Replies

On the other hand, it's accommodating a small group of people who are using their religious beliefs to change standard job requirements. The question is, what's next? What else will they ask to be accommodated on? And what about other religious or ethnic groups? If you are going to change the rules for one group, how can you then say no to the next group that wants to do things differently? And what about the precedent set by accommodating these people? What kind of snowball effect could this have on other businesses/government agencies in Phoenix, or for that matter, across the country? Simple changes may seem innocuous, but can, down the road, create even bigger problems.

I disagree, for a number of reasons.

"Small groups" get accomodated all the time. It's part of having a pluralistic society, which, like it or not, we have. The reason for this is that we have laws in this country which say that employers are to make reasonable accomodations to employees' personal - including religious - sensibilities. There is nothing wrong with those laws, in fact, they are quite in accord with the spirit of the Constitution. I know that many FReepers don't get this point, but the Constitution doesn't just protect citizens from the government, it also protects citizens from each other, via the legitimate arbitrative role of government. It isn't just a matter of "hey buddy, you like it or find a job somewhere else", at least when it comes to non-essential aspects of a job. An employer forcing an employee to start conforming to a non-essential standard you set, but which is against their conscience, is basically the same thing as an employer forcing their own religious beliefs onto an employee. There is a very thin, perhaps non-existent, line between "start wearing this uniform or we'll fire you" and "start saying the rosary, or we'll fire you." And believe it or not, employers don't actually have the right to just fire somebody at will who doesn't toe the line on non-job essential issues like "skirts vs. pants". When you operate a business in the public square and interact with other people as employees, you become subject to the legal regulations of the commonwealth, regulations which, in the case of accomodation laws, are well-placed. You aren't just free to act towards employees however you like, on threat of termination.

If these women wanted to wear a skirt and still work in a position (such as in close spaces with moving parts) where that would make them a danger to themselves or others, that's one thing. But that's not what's at issue here. It's janitorial staff wanting to wear skirts instead of pants as they clean toilets. What's so unreasonable about accomodating them? I'd say that any reasonable employer wouldn't find a problem with that.

And of course, if this were an issue of Muslim women wanting to wear disguises for their driver's license photo, I'd be right there with you. But it's not. It's them wanting to wear a skirt instead of pants while they clean toilets and pick up the trash you drop on the airport floor.

I have no sympathy at all for the "this is just the tip of the iceberg" argument. I've been greatly disappointed by the number of unintelligent posters on FR today who've been taking that line on the other thread on this topic. Yes, sure, like Somali women want to wear skirts while they clean the airport so that they can sneak in all that bomb-making material that wouldn't otherwise be discovered by the metal-detectors and explosives-sniffing dogs and whatnot. Please. Give me a break.

This is not some "tip of the iceberg" where if we fail to force some women to wear what we want them to wear rather than what they themselves want to wear, we're suddenly going to end up with shar'ia law. Tell me again, who exactly is being put upon by "shar'ia law" when Somali women are allowed to wear what they themselves want to wear? How exactly does "Somali women wanting to wear what they feel, religiously, that they should wear" translate into "The Muslims is gonna cut all our heads off'n us!" Riddle me that, would you Batman?

Sorry Mass55th, but there are a lot of people in this country who aren't like you, don't wear the same thing you do, and don't believe the way you do. You're just going to have to get used to it, instead of worrying that their acting on the dictates of their own consciences is somehow a threat to you.

"The reason for this is that we have laws in this country which say that employers are to make reasonable accomodations to employees' personal - including religious - sensibilities."

Sorry, but I worked for a state government agency, and there were no accommodations for any personal or religious sensibilities, especially when it came to dressing for work. You wore the uniform as directed, or you didn't have a job. And you're naive if you think that making exceptions for certain groups of people doesn't lead to more accommodations down the road. First it's the skirts, then it's the head dress, then it's the foot baths, then it's the prayer rooms and rugs, then it's special religious observances, then it's special food, etc. That crap is already happening here and overseas. And we're allowing them to get away with it.

People are all the same when it comes to getting what they want. They'll push as long as you allow them to. Once you've shown any sign of weakness and give in, you've lost the upper hand for good. It's all down hill from there. The Dems have been successful using this technique time and time again against the Republicans. And it's why most of us don't believe that the Republicans in Congress have any backbones.