The courts have apparently upheld the right of the
employers of these two women - who were told they
were not to wear crosses to work because according
to the law - wearing crosses is not a requirement of
their religion. The women are fighting this ban as
a "human rights" issue. It will be interesting to
see how far they get.

The photo of one of the women - published online -
shows her wearing a tiny cross - and seeing as the
woman is a nurse - what possible harm - can it do
to wear this small trinket? It may even bring some
comfort to some people in her line of work. The other
woman - works for an airline - and again - what's
the harm? Neither women's safety is at risk, nor that
of the people they serve.

There is speculation that this is a political decision
on behalf of the current government - who is
having problems with the Catholic Church about same-sex
marriage legislation in the UK. So who knows what's
driving this stand - and where it will all end up.
As another poster pointed out - it does seem a bit like
a storm in a teacup.

As some know, it was once my job to protect the rights of workers at work.
Let us never forget that movement,the union one, had very brave and needed birth.
Safety? well every thing from hair nets to gloves even high visibility clothing are ok.
Such crosses can be worn and with safety.
During Work choices I handed out caps, with the southern cross on them.
I put stickers on lunch room tables and blokes put them on lunch boxes and the walls.
Work choices forbid them on walls and hats.
And a once proud Australian owned Construction giant, barred the blokes wearing the southern cross hats!
Paul and others are being simplistic here.
I suspect some will, like me be offended that stickers and hats got that treatment.
But it is the heart of this issue that concerns me!
What harm can being a Christian do to the employer?
Are the employers of another faith.
Why is a government involved in other than protecting the rights of freedom of religion.
That is a basic in western country's.
Show me a valid reason for this action.
What next?

Christian cross come defend it runner and all those others.
It is not the usual for me but just what is so very wrong about showing your faith, any faith.

"Christian cross come defend it runner and all those others."

I would indeed defend it with tooth and nail if government ever threatened our freedom to wear crosses, but at this stage I would have to be Don Quixote to try and defend something that is not under attack: please read the article again, Belly.

What about christian fundamentalist who want to wear a crown of thorns to work and those that wish to scourge each other during tea breaks, wear a hair shirt for penance. Display pictures of the holy father and all the saints on their desk, the possibilities are endless.
Its my firm belief any employer with 3 or more employees should be made provide the following: Lord's house, abbey, basilica, bethel, cathedral, chancel, chantry, chapel, fold, house of God, house of prayer, house of worship, mission, mosque, oratory,sacellum, sanctuary, shrine, synagogue, tabernacle and temple, hope I haven't missed anyone out. And for the non believers a tea room.

Dear Paul,

We had one guy who came to work carrying a wooden cross.
He would lean it up against the back fence - near the back
door of the building. Because he chose not to bring it into
the building or prop it up against his work desk - nobody
objected. (Like leaving his bicycle outside - it was fair
enough). We later found out that he did this as a practice -
for the Passion Play he was in - in the coming Easter break.

Anyway, that's by the bye. In this particular case under
discussion of the two women and their little crosses -
this is a slightly different matter. They did not select
to wear a crown of thorns, of dress inappropriately for
work. They simple decided to wear a piece of commonly
acceptable jewellery - a little gold cross (for whatever
reason) that under any normal circumstances would not offend
anyone of sound mind. It's a different scenario, in my
opinion. And why this has stirred such a fuss is beyond me.

Still we'll have to wait and see what the courts do end up
deciding. Hopefully some common sense will prevail.
I would have thought that as long as it's not hurting
anyone - what's the harm.