Bill protects religious garb, grooming in the workplace (CA)

[cbayer]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-workplace-discrimination-20120909,0,6053618.story

Under AB 1964 signed by Gov. Brown, California employers face new restrictions against shunting Sikh and Muslim workers out of public view for wearing turbans, beards and hijabs.


Kirpajot Singh, 6, of Westlake Village gets help last month with his turban from Taranjot Singh, 16, before the start of services at the Khalsa Care Foundation, a Sikh temple in Pacoima. (Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times / September 9, 2012)


By Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times
September 9, 2012

SACRAMENTO — California employers face new restrictions against shunting Sikh and Muslim workers out of public view for wearing turbans, beards and hijabs, under a bill signed Saturday by Gov. Jerry Brown.

The measure could affect workplaces from Disneyland to San Quentin Prison.

"This bill, AB 1964, makes it very clear that wearing any type of religious clothing or hairstyle, particularly such as Sikhs do … is protected by law and nobody can discriminate against you because of that," Brown told some 400 Sikhs and supporters at a rally of the North American Punjabi Assn. on the steps of the Capitol. Brown also signed SB 1540, which requires the state Board of Education to consider a new history framework for schools that the governor said will include "the role and contributions of the Sikh community in California."

A series of court cases have muddied the water on what employers must do to accommodate the religious practices of workers, said Rajdeep Singh, director of law and policy for the Sikh Coalition, a national civil rights group based in New York City. The new law will clarify the requirements.

more at link

[Warren Stupidity]

1. is a full burka ok too?

At what point is religious misogyny not protected?

[cbayer]

2. From what I can tell, it addresses headwear and beards only.

[leftyohiolib]

3. well in america we have freedom of expression

im not a fan of the burka nor am i a fan of the baggy-pants-below-the-ass fashion favored by some but it's not our place to impose our differing opinons on others

[Warren Stupidity]

4. re baggy pants fashion

I do not think you can make the case that baggy pants clothing is imposed on a class of people as an act of subservience.

I think there is a huge difference between 'fashions I don't like' and dress codes imposed on women as part of a culture of domination and suppression.

We actually do not have 'freedom of expression'. We have freedom of speech, and that right is highly qualified, with all sorts of restrictions and regulations imposed on what we can say, and we have 'freedom of religion', but that right restricts what government can do - it cannot favor one religion over another, it does not require individuals to tolerate misogynist idiocy.

[msongs]

5. but its ok for burka and baggy pants wearers to impose THEIR opinions on others then? nt

[pinto]

6. Interesting bill. In my experience in Public Health (all county and state funded positions)

wearing overt religious symbols (i.e. crosses) was understood to be avoided, though I don't recall any official policy. Not quite the same as a beard or turban, of course, yet similar. The bill seems written to address religious and cultural minorities, which is understandable. And, fwiw, the few times I went to Ash Wednesday mass before work, I didn't wash off the ash cross from my forehead. Nothing was ever said about it.