- Joined
- Jul 8, 2012
- Messages
- 47,571
- Reaction score
- 16,958
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Why are those opposed to this woman religious observance and the EEOC"s lawsuit so hard bitten if this woman gets some monetary award. It will not be much in back wages and she will be taxed like anyone for punitive damages or emotional distress. This woman and everyone else has a Constitutionally protected right in freedom of religion and Title VII merely insures that without breaching the Establishment clause. Hypothetically, if the reverse happened where BK was forcing this woman to wear a "habit" or a male to get circumcised in order to work because BK observed one religion or another The same people would be citing these constitutional guarantees.
I don't think "clothing" should be a constitutional guarantee when it comes to employment. If the employer has a dress code, there is usually a good reason for it. I don't think business just have dress codes and buy uniforms for their employees for the fun of it. IMO, a business should not have to cater to a person's religious beliefs in this way, and if they have a dress code, everyone should have to follow it (unless there are medical reasons), or find another job. I'm sorry, but I don't feel sorry for her. I just don't. :shrug: