The First Amendment and the Workplace

[Brass Bell Doll]

Yanueh

Discrimination from who, exactly? Laws that happen to catch your religion in the crossfire is not discrimination. Discrimination would be making a law that specifically targets religion.

In this case, the law is protecting people from discrimination in the private sector.
For example, the right to refuse service to people with a certain skin color is not the same as the right to refuse service to someone who negatively effects your ability to work. Because of this, laws have cropped up that reflect rights granted to people through the Constitution.

Yanueh

It's in the First Amendment, not the Constitution itself.

I used the term Constitution because the Amendments, including the Bill of Rights, are Amendments to the US Constitution. I apologize if my wording was confusing.

Yanueh

Either way, let's take a look at the text.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

The use of the word "respecting" in the First Amendment means "concerning" or "in regards to." In other words, "Congress shall make no law in regard to an establishment of religion." If you make a law that grants the religious special rights, that's making a law in regard to a religion, isn't it?

That would be the case if the law granted special rights to a specific religion. Having said that, the Law also acknowledges that commentary and decisions made that apply equally to religious and non-religious peoples can be made without "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity".

I feel there is also a misunderstanding about the interrelationship between Constitutional Law and the laws we are speaking of. While Congress passes amendments to our Constitution, it is the Court's duty to interpret those laws in a way that does not undermine the principles of our country or the spirit of our government and it's ideals.

Because of this, the US Constitution is not in a vacuum. Without understanding the case law, which I have been providing, we cannot understand Constitutional Law- because we only would see the principle devoid of how it effects our rights as citizens. I feel that for your side of the argument to sway me, you would have to demonstrate that case law supports the right of an employer to discriminate based on people's religions.

Yanueh

The FA does not say "a religion."

The legal application of the First Amendment requires a deeper understanding of the principles than are recorded in the document itself. This is why I quoted the decision of the Lemon case earlier. The establishment of religion has a very specific meaning.

Yanueh

It just says "religion." If you allow the religious a right, then the non-religious should be allowed that same right.

And groups that fall under the scope of religious discussion, such as Secular Humanism are entitled to the same protection a Catholic or a Pagan would be. Because of this, the laws protecting people from religious discrimination are Constitutional.

I feel I have demonstrated this several times by showing the court decisions and the case law. If you can show me later decisions that have struck down those rulings, it would go a long way towards changing my understanding of the law.

Yanueh

It's the same in the sense that you belong to a distinct group that holds certain ideas and philosophies.

Unfortunately, being a democrat does not ensure that you hold a certain set of ideas and philosophies. Some are democrats because their independent groups which are far closer to their actual political ideas are not viable in a two party system.

Yanueh

Either way, since the boss in question is not a member of Congress trying to make a law violating your friend's religion, I believe what he needs to do is file a complaint of violation of Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

I have not claimed he is a member of Congress. What I have shown in the previous pages is that the interpretation of the First Amendment has, through case law and legal discourse in nationally published law journals, taken a foothold in the private sector.

Having said that, it is not a Title III violation. It is a Title VII violation since it specifically addresses employment discrimination.  

[rmcdra]

@xLady Tsukiyox
I'll retract my comment about your comments being bigoted.

I will say instead that your comments seem to suggest a lack of sympathy toward those that cannot "keep their religion in the home"; demonstrate a poor understanding of what reasonable accommodation and undue hardship are in regards to EEOC guidelines; demonstrate a poor understanding of business terminology such as Brand Image in regards to a company; and seem to suggest a favoritism toward irreligious individuals.

@Brass Bell Doll
If Brand Image is the issue at hand, could not covering up the piercing be a reasonable accommodation. Since it is rather unobtrusive, as you have described, could he just wear a bandage or some sort of head covering that covers the piercing so it is not seen by customers, thus preserving the Brand Image of the hotel, and allowing him to keep his oaths honored?  

[Brass Bell Doll]

rmcdra

and seem to suggest a favoritism toward irreligious individuals.

Do you feel that this kind of favoritism could be equally considered as bias?

rmcdra

@Brass Bell Doll
If Brand Image is the issue at hand, could not covering up the piercing be a reasonable accommodation. Since it is rather unobtrusive, as you have described, could he just wear a bandage or some sort of head covering that covers the piercing so it is not seen by customers, thus preserving the Brand Image of the hotel, and allowing him to keep his oaths honored?

While that is a reasonable spiritual accommodation, it seems physically impractical.

An analogy I would make would be asking a Muslim woman to hide the fact she is wearing a hijab by wearing a motorcycle helmet. It will cover the hijab, it is far more attention drawing than a simple scarf- if we ignore the physical impracticalities of working with such a helmet.  

[rmcdra]

Brass Bell Doll

rmcdra

and seem to suggest a favoritism toward irreligious individuals.

Do you feel that this kind of favoritism could be equally considered as bias?

I choose to with hold my comment regarding this because either answer would pass judgment that I am in an agnostic position concerning that

Quote:

While that is a reasonable spiritual accommodation, it seems physically impractical.

