But the hows and whys make all the difference. Look at the two cases:
Case 1: The government forbids you to wear a particular religious garment.
Case 2: The government protects your right to wear a particular religious garment. A private entity infringes upon this right. Government is obligated by law to step in and stop infringement (and this is no doubt what will happen).
How can you look at those two cases and say “The facts are the same”?
These are the results of whatever is going on. And these are also facts. Not all of them, but when all is said and done, when you add it all up, that’s what remains. The final result. That’s why I don’t care about the “why”'s and “how”'s.
Again, like I said, that’s the given situation until things change. And even if and when they do, the story is worth discussing at least as much as the other one was.
Well, I have nothing else to add to this thread. If you don’t see the difference between the legal action of a government and the illegal action of a private entity, then I guess we are at an impasse. Tinkerty tonk.
Ah, it most certainly is a legit requirement, as it’s “recommended” in the holy book. What the specifics of the recommendation / requirement are may be culturally defined (although I think the head / hair covering is pretty universal even if the face covering is not), but not the recommendation as such.
That makes it entirely “legitimate.”
In the Anglo Saxon world, there is a difference between matters of style and taste and religious expression. Even if one thinks the head covering is stupid.
Wearing a scarf over the hair of the head is indistinquishable from a bank robber uniform??? Jaysus that nuts. The face veil, okay, but a scarf over the head is nothing like a bank robber.
Speaking of which (from the Stars & Stripes).
I remember when police departments (and the New York Yankees) were concerned about the length of policemen’s (and pitcher’s) hair. Presumably sergeants spent part of their mornings with a tape measure checking blocked versus tapered haircuts.
We all moved on eventually. What if we just skip the trouble and move past this silliness from the get-go?
The solution is to
- Issue a written apology.
- Hire someone else.
If she does this I should be able to wear my pledge of allegiance button to work at Home Depot. 
It may be, as Cole Porter so wisely observed, that fifty million frenchmen can’t be wrong. However, one surely can be and I think it is the OP’s turn now.
There is no result yet to point to. She has not got a job yet so has not been forbidden to wear her hijab at it. She wore her hijab to the interview and no one stopped her. Because she had it on, the interviewer told her about a policy that nobody can wear any head coverings on this job and that this would extend to her hijab. Sometimes such a ban is okay under existing law and sometimes not; it depends on why the ban exists. Regardless, the ban applies to jews, catholic nuns, sikhs, and to any version of religion or personal belief – protestant, hindu, voudun, druid, or cubs fan – which requires the wearing of any kind of head covering. When an employer has such a ban, the law as it exists says that reasonable accomodation has to be made for a head covering or other garment required by religious belief (sorry, cubs fans, no legal protection for you). Not absolute accomodation: reasonable accomodation. What is reasonable depends on the reason for the ban – if the objective can be achieved without affecting the religious expression, it must be allowed. This is done on a case by case basis, as an exception to the existing policy – thus the employer would not have considered the issue unless and until they decide to give her the job.
Since the employer has not come forward about the reason we can’t really work that out here, but prior cases involving health care have mostly been about hygiene, are usually easily addressed, and rarely come to anything. This particular doc jumped the gun and because she did she is likley to find that somebody else has some very important quality that she lacks such that she is not offered a job. Then she is left in the position of proving that the hijab was the reason she was not hired, which will be difficult to do as a practical matter.
Regardless, a rule banning the wearing of hijab is illegal. If they had such a rule then they would have broken the law. This is in no way the same as imposing criminal penalties on wearing a burqua. Well, except that both involve a Muslim woman I suppose. In one case she gets to have her day in court and win; in the other she gets to have her day in court and go to jail or pay a fine. I know which of these “identical” situations I prefer.
This is not quite as you imagine it. In 1905 France enacted legislation that absolutely prohibits the interference of religion in secular affairs, and the interference of secular powers in religious matters.
The regulation regarding religious headgear emerges out of this law.
It should be understood that this regulation already applied to Christian religious symbols, such as crosses, crucifixes, statues etc. However, the ‘banning’ of the scarf should not be blown out of context. The ban applies only on State property. In the case in question the state properties were/are state schools.
French thinking goes like this: no pupil in a school should be subjected to somthing that may well be considered offensive. It is pretty clear that what is sacred to one may well be the red rag to the bull to another.
