That is correct. For instance, during Prohibition in the United States, use of wine in communion services was permitted, despite its illegality elsewhere.
Basically, society has judged that deeply held religious beliefs are more worthy of protection than mere personal preferences.
Sounds like a deep religious belief which have no written support in the current laws or the Constitution of USA.
Of course there are successful cases of lobbying for a privilege like the one you mentioned - an especially funny one considering that the churches were the main driving force behind the Prohibition, yet carved out an exception for themselves.
Actually, the US Constitution prevents the government from establishing an official religion or from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Federal law extends this protection of religion into the commercial sphere by preventing employers from discriminating on the basis of religion (unless it is a religious organization, or the employee's religion would somehow interfere with the job).
"an especially funny one considering that the churches were the main driving force behind the Prohibition, yet carved out an exception for themselves."
Prohibition is an interesting case, as it was actually one religious group (low-church Protestants) lobbying for it over the objections of another (Catholics and some high-church Protestants).
That this suggests hairstyle requirements in dress codes are a complete waste of time is a valid but orthogonal point.
Lets say there are 2 guys - one with long hair as personal preference, another - as part of religious practice. The company would fire the number #1 because he doesn't follow the dress code, yet coudlnt' fire #2 because of religion. Is this what the law provides for?
-- A religious accommodation claim is distinct from a disparate treatment claim, in which the question is whether employees are treated equally. An individual alleging denial of religious accommodation is seeking an adjustment to a neutral work rule that infringes on the employee’s ability to practice his religion. The accommodation requirement is “plainly intended to relieve individuals of the burden of choosing between their jobs and their religious convictions, where such relief will not unduly burden others.”[118]
Btw, thank you for the information and bearing up with me :)
As in it's just as illegal to only hire Christians than it is to not hire one.
The fact that your choosing to not join the religion - also your protected right - doesn't come with exactly the same perks is not grounds for discrimination.
I consider the fact that I'm not mandated by the government to pray to Mecca three times a day at work a pretty acceptable trade off.
thank you, i couldn't say it better myself. Reminds me about Medieval Europe - either join the religion or burn at stake.
Consider the case of a disabled worker in a wheelchair. The employer is required to make reasonable accommodations if the employee is otherwise suited for the job. That doesn't mean that the US discriminates against the non-disabled.
Incidentally, the same law protects the atheist with a tattoo of His Noodliness* as a statement of non-belief, as well as the Christian with a tattoo of the Cross.
it isn't a matter of personal choice. Brandishing off one's religion is a matter of the one's personal choice.
>Incidentally, the same law protects the atheist with a tattoo of His Noodliness* as a statement of non-belief
don't know about employment law. In the immigration law your religion needs to have a registered tax free church in the US , otherwise it isn't a religion
The issue is that you can come up with all sorts of interesting restrictions that are theoretically neutral, but amount to de facto religious discrimination. For instance, consider a store owner who hates Islam, but knows better than to say so for fear of being sued. Instead the store owner prohibits employees from wearing head scarves. Presto! Now most Muslim women would be unable to work there.
It's to prevent these supposedly neutral rules that the law of reasonable accommodation is in place.
"needs to have a registered tax free church in the US , otherwise it isn't a religion"
This is limited to particular circumstances like data collection, but doesn't apply to religious freedom laws (like the employment law).
Instead the store owner forces employees to wear head scarves. Presto! Now most non-religious women would be unable to work there. Unfortunately, there is no law that can help them. This asymmetry is a discrimination against non-religious citizens.
Not true. Most non-religious women have no problem with head scarves.
"This asymmetry is a discrimination against non-religious citizens."
Asymmetry != discrimination. The asymmetry of the law is due to the asymmetry of religious discrimination. Namely, it is easy to target religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws, while it is hard to target non-religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws.
This is due to the fact that the non-religious are free to do or not do these things (head scarves, dreadlocks, etc.), while the religious have no choice if they are to be faithful to their beliefs.
yep. asymmetry of religious discrimination. It is definitely here. If history is any indicator, the religious discrimination, especially in its most nightmarish forms, has almost always been perpetrated by religious people (just of another religion), and not by non-religious people
>Namely, it is easy to target religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws, while it is hard to target non-religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws.
absolutely unfounded claim. There are a lot of religious practices, that if "dress-coded" would prevent, for example, me from going there, and i'd have no "religious accommodation" way of getting around them.