Headscarves controversy

I remember reading about this case earlier, or a similar one. Can't recall at the moment... In any case, *why* wasn't this covered in the job interview, the required "dress code?" Or during new hire orientation by her supervisor? If it was discussed then she should have stated her refusal to remove it for work hours at that time. That would have been the responsible thing for her to do. IMO. I feel employers are within their rights to set dress code, if they so wish. And if they want a certain look for their employees, they should make that extremely clear during their job interview process, well before hiring. That should be their responsibility. And then, again, given in written form as to job description and personnel policies, signed by employee, perhaps, upon hiring. And it should be the interviewee or new hire's responsibility, to speak up if there is a problem for them in following company dress policies. IOW, not take the job, then ignore the requirements of the job. Did this employee do so?



The new employee worked there three months before it became an issue. What took so long? If the policy was clear when she accepted the job, meaning she agreed to the requirements of the job, why was she allowed to continue for 3 months? If 3 months is the probationary period, and within that time, she was written up for not following company policy, and that she refused to comply, then it is a firing offense, IMO. If she knew ahead of accepting the job, or if she accepted the job offered, which IMO includes acceptance and willingness to comply to the dress code, then she should have no reason to be complaining now. Provided that this policy was indeed specifically explained to her before she accepted the job. I'm not clear that's what happened.



Having said that, I also wonder why it matters so much to the employer, she being a stock room clerk? She's not helping customers or waiting on customers, right? So, what's the big deal in this case? Shrug. It's a thorny issue, as I see it. Sometimes companies do not want their employees who wait on the public to be wearing any religious jewelry, perhaps. Should they be sued for religious discrimination as well? Or should I, for example, be able to wear my Pentacle necklace in full and obvious sight? And sue if the employer says it's not in the dress code (along with any other religious jewelry worn fully visible). How far should businesses go with religious accommodation? I really am beginning to wonder...



This is a clash to me, of the intentional secular "business world" and people wanting to force their religious practice into it, on the job, so to speak. Businesses want to provide a certain "image" or not be put in the position of employees making religious "statements" by their clothing or jewelry and have instituted employee policies to support that. They should also have to right to expect when a employee accepts the job, that the employee will perform all the duties of that job. That should be their right. Why should employees think they have the right to pick & choose what they will do or not do of their duties, that they have been hired to perform, and by accepting, agreed to perform. Why should they get to scream "discrimination" and mount a lawsuit? They accepted the terms of employment, did they not? What about employee pharmacists refusing to fill Rx's? About public school teachers twisting history or science lessons to speak of their religious beliefs? About the Muslim owners of a company hiring employees of different religions, but denying them the right to bring certain foods to be eaten in the one lunchroom for *all* employees? What about the cab drivers at the airport, refusing travelers who have dogs or liquor with them, despite their contract with the airport? Employees hired as checkout clerks in grocery stores refusing to check out customers who are buying pork? Shall we also have employees refusing to wait on customers who wear Pentacles or other symbols they don't approve of? Or not checkout customers buying over the counter drugs they don't approve of? Etc. What happens when unsuspecting customers cannot get service from a business because of employees "exercising" their so-called religious freedom and rights?"



Where is the line in the sand these days? You'd think people would accept jobs they agreed to do, that fit with their values, integrity or what have you, for which they had the qualifications. Not the other way around, first taking a job, then demanding an employer "accommodate" their values or religion or what have you.