Generate text that refutes this claim: Freedom of expression, like any right is fairly meaningless if it’s only respected when it’s convenient.  Recognising rights when there is no inconvenience to anybody involved is verging on the irrelevant. This is, perhaps, especially true, with freedom of expression. If I recognise your right to express yourself freely - so long as I never have to see, hear or be aware of you doing – rather misses the point.  Likewise if the individual is free only so long as there aren’t any rules saying they shouldn’t be, goes somewhat against the grain of defending liberties. Indeed the history of the idea that people can exercise all the freedom they like as long as it’s out of sight, out of mind and doesn’t break any rules is not a noble one; among other absurd forms of “freedom”, it was used to justify both segregation and apartheid.  Although the effect and extent of the prejudice is clearly different here, the logic is the same: you are completely free to do whatever I think you should do.  Having a right to freely express oneself means to do so when it is inconvenient, challenging or offensive to others [i] . The rules being broken here were, as has already been mentioned, fairly petty and the sanctions comparatively minor – although the loss of someone’s livelihood should not be understated. The case is important because of the precedent it sets; what if the two women were risking not just their jobs but their liberty?  The UK considers itself to be a tolerant country. Tolerance means accepting those declarations and statements that are inconvenient. If the law is incapable of defending a statement as benign as wearing a small piece of jewellery, it is worrying to think how it would cope with something more forthright.  [i] UN Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 18, 19 and 23.
nothing sacred house believes christians should be allowed wear cross
Proposition is completely over-reacting. Nobody is stopping the women involved from practising their faith but there is nothing within mainstream Christianity that requires the wearing of a cross as a public statement. Furthermore, a tolerant society can only function if it works within a framework of rules that are evenly applied.  This case demonstrates that as even the established religion is expected to confine to that framework.