Problems with Minneapolis Muslims again!

[Werewolf]

You don't have the right, as an employer, to say "You can't work here unless you ignore your religious practices because I just plain don't like them."

As long as it's a stated condition of employement then, yes, you can.

Brad

No, you most definitely cannot-it is prohibited by both Minnesota and Federal law.

Federal law banning this practice here:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sup_01_42_10_21_20_VI.html

Minnesota law here:  https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=363A.08

Discriminating against people because of their religion is illegal in employment, period. 

You probably ought to read the laws you quote because the prohibition against hiring practices that discriminate is not a blanket one. The law provides for exceptions:

Burden of proof in disparate impact cases
(1)
(A) An unlawful employment practice based on disparate impact is established under this subchapter only if
(i) a complaining party demonstrates that a respondent uses a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin and the respondent fails to demonstrate that the challenged practice is job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity; or

What that means is the employer can establish practices that violate an employee's religious practicesunder certain conditions as long as they are job related. For example prohibiting loose fitting clothing as a safety hazard around machinery or requiring an employee to wear employer supplied and laundered clothing for health and sanitation reasons.

In the case mentioned in the article quoted by the OP there isn't enough information to judge whether the uniform requirement falls into that category but shootinstudent your claim of blanket protection is blatantly incorrect.

[De Selby]

Werewolf,

That is exactly what I am saying here-that "I just don't like it" isn't a good enough reason.  An employer has to show that the religious practice cannot be reasonably accommodated, and that the requirement impacting the practice is "job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity", as per what you just quoted.

Please re-read my posts; I am not alleging blanket protection.  What I am saying is that "the employer doesn't want it, tough, find a new job" is not permitted under the law; the employer has to have a good reason for denying someone the right to practice his religion.

[De Selby]

You have a right to practice your religion. You do not have a right to employment on your terms and not the employers.

You clearly do have a right to have your employers reasonably accommodate your religion.

[De Selby]

SS, once again you are running off half-cocked.  You made an assumption as to the company's reasons for demanding adherence to their dress code, as in they had no reason. Then you treat your assumption as an absolute truth.  SS is right, period, all stop, end of argument.  And we're expected to go along with it.  Is it any wonder people get tired of debating with you?

Again, you need to reread my posts here-I have said repeatedly that if there is a health and safety reason for the clothing, the company will win, and justifiably so.  I do think there are reasons to doubt that there is such a justification, considering that these women were working the exact same job for years beforehand, but of course there could be a new reason for compelling different dress in order to maintain safety.  And it will (and should) give the employer the right to demand the challenged clothing.

The company almost certainly has valid reasons for demanding adherence to their dress code.  Most likely they are safety and health related reasons.  These changes occur all the time in the corporate world.
Why did they not demand these behaviors in the past?  Because they are entitled, even expected, to upgrade their safety and health related procedures over time.  Companies do this constantly to keep from being sued, both by their customers, and by their employees, should there ever be a problem.

This would be where you claim that there must be no case for the Muslim employees, even though we don't have enough facts to say.  That isn't what I did, but it is what you accused me of doing.

Given the atmosphere towards Muslims in this country, it is entirely possible that a manager decided to do something that impacts the practice of the faith just because she doesn't like Muslims.   That can and does happen-and it should be challenged when it does, just the same as for any other religion in America.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the standards for industrial foodservice are real tight and each outbreak of food borne illness tightens em more. cair should go away  they are lamer than usual
and interestingly enough the backlash could be making muslim women less than desireable hires

[thebaldguy]

I have worked jobs where the dress code has been changed by the owners/management. Just because street clothes were ok last week doesn't mean that street clothes are ok this week. Clothing requirements can change, and employees must either accept the change or leave.

I'm not sure that Muslims know or care about how they are viewed by the rest of society. Demands like this are not improving public perception. Somalis have lived in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area for decades. But only in the last few years have these demands come to surface. They drove cabs here for years, then all of a sudden they refused to take passengers with dogs or alcohol. They worked in markets, but suddenly refused to touch pork, even if it's wrapped up. All of a sudden, they became devout Muslims overnight and the rest of us need to accommodate change for their benefit. Shootinstudent, I'm not sure if you were aware of these sudden changes. To be honest, it smells like BS to most of us here in Minnesota.