While it may seem physically impractical it would still hide the piercing and if anyone asked about it he could pass it off as an injury of some kind (thus avoiding his religion from interfering with his work and avoid painting the company in a negative light). It would depend on how willing/unwilling the company is to compromise with him regarding the Brand Image that the hotel is wanting to maintain. This might be a reasonable accommodation that would work with the company if no other solution can be arrived at.

Quote:

An analogy I would make would be asking a Muslim woman to hide the fact she is wearing a hijab by wearing a motorcycle helmet. It will cover the hijab, it is far more attention drawing than a simple scarf- if we ignore the physical impracticalities of working with such a helmet.

Actually no you are comparing apples to oranges regarding this. A better analogy would be if someone had a tattoo in a noticeable area and used a bandage or some other reasonable clothing to cover the marking.  

[rmcdra]

... Okay why is editing and deleting posts disabled?nvm  

[Brass Bell Doll]

rmcdra

I choose to with hold my comment regarding this because either answer would pass judgment that I am in an agnostic position concerning that

That is fair.

I feel that when we favor one group to the point where we would disadvantage another for not being like the first, there is bias. Because of this, in situations where we expect others to disregard their own concerns and act as we would if they were us, we engage in bias.

The alternative being that in a situation where no hardship is experienced because of someone's differences, we should maximize the personal liberties and allow others to do as they feel is right.

rmcdra

While it may seem physically impractical it would still hide the piercing and if anyone asked about it he could pass it off as an injury of some kind (thus avoiding his religion from interfering with his work and avoid painting the company in a negative light).

I understand without you seeing the piercings themselves why you would draw that conclusion. Having seen them, to cover it with a bandage would end up looking much stranger than just leaving them.

rmcdra

It would depend on how willing/unwilling the company is to compromise with him regarding the Brand Image that the hotel is wanting to maintain. This might be a reasonable accommodation that would work with the company if no other solution can be arrived at.

I agree, from a legal perspective this may be a valid compromise. I also think that if someone ended up having a half inch of bandage wrapped around both ears, it would be odd enough to make it not worth it.

rmcdra

Actually no you are comparing apples to oranges regarding this. A better analogy would be if someone had a tattoo in a noticeable area and used a bandage or some other reasonable clothing to cover the marking.

I do not think that is a fair analogy because the positioning of a bandage on the skin makes sense- whereas applying the bandage to his ears in a way that would effectively conceal his jewelry would be visually unexpected to the point of my earlier analogy.

It is a Pinna piercing fitted with a bar much like this one.

To conceal it with a bandage your would have to either bandage his ear to his head, or place a small bandage around the front and then wrap a bandage around the bar in the back.

I did realize one issue with the bandage idea however. His job is active enough that he is likely to sweat the bandages off, adding another layer of complication that would serve neither party.  

[solemnsockmonkey]

Yanueh

kage no neko

Why would it apply only to the government?

Because that's the way it was designed to work.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights specifically lay out the rules and rights of the federal government and in some cases, what falls to the state governments. However, they are such a part of the fabric of our society, that we as citizens feel they should extend elsewhere.This is where all the tension begins.

Sorry for not reading the full thread, but has the OP contacted her state or local ACLU? Many branches have handled issues regarding religious emblems at school and work and might be able to offer some guidance.

If jewelry is barred for safety reasons, your friend probably doesn't have much of an argument. I worked around machinery in one job, and you absolutely could NOT wear necklaces, even chokers. One person did get injured when her necklace caught in the machine and it was, as I recall being told, a cross necklace. She had it tucked into her bra but it came out and caught in a roller on a machine. It snapped, but it cut her neck pretty badly and of course, broke an expensive machine and affected business costs and production.

But there are always ways to make accommodations. The ACLU might be able to help with suggestions, etc...  

[Brass Bell Doll]

solemnsockmonkey

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights specifically lay out the rules and rights of the federal government and in some cases, what falls to the state governments. However, they are such a part of the fabric of our society, that we as citizens feel they should extend elsewhere.This is where all the tension begins.

I feel this was the beginning of the process, but that since it's inception, enough commentary has been made by the courts that there is a well reasoned argument to suggest that they have been woven into our daily lives through case precedent.

I offer this clarification because in reading your response, it seems like it is your position that this has not happened yet. If my post is merely an agreement and thus redundant, I apologize.

solemnsockmonkey

Sorry for not reading the full thread, but has the OP contacted her state or local ACLU? Many branches have handled issues regarding religious emblems at school and work and might be able to offer some guidance.

I skipped the ACLU and went directly to the EEOC. I feel given the case law in my state I was simply cutting out the middle man, but thank you for your suggestion.

solemnsockmonkey

If jewelry is barred for safety reasons, your friend probably doesn't have much of an argument.

As has been mentioned before, it is for reasons dealing with Brand Image, not safety.  

[ncsweet]

*casts phoenix down*

Don't know if there was any resolution to all of this, but I was posting in another guild about this and it occurred to me that (if he's still having issues), it might be worth it for him to contact these people - if nothing else at least for some advice.

A girl was recently suspended from school for having piercings that went against the schools dress code. They filed a lawsuit, claiming religious exemption because she and her mom were members of the Church of Body Modification.