[Deleted. Completely off topic.]

I concede the employers acted that way, still want to know why.
And in not acting for the human rights of freedom of religion the government in my view took an action.
I ask this, what if it was other faiths.
From within a faith SOME wanted to kill others for publishing cartoons.
Why provoke a problem, in relation to any belief, UNLESS IT IS FOR EVERY belief, even then why.
Why in the work place, what is the work place? if it is another faiths worshiping place then I with draw.
I question, and will forever, benefits faiths get, but can find nothing to stop my question needing an answer why.

Dear Belly,

"And in not acting for the human rights of freedom of religion the government in my view took an action."

I once loved someone who broke my heart telling me: "Although I like you, I will not go out with you and never marry you unless you convert to Christianity" (an act that I, sadly at the time, could not possibly fake).

Are you suggesting that the government should have forced her to marry me in order to protect my freedom of religion?

- Employment is no different: if both sides are not in agreement FOR WHATEVER REASON, then it's NO-DEAL.

As for the "why", the most likely reason is that the employers in question are fools, just as that lady was a fool in refusing to marry me unless I became Christian. In the end, it's her loss!

Bit simplistic mate.
A law in place as far as I know freedom of religion still exists.
Now why the no cross ruling.
Was it workplace safety, then why was it not mentioned?
Was it so as to not offend others in the workplace, then who and how?
Was it the boss who would be offended, why.
What if it was a head scarf? or hat.
Would we be offended if it was said we could not wear something showing what football team we followed?
Any one know if we could look at the hearing online to find more information?

Dear Belly,

"A law in place as far as I know freedom of religion still exists."

Certainly, what this law means is that the state cannot persecute or prosecute you for your religion (or even for its absence), nor will it allow others to persecute you for your religion. That's very important!

But the state should not force relationships between people:
It should not force you to marry someone you don't want,
it should not force you to be friends with someone you don't want,
it should not force you to trade with someone you don't want,
it should not force you to work for someone you don't want,
and it should not force you to employ someone you don't want.

We could go all day suggesting different reasons why person A does not want to marry/befriend/trade-with/work-for/employ person B. We will probably find that a few reasons are valid but most are stupid, yet at the bottom line, it's people's free choice, including the choice to be stupid.

I am not differentiating between head-scarves, hats, football-caps, a cross, a yarmulke, a turban, bikini, etc. etc.
SO LONG AS THE EMPLOYER INCLUDED THE CONDITION OF NOT WEARING IT IN ADVANCE, AS PART OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AND THE EMPLOYEE AGREED TO THAT CONTRACT.

If however, the item was not banned in the employment contract, then the employer has no right to forbid the employee to wear it - and yes, that includes religious items as well as football caps and all the rest.

Freedom of religion must be part and parcel of freedom in general - otherwise you would allow secular, biased and unqualified governments to judge what is religious and what isn't, running into a dangerous slippery-slope that can end in taking away all our freedom of religion on the pretext that "it has nothing to do with religion".

Sorry not able to agree.
A persons personal belief, showing them in a not offensive way, should be protected.
I still and forever ask why, why is the Cross unwelcome?