Title VII is unconstitutional, "In Your Opinion"......Obviously the Supremes and the Twelve Circuit Courts around the United States don't feel that way.
On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 2:45 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The entire thing is nonsense. > Title VII is unconstitutional. > The CRA of 64 is unconstitutional. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "The bottom line is that the true test of one's commitment to freedom of > association doesn't come when he allows people to associate in ways he > approves. The true test of that commitment comes when he allows people to > be free to voluntarily associate in ways he deems despicable. Forced > association is not freedom of association." -- Walter Williams > > > > At 11:02 AM 2/28/2015, you wrote: > > According to the 10th Circuit, (as Travis's article points out)  > > *"Title VII requires that employers have explicit, verbal notice of a job > applicant’s religious needs that may conflict with company policy. Such > direct notice is required, the appeals court decided, so that the employer > has “particularized, actual knowledge†that the applicant follows a > specific faith practice and will need an accommodation for it. Because > Elauf did not provide that in her crucial job interview, the appeals court > ruled, there was no Title VII violation in the refusal to hire her."* > > In other words, if XYZ Temps knew that John's religious convictions would > be in conflict with its workplace dress code, then then XYZ Temps had no > obligation to hire John.  > > > > http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/02/argument-preview-faith-and-a-workplace-dress-code/ > > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:28 AM, plainolamerican < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Jon, a clerical worker who is an observant Jew, wears tzitzit (ritual > knotted garment fringes at the four corners of his shirt) and a yarmulke > (or skull cap) in conformance with his Jewish beliefs. XYZ Temps places Jon > in a long-term assignment with one of its client companies. The client asks > XYZ to notify Jon that he must remove his yarmulke and his tzitzit while > working at the front desk, or assign another person to Jon's position. > According to the client, Jon's religious attire presents the "wrong image" > and also violates its dress code prohibiting any headgear and requiring > "appropriate business attire." XYZ Temps may not comply with this client > request without violating Title VII. > > The client also would violate Title VII if it changed Jon's duties to keep > him out of public view, or if it required him not to wear his yarmulke or > his tzitzit when interacting with customers. Assigning Jon to a position > out of public view is segregation in violation of Title VII. Moreover, > because notions about customer preference (real or perceived) do not > establish undue hardship, the client must make an exception to its dress > code to let Jon wear his religious garb during front desk duty as a > religious accommodation. XYZ should strongly advise its client that the EEO > laws require allowing Jon to wear this religious garb at work and that, if > the client does not withdraw its request, XYZ will place Jon in another > assignment at the same rate of pay and decline to assign another worker to > the client.[9] > > > 1. What is the federal law relating to religious dress and grooming in the > workplace? > > Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as > amended ("Title VII"),prohibits employers with at least 15 employees > (including private sector, state, and local government employers), as well > as employment agencies, unions, and federal government agencies, from > discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or > national origin. It also prohibits retaliation against persons who complain > of discrimination or participate in an EEO investigation. With respect to > religion, Title VII prohibits among other things: disparate treatment > based on religion in recruitment, hiring, promotion, benefits, training, > job duties, termination, or any other aspect of employment (except that > "religious organizations" as defined under Title VII are permitted to > prefer members of their own religion in deciding whom to employ); denial > of reasonable accommodation for sincerely held religious practices, unless > the accommodation would cause an undue hardship for the employer; workplace > or job segregation based on religion; workplace harassment based on > religion; retaliation for requesting an accommodation (whether or not > granted), for filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC, for testifying, > assisting, or participating in any manner in an EEOC investigation or EEO > proceeding, or for opposing discrimination. > There may be state or local laws in your jurisdiction that have > protections that are parallel to or broader than those in Title VII. > > 2. Does Title VII apply to all aspects of religious practice or belief? > > Yes. Title VII protects all aspects of religious observance, practice, and > belief, and defines religion very broadly to include not only traditional, > organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, > Buddhism, and Sikhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, > not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number > of people, or may seem illogical or unreasonable to others. > > Religious practices may be based on theistic beliefs or non-theistic moral > or ethical beliefs as to what is right or wrong that are sincerely held > with the strength of traditional religious views. Religious observances or > practices include, for example, attending worship services, praying, > wearing religious garb or symbols, displaying religious objects, adhering > to certain dietary rules, proselytizing or other forms of religious > expression, or refraining from certain activities. Moreover, an employee's > belief or practice can be "religious" under Title VII even if it is not > followed by others in the same religious sect, denomination, or > congregation, or even if the employee is unaffiliated with a formal > religious organization.