"This is a religious issue, as it is ONLY Christians who are falling under the "no jewelry" rule. It will not leave us unable to object to displays of religious apparel by Muslims or others as they are already exempt! BA allows head scarf by Muslims, and various jewelry by Hindus as well as turbans by Sikhs."
It is not a religious issue by a long shot. The contrast between the religions and what they are allowed to wear is a separate issue. Mommy, you let Sally play with fire....so therefor we should all be able to play with fire. They caved in to political pressure in allowing those exceptions. That doesn't make it right nor does it mean they are persecuting Christians by contrast. They caved so now we should force them to cave to us?
This is a business issue and a sane and acceptable practice that I think would go to the heart about employer rights. It certainly does pull very strong FR constituencies in opposite directions and especially interesting in that many are strong advocates of both camps. This is business. The business caved to political pressure. I shall not go against the basic rights of an employer to cry about 'what about me'.
It's a religious issue if people who are religious see it as one. If they are angry enough, it becomes a business issue for BA, because of the money they lose through a boycott, and the bad publicity. Is BA completely private, or is it partly state-owned, and entitled to special state tax breaks, etc.? I believe the latter. As such, it's a political issue too.
There is always a desire to make business issues trump political and personal considerations. The desire is understandable. But it's also not the way the works now, ever has worked, or ever will work. If enough Christians get pissed off about this, BA will have to bend, on the cross. This does not mean it has to bend on burkas, which is a security issue, or bend on swastikas, or anything else.