When BA decided that crosses should'nt be worn did it also decide that Seik bangles should not be worn or the hindu elsatic band should not be worn or the muslim hajib should not be worn.............
Regardles of the practicality of symbols of faith and human rights, BA made a very wrong decision at the time when it decided to suspend an individual without pay for wearing a cross. Then the audacity to change its policy a year later. Hence this plicy could chop and change however BA decides sees fit to discriminate.
BA didn't decide that crosses shouldn't be worn. The company uniform policy was that no jewellery should be worn outside the uniform, and Nadia Eweida wore her necklace outside her uniform. She did it, she said, "to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them"
BA asked her to wear the cross inside her uniform, but she refused. She also refused the offer of another job within the company where she would not have to cover the cross.
The company had operated the no jewellery outside uniforms policy for years without anyone else objecting. Sikh and Muslim employees are permitted to wear religious garments to work because it would be impractical to ask them to cover the garments up.
Mrs Eweida lost her tribunal case, and she also lost her appeal for a cost-capping order. She subsequently appealed on substantive grounds, and that appeal also failed. The supreme court refused to hear her case.
The European Court finally ruled that there had not been a fair balance between her rights and BA's desire to have a particular corporate image.
It's worth noting that this woman, who has been so outspoken about her own human rights, is the same woman who told a gay work colleague that he could still be "redeemed".