The First Amendment and the Workplace

[mechanical kitsy]

If you're in America, generally state (including work place) and religion are supposed to be separate. Lots of people of faith do not wear their consecrated jewelry outside the house. And many employers do not care. If you don't conform to the dress code it is grounds to fire, and your own fault for not going and taking them off for a few hours. I mean, you might damage the pieces if you wear them at work, depending on what you do. Then what're you to do? Your precious jewelry gone or ruined.
It's not a "poor-me" thing it sounds more like a "well I don't think this rule should apply to me even though it does to everyone else." If he's enforcing the rule to your friend I'm pretty sure no one else is getting away with it anyway, so he can't cry discrimination. And if it is such a dishonor, he should look for a place of work with a more loose dress code, end of story.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

xLady Tsukiyox

First of all what is "Brand Image"

Brand Image is a term that describes the "look" the company uses to support it's Brand Personality. Brand Personality is a marketing tool that relies on how a company wishes to be thought of and the merits that go with that perception.

xLady Tsukiyox

Secondly, what are the policies and procedures where your friend works at? Does he work in a warehouse/manufacturing environment or office environment. (Both are vastly different)

He works at a Hotel as a supervisor.

mechanical kitsy

If you're in America, generally state (including work place) and religion are supposed to be separate.

Could you help me understand how you come to this opinion?

mechanical kitsy

Lots of people of faith do not wear their consecrated jewelry outside the house. And many employers do not care.

I do not feel that the choices of others should reflect on him.

mechanical kitsy

If you don't conform to the dress code it is grounds to fire,

I think the law does not support this conclusion- if they had not accommodated him for two years, they might have been able t say that it was an undue hardship- but then they would have to explain why other people can wear jewelry in their lower lobes.

mechanical kitsy

and your own fault for not going and taking them off for a few hours. I mean, you might damage the pieces if you wear them at work, depending on what you do. Then what're you to do? Your precious jewelry gone or ruined.

Based on the kind of jewelry, in his case, his ears will be torn before any damage to the jewelry takes place, but I do not feel that is really the point.

For him to remove those pieces except for a situation where his life is in danger is a sin. It is a grievous spiritual offense against those he is bound to because it is a rejection of the bond they formed.

mechanical kitsy

It's not a "poor-me" thing it sounds more like a "well I don't think this rule should apply to me even though it does to everyone else."

If other people had religious pieces that they could not remove because of their faith, and those pieces did not cause an undue hardship to the business or threaten their safety or the safety of others, they should be allowed to keep their pieces as well.

mechanical kitsy

If he's enforcing the rule to your friend I'm pretty sure no one else is getting away with it anyway, so he can't cry discrimination.

I think discrimination is based on the individual circumstances- it is discrimination if their religion is not being accommodated, because employees aren't suddenly different people just because they come into their work.

mechanical kitsy

And if it is such a dishonor, he should look for a place of work with a more loose dress code, end of story.

I feel that given the local and national economy, this is not a practical solution- nor a legal one. Not only does he work hard and do his job well, they have allowed him to wear these for two years.  

[Tirissana]

Okay this brand image, and brand personality sounds like horse s**t to me. Sorry for being blunt but it's the truth. When you accept the job at a company you accept acting as a representative of that company. Everything you do or say is represented by the company. If you wear any kind of religious then it is saying that the company favors one religion over another. That is what you undertake in accordance to what you signed. If you or your friend doesn't like it, then he can quit and you both can start your own business where a dress code isn't enforced.

In regards to what mechanical kitty said, State and all things the occur inside it, including businesses should be separated from religion. Religion should have nothing to do with State. It is better to keep religion private than to have it public. And many businesses feel that it should be kept home.

Your friend is not above the rules. He may be a supervisor but he should follow the same rules as everyone else. Again he should have enough sense to know better. Like mechanical kitty said, it does sound a bit like "I'm above everyone else" syndrome.

Removing an item isn't a sin. If he's pagan, then there are no sins as far as some of the religions are concerned. I doubt the Gods will be that pissed off at him for removing a few pieces of jewelery. They might be more pissed off at him for carrying on like a child.

Many people wear religious pieces of jewelery, and many understand the rules and obey them. They remove that jewelery. Hell many women remove their wedding bands when they are asked to!

The company should not and does not accommodate everyone. It's a dog eat dog world. If he doesn't like it, then he can quit and again start up his own business.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

xLady Tsukiyox

Okay this brand image, and brand personality sounds like horse s**t to me. Sorry for being blunt but it's the truth.

Why do you feel it is "horse s**t"?

xLady Tsukiyox

When you accept the job at a company you accept acting as a representative of that company. Everything you do or say is represented by the company. If you wear any kind of religious then it is saying that the company favors one religion over another.

I do not feel this is the case- I think that if they granted privileges to one religion and not another, that would be so- but the same rights that protect him would also protect a Muslim woman who required a hajab or a Christian who required a cross.

xLady Tsukiyox

That is what you undertake in accordance to what you signed.

I believe in contract law, you cannot sign away the rights afforded to you by law without a meeting of the minds.

Contract Law is kind of tricky in that regard.

xLady Tsukiyox

If you or your friend doesn't like it, then he can quit and you both can start your own business where a dress code isn't enforced.

Could you help me understand why you feel that an employer should be able to discriminate or infringe on someone's rights? Why do they, as employers, have no responsibility to the employees?

xLady Tsukiyox

In regards to what mechanical kitty said, State and all things the occur inside it, including businesses should be separated from religion. Religion should have nothing to do with State. It is better to keep religion private than to have it public. And many businesses feel that it should be kept home.

Some feel that compartmentalizing their lives in that regard is a spiritual betrayal. Could you help me understand what brought you to the conclusion that the "State and all things the occur inside it" should be separated from religion? What is the basis for this belief?

xLady Tsukiyox

Your friend is not above the rules. He may be a supervisor but he should follow the same rules as everyone else.

He, and all the other employees who have religious obligations should have the exemptions under the laws against discrimination- in that sense, he would not be above the rules, but within them to practice his faith.

xLady Tsukiyox

Again he should have enough sense to know better. Like mechanical kitty said, it does sound a bit like "I'm above everyone else" syndrome.

I feel this is an unfair judgment.
He is nothing if not humble.

No one outside of his spiritual community would even know they were religious if he had not been asked to remove them. There was no flaunting of his spirituality, no bragging. Just a request for help to ensure his rights under the law were protected.

It seems that in this instance, a deeper emotional reaction to behavior is triggering judgment.

xLady Tsukiyox

Removing an item isn't a sin. If he's pagan, then there are no sins as far as some of the religions are concerned.

Some pagan paths do have sins, though I hear pagans talk more in terms of taboos than "sin", but the end effect is the same.

One of the common taboos spoken of on Gaia has been the sin of Oathbreaking- it is why the Old Laws of Wicca speak of the Curse of the Goddess. Whatever we call it, the result is the same, dishonor, disgrace, spiritual uncleanliness or spiritual abandonment.

xLady Tsukiyox

I doubt the Gods will be that pissed off at him for removing a few pieces of jewelery.

Could you give me a reason why you believe this? I mean, you're not even familiar with what kinds of divine beings we're speaking of since I haven't mentioned them. An example of "sin" amongst Greek pagans is hubris. When we look at the tale of Arachne, we see that her hubris was punished- the Delphic Maxims are used as a road map by some Greek Neo-pagans to avoid "sin".