[De Selby]

Wait a sec here- you're upset because a Muslim guy with a cab refuses to take you with alcohol (ie, he does business on his terms only), yet it's fine as long as Mission inc does it to a Muslim employee?

Why is it that the cab driver can't say "hey, it's my cab, take it or leave it", but you insist on this standard for other businesses?

There are good reasons to protect religious practice in public, and your state laws and Federal laws do this.  I have no idea why Muslims are more religious these days in Minnesota, but they have a right to be as religious as they want, and to a point that religiosity is protected by law from discrimination.  Just because you or I don't like or approve of someone's religious trappings and practices isn't a good enough reason to make things difficult on them.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

reallity check  cab drivers are in fact obligated to carry you and their right to refuse is in fact very limited

[thebaldguy]

Wait a sec here- you're upset because a Muslim guy with a cab refuses to take you with alcohol (ie, he does business on his terms only), yet it's fine as long as Mission inc does it to a Muslim employee?

Why is it that the cab driver can't say "hey, it's my cab, take it or leave it", but you insist on this standard for other businesses?

There are good reasons to protect religious practice in public, and your state laws and Federal laws do this.  I have no idea why Muslims are more religious these days in Minnesota, but they have a right to be as religious as they want, and to a point that religiosity is protected by law from discrimination.  Just because you or I don't like or approve of someone's religious trappings and practices isn't a good enough reason to make things difficult on them.

cassandra and sara's daddy is correct; they really can't refuse a fare. They began to refuse fares with dogs and alcohol. When some folks who had seeing eye dogs were refused a cab, this crossed a line. Do the blind have a right to a cab? At the airport, the cabbies were upset because if they refused a fair, they had to go to the end of the cab line and wait 1-2 hours for another fare. They didn't like that. It backfired on them, as many people would declare they had alcohol in their bags (weather they really did or not!), and the cabbies kept refusing fares and complained about not earning money. They demanded that cabs be labeled with signs stating alcohol/no alcohol fares, but our metro area stopped that. With many cabs driven by Muslims, people would be stranded. By the way, they didn't have a problem hauling drunks around after bar close.

Shootingstudent, I think you're missing the big picture here. We here in Minnesota are being pushed and probed as to how far we will let this go. Muslims are pushing the limits here; the average citizen is getting tired of it. They certainly have a right to be religious; that's not in question. How much we have to accommodate them is the question. Do they have a right to delay me at the grocery to wait for another clerk because they won't touch my pork products? Do they have a right to not follow the dress code when everyone else does? Do they have a right to deny me cab service because I'm carrying alcohol? In my culture, it's ok to have alcohol in my possession. I guess they forgot about my rights.

Their demands are beginning to look unreasonable to the average citizen.

[De Selby]

reallity check  cab drivers are in fact obligated to carry you and their right to refuse is in fact very limited

Yeah-just like an employer's right to demand things that inhibit religious practices is in fact very limited.  How come one set of laws is ignored, but the other is championed?

[De Selby]

Shootingstudent, I think you're missing the big picture here. We here in Minnesota are being pushed and probed as to how far we will let this go. Muslims are pushing the limits here; the average citizen is getting tired of it. They certainly have a right to be religious; that's not in question. How much we have to accommodate them is the question. Do they have a right to delay me at the grocery to wait for another clerk because they won't touch my pork products? Do they have a right to not follow the dress code when everyone else does? Do they have a right to deny me cab service because I'm carrying alcohol? In my culture, it's ok to have alcohol in my possession. I guess they forgot about my rights.

Their demands are beginning to look unreasonable to the average citizen.

The reason we have laws against religious discrimination is that despised religious minorities tend to be treated as "behaving unreasonably" by larger segments of the population, for reasons that have very little to do with efficiency or practicality. 

Just because some people don't like seeing a headscarf or Islamic clothing doesn't make the demand to wear such clothing unreasonable.  Also, unless there is some safety reason, there is little in the way of damage done to others if an employer allows a modification to the dress code for religious beliefs.

That's how the law works here-religious beliefs get leeway that whims do not. 

I don't see what's unreasonable, or unamerican, about wanting to wear looser clothing at work.  How are other people hurt by this, absent a compelling safety concern? 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It seems perfectly reasonably that employees in the food industry would be required to wear uniforms. 

