I remember a related issue while I was waiting tables - men shaving and women wearing makeup. The management's argument was that, in a sense, we were all actors, and not dressing (and shaving and putting on makeup) the part ruins the customers 'experience'. All the retails a stage?

Yes, the business owners make the decision that their business will only sell halal or kosher (or whatever meat), not the employees. If I were an Orthodox Jew and worked the meat counter at Safeway, I wouldn't be enitlted to make that call as an employee.

If you were an orthdox jew, maybe you shouldn't be applying to be a butcher in a nonkosher shop.

the jurisprudence of the religion clause of the first amendment is totally inconsistent in its handling of what the supreme court calls "accomodation" of religious exercise. free exercise is one part of the religion clause (the other being establishment) which prohibits the state from interfering in religious activities. however, this principle has been limited by the court. generally in a case such as this the court will look to history and traditions of the practice in question in an attempt to avoid getting into the discussion of the merits of the practice, thereby making a value judgment. the court wants to be neutral toward accomodation of religious practice. of course, it is impossible for the court to avoid making value judgments, as you may expect. what they try to do is determine if they are looking at a belief, which is to be strictly protected under the free exercise clause or some degree of practice which gets a lesser degree of scrutinty because there are competing interests at play - in this case the interest of the store to require that its employees adhere to a dress code. the store may not tell the employee that she can not follow the directives of her faith, but it may require her to conform to its needs. it seems that the store gave her some measure of reasonable opportunity to accomodate her beliefs. so, they weren't really discriminating against her unlawfully based on her religious beliefs; they just exercised their option not to accomodate this particular aspect of her religous exercise. see Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). very long story short - the store may get in the way of the exercise of her religion as long as it is not doing it for religious reasons. the store is saying that its not because of her religion that they are firing her, but becuase she won't adhere to their neutral dress code which applies to all employees. a problem would arrise if the dress code itself was religiously motivated, but it doesn't seem likely that it is. finally, does the store have a rational reason for imposing the dress code? sure, uniformity, a disciplined staff, easily identifiable employees, etc.

is the court inconsistent in applying accomodation doctrine? yup.

sorry for the long response.

I would think that a person with strict religious views on things like food wouldnt even work at a place where they were required to sell something that isnt part of thier views. If I dont believe in free access to handguns, why would I work at a guns and ammo shop? See what I'm getting at?

BTW, I have many times been served by and worked with Rastafarians, Arabs, Sikhs etc. and the fact is that thier acoutrements are a part of thier religious garb, not a fashion statement. They are required by thier culture to wear those items of clothing or hairstyle.That is the difference. If a company wants thier employees to wear a certain uniform or look a certain way as part of the job (with exceptions for reasons above) then its really thier call. And they are entitled to that.

No, that was excellent. I'm very grateful to you.

You're absolutely right that it's easier to fire someone in the US than in the UK and indeed in most of the rest of the industrialized world. US employment law is very fundamentally rooted in the notion of employment at will. The fiction is that either party to an employment contract is free to enter into or terminate the contract whenever they want for whatever reason. If you're not in a union (and, according to the Department of Labor, less than 10% of private sector employees are) and you're terminated, you are generally SOL. That's because, while the US has admirable laws on the books prohibiting workplace discrimination, termination of whistleblowers, etc., it is very difficult to prove that you were fired for a prohibited reason rather than as part of the employer's prerogative to kick you to the curb whenever he wants.

Of course, employers will tell you that US employment discrimination laws are actually too strict, as evidenced by the fact that so many employment discrimination lawsuits are filed that they make up something like 10-15% of the caseload in US federal courts. But plaintiffs are successful in an astonishingly small number of these cases. First of all, only about 2% of federal civil cases go to trial (yes, some settle, even on terms favorable to the plaintiff, but most are dismissed). Of these, the employee prevails in only about 30% of the cases (much less than other types of civil cases), and, most significantly, of the cases in which employees win at trial, 44% are reversed on appeal, according to this study, the result of which are definitely in keeping with anecdotal evidence about the federal courts (where by far most employment discrimination cases go). So, unless you are the victim of very blatant discrimination and you are lucky enough to have been able to document that discrimination, the cards are very much stacked against you as an employee fired in the US. Of course, they're even more stacked against you if you say you were fired b/c you belong to a made-up church.

it is discriminating to JUDGE was my point,and some places have thier rules,of course you would be sent home if your tits were hanging out,thats fine,but it is pretty sad someone is deemed undesirable because they have a fucking eyebrow pierced

Wow, good answer. Thanks!

I don't think the first amendment is in play here. There's no state action.

Yes, that was an excellent, and scary, answer.

the first amendment applies to states and private actors via the 14th amendment.

as does the rest of the bill of rights.

[Edited on Dec 14, 2004 by dead_ringer]

states yes, private actors no. that includes the first amendment.

my bad; you're right. title VII applies to private actors.