But Shadenight, in the UK your arguments wouldn't cut it. Regardless of whether the school was Catholic or not; if they ban beards, even for religious reasons, that is considered discrimination and the school will probably be disciplined for it.
So, technically, if a girl went to an Islamic school in UK, and they threw her out because she refused to wear the shawl, that school too would be accused of discrimination, right?
Then they wouldn't be able to prohibit, say, Jeans either.
At any rate, if this was only a matter of dress code, some sort of solution would have been found without making this a news item. It's discrimination, regardless of what they claimed.
Well, what if the school really has a dress code that states 'No beards' and makes it strictly noticeable in their policy? Sure, it is undwarfenly, but the school has it in its law since...oh, I don't know. Let's say they're Beard-Haters since the 1900, or the 1800, or whenever the school has been founded. If you have a beard, don't go there. If you go there, you know you have to cut your beard. That's like saying you want to have a nice picnic, and then set up camp atop a hornet nest and near a bear cave.
You won't have a nice picnic. Sure, animal protection will kill the bear and smoke out the hornets, but the point is...they were both there first, why the hell did
you have to go there to begin with?
This is the point I don't understand. Wasn't there another school? Wasn't there another institution? IF -as the article implies- it's written in the school's dresscode about 'not having beards' then they can't complain about it. I'd like to think the children were told of it
before starting school, rather than on the first day of class.