I think in Norse Paganism there were some forms of magic that were assigned to certain genders- as described in the Poetic Edda.

In Egyptian paganism, The Declaration of Innocence that is part of The Book of Going Forth By Day outlines the things you must claim not to have done in order for your heart to be light. If there is no taboo or sin, I do not think their lore would detail such a list of things to say.

All of the examples I have mentioned have to do with the judgment of gods upon mortals- be they Egyptian, Greek, Wiccan, Norse or something else- I do not feel we can say all pagans have some concept of sin in their religion, but I also don't think we can say no pagans have a concept of sin, even if they call it something else.

xLady Tsukiyox

They might be more pissed off at him for carrying on like a child.

I feel this is another misjudgment. His reaction was not a temper tantrum, but to contact someone who has a little experience working with pagan advocacy. He calmly explained his position to his superiors and the Human Resource department.

Children will throw fits. Children will also capitulate to the demands of authority figures. He is acting in a restrained manner exploring his rights within the Law. That is the action of a very thoughtful person- no matter if they are minors or not.

xLady Tsukiyox

Many people wear religious pieces of jewelery, and many understand the rules and obey them. They remove that jewelery. Hell many women remove their wedding bands when they are asked to!

If they do not feel that their spiritual practices are worth standing up for, then it would seem the Law would agree with them and say their faith is not "sincere". That does not mean they do not believe what they believe, but that the obligation to that belief is not of an importance.

I feel it is important to note he is not currently disobeying the rules, but instead is looking for an accommodation for his faith. There is a large difference between petulantly undermining your employer and working with the system.

xLady Tsukiyox

The company should not and does not accommodate everyone.

I know this may be seen as repetitive, but I still do not understand why you feel that a company should be allowed to discriminate against someone whose religious practices do not harm them or pose a risk to the safety of the employees.

xLady Tsukiyox

It's a dog eat dog world. If he doesn't like it, then he can quit and again start up his own business.

I do not believe that a "might makes right" attitude is justified in our society- and I feel that is what a "dog eat dog world" suggests. The ability for someone else to harm a person, be it through violence or discrimination, does not justify that harm- and in a capitalist economy, discrimination in employment that undermines a person's ability to provide for themselves is harm.  

[Tirissana]

It's 7:40 am here and I'm going to try and be as coherent as possible.

The whole "brand image" is just an ideal that states that one shouldn't have to be an adult. Dress like an adult, or move forward like an adult. There's a time and place for religion, however at work, and carrying on isn't the time or place. There are certain things you can wear. There are certain things you can't. It's that simple.

We don't have "privileges". Wearing religious jewelery isn't a privilege. It's not a right either. It's a choice. Not all muslim women wear hijabs, just like not all Christians wear crosses. It's not mandatory that we should. I mean I'm a pagan, I have to pentacle necklaces, however I do not wear them. Why? Because they serve as more of an aesthetic purpose than a religious one. Not wearing an object of religious jewelery isn't going to send you to hell or whatever. And it's not going to piss off the Gods. -sighs-

Actually with contract law, you can. Private business is very different from the government. In fact it is separate from the government. There are certain rules and regulations that business most follow, however granting everyone religious freedom isn't one of them.

It's not discrimination. Nor is it infringement. The employers can make up whatever rules they can for the safety and concern of the employees. If your friend was allowed to wear his religious jewelery then his co-workers would probably discriminate him. It's keeping your friend safe from any discrimination and safe from any danger. If your friend doesn't like the policies then by rights he is allowed to quit, and start up his own business.

Basically, the state cannot make laws regarding religion. They cannot announce a state wide religion, or make it required that everyone has to wear a form of religious jewelery. There are many different religions in America that clash with many different religions. It's best to keep religion at home for the safety of the employees and employers. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

No one should have exemptions. When the sabbats came up I never once asked for a day off to worship these days. I did not wear any religious jewelery of any kind. I followed the rules and the dress code. As did several of my co-workers who are Christian, and many of our employees who were of different faiths. Again, it's not discrimination. If everyone has to take off their jewelery religious or not religious, then he has to as well. He should not be given an exemption. In fact no one should be exempt.

Well it seems to be that by putting up this fight that he is bragging about his religion. He wants everyone to know that he's a pagan, and that he's being "discriminated". If anything this sounds a little bit more of "I'm being oppressed" syndrome, or throwing out the innocent victim card. Something some Christians like to do when they feel that they are being discriminated against, when in reality they aren't.

Actually sins come from Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, although all three have a different concept of sin, that is in a sense where it comes from. Sin is only specific to the Judeo-Christo Islam religions. I have never heard of sins existing outside of the main 3 monotheistic religions. How odd.

Wicca is something different, and I'm assuming your friend is a neo-pagan, not a Wiccan. And again I doubt not wearing a pentacle earring is going to piss off either the Lord of the Isles or even the Lady of the Isles if he were Wiccan.

Because normally when people speak of "sins" they have some fear of a deity coming down and hurting them. If this isn't what you meant, then choose a better word than sin. Sin is the bad in life that we commit, and YHVH dislikes sin. It is said that if we sin we are punished.

It isn't that they feel that their spiritual practices aren't worth standing up for. But they understand and comprehend that certain things like paying the bills and feeding their families are better causes than a religion. A religion cannot feed your family or pay the bills. Why bother fighting for it? Wouldn't it be better to just be glad you get paid? If he really wanted an "accommodation" then he wouldn't be screaming "I'm being discriminated against" like a loon. neutral

I'm starting to think that you don't understand what discrimination is. What's going on in his work place isn't discrimination. It's not like he's being told he'll go to hell, going to jail, being burned at the stake, etc. :

If you don't believe it to be right, then you don't have a concept of what the real world is like. I'm sorry but it's not full of gum drops and sugar cubes. It is a Brofloshki's lar which is Russian I believe it roughly translates to a theive's world. Everyone will do what they can to climb that social or even corporate ladder.

And again if your friend feels he's being discriminated against, he can quit his job and start his own business. Where he can make up his own dress code, and his own rules, so he won't be "discriminated". He will be his own boss and won't have to worry about it. :3  

[Sanguina Cruenta]

I think American work laws are weird and crazy, so I'm not going to speak on that issue except to say that I fear for all of you.

I just wanted to comment on the "it's not mandatory to wear religions jewellery if you're a Pagan" thing. I don't know of any specific religion that does require it, but there are any number of oaths and promises, or even spells, that would require you to wear the jewellery 24/7. It doesn't have to be a set requirement of a specific religion in order to be a religious requirement. That is, if you make an oath to a god and represent it with an item of jewellery, it's poor form to take it off when it suits you. If you're representing an oath with that item, the metaphor implies you can take that oath on and off your shoulders when it suits you to do so. That is a requirement, and it is of a religious nature.

Having said that, if you have this issue then you should make the choice not to work at a place that would require you to remove it. To draw a parallel here: a few years ago in my country a McDonalds store advertised for weekend staff. A Christian applied for it and got the job. He then said he couldn't work any Sundays because it was a day of rest, and when they wouldn't give them to him he complained about religious discrimination. At which point they fired his a**. If he didn't want to work Sundays, he shouldn't have applied for a part time job that required him to work weekends. Sundays were a shift they needed to cover, Sundays were what they advertised for, and he knew that when they hired him.

