Blackburn and Burnley bishop welcomes cross case ruling

10:05am Wednesday 16th January 2013 in News Photograph of the Author By Bill Jacobs, Local government reporter

Bishop Goddard Bishop Goddard

ACTING Bishop of Blackburn John Goddard has welcomed the European Court decision that a Brit-ish Airways employee suffered discrimination over her Christian beliefs because she wore a cross to work.

The Bishop of Burnley spoke out after the judges ruled that there had been a violation of the human rights of Nadia Eweida.

She took her case to the European Court of Human Rights after BA made her stop wearing a white gold necklace with a cross. However the judges ruled that the rights of three other Christians had not been violated.

The other cases involved nurse Shirley Chaplin, 57, also stopped wearing a cross to work, Gary McFarlane, 51 — a marriage counsellor fired for objecting to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples — and registrar Lillian Ladele, who refused to conduct same-sex civil partnerships.

The Rt Rev Goddard said: “I am pleased Nadia Eweida’s rights have been upheld.

“The wearing of religious symbols is important for Christians and many people of faith and, where approached sensitively and with goodwill, doesn't need to become a legal battleground.

“Christians and those of other faiths should be free to wear the symbols of their own religion without discrimination. Like the hijab for Muslims, Christians are not obliged to wear a cross but should be able to where it is practical and acceptable.

“The other three cases which have not been upheld by the European Court of Human Rights are each very different.

“In responding to these rulings I would simply say that the Equality Act 2010 encourages employers to embrace diversity, including people of faith.”

Comments (4)

10:24am Wed 16 Jan 13

Excluded again says...

Wearing a discrete symbol of you faith is a reasonable accommodation which an employer should be able to make. The European Court of Human Rights.has clarified that this should be allowed by employers.

However, discriminating against your employers' customers on the grounds of your faith is not allowed and neither is wearing a symbol of your faith that has the potential to cause actual harm to others.
Wearing a discrete symbol of you faith is a reasonable accommodation which an employer should be able to make. The European Court of Human Rights.has clarified that this should be allowed by employers. However, discriminating against your employers' customers on the grounds of your faith is not allowed and neither is wearing a symbol of your faith that has the potential to cause actual harm to others. Excluded again

10:58am Wed 16 Jan 13

happycyclist says...

Was she wearing the crucifix inside or outside of her uniform?
Was she wearing the crucifix inside or outside of her uniform? happycyclist

12:51pm Wed 16 Jan 13

midas says...

happycyclist wrote:
Was she wearing the crucifix inside or outside of her uniform?
Outside. (which she insisted on)
.
However this case wasn't about whether she could wear a cross or not, BA had already conceded that she could and had amended their uniform rules accordingly - this was about reclaiming loss of earnings when she had been suspended - she hadn't been paid as she refused alternative jobs (non customer facing) where she could wear a cross.
.
The ECHR awarded her £1500 in damages!
[quote][p][bold]happycyclist[/bold] wrote: Was she wearing the crucifix inside or outside of her uniform?[/p][/quote]Outside. (which she insisted on) . However this case wasn't about whether she could wear a cross or not, BA had already conceded that she could and had amended their uniform rules accordingly - this was about reclaiming loss of earnings when she had been suspended - she hadn't been paid as she refused alternative jobs (non customer facing) where she could wear a cross. . The ECHR awarded her £1500 in damages! midas

9:08pm Wed 16 Jan 13

Graham Hartley says...

Excluded again wrote:
Wearing a discrete symbol of you faith is a reasonable accommodation which an employer should be able to make. The European Court of Human Rights.has clarified that this should be allowed by employers.

However, discriminating against your employers' customers on the grounds of your faith is not allowed and neither is wearing a symbol of your faith that has the potential to cause actual harm to others.
The Kirpan has such potential. And the gun, carried by followers of John 'Wayne' Gun, discoverer in 1962 of the Gun effect. John Gun did not understand why folk were so afraid.
[quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: Wearing a discrete symbol of you faith is a reasonable accommodation which an employer should be able to make. The European Court of Human Rights.has clarified that this should be allowed by employers. However, discriminating against your employers' customers on the grounds of your faith is not allowed and neither is wearing a symbol of your faith that has the potential to cause actual harm to others.[/p][/quote]The Kirpan has such potential. And the gun, carried by followers of John 'Wayne' Gun, discoverer in 1962 of the Gun effect. John Gun did not understand why folk were so afraid. Graham Hartley

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree