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.
I wonder what the opinion would be if it was a Christian being told they couldn't wear a cross necklace, or a Jew not being allowed to wear a head cover. It's that these items aren't about looks, dress or style. They are religious items and it's illegal to discriminate based on that.
It would be exactly the same.
So why are these seven Jewish groups getting involved in a case brought for a Muslim woman? Well, as Nathan Lewin, the lawyer for these Jewish organizations, explained to the Los Angeles Times, men and women in the orthodox Jewish communities have also faced discrimination when applying for certain jobs because the men wear yarmulkes and want to take the Sabbath off from work as part of their faith. Lewin noted, “It is important that these Orthodox Jewish groups express support for this Muslim woman who has had a similar experience.”
What kind of nonsense are you on about? Their dress code says hats and scarves are not to be worn
by employees while on the job. She is being treated just like any other employee. Everyone has to obey the dress code if they want to work there. You don't like the dress code then don't work there find another place that allows you dress the way you want or start your own company. Every company has their own rules that everyone has to follow. Workers can't just do whatever they want.
Since when does a private business have to make accomodation for someone's religion?
I'm sure some companies do but that is their own choice they should not be forced to do so,
particularly when it could or would be a disruption to their business.
Practice religion on your own time, not company time. That's what a church or mosque is for.
The ruling is absurd.
Read below -I stole from post #82, then make your case that this doesn't violate the act.
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship."
"Since when does a private business have to make accommodation for someone else religion", ever since the Civil Rights Act was passed.
This part of the law is broad and this may not have been their intention, you can argue that you don't like it but this is the rule.
The United States Constitution applies to the government, not to corporations. A private business, large or small, can legally ignore your freedom of speech. Where your employer is concerned, you have no such right.
But employers routinely monitor telephone calls, e-mail, Web site visits, and virtually every other type of electronic communication.
Did you know you could be fired for not removing a political sticker from your car — or even having a beer after work?
Read below -I stole from post #82, then make your case that this doesn't violate the act.
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship."
"Since when does a private business have to make accommodation for someone else religion", ever since the Civil Rights Act was passed.
This part of the law is broad and this may not have been their intention, you can argue that you don't like it but this is the rule.
I wonder what the opinion would be if it was a Christian being told they couldn't wear a cross necklace, or a Jew not being allowed to wear a head cover. It's that these items aren't about looks, dress or style. They are religious items and it's illegal to discriminate based on that.
Requiring secular attire does not constitute religious discrimination.
Read below -I stole from post #82, then make your case that this doesn't violate the act.
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship."
"Since when does a private business have to make accommodation for someone else religion", ever since the Civil Rights Act was passed.
This part of the law is broad and this may not have been their intention, you can argue that you don't like it but this is the rule.
So the US government would be forced to accomodate someone's religious practice when it hires them?
That would be in violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause (separation between church and state), and that part of the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional.
So the US government would be forced to accomodate someone's religious practice when it hires them?
The government is forced to accommodate.
Quote:
That would be in violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause (separation between church and state), and that part of the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional.
The USG is the last one to accommodate.
The USG lives by a different set of rules.
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.