Although, it is important to note that discrimination can be subtle. It doesn't have to be name-calling or a firing.  

[kage no neko]

Brass Bell Doll

Could you help me understand why you feel that an employer should be able to discriminate or infringe on someone's rights? Why do they, as employers, have no responsibility to the employees?

They have responsibility to uphold the rules and to make sure the workplace is a safe place, and to make sure you get paid (or else they get in trouble for not paying you).
I don't see it as discrimination if they'd make everyone of all religions remove the listed jewelry. If it's in his contract, whether the old manager allowed it or not, he still should've followed code. I think it'd be a silly complaint to say "well I've been breaking the dress code this whole time and noone has cared!" 'cause that's just.. building the argument against yourself. I'd be happy I didn't get in trouble sooner.

And I think contracts work as "you signed it, you follow it" regardless of whether you really read it and understood it or not. You signed it, which basically says you did. It'd be your own fault for falsely signing it.

Sometimes, you HAVE to take the jewelry off.. do gods not know and accept this? A couple weeks ago, my boyfriend had to cut his ring off 'cause it got a little.. too tight. He still has a line from it. While it wasn't any sort of bond to anyone, would they not be willing to accept that as part of human life? And how, especially in this economy, would having to remove jewelry for work be any different? That paycheck is sustaining his life. If it risks his job, which would affect his life negatively, would they not be willing to understand it?
I mean, couldn't he take the earring(s) off and put them in a pouch or something and keep them in his pocket? They'd still be with him then, just not breaking code.

Edit:
My boyfriend says you're right, that it could be considered discrimination since it's a religious thing.. but is it really worth the legal costs?  

[Brass Bell Doll]

xLady Tsukiyox

It's 7:40 am here and I'm going to try and be as coherent as possible.

The whole "brand image" is just an ideal that states that one shouldn't have to be an adult. Dress like an adult, or move forward like an adult. There's a time and place for religion, however at work, and carrying on isn't the time or place. There are certain things you can wear. There are certain things you can't. It's that simple.

Brand Image is a marketing tool, it is a concept that is discussed in advanced economics and is part of Brand Personality. I still do not understand why you called it horse s**t I am afraid.

Brand Personality

The visual ques associated with Brand Personality are Brand Image, and this includes how the employees look.

I can understand how and why some people compartmentalize their spiritual life, their work life, their romantic life, but I feel this is not the right path for everyone. Christians are called to be living witnesses, Jews are called to follow their commandments, Muslims are called to fully submit to Allah, and he is called to maintain the rite of consecration.

xLady Tsukiyox

We don't have "privileges". Wearing religious jewelery isn't a privilege. It's not a right either.

I think we have both privileges and rights- and in terms of the First Amendment and the anti-discrimination laws, wearing of his consecrated jewelry is a right.

xLady Tsukiyox

It's a choice.

I feel that while literally true, this is also misleading. When a choice has consequences that are not acceptable, then while an option, it isn't really a choice. In the same way that someone could choose to shoot a police officer who is trying to write a traffic ticket rather than just pay the fine or appeal it at court, the choice is so unreasonable it isn't a rational option. In the same way, the consequences of breaking his bond are not a rational option for him.

xLady Tsukiyox

Not all muslim women wear hijabs, just like not all Christians wear crosses. It's not mandatory that we should.

I feel there is a problem in communicating the principles behind the rights. In these examples, the people you mention do not believe that those observations are requirements. Because of this, they cannot demand that their rights be protective because it is not held as a sincere part of their faith.

I also feel it is important to note that these religions have degrees of adherence- I have a friend who is Jewish. She eats bacon cheese burgers. In her own words, she's a "Bad Jew", but that doesn't make her not Jewish. If she demanded that her company provided her with kosher meal options at the company picnic, she wouldn't be entitled to that. If her coworker who is a very observant Jew requires it, then it should be granted because to not grant that would be to discriminate against him- it is providing rights (the free food at the picnic) to some and not to others because of their religion.

The Hijab is prescribed in Islam. I think the verse is An-Nur 24:31. In this sense, if a Muslim woman chooses not to wear it, she is choosing to sin. People choose to sin all the time, but I do not feel that a company should compel them to sin if their observance doesn't pose any risk.

xLady Tsukiyox

I mean I'm a pagan, I have to pentacle necklaces, however I do not wear them. Why? Because they serve as more of an aesthetic purpose than a religious one.

I am not familiar with any part of paganism that requires people to wear a pentacle, but even that aside, I feel we have a contradiction here: you're saying you're required but then that the pentacle is a fashion piece, not a religious obligation.
I think this is a major difference between you and him. His is an obligation- an expectation because of the rituals involved.

Because that is a major difference, I feel it is a mistake to compare your situation to his.

xLady Tsukiyox

Not wearing an object of religious jewelery isn't going to send you to hell or whatever. And it's not going to piss off the Gods. -sighs-

Other religions disagree with this, his is one of those religions. I'm having a hard time understanding your reasoning. If it is not mandated in your religion and your relationship between you and your deities, why would that automatically translate to everyone else?

xLady Tsukiyox

Actually with contract law, you can. Private business is very different from the government. In fact it is separate from the government. There are certain rules and regulations that business most follow, however granting everyone religious freedom isn't one of them.

I'm not sure how you come to this conclusion. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensures that religious freedom that does not cause safety risks or undue hardship to the company is protected.

xLady Tsukiyox

It's not discrimination. Nor is it infringement. The employers can make up whatever rules they can for the safety and concern of the employees.

While I agree that safety is one of the conditions under which an accommodation may be denied, I do not feel this means that all reasonable accommodations can be refused. Does this make sense?

xLady Tsukiyox

If your friend was allowed to wear his religious jewelery then his co-workers would probably discriminate him.

I think there is a point of miscommunication here. We seem to be mixing legal jargon with common English. Discrimination as a legal term is not the same as it's use in common English. They may target him for harassment, and if they do, they will be violating the company policy against harassment.

xLady Tsukiyox

It's keeping your friend safe from any discrimination and safe from any danger.

I think from a legal standpoint this is a similar situation that has been covered regarding unsubstantiated hardship. In the past when companies have claimed that an accommodation would cause undue hardship, they had to show this was the case. If an employee is being harassed by other employees because of his religion, the people who are harassing him are creating a "Hostile Work Environment". The reason this is quoted and capitalized is because it is a legal term.

xLady Tsukiyox

If your friend doesn't like the policies then by rights he is allowed to quit, and start up his own business.

While that is a right of his, it is also a right to be accommodated according to the law.

xLady Tsukiyox

Basically, the state cannot make laws regarding religion. They cannot announce a state wide religion, or make it required that everyone has to wear a form of religious jewelery.

The State cannot establish a religion or impose a religious requirement, but that isn't the same as not being able to make laws about religions.

I feel there is a misunderstanding about what the Anti-establishment clause actually means. While it means the State cannot establish officially recognized religions or require religious practice- but that is not the same as being unable to create legislation that concerns religion.

