. That is why I think it's also okay to ban religious jewelry that isn't obligated to be worn (at least ban it from being visible) because you should be able to say "I don't want to have any viewpoint in my store."

[Nekojin]

The swastika as used in buddhism, hindu, etc, yes. The reversed version, used to the nazi's, not so much.

The swatika in its original useage was a religious symbol, and this could be considered protected under the same anti discrimination laws that cover crosses, stars of david, etc.

But the average person would not be able to distinguish between them. If you wore a Hindi swastika on a pendant, many people will think you're just dressing up a Nazi swastika.

The swastika as used by the nazi party is more a symbol, of, well, the nazi regime, and thus a symbol of hatred and bigotry. It'd be akin to wearing a klan hood, or wearing a burning cross--not a religious symbol, but rather one of oppression, and thus, most likely not protected under most discrimination laws.

In and of itself, still protected free speech, actually. It's when it's directly used to oppress people, the protection can vanish, but free speech protections are nearly absolute, and "speech we don't like" or "speech that makes us uncomfortable" isn't among the exceptions.

[Andara Bledin]

In and of itself, still protected free speech, actually. It's when it's directly used to oppress people, the protection can vanish, but free speech protections are nearly absolute, and "speech we don't like" or "speech that makes us uncomfortable" isn't among the exceptions.

That covers the government, but in civilian life, you don't have nearly the same protections.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

That covers the government, but in civilian life, you don't have nearly the same protections.

Naturally.

[Duelist925]

But the average person would not be able to distinguish between them. If you wore a Hindi swastika on a pendant, many people will think you're just dressing up a Nazi swastika.

Very true, but a case could be made for it to be allowed in an enclosed work environment (office, or the like) If people were educated about its signifigance.

The sight might get some double takes as well. A hindu, and thus most likely of middle eastern decent, man or woman wearing a swastika...

In and of itself, still protected free speech, actually. It's when it's directly used to oppress people, the protection can vanish, but free speech protections are nearly absolute, and "speech we don't like" or "speech that makes us uncomfortable" isn't among the exceptions.

Oh, its definately free speech and protected as such, but I meant more "wearable in the workplace". Sorry if I wasn't clear.

A klan member is certainly allowed to wear his hood if he wants. But if he wears it to work...his ass is probably out the door. "Creating a hostile working environment" Could be an easily cited reason why.