religious beard discrimination

[OHRoadwarrior]

OP still has not showed it is required for worship and not for his other life as a wizard. Otherwise, one could claim failing to bath was trying to worship the Lord by staying in the state he created you. I question whether he could obtain legal exemption absent that even as a pastafarian with a strainer on his head.

 

[xylene]

The intent is discriminatory. I can smell it. Wouldn't want the ultra-wealthy dude-ranch set to (mistakenly) think a Muslim was in the midst.

But one thing that speaks to that is that the appearance policy isn't really applied with firm, it is applied punitively.

"Grow a beard and you will be posted in boonies and won't get overtime."

How does that answer the request for accommodation?

 

[xylene]

OP still has not showed it is required for worship and not for his other life as a wizard. Otherwise, one could claim failing to bath was trying to worship the Lord by staying in the state he created you. I question whether he could obtain legal exemption absent that even as a pastafarian with a strainer on his head.

1. That's an absurd non sequitur.

2. That's not what is happening. Humoring your invocation of a parody faith, the situation is akin to "You can wear the strainer, but no overtime."

So accommodating a colander is only a problem after 40 hours a week? That's your assertion?

 

[cbg]

This is what makes me wonder how much of it is real religion and how much of it is finding a way to force the employer to allow him to do what he wants:

I am going to be put indefinitely at the service gate, which is least desired, as a reward for being awesome.

 

[LdiJ]

1. That's an absurd non sequitur.

2. That's not what is happening. Humoring your invocation of a parody faith, the situation is akin to "You can wear the strainer, but no overtime."

So accommodating a colander is only a problem after 40 hours a week? That's your assertion?

I think that is misleading. They are willing to accommodate him but it requires that he switch to a location where overtime does not happen to be available. Some people would view that as a blessing rather than a punishment.

 

[justalayman]

I think that is misleading. They are willing to accommodate him but it requires that he switch to a location where overtime does not happen to be available. Some people would view that as a blessing rather than a punishment.

it's actually pretty simple:

if the employer took any action against the employee based on the beard, unless there is a bona fide basis for the change, it is disparate treatment (it doesn't even have to be considered retaliatory but plain and simple; different) and as such, not lawful.

 

[LdiJ]

it's actually pretty simple:

if the employer took any action against the employee based on the beard, unless there is a bona fide basis for the change, it is disparate treatment (it doesn't even have to be considered retaliatory but plain and simple; different) and as such, not lawful.

Again, assuming the OP can prove that the beard is necessary for his religion. There seems to be some question about that.

 

[cbg]

There's also, at least in my mind, about whether this is a sincerely held religious belief of the OP's or just a means to force the employer to let him violate the dress code. If it isn't a sincerely held religious belief, the employer doesn't have to accommodate squat.

But I'd let the EEOC make the call.

 

[justalayman]

Again, assuming the OP can prove that the beard is necessary for his religion. There seems to be some question about that.

per the rules on the specific division of religion I read, it is not mandatory but is most certainly preferred. In religion, it isn't like you will be kicked out of a religion for not complying with any given "requirement" but it is looked down upon. My readings suggest that is the issue with the beards. As such, it is a religious belief that one wears a beard and as such, protected under the law.



I agree with cbg more than anything


other than the possibility this is nothing more than a troll or possibly a student doing homework.

 

[dmerlin25]

I assure you I'm not a troll or a student. I posted on here to gauge myself in my inclination to feel like I am being wronged. based on your responses, I have scheduled an interview with an investigator with the Montana Human Rights Bureau next Friday. He / She will determine if an investigation is warranted.

In regards to what I believe, I don't want to turn this into a theological debate. The basis for the beard is that it is commanded not to destroy your beard. That commandment was not "altered" throughout the Old and New Testament. It doesn't say anything about fingernails though. It's the same scripture that is translated differently that Jewish and Islam follows.

 

[cbg]

I think that's really your best bet - the HRC or the EEOC. Let them make the call.

But you know, your comment about "looking awesome" and the fact that you waited a year will not help your cause.

 

[justalayman]

In regards to what I believe, I don't want to turn this into a theological debate. The basis for the beard is that it is commanded not to destroy your beard. That commandment was not "altered" throughout the Old and New Testament. It doesn't say anything about fingernails though. It's the same scripture that is translated differently that Jewish and Islam follows.

Why? Theological debates can be fun.

I'm glad you actually defended my query. It gives some credence to your statements. Not a ton since everything is available on the internet but some.
Lev 19:27

"(27) You shall not round the edge of your head, nor shall you destroy the edge of your beard. (28) And you shall not make a cutting for the dead in your flesh, nor shall you make a written tattoo upon you; I am Yehovah.

so, do you have a tattoo? Let's hope not.

Do you cut ANY of your hair (shoulders up)?

Since the Bible is not originally written in English, everything in it is a translation. Given there are fine nuances of the definitions of words that do not translate well, the true meaning of anything in the Bible is always worth of discussion. Here is a decent write up regarding a man's hair and beard. It explains based on the verbiage actually used as compared to other words that might have been used if the intent was something different.

http://www.bibleresearch.org/articles/alw5.htm

If you are earnest in your statements it would appear you have been wronged. Best of luck to ya with this.

 

[dmerlin25]

I think that's really your best bet - the HRC or the EEOC. Let them make the call.

But you know, your comment about "looking awesome" and the fact that you waited a year will not help your cause.

Just to clarify; HR told me on a phone discussion that I was "being rewarded for being awesome" by being permanently posted at the service gate based on me somehow being exceedingly qualified for that that position over any other employee. My phone records every conversation I have.

 

[justalayman]

Just to clarify; HR told me on a phone discussion that I was "being rewarded for being awesome" by being permanently posted at the service gate based on me somehow being exceedingly qualified for that that position over any other employee. My phone records every conversation I have.

Do you have the permission of every person you speak with to record the conversation?

http://www.rcfp.org/rcfp/orders/docs/CANWETAPE.pdf

A reporter in Montana cannot tape record a conversation without
knowledge of all parties to the conversation. See Mont. Code ann.
§ 45-8-213-c. Exceptions to this rule include the recording of: elected
or appointed officials and public employees, when recording occurs in
the performance of public duty; persons speaking at public meetings,
and persons given warning of the transcription. If one party gives
warning, then either party may record. Mont. Code ann. § 45-8-
213-1-c-i, ii, iii. It is illegal to purposely intercept an electronic
communication. It is also illegal to disclose the contents of an illegally
recorded conversation. Mont. Code ann. § 45-8-213-2.
A person convicted of the offense of violating privacy in communications
shall be fined an amount not to exceed $500 or be imprisoned
in county jail for a term not to exceed six months, or both. Penalties
increase with each offense. Mont. Code ann. § 45-8-213-3.
In 2003, the Montana Supreme Court found that a tape-recorded
conversation between a defendant and others while the defendant was
in prison did not violate state wiretapping laws because the prison
notified the defendant that his telephone conversations were subject
to monitoring. State v. DuBray, 77 P.3d 247, 263 (Mont. 2003).

 

[dmerlin25]

Please don't think I am an expert at the theologies of my religion when I participate in a debate. I simply try to do my best when I choose to honor god with my lifestyle. I do not have any tattoos or piercings, only scars compliments of an adventurous youth and the Marine Corps. I do maintain the hair on my head based on the scriptures in Ezekiel 44:20. I know it is directed at priests but what is wrong with trying to present yourself as holy as a priest.