Pagans and the Law by Dana D. Eilers is a very good book on how the Law can apply to religious practices and how it is not applied.

xLady Tsukiyox

There are many different religions in America that clash with many different religions. It's best to keep religion at home for the safety of the employees and employers. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

I disagree. I feel it is better to respect each other and the boundaries we draw- optimizing personal freedoms up to the point when those personal freedoms create an unreasonable situation. Because of this I respect your choice to not wear a pentacle, but I also respect his obligation to wear his jewelry. I respect Christian's right to share their religion, and I respect your right to be left alone by them when you ask. I respect my friend's right to choose to eat that delicious bacon cheese burger, and I respect her coworker's right to be offered something else.

xLady Tsukiyox

No one should have exemptions. When the sabbats came up I never once asked for a day off to worship these days. I did not wear any religious jewelery of any kind. I followed the rules and the dress code. As did several of my co-workers who are Christian, and many of our employees who were of different faiths.

I still do not understand why you feel your situation, and your choices for yourself should be forced on everyone else.

xLady Tsukiyox

Again, it's not discrimination. If everyone has to take off their jewelery religious or not religious, then he has to as well. He should not be given an exemption. In fact no one should be exempt.

I think the law disagrees with you.

xLady Tsukiyox

Well it seems to be that by putting up this fight that he is bragging about his religion. He wants everyone to know that he's a pagan, and that he's being "discriminated".

I feel you have misunderstood the situation. He has only discussed this with his manager and the woman in charge of Human Resources. If they had never asked him to remove it, he would never have mentioned that he was pagan at all.

xLady Tsukiyox

If anything this sounds a little bit more of "I'm being oppressed" syndrome, or throwing out the innocent victim card. Something some Christians like to do when they feel that they are being discriminated against, when in reality they aren't.

While some Christians reactions to criticism is misrepresented by them to be discrimination, legitimate discrimination against Christians does exist- especially in places where they are a religious minority.

I feel that to dismiss all instances of oppression and discrimination because some people cannot tell the difference between criticism and discrimination is not a reasonable line of thought.

xLady Tsukiyox

Actually sins come from Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, although all three have a different concept of sin, that is in a sense where it comes from. Sin is only specific to the Judeo-Christo Islam religions. I have never heard of sins existing outside of the main 3 monotheistic religions. How odd.

If it is of any interest, there is etymology to suggest that the word stems from Old Norse.

However, I feel I addressed this earlier- since I speak English, I used an English word, call the transgression whatever you wish, other religions have the concept of "breaking divine law".

xLady Tsukiyox

Wicca is something different, and I'm assuming your friend is a neo-pagan, not a Wiccan. And again I doubt not wearing a pentacle earring is going to piss off either the Lord of the Isles or even the Lady of the Isles if he were Wiccan.

He is not Wiccan, nor does he claim to be. I listed Wicca as a pagan religion wherein a sin exists and a divine punishment is issued when this takes place.

xLady Tsukiyox

Because normally when people speak of "sins" they have some fear of a deity coming down and hurting them. If this isn't what you meant, then choose a better word than sin. Sin is the bad in life that we commit, and YHVH dislikes sin. It is said that if we sin we are punished.

In his case, sin is a very appropriate word, while I do not know how you have come to your understanding of the word sin, other languages can use sin as a good translation.

xLady Tsukiyox

It isn't that they feel that their spiritual practices aren't worth standing up for. But they understand and comprehend that certain things like paying the bills and feeding their families are better causes than a religion.

I feel this is an unfair line of reasoning. It assumes that you must choose between obeying your gods/observing your faith and meeting your basic needs.

I think the law does not hold this to be the case, since there is legal precedent that shows reasonable accommodations need to be made. I do not feel it is moral to enforce a lack of religion on others anymore than it is moral to force a specific religion on others.

xLady Tsukiyox

A religion cannot feed your family or pay the bills. Why bother fighting for it? Wouldn't it be better to just be glad you get paid? If he really wanted an "accommodation" then he wouldn't be screaming "I'm being discriminated against" like a loon. neutral

I would appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting him with hyperbole. He is not screaming like a loon. He is asking for an accommodation, which by law he is entitled to. He is not making a stink of this, he isn't gossiping around the water cooler or slandering his manager or the HR department.

As for why some feel it is worth fighting for- I imagine the reasons are very personal. I think it is likely that the common thread between them is the feeling that no matter where they are or what they are doing, their religion is an important part of who they are and that the observation is equally important.

xLady Tsukiyox

I'm starting to think that you don't understand what discrimination is. What's going on in his work place isn't discrimination. It's not like he's being told he'll go to hell, going to jail, being burned at the stake, etc. :

I believe the difference is a confusion between the common use of the word and the legal definition. Because of the laws regarding employment, I have been using the legal definition.

I also think that some of your examples do not fit under the concept of discrimination- such as being told he is going to hell, where some of the others would be included- if particularly cruel examples of discrimination.

xLady Tsukiyox

If you don't believe it to be right, then you don't have a concept of what the real world is like. I'm sorry but it's not full of gum drops and sugar cubes. It is a Brofloshki's lar which is Russian I believe it roughly translates to a theive's world. Everyone will do what they can to climb that social or even corporate ladder.

I feel that while the world is not "gum drops and sugar cubes" I also do not have to allow that to excuse the abuses in the world, and because of that, I can take steps to change it. I do not believe it is reasonable to think that because the world has been cruel, it must always be so.

xLady Tsukiyox

And again if your friend feels he's being discriminated against, he can quit his job and start his own business. Where he can make up his own dress code, and his own rules, so he won't be "discriminated". He will be his own boss and won't have to worry about it. :3

While that is an option, there are better options available to him through the law.

Sanguina Cruenta

I think American work laws are weird and crazy, so I'm not going to speak on that issue except to say that I fear for all of you.

I just wanted to comment on the "it's not mandatory to wear religions jewellery if you're a Pagan" thing. I don't know of any specific religion that does require it, but there are any number of oaths and promises, or even spells, that would require you to wear the jewellery 24/7. It doesn't have to be a set requirement of a specific religion in order to be a religious requirement. That is, if you make an oath to a god and represent it with an item of jewellery, it's poor form to take it off when it suits you. If you're representing an oath with that item, the metaphor implies you can take that oath on and off your shoulders when it suits you to do so. That is a requirement, and it is of a religious nature.

This is very true.
The one well documented case of mandatory observance amongst pagans I know of involves Egyptian Pagan tattoos.

Sanguina Cruenta

Having said that, if you have this issue then you should make the choice not to work at a place that would require you to remove it. To draw a parallel here: a few years ago in my country a McDonalds store advertised for weekend staff. A Christian applied for it and got the job. He then said he couldn't work any Sundays because it was a day of rest, and when they wouldn't give them to him he complained about religious discrimination. At which point they fired his a**. If he didn't want to work Sundays, he shouldn't have applied for a part time job that required him to work weekends. Sundays were a shift they needed to cover, Sundays were what they advertised for, and he knew that when they hired him.

While I am not familiar with the legal positions of countries other than the United States, if he had been here in the US, they would have had grounds for firing him for misrepresentation on his application.

In that sense, it makes his position very different from my friends, since my friend has been working there for years without incident.

kage no neko

They have responsibility to uphold the rules and to make sure the workplace is a safe place, and to make sure you get paid (or else they get in trouble for not paying you).

Do you feel part of upholding the rules includes the rule of law?

kage no neko

I don't see it as discrimination if they'd make everyone of all religions remove the listed jewelry.

What makes it discrimination is the lack of accommodation. If you have a company policy that has discrimination written into the contract, and no accommodation is offered to others, then even if the policy doesn't effect most of your employees, not accommodating the ones who are effected is showing preference for those who do not need the accommodation.

I think a good example of this would be a company policy that prohibits any form of head covering- including hats and scarfs. If because of this, your company policy means you cannot hire observant Muslim women, then your hiring policy is discriminatory according to the law.

kage no neko

If it's in his contract, whether the old manager allowed it or not, he still should've followed code. I think it'd be a silly complaint to say "well I've been breaking the dress code this whole time and noone has cared!" 'cause that's just.. building the argument against yourself. I'd be happy I didn't get in trouble sooner.

I feel his position is that because the dress code was not enforced against anyone and he was allowed to wear them, it shows that making an accommodation for him is not a hardship for the company.

kage no neko

And I think contracts work as "you signed it, you follow it" regardless of whether you really read it and understood it or not. You signed it, which basically says you did. It'd be your own fault for falsely signing it.

Because contracts are binding under the law, other aspects of the law govern how contracts can be applied. Amongst these is the inability for an employer to benefit from a contract that has an illegal stipulation, pardon my paraphrase. An example of this is that an employer cannot make an employee sign away their right to be paid the required minimum wage, and in his case, he cannot sign away his right to be free of workplace discrimination.

kage no neko

Sometimes, you HAVE to take the jewelry off.. do gods not know and accept this?

Specific rituals and medical emergencies are the only acceptable cases for him to remove them. This was part of the ritual itself.

kage no neko

A couple weeks ago, my boyfriend had to cut his ring off 'cause it got a little.. too tight. He still has a line from it. While it wasn't any sort of bond to anyone, would they not be willing to accept that as part of human life?

I am afraid it would depend on variables I do not have access to. It is possible he could have consequences, it is possible he could not. It would likely depend on who he was bonded to and the nature of the bond.

kage no neko

And how, especially in this economy, would having to remove jewelry for work be any different?

In this case, it would be different because his rights to wear it are protected.

kage no neko

That paycheck is sustaining his life. If it risks his job, which would affect his life negatively, would they not be willing to understand it?

In this case, inconvenience is not the same as life threatening, and because of that, the line of reasoning would not be spiritually justified.

kage no neko

I mean, couldn't he take the earring(s) off and put them in a pouch or something and keep them in his pocket?

I think because of how the ritual worked, that is not an acceptable alternative.

kage no neko

My boyfriend says you're right, that it could be considered discrimination since it's a religious thing.. but is it really worth the legal costs?

He feels it is worth it.  

[Tirissana]

Sanguina Cruenta

I think American work laws are weird and crazy, so I'm not going to speak on that issue except to say that I fear for all of you.

I just wanted to comment on the "it's not mandatory to wear religions jewellery if you're a Pagan" thing. I don't know of any specific religion that does require it, but there are any number of oaths and promises, or even spells, that would require you to wear the jewellery 24/7. It doesn't have to be a set requirement of a specific religion in order to be a religious requirement. That is, if you make an oath to a god and represent it with an item of jewellery, it's poor form to take it off when it suits you. If you're representing an oath with that item, the metaphor implies you can take that oath on and off your shoulders when it suits you to do so. That is a requirement, and it is of a religious nature.

Having said that, if you have this issue then you should make the choice not to work at a place that would require you to remove it. To draw a parallel here: a few years ago in my country a McDonalds store advertised for weekend staff. A Christian applied for it and got the job. He then said he couldn't work any Sundays because it was a day of rest, and when they wouldn't give them to him he complained about religious discrimination. At which point they fired his a**. If he didn't want to work Sundays, he shouldn't have applied for a part time job that required him to work weekends. Sundays were a shift they needed to cover, Sundays were what they advertised for, and he knew that when they hired him.

Although, it is important to note that discrimination can be subtle. It doesn't have to be name-calling or a firing.

Well he knew that when he applied. We had people who would apply at our agency and we would screen them for a job, and they would tell us oh we can't work on Saturdays and Sundays because of Church. When they put on their application that they can. We had one girl walk out of our office crying...x.x  

[Brass Bell Doll]

xLady Tsukiyox

Well he knew that when he applied. We had people who would apply at our agency and we would screen them for a job, and they would tell us oh we can't work on Saturdays and Sundays because of Church. When they put on their application that they can. We had one girl walk out of our office crying...x.x

I think that if they misrepresent themselves on their application, then that is grounds for termination, but that is not the same as stating upfront that they cannot work on days they have to go to Church, having the company hire them and then refusing to make accommodations for them.

I have another good friend who was denied a regional manager position because he was Jewish and would not work from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. Since his religious obligation was honored when he was hired at an entry level, eventually he was able to demonstrate he was being passed over for promotion based on his religious obligations and he was granted the position.  

[Tirissana]

Okay Brass it seems that you're either not reading what I'm writing or putting words in my mouth. I never once said I am required to wear my pentacles 24/7 a day. I said that as a pagan, I choose not to. Now if I were to make an oath, hypothetically speaking I still would not wear it however I would at least carry that object with me, and wear it when I'm not on my shift. Or at work period. Again trying to fix a copy machine while your necklace is dangling isn't fun.

Christians are also called to be fruitful and multiply or in other words reproduce, however it doesn't mean that you should. Just because you're commanded to do something doesn't mean you have to go through with it. You do have the option to not follow, that's the beauty of free will.

And the First Amendment applies to the government. Private Business owners have their own rules that must be followed. If it does pose a safety violation then you must by right's follow it. Wearing of jewelery isn't a right, that's hogwash. It's a choice. If it were important then he can remove it, hold it in his pocket, and put them back on after work.

Your examples are well..irrelevant There is a difference between the desire to harm someone and wearing a piece of jewelery.

Or your other friend could just deal with it, eat the meal and move on instead of picking a fight and being childish. Unless of course she got a rabbi to bless the food. Or she could also bring her own food if she felt uncomfortable with the selection. neutral

And again you don't have to wear the hijab if you don't want to. Also, hair in of itself can double as a hair covering so I doubt it's a sin..

Again I never stated that I was required to. It seems you are indeed putting words in my mouth. Therefore it's not a contradiction.

If he keeps that piece of jewelery on him, as in his pocket, then I doubt they will be too furious with him.

Except the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't cover jewelery. It does however prohibit an employer to discriminate someone association with a religion, race, natural origins etc. However again if it poses a threat, in accordance to the contract that he signed then he HAS to remove it. What part of this don't you understand?

Except we are talking about legal jargon. Isn't your friend trying to get legal action against this so called discrimination? Maybe re-read your OP?

I don't think that anyone is harassing him. Again if he doesn't like it he should quit. Or better yet be fired for not following the rules and violating a legally binding contract.

No. He would be better suited for starting his own business if he can't follow the rules. I wouldn't want him being a supervisor or running a machine if he can't follow company policy. That's just me.

Actually, it can't. It cannot establish any sort of law concerning religion. Religion is better suited at home. Period. I would tell that to a Christian who try to force their religion on me, as well as a pagan wearing jewelery that would in the future prove to be a safety hazard.

Except we can't respect each other. Again the world is not full of gum drops and sugar cubes. Christianity and the different religions within paganism sometimes just don't get a long. We cannot accommodate everyone. However we can stop an accident from happening and limit worksman's comps claims.

It's common sense. Would you rather be laid off for not following company policy or would you rather want to eat the next few months? How strong is your desire to eat? Do you want to work? It's very simple really.