[1] > > The law's protections also extend to those who are discriminated against > or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs. For > example, an employer that is not a religious organization (as legally > defined under Title VII) cannot make employees wear religious garb or > articles (such as a cross) if they object on grounds of non-belief. > > Because this definition is so broad, whether or not a practice or belief > is religious typically is not disputed in Title VII religious > discrimination cases. > > 3. Does the law apply to dress or grooming practices that are religious > for an applicant or employee, even if other people engage in the same > practice for non-religious reasons? > > Yes. Title VII applies to any practice that is motivated by a religious > belief, even if other people may engage in the same practice for secular > reasons.[2] However, if a dress or grooming practice is a personal > preference, for example, where it is worn for fashion rather than for > religious reasons, it does not come under Title VII's religion protections. > > 4. What if an employer questions whether the applicant's or employee's > asserted religious practice is sincerely held? > > Title VII's accommodation requirement only applies to religious beliefs > that are "sincerely held." However, just because an individual's religious > practices may deviate from commonly-followed tenets of the religion, the > employer should not automatically assume that his or her religious > observance is not sincere. Moreover, an individual's religious beliefs - or > degree of adherence - may change over time, yet may nevertheless be > sincerely held. Therefore, like the "religious" nature of a belief or > practice, the "sincerity" of an employee's stated religious belief is > usually not in dispute in religious discrimination cases. However, if an > employer has a legitimate reason for questioning the sincerity or even the > religious nature of a particular belief or practice for which accommodation > has been requested, it may ask an applicant or employee for information > reasonably needed to evaluate the request. > > > On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 8:02:09 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote: > While they are at it, I hope the Supreme Court will make decisions > regarding dress codes for work, school and home......after all they don't > have important issues to deal with! >  > In a message dated 2/26/2015 5:36:56 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > [email protected] <http://??> writes: > > > > BareNakedIslam posted: "Supremacist Muslim women, encouraged by designated > terrorist group CAIR, have been engaging in a sneaky scheme to go on job > interviews without wearing a bag on their head, only to start wearing it at > work AFTER they have been hired. If the company fires t" > > > *New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM* > > > * Can you believe the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether employers > have the right to fire Muslim women who decide to defy the company’s > dress code after being hired? > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/>* > > by BareNakedIslam <http://www.barenakedislam.com/?author=1> > > Supremacist Muslim women, encouraged by designated terrorist group CAIR, > have been engaging in a sneaky scheme to go on job interviews without > wearing a bag on their head, only to start wearing it at work AFTER they > have been hired. If the company fires them, they take the company to court. > A business has the […] > > Read more of this post > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/> > BareNakedIslam <http://www.barenakedislam.com/?author=1> | February 25, > 2015 at 4:38 pm | Categories: EnemyWithin-America > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/?taxonomy=category&term=enemywithin-america> > | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-1cf4 > > Comment > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/#respond> >    See all comments > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/#comments> > > Unsubscribe > <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=eaced905935c28c895fe4e47a2730614&email=bovinescatologists%40gmail.com&b=LLV%26%5Bh1%263RKK8ZmsWEM%25L%26i.nOxKfqimvY%5DVB%2BceJCVX42TPCkU> > to no longer receive posts from BARE NAKED ISLAM. > Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions > <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=eaced905935c28c895fe4e47a2730614&email=bovinescatologists%40gmail.com>. > > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > > http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/ > > > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > <http://www.politicalforum.com/> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <http://??>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
