4 ms·

what is bothering me in all such cases is the emphasis of the religious grounds for the things like long hair. It sounds like a guy insisting on long hair beca

what is bothering me in all such cases is the emphasis of the religious grounds for the things like long hair. It sounds like a guy insisting on long hair because of religion would have more "right" for it than one who'd just happen to prefer his hair long. Why such preferential treatment of religion?

joshuacc 16y ago
"It sounds like a guy insisting on long hair because of religion would have more "right" for it than one who'd just happen to prefer his hair long." That is correct. For instance, during Prohibition in the United States, use of wine in communion services was permitted, despite its illegality elsewhere. Basically, society has judged that deeply held religious beliefs are more worthy of protection than mere personal preferences.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >Basically, society has judged that deeply held religious beliefs are more worthy of protection than mere personal preferences. Sounds like a deep religious belief which have no written support in the current laws or the Constitution of USA. Of course there are successful cases of lobbying for a privilege like the one you mentioned - an especially funny one considering that the churches were the main driving force behind the Prohibition, yet carved out an exception for themselves.
  - joshuacc 16y ago
    "Sounds like a deep religious belief which have no written support in the current laws or the Constitution of USA." Actually, the US Constitution prevents the government from establishing an official religion or from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Federal law extends this protection of religion into the commercial sphere by preventing employers from discriminating on the basis of religion (unless it is a religious organization, or the employee's religion would somehow interfere with the job). "an especially funny one considering that the churches were the main driving force behind the Prohibition, yet carved out an exception for themselves." Prohibition is an interesting case, as it was actually one religious group (low-church Protestants) lobbying for it over the objections of another (Catholics and some high-church Protestants).
    - VladRussian 16y ago
      yes, the law prevents anybody from interfering into your personal religious beliefs or from making various economic, social, political, etc... decisions based on your religion. Ie. you're guaranteed to have the same rights as anybody else. Nothing in the law guarantees you preferential treatment or more rights just because of your religious beliefs or practice.
      - joshuacc 16y ago
        That's not the case. As a matter of law, actions undertaken for religious reasons are more protected than actions undertaken for mere personal preference. You may disagree with this approach, but that's a different question.
tptacek 16y ago
Because it is a violation of federal law to discriminate against a candidate for employment over race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That this suggests hairstyle requirements in dress codes are a complete waste of time is a valid but orthogonal point.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  in this case the guy was clearly discriminated over his long hairs, not over his religion. The employer would presumably do the same to any long haired guy.
  - joshuacc 16y ago
    His hairstyle is part of his religious practice. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafarianism#Locks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafarianism#Locks
    - VladRussian 16y ago
      where is in the law it is said that you must accommodate and bent over to whatever quirk/fantasy my pastor/guru can come up with? Lets say there are 2 guys - one with long hair as personal preference, another - as part of religious practice. The company would fire the number #1 because he doesn't follow the dress code, yet coudlnt' fire #2 because of religion. Is this what the law provides for?
      - joshuacc 16y ago
        Yes, this is what the law provides for. See the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidelines: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359518 http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359518 -- A religious accommodation claim is distinct from a disparate treatment claim, in which the question is whether employees are treated equally. An individual alleging denial of religious accommodation is seeking an adjustment to a neutral work rule that infringes on the employee’s ability to practice his religion. The accommodation requirement is “plainly intended to relieve individuals of the burden of choosing between their jobs and their religious convictions, where such relief will not unduly burden others.”[118]

joshuacc 16y ago

"It sounds like a guy insisting on long hair because of religion would have more "right" for it than one who'd just happen to prefer his hair long." That is correct. For instance, during Prohibition in the United States, use of wine in communion services was permitted, despite its illegality elsewhere. Basically, society has judged that deeply held religious beliefs are more worthy of protection than mere personal preferences.

VladRussian 16y ago
>Basically, society has judged that deeply held religious beliefs are more worthy of protection than mere personal preferences. Sounds like a deep religious belief which have no written support in the current laws or the Constitution of USA. Of course there are successful cases of lobbying for a privilege like the one you mentioned - an especially funny one considering that the churches were the main driving force behind the Prohibition, yet carved out an exception for themselves.
- joshuacc 16y ago
  "Sounds like a deep religious belief which have no written support in the current laws or the Constitution of USA." Actually, the US Constitution prevents the government from establishing an official religion or from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Federal law extends this protection of religion into the commercial sphere by preventing employers from discriminating on the basis of religion (unless it is a religious organization, or the employee's religion would somehow interfere with the job). "an especially funny one considering that the churches were the main driving force behind the Prohibition, yet carved out an exception for themselves." Prohibition is an interesting case, as it was actually one religious group (low-church Protestants) lobbying for it over the objections of another (Catholics and some high-church Protestants).
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    yes, the law prevents anybody from interfering into your personal religious beliefs or from making various economic, social, political, etc... decisions based on your religion. Ie. you're guaranteed to have the same rights as anybody else. Nothing in the law guarantees you preferential treatment or more rights just because of your religious beliefs or practice.
    - joshuacc 16y ago
      That's not the case. As a matter of law, actions undertaken for religious reasons are more protected than actions undertaken for mere personal preference. You may disagree with this approach, but that's a different question.

tptacek 16y ago

Because it is a violation of federal law to discriminate against a candidate for employment over race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That this suggests hairstyle requirements in dress codes are a complete waste of time is a valid but orthogonal point.

VladRussian 16y ago
in this case the guy was clearly discriminated over his long hairs, not over his religion. The employer would presumably do the same to any long haired guy.
- joshuacc 16y ago
  His hairstyle is part of his religious practice. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafarianism#Locks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rastafarianism#Locks
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    where is in the law it is said that you must accommodate and bent over to whatever quirk/fantasy my pastor/guru can come up with? Lets say there are 2 guys - one with long hair as personal preference, another - as part of religious practice. The company would fire the number #1 because he doesn't follow the dress code, yet coudlnt' fire #2 because of religion. Is this what the law provides for?
    - joshuacc 16y ago
      Yes, this is what the law provides for. See the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's guidelines: http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359518 http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359518 -- A religious accommodation claim is distinct from a disparate treatment claim, in which the question is whether employees are treated equally. An individual alleging denial of religious accommodation is seeking an adjustment to a neutral work rule that infringes on the employee’s ability to practice his religion. The accommodation requirement is “plainly intended to relieve individuals of the burden of choosing between their jobs and their religious convictions, where such relief will not unduly burden others.”[118]