I think you don't understand what the law deems and are just trying to make a frivolous lawsuit. Which I believe are now prohibited. neutral

Even if he talks to one person, he's still bragging and flaunting it. There would be a person who would ask what the meaning of the earring was. So he would have. neutral

Except this is what it does sound like. It appears you don't know the difference, and again you're making a huge situation out of something so little.

Sin is only relevant in the 3 monotheistic religions. That is where they appear the most. So again, pick another word.

You used the Wiccan claim. I said that it was different. And again sin doesn't neccessarily exist within Wicca. They have a different set of taboos than Christians. Sin again is mutually exclusive to the Judeo-Christo-Islam religions.

Again it's not a very appropriate word. Taboo or transgression are both more appropriate words.

Meeting basic needs a human being, is something most deities understand and are okay with. Some aren't so demanding that you must worship them. They can be very understanding if you give them that chance.

But can the Gods pay your bills for you? Can they feed you? Can they take care you your family?

It's not misinterpreting him. Fine. YOU'RE siting there screaming like a loon. Happy now? And religion shouldn't be more important than living. That is something I do have a very serious problem with. My life is more important than religion. As is eating, and taking care of my family.

Again, we're using the legal definition. You're the one whose friend wants a legal case. So we will use the legal definition. neutral Being told you are going to hell, can be looked as legal discrimination. And the cruel discrimination I listed, actually do happen or have happened in other countries and or also happened in the US in the past. It illustrates how different discrimination has become, and what it isn't.

Except you do feel it is...judging by your posts. It would be better if you and your friend would, forgive the crude saying but,.....reach deep down and grab onto some balls.

Again it is the better option. If he can't follow the basic company policy then he should not by rights have a job. Then again I live in what's known as a right to work state, and he would by rights have been fired, on the spot. And I also worked in a staffing agency. So I do know about Equal Opportunity and the laws concerning work, and your case does not fit it. It does seem like a frivolous lawsuit.  

[Tirissana]

Brass Bell Doll

xLady Tsukiyox

Well he knew that when he applied. We had people who would apply at our agency and we would screen them for a job, and they would tell us oh we can't work on Saturdays and Sundays because of Church. When they put on their application that they can. We had one girl walk out of our office crying...x.x

I think that if they misrepresent themselves on their application, then that is grounds for termination, but that is not the same as stating upfront that they cannot work on days they have to go to Church, having the company hire them and then refusing to make accommodations for them.

I have another good friend who was denied a regional manager position because he was Jewish and would not work from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday. Since his religious obligation was honored when he was hired at an entry level, eventually he was able to demonstrate he was being passed over for promotion based on his religious obligations and he was granted the position.

Because he already stated that he cannot work those days. And that promotion would mean that he would have to work those certain days.

In situations like these it's best to keep quiet about religious worship. If your friend didn't mention it, he would've had a promotion.  

[Brass Bell Doll]

xLady Tsukiyox

Okay Brass it seems that you're either not reading what I'm writing or putting words in my mouth. I never once said I am required to wear my pentacles 24/7 a day. I said that as a pagan, I choose not to.

I'm sorry, I misread your statement: "I mean I'm a pagan, I have to pentacle necklaces, however I do not wear them. " . Instead of reading it as "have two" I read it as "have to wear".

My mistake.

xLady Tsukiyox

Now if I were to make an oath, hypothetically speaking I still would not wear it however I would at least carry that object with me, and wear it when I'm not on my shift. Or at work period. Again trying to fix a copy machine while your necklace is dangling isn't fun.

I feel that if you entered into the oath, and you made an accommodation for carrying the necklace on you, that would be just fine. Unfortunately, this changes the situation so that it is different from my friends in very significant ways- yours allows for you to do something his does not.

xLady Tsukiyox

Christians are also called to be fruitful and multiply or in other words reproduce, however it doesn't mean that you should. Just because you're commanded to do something doesn't mean you have to go through with it. You do have the option to not follow, that's the beauty of free will.

You're correct that people have the option to disobey their gods, and that it is part of free will. However, having an option that has consequences that aren't reasonable isn't the same as having suitable alternatives.

He has numerous options available to him- some of which are so absurd as to be reasonably discounted right off the bat. The realistic options are that he can commit a sin, ask for an accommodation or not ask for one and hopes he isn't fired.

I do not understand why his choice is unreasonable.

xLady Tsukiyox

And the First Amendment applies to the government. Private Business owners have their own rules that must be followed.

While it is true that the First Amendment in word only applies to the government, our legal system, being extremely intertwined has generated case law that discusses the relationship between the First Amendment and private business owners. Diana Scott wrote an article on the interrelationship between employment and the First Amendment.

I feel that our legal system, including employment law and constitutional law is interrelated- each piece shaping the others.

xLady Tsukiyox

If it does pose a safety violation then you must by right's follow it.

If it posed a safety violation, then it would not be considered a reasonable accommodation. Having said that, I feel I have mentioned several times that this has nothing to do with safety, but instead has to do with Brand Image.

xLady Tsukiyox

Wearing of jewelery isn't a right, that's hogwash.

I feel it would be helpful if you could show it is "hogwash". I understand this is your position, but for it not to be a right, we would need to demonstrate that the law does not protect religious piercings in his situation.

I feel my rebuttals are being met without a reasoned response but a reiteration of the position. Could you show me where the law says wearing religious jewelry is not a right?

xLady Tsukiyox

It's a choice. If it were important then he can remove it, hold it in his pocket, and put them back on after work.

Unfortunately the choice is not a reasonable one.

xLady Tsukiyox

Your examples are well..irrelevant There is a difference between the desire to harm someone and wearing a piece of jewelery.

I think in his religion dishonoring his sacrifice is harm, so in that sense, they are the same.


To Amend: Not the same, but the similarity is justified spiritually.

xLady Tsukiyox

Or your other friend could just deal with it, eat the meal and move on instead of picking a fight and being childish. Unless of course she got a rabbi to bless the food. Or she could also bring her own food if she felt uncomfortable with the selection. neutral

I think it would help me if you could explain where you are coming from. Why do you feel that it is acceptable to expect people to commit violations of their religious laws?

In the same sense that you expect him to desecrate himself, and that you expect a Jewish woman to eat prohibited foods- would you expect an Alexandrian Wiccan to break their oaths if you wanted to know the name of the God and Goddess?

xLady Tsukiyox

And again you don't have to wear the hijab if you don't want to.

As I mentioned, I think that people choose to sin, to not submit to Allah. That choice does not make it an acceptable option to those who sincerely believe that the hijab is required.

xLady Tsukiyox

Again I never stated that I was required to. It seems you are indeed putting words in my mouth. Therefore it's not a contradiction.

I admit, I was mistaken. I misread your post and offer my apologies.

xLady Tsukiyox

If he keeps that piece of jewelery on him, as in his pocket, then I doubt they will be too furious with him.

Please pardon my frustration. I feel that you are continually making claims without support for the claim itself. Could you detail exactly which spirits he is working with and a reasoning that would justify how you know how they feel and think about him breaking his word and defiling their bond.

xLady Tsukiyox

Except the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't cover jewelery. It does however prohibit an employer to discriminate someone association with a religion, race, natural origins etc. However again if it poses a threat, in accordance to the contract that he signed then he HAS to remove it. What part of this don't you understand?