So, in all areas of public (i.e. state) life in France there are no religious symbols, and nobody gets offended.
What happens in other areas of life - the street, the metro, the Place de la Concorde etc is entirely another matter. Likewise in private schools and institutions. people dress as they chose with no restriction except thos imposed by decency.
The ban on headscarves in public schools was applied, and lo, the world did not come to an end. The absolute ban on interference by the state with religion and religion with the state is sane and discriminates against no one.
This is completely different from what the French government did. The French government passed this law in an effort to specifically prevent Muslims in their country from wearing headscarves. Were the rules made by this health care organization specifically designed to prevent Muslims from exercising their religious freedoms? Probably not. At any rate, we have laws in the United States designed to protect religious freedom and there’s a good chance that any court case brought by this woman will result in a victory unless the hospital can make a good case for banning all head wear for safety reasons. Also, it’s completely different when the government legislates something versus when a company does something.
When you redefine words you can’t expect the rest of us to know what you’re talking about. The Supreme Court does not make law they just decide whether or not something is Constitutional which is pretty much what your own link says.
We’re having a discussion now, aren’t we?
The Muslim women I know, who have addressed this (for example, at our kids’ school), have said the following:
The religioius requirement is to dress modestly and to cover the head while worshipping/praying.
Whatever an individual woman wears is her choice.
These particular Muslim women felt there was a big difference in dressing for the public, i.e., out on the street, shopping, on public transportation, and dressing for something more intimate, such as being at home with the family, or being in their workplaces.
Now you could argue that being a doctor, or any profession that required dealing with the public, requires dressing for the public. I can see that, actually.
My objection to this is that I don’t think it’s necessary to religious freedom to let religion trump everything else. For instance everybody wants to go home early on Fridays, but only the observant Jews and Seventh-Day Adventists are allowed to go home early because they have a religious requirement and have to get home before sundown.
Why should other people make sacrifices for your religion?
It’s a private organization, they can have whatever rules they wish, no?
No. In the United States even a private business is not allowed to discriminate based on race, sex, national origin, or religion.
@ Sophistry and Illusion: again, you credit me with more than what I’ve said. I never said that there is no difference “between the legal action of a government and the illegal action of a private entity”. What’s more, I acknowledged the difference the moment I said that I don’t care about it. The idea is that the final result is the same. If I have two cups of sugar, I don’t care where the crystals come from. It’s still sugar, even if one cup comes from beets and the other comes from cane. Until Hena Zaki will work at the clinic in question while wearing a hijab, the status quo is the same. I don’t care who keeps her from that: the (public) state or the (private) clinic.
@Odesio: I did not “redefine words”. I used each term in a specific context, which I explained. You should focus more on trying to understand what you read instead of accusing me of “redefining words” because … you like it, I guess, since you repeat it so much. I would think twice about accusing someone of “redefining words” if the phrase “A Supreme Court decision amounts to a law” would register in my head as “The Supreme Court is making laws”.
Other than that, I haven’t much to add to this thread either. What I wanted was to bring the issue to the board’s attention and to see how it’s perceived. Yes, there is a discussion going now, but I wonder, would have there been one without this thread.
Ah, and yes… tinkerty tonk. I guess.
and he means it to sting.
I see. Well. That certainly is a way to go about it, I suppose.
You won’t be too put off if some other folks consider “whys” and “hows” to be crucial to reaching an understanding though, will you?
A scarf isn’t, no. But they had a picture, taken from a security camera, and the person in question looked like a ninja. You couldn’t even tell that it was a woman.
You’ll forgive us if we think the difference is significant.
Maybe English isn’t your first language and you don’t have a good grasp on what the Supreme Court does. I apologize for that.
Odesio
Ahh yes but it isn’t discriminatory, he was hired and subsequently told the rules. In fact, I’d garner that in order for the association to allow the headwrap, they would be discriminatory to the rest of their members.
I think you need to read the link in the OP again. This was a female and she was told no headscarves were allowed during the interview and I don’t think she has been hired at this point. It’s not up to me to say whether it meets the legal definition of discrimination that’s up to a judge. It does not change the fact that the United States has laws protecting people from discrimination in job hiring.