Yeah, it's a ring for crying outloud...

If I remember right, it was a school that banned jewelry, except if it had to be worn for religious reasons. Since the ring did not have to be worn, it was right that the girl lost the case.

No one's trying to "stop christians from publicly expressing and practising their faith". That's just plain ridiculous.

I don't know why the school had to push it. It was just a ring, and wasn't distracting anybody. If the girl cared strongly enough about it that she was willing to go to court, you would think the superintendent would have dropped it and let her go on.

If Bluediana is right and no jewelery was a school policy, then no, she should not have won her case.

Miss Playfoot? LOL. Doesn't sound like the name of somebody who'd be able to wear a chastity ring. She was probably jealous and that's why she asked the girl to remove it.

Yep - i don't see why not. It's not hurting anyone and you can barely see it.

I agree with the decision, it was against the rules. She isn't required to wear the ring and not wearing it doesn't make her any less chaste or less christian.

It doesn't matter that it's "only a tiny ring", you can't make exceptions for one person because other people will expect you to do the same for them.

the article doesnt say why the school banned the ring, it just syas the banned her from wearing it

On 8/28/2007 12:57:36 PM Aegis999 wrote: the article doesn't say why the school banned the ring, it just says the banned her from wearing it

The dress code had a "no jewelry" clause.

I think that whole rule was stupid, and this just proves the point that the rule was pointless and annoying.

What on Earth is face expulsion? It sounds about as far from chastity as a person can get.

I bet Miss Playfoot was 'delighted' with the outcome.

what the hell?? What's wrong with a girl wearing a simple ring? for crying out loud!

I think she should be allowed to wear it. That is her belief, and there's noting wrong with it. She's not forcing anyone else to believe it. It's just a ring for goodness sakes.

On 9/19/2007 8:11:12 PM blckroses13 wrote: I think she should be allowed to wear it. That is her belief, and there's noting wrong with it. She's not forcing anyone else to believe it. It's just a ring for goodness sakes.

Yeah but as was said earlier, they had a no jewellery policy. I can understand being against the policy in general. But you can't argue for exceptions in specific cases.

The way the question is phrased, I'd say, yes she should have won. If you look at the backstory, it is very obvious that this is someone trying to use religion as an excuse to bypass rules. A few excerpts:

"The claimant (Miss Playfoot) was under no obligation, by reason of her belief, to wear the ring, nor does she suggest that she was so obliged," he said.

He rejected the submission that the ring was a "religious artefact" and therefore exempt from the school's uniform policy which bans jewellery.

"Whatever the ring is intended to symbolise, it is a piece of jewellery," he said. "...she voluntarily accepted the uniform policy of the school and there are other means open to her to practise her belief without undue hardship or inconvenience."

Miss Playfoot said she should be allowed to wear the ring because Sikh and Muslim pupils could wear bangles and headscarves in class.

Just read the news story from the link provided. It will exp

If the dress code says no jewelry, then that's what that means.
So no, she shouldn't have won the case.

"If I remember right, it was a school that banned jewelry, except if it had to be worn for religious reasons. Since the ring did not have to be worn, it was right that the girl lost the case."

hmm...does that mean that if you were a member of a certain religion that did claim it to be mandatory to wear a certain piece of jewelry, than it would be accepted under school policy? What if her own personal religion mandates that she wear that ring? I don't mean Christianity in general, I mean the beliefs of Miss Playfoot. I don't think the school should be making exceptions for anybody on the basis of religion, or it should just scrap the no jewelry rule.

Why outlaw jewelry, anyway?
I mean, do the teachers at the school who happen to be married/engaged have to take off their rings? Because many people who use purity rings take them seriously, like one would an engagement ring.

I think she should be allowed to wear it because I don't agree with asinine dress codes. But the ring is nothing to with religion; it's just some trendy American anti-sex crap.

She shouldn't have been such a doosh as to make that big a fuss out of it.
FAIL, and rightfully so.

Though the rule is silly, I don't think this is a case of unfair religious discrimination - the school doesn't allow jewelry unless it's *essential* for religious reasons, and the chastity ring is not. I wonder, though, whether the school she's going to is a Christian one, in the first place.:

"He [the headmaster] added that the school is not anti-Christian and the Christian doctrine is reflected in the "curriculum and life of the school community in many ways"."

The article doesn't say, but I'm seriously curious about this. I don't think the head of a public school would make that remark, and the ridiculous "no jewelry" rule sounds like something you'd find in a religious school.

that's silly. i wouldn't go to a school with a no jewelry rule. i have a lot of jewelry that comes from very special people, especially the 1/4 carat diamond necklace from my great-aunt and the aquamarine ring, ruby earrings and pearl necklace from my daddy. and we're not rich so all that money was a huge sacrifice. it means a lot and if i wasn't allowed to wear it i'd pitch a fit. and vandiemen needs to learn some french - it's spelled "douche."

No jewelry means no jewelry.

Scrap the rule, jewelery never hurt anybody.

On Tuesday 6/17/08 - 1:57:33 PM Sivalean wrote: No jewelry means no jewelry.

Seconded.

yes...its a ring for Christ sake! this girl should be commended for not wanted to be another teen mom on welfare!