Please do me the courtesy of not speaking down to me with rhetorical questions.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers religious discrimination. Precedent has been set that shows accommodations that do not cause a hostile work environment, do not harm the financial well being of the company and do not pose a safety threat need to be made as long as the faith is sincere.

xLady Tsukiyox

Except we are talking about legal jargon. Isn't your friend trying to get legal action against this so called discrimination? Maybe re-read your OP?

I feel there is a misunderstanding here. I am well aware that I am using legal jargon. I feel that some of your examples confuse the legal use of the terms with the common use of the terms.

xLady Tsukiyox

I don't think that anyone is harassing him. Again if he doesn't like it he should quit. Or better yet be fired for not following the rules and violating a legally binding contract.

Currently he is not being harassed. I agree, and I did not intend to imply he was being harassed. I was under the impression that you suggested that he would be harassed if he continued to stand up for himself- I gathered this impression from your suggestion that removing his jewelry would prevent "discrimination" from his coworkers.

xLady Tsukiyox

No. He would be better suited for starting his own business if he can't follow the rules. I wouldn't want him being a supervisor or running a machine if he can't follow company policy. That's just me.

I feel that personal opinions that are formed because someone is standing up for what the law assures him is a right should not be used as a measure for disqualification. He is not in a position to start his own business. Maybe next year when he completes his degree and his certification he may do that, but since the law says his accommodation is reasonable, I do not see why he should be expected to do so.

I also feel that blindly following rules that are in violation of the law is not a merit. If someone is in your position, where you make a personal choice, I can respect that. But I feel that to allow social pressures to make that choice for you is not the same thing.

xLady Tsukiyox

Actually, it can't. It cannot establish any sort of law concerning religion.

I do not feel this is the case. Because of this, there are whole books that discus religion and the Law. I noted one such book above. It has case law that discusses the law's relationship towards pagans.

I linked to a case that discussed religious rights and the obligation of employers.

I am afraid that in light of these texts and links that show the relationship between laws that have been made and religion, saying that it cannot be done does not have much in the way of support.

xLady Tsukiyox

Religion is better suited at home. Period.

I disagree. I feel that a healthy religious life is best determined by each person- and because of this, I feel that mutual respect for the boundaries we set should be observed and that we should maximize personal freedoms as long as they do not harm other people.

xLady Tsukiyox

I would tell that to a Christian who try to force their religion on me, as well as a pagan wearing jewelery that would in the future prove to be a safety hazard.

I feel a Christian should respect your wish to end the conversation. I also feel that a genuine threat to safety should be respected.

In the case of a business, if the business would suffer, I think that a compromise should be made.

xLady Tsukiyox

Except we can't respect each other. Again the world is not full of gum drops and sugar cubes. Christianity and the different religions within paganism sometimes just don't get a long. We cannot accommodate everyone.

You are correct that there are people who cannot and will not respect one another. For that, we have the law to protect those who have their rights violated or denied. I have been using the term reasonable accommodation because it is a legal term. Reasonable is qualified: it means it cannot pose a safety threat, it cannot disrupt the business' ability to function and it cannot infringe on the rights of others.

xLady Tsukiyox

However we can stop an accident from happening and limit worksman's comps claims.

I reiterate, this is not an issue of safety, but an issue of how the company wishes people to perceive it.

xLady Tsukiyox

It's common sense. Would you rather be laid off for not following company policy or would you rather want to eat the next few months? How strong is your desire to eat? Do you want to work? It's very simple really.

I do not feel the situation you described is fair. It offers only two options. Work in a situation that violates the law or starve.

The third option is to ask for an accommodation from the employer that is provided for under the law.

xLady Tsukiyox

I think you don't understand what the law deems and are just trying to make a frivolous lawsuit.

Could you provide your reasoning for this? There is case law that is almost identical wherein a pagan was found that he had the right to an accommodation for his body modification.

I think that frivolous lawsuits are only frivolous when there is no grounds for the suit to be filed, the existence of case law would show that there is grounds for a suit to be filed.

Having said all that, I think it is important to remember that we do not want to have to file a legal case. We would rather have an accommodation made for him without involving the legal system.

xLady Tsukiyox

Even if he talks to one person, he's still bragging and flaunting it. There would be a person who would ask what the meaning of the earring was. So he would have. neutral

He was not bragging nor flaunting it.

Please do not misrepresent him again. He explained his position to his manager. He was brought to Human Resources by his manager where he explained his position again. This is neither bragging, nor flaunting, but complying with his employers requirements and taking the steps needed for him to be granted an accommodation.

xLady Tsukiyox

Except this is what it does sound like. It appears you don't know the difference, and again you're making a huge situation out of something so little.

I'm sorry, I wasn't able to follow this statement in order to address it.

Could you clarify it for me please?

xLady Tsukiyox

Sin is only relevant in the 3 monotheistic religions. That is where they appear the most. So again, pick another word.

Sin appears to be used in English translations to address a concept in Shinto, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions besides the monotheistic religions. It does not originate in the languages of the religions you mentioned- if we applied that reasoning, those religions should be using the Hebrew word, not the word sin.

xLady Tsukiyox

You used the Wiccan claim. I said that it was different. And again sin doesn't neccessarily exist within Wicca. They have a different set of taboos than Christians. Sin again is mutually exclusive to the Judeo-Christo-Islam religions.

I mentioned before, I do not really care what it is called. Taboo works as well. I choose to use the word sin because it makes as much sense as any other word.

It would help convince me if you could show that the term sin is exclusive to Middle Eastern Monotheistic religions. In looking at the dictionary definition, the etymology and the translations of other religious texts, I'm not convinced it is.

xLady Tsukiyox

Meeting basic needs a human being, is something most deities understand and are okay with. Some aren't so demanding that you must worship them. They can be very understanding if you give them that chance.

I do not feel this generalization applies to him. He is convinced it does not, and there is nothing about seeking an accommodation that would mean he could not meet his basic needs.

xLady Tsukiyox

But can the Gods pay your bills for you? Can they feed you? Can they take care you your family?

I feel this another misinterpretation of the situation, since it assumes there are no alternatives to starvation or worship.

xLady Tsukiyox

It's not misinterpreting him. Fine. YOU'RE siting there screaming like a loon. Happy now?

I feel this is uncalled for and I would like an apology. I have not called you names, or used rhetorical questions to talk down to you. I have asked sincere questions and provided support for my reasoning. I have maintained an even and polite tone through my posts despite my mounting frustration.

xLady Tsukiyox

And religion shouldn't be more important than living. That is something I do have a very serious problem with. My life is more important than religion. As is eating, and taking care of my family.

I can respect your choices. I am not condemning you for them, but I also feel that your position is ignoring reasonable options.

xLady Tsukiyox

Again, we're using the legal definition. You're the one whose friend wants a legal case. So we will use the legal definition. neutral Being told you are going to hell, can be looked as legal discrimination.

Being told you are going to hell once would not be discrimination. If it was a repeated action that created a hostile work environment, then it would be discrimination. For my mistake in my wording, I apologize.

xLady Tsukiyox

And the cruel discrimination I listed, actually do happen or have happened in other countries and or also happened in the US in the past. It illustrates how different discrimination has become, and what it isn't

As was pointed out earlier, discrimination can be subtle.

xLady Tsukiyox

Except you do feel it is...judging by your posts. It would be better if you and your friend would, forgive the crude saying but,.....reach deep down and grab onto some balls.

