Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is not actually a biblical reason why Christians should object in that particular situation.
No, there isn't, but that isn't the point. It is within the requirements of Christianity to allow a Christian to belong to a nudist colony. But Christians (or anyone of any other religion) who don't want to expose their body to others shouldn't be forced to do so. And they aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk
As has been noted, in those extremist Muslim societies, women don't do those things anyway...so they should continue those same customs--not doing those things--in the US.
Not all women, of course. But just like above, if someone wants to interpret the requirements for "modesty" in an extreme way as a matter of religious observance, then they should have that right. And they do, both in the USA and in countries where extreme interpretations of Islam are the norm.
However, we also have the right to personal and national security. That means, for example, if you want the ability to operate a 3,000-lb missile on a public road paid for by the taxpayers and used by millions of other taxpayers, then the taxpayers have the right to insist you prove that you, personally, have met the (insanely minimal) requirements. I.e., you must obtain a driving license with a picture of your face. If you cause an accident, there must be some way to prove who you, personally, are and a picture of a pair of eyes surrounded by cloth just won't cut it. Or any other situation where positive visual prove of identity is required, such as flying on commercial aircraft.
So if you want to stay at home or only walk or take the bus or be driven around by others, then as an issue of freedom of religion you do and always should have the right to never expose any part of your body. There is no requirement anywhere in this country to ever get a picture ID for any reason. But if you want to do something that required a picture ID, then you must comply with the rules for obtaining such an ID. That includes an employee ID for a private company.
Ok this is a legitimate question for a hearty discussion. My wife, as part of her job creates ID badges for her facility. Today a Muslim woman walked in in a full faced Niqab. Her organization has instructed her to take a badge ID photo of the woman with the Niqab on. Now they have a badge ID of a pair of eyes. This is a HUGE security risk and a controls risk across the spectrum. Anyone can now impersonate her. The face is used in Western Civilization and Eastern as well as a form of identification. Now we have a group of people who refuse to submit themselves for identification based upon their religion. How is it a religious right to not identify yourself?
It is so simple, you have the job and if it requires a full picture ID and she does not want to dress to the standard, she goes not get the job, simple. There is no need to make special rules for those who do not follow our customs. same as in their country they may insist on that dress garb/
If the person chooses to wear this garb that is their right, if the company policy is to have a face exposed picture that is their right. The individual can choose if they want to comply and work for this company. When I was in the Navy and working at a correctional facility we would often get unique requests for things based on an inmates faith/beliefs. Approval would be granted providing the item was not prohibited in the facility and it didn't create a security situation, we didn't prevent them from observing their faith. The covering of a woman's face is cultural not religious which is why most Muslim woman you see have their head covered but their face exposed, this isn't an issue of faith.
I think the garb annoys many people. Pure and simple.
As a Protestant kid in the 60s, I thought Catholic nuns were pretty frightening. So. did all of the anti-Catholic "no nothings" who resented the influx of Catholics in the 1800s.
Now nuns don't dress so severely, but it's always that same crowd.
I can find nothing in caselaw stating that the reasonable accomodation doctrine requires employers allowing an individual to completely cover their face for security IDs. As such, I doubt that's relevant in this case. Like I said in the previous post of mine - which you quoted - there is no mandate, Constitutional or statutory, for allowing the coverage of the face for passport photos or driver's licenses. As such, I doubt there is a similar mandate for security IDs issued by private employers.
A facial photo is simply an inherent part of identification. Security questions are not at all secure, as they can be simply transferred to another in a way that a photo ID cannot. Voice-recognition technology is expensive and requiring a business to invest in that would easily meet the undue burden threshold for the company. Again, unless you or someone else can demonstrate where the reasonable accommodation doctrine allows for covering one's face for an ID when security is a legitimate business issue - and this is a fairly common legitimate business concern - then I will continue to believe that the company described by the OP did so voluntarily and not because they were compelled to do so.
BS. This issue has been extensively litigated and there are no grounds for a successful lawsuit. A more likely explanation is that the OP isn't giving us the entire accurate story.
I'm not saying that this is the required accommodation--rather, that reasonable accommodation is required and this is the reasonable accommodation the employer chose. If strict security is needed, then the employer should at least have security staff and metal detectors. What is the incremental improvement of a photo ID? I'm guessing there aren't a lot of employees wearing the niqab, so it's not like this person's identity will be suspect after a week at the office.
While voice recognition technology may be an undue burden, making sure a security staffer recognizes the woman's voice is not an undue burden.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth
We don't know exactly what the veiled woman said, or what the details of her objection were. Again, it could be that a simple accommodation to photograph her in a private booth with the female security agent would have taken care of it. Or maybe there's a prohibition against allowing any photo ID that shows the face. If the latter, the OP didn't mention it. If that IS an issue in the religion, the issue should be taken up on the federal level, and a decision should be made, because it's a major potential security issue.
It could well be that those accommodations would have been perfectly workable. So, apparently, is this one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VA Yankee
If the person chooses to wear this garb that is their right, if the company policy is to have a face exposed picture that is their right. The individual can choose if they want to comply and work for this company. When I was in the Navy and working at a correctional facility we would often get unique requests for things based on an inmates faith/beliefs. Approval would be granted providing the item was not prohibited in the facility and it didn't create a security situation, we didn't prevent them from observing their faith. The covering of a woman's face is cultural not religious which is why most Muslim woman you see have their head covered but their face exposed, this isn't an issue of faith.
Employers have to offer reasonable accommodation. As do correctional facilities. The standard is not whether you think the practice is religious, but whether it is a sincerely held religious belief to the employee/inmate. So yes, it is an issue of faith.
It is so simple, you have the job and if it requires a full picture ID and she does not want to dress to the standard, she goes not get the job, simple. There is no need to make special rules for those who do not follow our customs. same as in their country they may insist on that dress garb/
Not really. We have freedom of religion here while "their country" does not.
I'm not saying that this Employers have to offer reasonable accommodation. As do correctional facilities. The standard is not whether you think the practice is religious, but whether it is a sincerely held religious belief to the employee/inmate. So yes, it is an issue of faith.
At no time did we make the distinction the head Chaplin on base would. Reasonable accommodation is fine provided it doesn't create a danger for the organization and isn't illegal. Not having a recognizable ID picture can be a dangerous and a security issue depending on the type of industry. Sincerity is not easily measured and one persons belief is another's Halloween costume, that said an Imman (sic) should be consulted and then a decision made after that. Ultimately it may not be acceptable to accommodate and the person will have to make their own decision.
At no time did we make the distinction the head Chaplin on base would. Reasonable accommodation is fine provided it doesn't create a danger for the organization and isn't illegal. Not having a recognizable ID picture can be a dangerous and a security issue depending on the type of industry. Sincerity is not easily measured and one persons belief is another's Halloween costume, that said an Imman (sic) should be consulted and then a decision made after that. Ultimately it may not be acceptable to accommodate and the person will have to make their own decision.
Sincerely held is the legal standard. Whether a requested accommodation is reasonable or not is a fact-specific question. Clearly, this particular employer thought that this particular accommodation was reasonable--i.e., the need for a visible face on the ID was not necessary.
Islam, like Protestant Christianity, does not have an authoritative hierarchy of religious thought/interpretation. Thus, consulting an imam would not ensure that any particular Muslim employee's sincerely held beliefs are/are not doctrine.
Perhaps if the OP provided context it would be helpful. Is this photo ID to provide access to the projector room at the local movie theater or a restricted area at a military base? The questions really are who is vulnerable and what are their risks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
