Religion
Related: About this forumCelebrating AB1964, California’s new religious freedom law
Posted at 06:57 PM ET, 09/18/2012
TheWashingtonPost
By Rajdeep Singh
California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill providing workers in his state the nations strongest protections against religious discrimination. Spearheaded by Sikhs, AB1964the Workplace Religious Freedom Actguarantees equal employment opportunity to millions of Californians, regardless of their religion.
AB1964 has American pluralism written all over it. The bill was sponsored by the Sikh Coalition and authored by assembly member Mariko Yamada, who saw parallels between post-Sept. 11 discrimination and the imprisonment of her family in internment camps during the Second World War because of their Japanese ancestry. Over time, the bill gained support from labor and civil rights organizations, as well as interfaith groups representing Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Christians. In the end, it sailed through the California Legislature with bipartisan support.
The nation deserves to know why this law matters.
Federal law is supposed to provide a baseline for civil rights protection in the United States. In the context of workplace discrimination, however, the federal floor has fallen out beneath religious minorities. Although Congress intended for Americans of all faiths to enjoy equal employment opportunity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, unelected judges have interpreted Title VII so narrowly that it empowers employers to discriminate with impunity.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/celebrating-ab1964-californias-new-religious-freedom-law/2012/09/18/ad7d07fc-01e1-11e2-b260-32f4a8db9b7e_blog.html
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This is one of those things that reinforces that we are a melting pot in which all are welcome.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If a dress code is in place for safety reasons, does this law override that?
What about uniform requirements, both public and private? Does this override that too?
rug
(82,333 posts)Implementing it must be done case-by-case but it I believe it requires both a very good reason and an inabiliy to acommodate before the beielf or practice is overriden.
I see nothing wrong with that.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And when it comes to dress codes for safety, I think that there should be little or no wiggle room. After all, if a hardhat is required to keep things from hitting you on the head, because the hardhat cannot fit because of religious headgear should not be a reason to exclude one from the safety requirement. Or beards when a respirator is required. Or...well, you get the picture.
I think the case-by-case should come into play when it is simply a uniform requirement. An example is allowing Sikh's to have approved headgear. The downside is the subjectivity and arbitrary nature of individuals who determine the case-by-case exceptions.