I'm sorry, but I'm a little confused by the lack of context. I also feel that your tone is impolite and for my mistakes that caused you frustration, I apologize. I would in turn like to continue this conversation with civility please.

xLady Tsukiyox

Again it is the better option. If he can't follow the basic company policy then he should not by rights have a job.

By this reasoning, an employer could say that part of their dress code is that all employees have to have a certain complexion. In cases where the discrimination is obvious, we do not need the law to comment. Religious discrimination and the rights we have as employees are more complex.

xLady Tsukiyox

Then again I live in what's known as a right to work state, and he would by rights have been fired, on the spot. And I also worked in a staffing agency. So I do know about Equal Opportunity and the laws concerning work, and your case does not fit it. It does seem like a frivolous lawsuit.

While I respect your experience by working in a staffing agency, I feel that it does not provide enough exposure to the law to make your position informed enough to stand by it's own authority.

EEOC Case

Above is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's website. It is a federal government agency that explores and protects employee's rights.

This outlines a suit where a dress code violation was over ruled in favor of the religious rights of the employee.

xLady Tsukiyox

Because he already stated that he cannot work those days. And that promotion would mean that he would have to work those certain days.

In situations like these it's best to keep quiet about religious worship. If your friend didn't mention it, he would've had a promotion.

If my friend did not mention it, his refusal to sin would have continually disqualified him from the position. By explaining why he could not work, he was granted an accommodation.  

[kage no neko]

Brass Bell Doll

kage no neko

They have responsibility to uphold the rules and to make sure the workplace is a safe place, and to make sure you get paid (or else they get in trouble for not paying you).

Do you feel part of upholding the rules includes the rule of law?

I don't feel the law should cover something like that. Some of the jobs I've applied to, they say that you must be able to cover all tattoos and take out all piercings for the job. If his job was like this, he took it anyway.. then went and got something against the dress code which would be sin to remove, then I feel that was a poor choice on his part. He is an employee of the company, a representative. He is someone that customers interact with, and the company may feel that something like piercings or tattoos aren't professional looking and give them a bad image, and I feel that the company should be able to preserve it's image with a dress code that employees must be required to follow.

Brass Bell Doll

kage no neko

I don't see it as discrimination if they'd make everyone of all religions remove the listed jewelry.

What makes it discrimination is the lack of accommodation. If you have a company policy that has discrimination written into the contract, and no accommodation is offered to others, then even if the policy doesn't effect most of your employees, not accommodating the ones who are effected is showing preference for those who do not need the accommodation.

I think a good example of this would be a company policy that prohibits any form of head covering- including hats and scarfs. If because of this, your company policy means you cannot hire observant Muslim women, then your hiring policy is discriminatory according to the law.

I don't feel this requires an accommodation. When I read "are you able to do the job with or without reasonable accommodation" I think "if I need help lifting this 50 lb bag of seed, if someone will assist me will I continue the job" or "if I broke my leg and needed a wheelchair, would a different job that I could do be provided to me". I don't think anything about them saying "okay, sure, we'll let YOU wear a necklace because your religious states you NEED it, but noone else because their religions don't require it, even though they'd like to".
I can understand scarfs (especially with cancer patients who just lost their hair), but I don't have any problem whatsoever with banning hats.

Brass Bell Doll

kage no neko

If it's in his contract, whether the old manager allowed it or not, he still should've followed code. I think it'd be a silly complaint to say "well I've been breaking the dress code this whole time and noone has cared!" 'cause that's just.. building the argument against yourself. I'd be happy I didn't get in trouble sooner.

I feel his position is that because the dress code was not enforced against anyone and he was allowed to wear them, it shows that making an accommodation for him is not a hardship for the company.

Then the old manager was at fault, and the company itself shouldn't be to blame. Your friend was aware of the rules, and that they were being bent, and went along with it. It's not the company's fault that he was breaking rules and that someone else was allowing it, and now a new manager is making sure they follow the rules. That'd be like working at a fast food place, not sweeping the floor properly 'cause your manager doesn't care, and another manager firing you for not doing your job properly. I mean, one manager didn't care, so you should be upset at the company instead of having followed the rules from the beginning, like you should've?

Brass Bell Doll

kage no neko

And I think contracts work as "you signed it, you follow it" regardless of whether you really read it and understood it or not. You signed it, which basically says you did. It'd be your own fault for falsely signing it.

Because contracts are binding under the law, other aspects of the law govern how contracts can be applied. Amongst these is the inability for an employer to benefit from a contract that has an illegal stipulation, pardon my paraphrase. An example of this is that an employer cannot make an employee sign away their right to be paid the required minimum wage, and in his case, he cannot sign away his right to be free of workplace discrimination.

Perhaps I don't understand this. How would the right to religion be upheld in a workplace, that'd basically break the rules of the company? Does that mean that the company itself has no rights to maintain itself properly or else risk discriminating against someone?

Brass Bell Doll

kage no neko

Sometimes, you HAVE to take the jewelry off.. do gods not know and accept this?

Specific rituals and medical emergencies are the only acceptable cases for him to remove them. This was part of the ritual itself.

Ah. Well, that's at least a little reasonable.. I guess.

Brass Bell Doll

kage no neko

A couple weeks ago, my boyfriend had to cut his ring off 'cause it got a little.. too tight. He still has a line from it. While it wasn't any sort of bond to anyone, would they not be willing to accept that as part of human life?

I am afraid it would depend on variables I do not have access to. It is possible he could have consequences, it is possible he could not. It would likely depend on who he was bonded to and the nature of the bond.

Then I suggest he ask who he's bonded to if it'd be okay for the deity to accommodate him while he straightens out the situation with work?

Brass Bell Doll

kage no neko

And how, especially in this economy, would having to remove jewelry for work be any different?

In this case, it would be different because his rights to wear it are protected.

I realize this is repetitive from something I responded to further up, but does that mean that the company's right to establish a dress code is broken any time someone says "I have the right to wear this because of my religion"? and not at all be able to do anything about it or else fear being sued?

Brass Bell Doll

kage no neko

That paycheck is sustaining his life. If it risks his job, which would affect his life negatively, would they not be willing to understand it?

In this case, inconvenience is not the same as life threatening, and because of that, the line of reasoning would not be spiritually justified.

I'd call going homeless and not being able to afford to eat "life threatening". neutral

Brass Bell Doll

kage no neko

I mean, couldn't he take the earring(s) off and put them in a pouch or something and keep them in his pocket?

I think because of how the ritual worked, that is not an acceptable alternative.

So he has to have them IN at all times, not just on him? Blah. Too strict for me. xd

Brass Bell Doll

kage no neko

My boyfriend says you're right, that it could be considered discrimination since it's a religious thing.. but is it really worth the legal costs?

He feels it is worth it.

Then good luck to him.


And I think you're amazing at how you can keep such a level tone (at least how I interpret it) in arguments. smile  

[Sanguina Cruenta]

This could be its own topic, but, on religion vs jobs:

Personally I'd rather be Tru to my gods and be unemployed than working somewhere where I would be required to forsake religious practices, break oaths, betray my deities or act counter to my higher ideals.

I'd also ask my gods to help me find a job that was appropriate. It is a fair request and I would expect that they would help.