American court supports Muslim V. Clothes shop

[Nope]

So, is a religious accomodation absolutely required of employers if requested?
Yamulkes are not the only cultural/traditional adornment.
Could get interesting.

---

---

Phallocrypts are decorative penis sheaths worn in parts of New Guinea during traditional ceremonies.

That would make going to the store more interesting. I am picturing him dressed in whatever clothes are appropriate except for the penis sheath hanging out of his pants.

[abaris]

So one could argue that is ok to wear the turban but not ok to wear the dagger, for security reasons, though Sikhs are usually, that I am aware of, more peaceful than most other religions from the Indian subcontinent. 

Or are they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_insurgency

Truth is, every religion carried to it's extreme will result in violence.

As for the ruling in question, I'm kind of mixed on the issue. If you allow one religious expression, you have to allow them all. Everything else would be discriminating one but favoring the other. But I also understand the need for a chain of shops to present a corporate identity.

[Dystopia]

@abaris I disagree - Allowing one expression doesn't mean you have to allow the others. I think prudence and moderation are two important principles when applying the Law - As such, I think religious freedom, like any other right, should be used with moderation. Obviously, wearing the silly fake penis seems outrageous and disturbing but wearing a headscarf, IMO, is little worse than wearing a hat you like or a shirt colour you prefer.

[Regina]

I think it's a bit excessive, as long as her face wasn't covered I can't see why it's such a big deal to let her wear her headscarf. I can see the argument if it was a full burqa with a face covering, because that's an identity issue, but if you can see her face then I don't see what the problem is.

I don't agree with the Muslim head coverings, these are not fashionable items of clothing, they are tools used to repress women. However, entertaining the idea that it is 100% her own un-pressured choice to wear it, I think she should have that right even if I don't agree. I do think more should be done to make sure headscarf wearing isn't forced or pressured though, and discourage wearing it too.

As for companies wanting to maintain a "corporate image", I think a lot of companies go too far. Shops I kinda get it, since the employees are interacting with customers and the shop wants a chic image. Office jobs though, I really don't see how wearing jeans or having (clean) dreadlocks is inappropriate in an environment where we are interacting with computer screens.

[Dystopia]

That depends on what is trendy - In the west, trendy for women is wearing high heels, skinny jeans, leggings, skirts, etc (it depends on the kind of attire - Formal, semi-formal, casual, etc.) - I don't think I can tell people their clothes are less worthy. Honestly, I think there's a double standard when people forget that some muslim men make the case for wearing the veil over the head and the super long beard - That's not fashionable and it looks ugly by our standards. If someone wants to voluntarily use a headscarf, I see no reason to be against it - Just like I support people wearing hats, long skirts, long sleeve shirts, etc. In eastern Europe there were (and still are) some places where it's normal for women (christian) to wear a headscarf. I know an ex-muslim in college who wears a headscarf for cultural reasons - She is so used that she would feel horribly bad for not wearing it - After all, if you've been wearing something your whole life, it's only natural to feel that way. I've been wearing jeans/pants my whole life, I would feel terrible if someone forced me to wear shorts everyday, or skirts, or too short shorts because I think they look bad on me

[Longhorn]

It's a privately owned business. It can hire or refuse to hire anybody on whatever basis. I don't see why it's such an issue. There are requirements for every job, and if you don't meet them, you're not hired-simple as that.

[Dystopia]

It's a privately owned business. It can hire or refuse to hire anybody on whatever basis. I don't see why it's such an issue. There are requirements for every job, and if you don't meet them, you're not hired-simple as that.

This is the kind of stupid mentality I can't understand - It's basically saying "fuck labour rights and let corporate dictatorship reign". So can I refuse to hire someone because their black? What if it's because they are atheist? Can I refuse to hire women because I think they're incompetent? What counts as a requirement? What if every private business has prejudices and refuse to hire someone of a certain group? In any civilized society the government ought to approve anti-discrimination laws and, if necessary, coerce people into hiring people who they wouldn't have hired otherwise if the reason is irrelevant (like race). Being privately owned means you are not subject to state authority to run it and have more freedom - It doesn't mean you can discriminate against anyone for whatever reason. Reasonable requirements are ok, "any reason" is stupid.

[Minimalist]

I don't understand this - If she didn't specifically ask to wear it why did they refuse to hire her?

It was 2008 - they probably had 150 applicants for every position.  Unless someone called her up and told her that they didn't like the head scarf I can't see how this would have happened.  And people ARE that stupid.

[Longhorn]

This is the kind of stupid mentality I can't understand - It's basically saying "fuck labour rights and let corporate dictatorship reign". So can I refuse to hire someone because their black? What if it's because they are atheist? Can I refuse to hire women because I think they're incompetent? What counts as a requirement? What if every private business has prejudices and refuse to hire someone of a certain group? In any civilized society the government ought to approve anti-discrimination laws and, if necessary, coerce people into hiring people who they wouldn't have hired otherwise if the reason is irrelevant (like race). Being privately owned means you are not subject to state authority to run it and have more freedom - It doesn't mean you can discriminate against anyone for whatever reason. Reasonable requirements are ok, "any reason" is stupid.

The problem I see with this is that it basically aims to outlaw being an asshole, protecting the worker by infringing the business owner's freedom. It's my business, my rules. If I don't want to hire someone I shouldn't be forced to.

Bigotry is wrong and also bad for business, granted. But protecting the worker from discrimination like this gives way to suing anybody who doesn't hire you and claiming discrimination, much like this case.

Just the way I see it. I don't expect to reach any consensus, I know it may not be a popular opinion. Agree to disagree?

[Little lunch]

About 8 years ago I had an apprentice chef who met a young fellow on the weekend and became a muslim by Monday.
She came into work with what looked like a black sheet wrapped around her with a slit for the eyes.
After all the laughing stopped I told her she couldn't work in the kitchen dressed like that.
This was at a University Refectory, so she went off and came back with the secretary to the Vice Chancellor, trying to tell me I'm discriminating against her.
I insisted that she sign some piece of paper to relieve me of responsibility for the apprentice when she burns herself alive on an open flame.
I also told her I would be calling the department of health and safety and also the apprenticeship board.
They backed off. The apprentice went home to change and never came back.