Stephen Baron of Tasmania - Sikh girl won the case against a school. Education is a need. There are not many Sikh schools in the UK. Ms Eweida has a lot more choices available where employment is concerned. Many other companies allow religious symbols.........

S Siva, London,

It is a question of principle - either no one is allowed to wear religious emblems of any sort, or everyone can wear them. It is laughable that Ms Eweida was asked to remove her crucifix at a diversity awareness meeting - surely she was simply taking advantage of company policy?

Frances , London,

sikh wins case to wear bangle as a symbol of faith, ba worker not allowed to wear cross. is it just me who thinks the whole thing stinks like rotting fish.

stephen baron, leith, tasmania

We've left all the other outdated dark age practices behind. Why cant we do the same with religion.

Leal , London, UK

Religions - whether institutionalised or not - are no more than mere superstitions.

Carl Marks, Bournemouth, UK

Of couse she was lookin for more money. She could have worn her cross on a longer chain.

victor Arram, westcliff on sea, essex

And we wonder why religions start wars, terrorists etc and blinker people away from the real issues such as poverty etc.!! I'm with Richard Dawkins that most religions are just a crutch - learn to deal with the world yourself - not from some ancient book that tells which hand to use to wipe your backside. The real heros are the ones who make their own personal morality on whats right or wrong, the ones who arent terrified stupid of death and the possibility there might not be an afterlife or 27 virgins in Heaven. Be brave, it will make you a better human being to your fellow human beings. As to religious symbols - if its so overwhelmingly important to people and if they simply just cant function normally without them then there MUST be one rule for ALL. Either Christians and Jews, Muslims and Scientlogogists and Satanists MUST be allowed to wear what they want OR no one is allowed anything. Neverthess , this ruling clearly discriminates against Christians.

Lucas, Herts.,

Religion... you just gotta love it...or hate it which I do... if it were up to me and all you out there thank some ultimate superior being that it isnt I would ban all religions...

Barry, chesham, uk

I don't understand how it can be considered equal for all employees of BA, if others were allowed to wear religious symbols and types of clothing and all Miss Eweida was wearing was a cross the size of a 5pence piece. I hope she continues her case to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. This is just another case of the state pandering to one group of people whilst discriminating against another. Good on her for rejecting BA's out of court settlement - an obvious admission of their guilt!

Louisa, London,

OK, let's see... “Our current policy allows symbols of faith to be worn openly and has been developed with multi-faith groups and our staff."

Yet BA is being sued for "NOT allowing a symbol of faith to be worn openly." They just said the exact opposite.

Why is there no follow-up by Times Online about this in-your-face, blatant double-standard?

Rick, Oceanside, CA, USA

The judgment simply is not fair towards this Christian lady.

The Muslima could take off her hijab, too. There is no "must" in religion;)

With a Sikh, it would be more difficult although I have known Sikhs who had their hair cut and wore a copper bracelet instead.

MarlisM, Frankfurt, Germany

She worked for the airline and signed an employment contract with full knowledge of the uniform guidelines. Case closed BA did nothing wrong.

Robert, London, United Kingdom

I thought faith was supposed to be a source of strength and confidence, not weakness and insecurity. If this woman's well being is dependent on the public display of a tiny piece of metal, then neither her faith nor religion seem to be doing her much good.

Heather, Glasgow,