It seems perfectly reasonable that an employees working around moving machinery be required to wear close-fitting clothing.

SS, your argument depends upon your unverified claim that the new dress code was an arbitrary decision.  Until you can show that the change in dress code was made for no good reason, we have no reason to take you seriously.

[Balog]

You have a right to practice your religion. You do not have a right to employment on your terms and not the employers.

You clearly do have a right to have your employers reasonably accommodate your religion.

That particular perversion has indeed been passed into law. However, speaking from the point of view of natural rights, you do not have a right to be employed. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and a job even if you're a nuisance to your employer?

I hate that the .gov presumes to tell people who they must employ. It's like helmet and seatbelt laws; they have no Constitutional basis for for them, but no one cares enough to object.

[De Selby]

You have a right to practice your religion. You do not have a right to employment on your terms and not the employers.

You clearly do have a right to have your employers reasonably accommodate your religion.

That particular perversion has indeed been passed into law. However, speaking from the point of view of natural rights, you do not have a right to be employed. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and a job even if you're a nuisance to your employer?

I hate that the .gov presumes to tell people who they must employ. It's like helmet and seatbelt laws; they have no Constitutional basis for for them, but no one cares enough to object.

Apparently this love for freedoms only applies as long as we're talking about hiring/firing Muslims; if it's a cab driver deciding not to carry pork or alcohol, then the laws forcing you to do something are just great.

[De Selby]

It seems perfectly reasonably that employees in the food industry would be required to wear uniforms. 

It seems perfectly reasonable that an employees working around moving machinery be required to wear close-fitting clothing.

SS, your argument depends upon your unverified claim that the new dress code was an arbitrary decision.  Until you can show that the change in dress code was made for no good reason, we have no reason to take you seriously.

Again, my "argument" here is not that these folks should be allowed to wear whatever they want no matter what.  It's that unless it's necessary to do the job, it is unreasonable to demand that they wear the tighter work uniforms in violation of their religious beliefs.

I do believe the facts give a good indication that the change in dress is not necessary to do the job safely; this evidence is the fact that they had already been doing their jobs using lab coat type jackets for a substantial period of time before the new uniform rule was enforced.

If there's actually a safety reason for the clothing, it makes sense to require it.  But if there isn't, then the law requires a reasonable accommodation, and I think that's fair.

[freakazoid]

How much we have to accommodate them is the question.

It sounds more like how much do they have to accommodate us.

With many cabs driven by Muslims, people would be stranded.

Start up your own business then, such is the wonders of capitalism.

Do they have a right to delay me at the grocery to wait for another clerk because they won't touch my pork products?

YES!!! Does a grocery clerk under 16 have a right to delay you to get another clerk that is older because he isn't old enough to ring up alcohol?

In my culture, it's ok to have alcohol in my possession. I guess they forgot about my rights.

Do you think it is ok for a business owner to put a no guns allowed on his privet property? After all you do have a right to carry, depending on where you live.


Why can't they simply make a Muslim friendly uniform?

[K Frame]

Personally, I'm all for people who are wearing loose clothing being sucked into heavy machinery and turned into a thin red slurry.

Heavy machinery is wonderfully equitable when it comes to accepting people of all faiths into its hard steel embrace.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"Start up your own business then, such is the wonders of capitalism."

as opposed to say starting work as a cab driver then deciding i want to break the existing laws as they apply to hauling everyone?


"YES!!! Does a grocery clerk under 16 have a right to delay you to get another clerk that is older because he isn't old enough to ring up alcohol?"

NO!!  cause in places that sell beer a 16 year old can't be a cashier   is it different in your state/alternate reallity?


"Do you think it is ok for a business owner to put a no guns allowed on his privet property? After all you do have a right to carry, depending on where you live."
YES!  since thats an entirely different scene than being in the buisness of operating a PUBLIC CONVEYANCE



"Why can't they simply make a Muslim friendly uniform?"
you may have missed the 6 or 7 posts that addressed sanitation and safety issues?

[K Frame]

Sigh...

Personally, I think a few of the people here need to consult with the steel roller god and get in touch with their inner thin red slurry.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this thread isn't going anywhere good.

Except away.