That said, I don't think moving furniture falls into that category.

But I stand by my statement that safety does overrule religion - I thought of that particular example because it is analogous to a case I read about a while back where a Muslim woman was not permitted to work in a machine shop due to her loose clothing. I'll see if I can dig it up. Similarly, I don't think a Sikh MRI operator could carry a Kirpan.

[edit: My bad, it was a print shop, not a machine shop. http://www.judicialview.com/Court-Cases/Employment/Judgment-... ]

A company should be able to set a policy regarding grooming and/or dress.

The part that I find shittiest about this situation is that the company would have been better just rejecting him outright. Instead they said they would hire him if he agreed to cut his hair to their wishes. Now there's a lawsuit.

How is that beneficial for anyone? Why can't two individuals have an honest negotiation about what it is they want from each other?

> Sorry, you don't get to not hire someone because they wear dreads.

Why not? Why is that something you shouldn't be able to do with your own business.

If you believe that businesses should simply be allowed to set their own standards, then maybe they should be allowed to require men to be clean-shaven; maybe they should be allowed to require women to wear skirts; maybe they should be allowed to prefer men for certain positions (security guards? shift supervisors?).

You can construct a business justification for nearly any form of discrimination, and, of course, you can construct a personal freedom justification for all discrimination.

Fortunately or not, this has been a settled issue in the US since 1964. If you have a policy that would prevent a Sikh from working for you (which this policy would), you're going to lose in court.

How is that beneficial for the employer or the potential employee?

> Because having long hair in no way affects a candidate's ability to do this (or virtually any) job

But it does affect how the company is perceived, and that's not a result of the company but the people who use it. I don't have a problem with dreadlocks, but I honestly understand why someone might be a little weary of hiring someone to come into their home and move all their stuff if they look radically different to them.

> then maybe they should be allowed to require men to be clean-shaven;

Yes.

> maybe they should be allowed to require women to wear skirts;

Yes. You should be able to define the uniform you wish your employees to wear.

> maybe they should be allowed to prefer men for certain positions

Yes. You should also be allowed to prefer women for certain positions.

Here's what I don't get.

One, you don't have to be hired. You're not entitled to every job you apply for. You're also not entitled to the job you have.

Two, certain requirements, such as shaving or your hair style are things that you can change. Perhaps that conflicts with your religion, but that's something you have to deal with. That's your decision. You can still be a Rastafarian and not have dreadlocks, be Muslim and not wear a hijab, and be a Christian and work on Sunday. At what point do you stop accommodating irrationally held religious beliefs and start treating people as if they are adults responsible for their own decisions?

Three, employers are responsible for who they hire. If they don't feel comfortable having that person represent their company, they should be able to not hire them. These laws remove some of that responsibility, but still place all the blame for the actions of that individual with the company.

Here's a case since then about hair length in the workplace:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=searc...

tl;dr: your employer does have the legal right to tell you to cut your hair.

(Genuinely curious, I'm English and this is American law).

Also how are race and colour legally different? Did you mean to say sex (as in gender) and sexuality (as in, gay or not)?

This may be a fun thing to dicker about on a message board thread, but the reality is that even for Blockbuster, who won their suit, it was not fun to attempt to enforce this norm; a lawsuit that made it all the way to a Federal appeals court no doubt cost them many millions of dollars.

And for what? Rasta dreadlock guy would almost certainly cost them another several million dollars for his long hair, and since his claim is based on an actual established religious practice, he'd also probably win. This was a dumb move on Blockbuster's part.

I don't know what the deal is in England, but any competent hiring manager in the US --- any competent one at all --- should be expected to know that they can't decline a candidate because they wear dreads. Since an HR people who does something as dumb as informing a candidate that they've been rejected over their dreads is likely putting you at immediate risk of a 5-6 figure loss, you'd be well within your rights to fire them immediately.

you do believe that the government's caring about your health is the reason why ganja is outlawed?

The "dreads" issue is at least marginally interesting to HN, if only to send loud-and-clear the message of "DON'T MENTION SOMEONE'S HAIR AS A HIRING CRITERIA".

I have friends and professional colleagues with dreads and will tell you that none of them are unhygienic. Is it harder for them to keep their hair clean than it is for me? I don't know, because that's none of my business.

http://www.worldhum.com/travel-blog/item/interview-govind-ar...

You're just not going to get anywhere with this argument. There's nothing inherently wrong with dreadlocks.