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.
Point is, if allowances can be made, allowances can be made.
okay, you actually got a point here.
For me, it is not necessary because dress code is there for a reason, and a dress code is not a violation of one's religious practice. But I can only speak for myself anyway.
I don't think anybody should agree with me, nor do I believe I am right. Just here to join the discussion. That is all.
Uniform dress code is there for a reason. That is the ONLY point I am making anyway. Doesn't matter where I live.
Agree. That's why I removed the sentence, because it didn't make sense.
And I also agree that uniform dress code is there for a reason. But it shouldn't be so unbendable if the code proves exclusionary to people who would be an asset to the job but cannot change their appearance for cultural/religious reasons. It's not like a Jew can put aside being a Jew while he's at work and just resume being a Jew after he punches out. Doesn't work that way. It's their entire identity.
The opposite of how you think it works, evidently. The 1st Amendment PREVENTS people from needing to abandon their religious beliefs. There is lots and lots of legal precedent for this. It's also why politicians are allowed to constantly reference their faith when they speak, too.
Some relevant cases are Goldman v. Weinberger and Sherbert v. Verner. I'm certain there are others, too.
The First Amendment prevents Congress from establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise of religion. Congress is not establishing a religion here. Congress is not saying that Sikhs can't go and exercise their religion while not at work. This has nothing to do with religious freedom. If you want to work a certain job then you need to do your job, regardless of what your "religion" tells you to do. Even if we accept that the First Amendment is in play here at all, there are limits and rules for all Constitutional rights. If you do not want to put on a uniform for whatever reason, then don't be a police officer.
Agree. That's why I removed the sentence, because it didn't make sense.
And I also agree that uniform dress code is there for a reason. But it shouldn't be so unbendable if the code proves exclusionary to people who would be an asset to the job but cannot change their appearance for cultural/religious reasons. It's not like a Jew can put aside being a Jew while he's at work and just resume being a Jew after he punches out. Doesn't work that way. It's their entire identity.
I agree with you. Like I said, I've never said I am 100% right about this. I just believe in keeping things simple. That is all.
It is just ME. Keep it simple. One rule for all, or no rule at all. Should rule be bendable? I guess it is okay.
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.
