I was pointing out the correct basis for making a case for discriminating on the basis of politics, according the President and much of the Republican Party – who are the dividers on this revival of the segregationist theory that religion allows discrimination in public businesses. Whether the argument is made by Democrats or Republicans, ti should be rejected.
So, what is your correct basis for excluding people from access to your goods and services? Are you saying it is never right?
First of all, I am talking about businesses that are open to the public. Religious institutions, in contrast, can impose rules in accordance with their belief system. But a store operated by an adherent of a religion is a public institution. A store operated by a religious believer is still public. Thus a Jew might open a Kosher butcher shop and while that proprietor cannot be compelled to stock non-kosher products, they do have an obligation to sell the products they do stock to anyone who has the money to buy them.
Any organization can impose rules that it imposes on all people: for instance a restaurant can require that people wear shoes or a bank can insist that loan applicants demonstrate fiscal solvency. These are characteristics a person can change. A person can go get their shoes and, while it might take a bit longer, a person can change their financial status.
Anything that distinguishes by a characteristic that cannot be changed: race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, physical disability is not allowable.
The big exception to this is age: we do not allow children to drink in bars or drive vehicles. However, age is a universal characteristic. We all grow older (as long as we live) and thus barriers based on age are overcome by the passage of time.
1 Like
read the article. It clearly talks about it as a matter of dress code for all employees. I’ll wait.
And just what might that be?
It’s an opinion piece that starts off:
"The Trump administration is going to court to get trans people fired and force women to dress like Christian conservatives think they should. "
Don’t expect accuracy with that.
Except a person CAN change their religion.
Does anybody really want to look at male legs though?
1 Like
“A lower court ruled last year that Harris Funeral Homes broke the law when they fired Aimee Stephens, a woman who began transitioning in 2013. Harris Funeral Homes is owned by conservative Christians who objected to people transitioning. The company also forced all employees to abide by strict gender roles in clothing: Men had to wear suits and ties, and women had to wear skirts and jackets.” From the Article linked in the OP.
Yeah…you can’t believe the lower courts ruling because the article this ruling is written in is an opinion piece. Getting so tired of you (collective) guys telling anyone what is a relevant source is and what it isn’t. I won’t argue with you about this. It is clearly there and written as fact. But take it as you want it. I won’t stand in the way.
Submit.
The Funeral Home is run by Christians.
Per IIRC, Leviticus, it is unlawful for women to dress like men and for men to dress like women.
Exactly what, please, is so repressive about women wearing blouses & long skirts? It’s very comfortable attire & feminine.
If a hospital employer not only required scrubs & sneakers but color coded the required scrubs by department, & an employee wore his or her own choice scrubs, or came to work in ripped jeans & a t shirt, it is perfectly acceptable to send that employee home until he/she comes in appropriate attire, or terminate their employment should there be refusal to comply.
If an employer has dress codes for everything from religious to health & sanitary guidelines & an employee refuses to comply, I’m all for letting them go. For example, a nurse in Rhode Island who refuses a flu shot or to wear a face mask can be fired. They’re jeopardizing patients’ health.
It just amazes me the minimum standards westerners find oppressive. A skirt? A cloth head covering? Jiminy Cricket on a pogo stick, women aren’t being asked to don iron masks.
Doesn’t matter and I get what you are saying…If you identify as woman and make people identify you that way…it’s no longer a two way street.
I’m willing to give them a pass on this one. Nobody wants to see that ■■■■■ Let them wear Clinton Clothes.
We run into this at times at my work place. I work with people who are disabled. Our direct care staff often get injuries because of the stupid stuff they wear to work. Large dangling ear rings, sandals and flip flops, big hanging necklaces, and low cut blouses…the individuals we work with often have aggression toward their staff. We have a dress code in place that is for their protection more than anything else.
I had a woman come into my office screaming at me about this being discriminatory against women. I explained that we don’t allow men to wear sandals, I had a guy who worked with very aggressive guys who was full of piercings and we didn’t let him wear them at work either. Companies get to define their own policies…and as long as they are dealt with fairly across the board, they are generally considered legal…in my 20 year administrative career. I have women in the summer time who work in this office who wear dress shorts to work, the few younger guys said to me one day, why don’t we get to wear shorts to work. I said no one is stopping you. If its appropriate for the ladies its appropriate for you. Ran it by human resources just to be sure…and guys can wear shorts in the summer too. I’ve even done it on occasion.
1 Like
An interesting point. Do you believe that provides a justification for discrimination the basis of religion?
As long as the qualification for protection is that its things that cannot be changed yes it does.
Clarification: When I read the title of the thread, I got in my head that the dress code made a distinction between women wearing skirts, and women wearing pants (as in jeans or pant suits). My place of employment actually has such restrictions, and some women dislike it. And when I read your initial reply that I responded to, and you were talking about other employed women agreeing or objecting to it, my brain reinforced that prejudgement.
My bad on that.
Nonetheless, the funeral home’s dress code is that men wear men’s clothes, and women wear women’s clothes, and if you have the biological male parts you’re a man, and if you have the biological male parts you’re a female… And the business couldn’t (and won’t) have such a customer-facing employee crossing that line.
You and I both believe that…however I do not think that is what is accepted anymore. My point is this…if you want to identify as a female, and you expect others to identify you as such, the rules that apply to other females also should apply to you. I know that is not the way. There is some serious hair splitting going on. I am guessing that on an issue like this I will differ from many here.
Disgusting.
It’s up to the business who they hire or fire, along with the dress code. The LGBTQ+ bar I worked at sometimes required scantily clad clothing for its employees. You stayed home if you didn’t want to wear it. Not a big deal.
1 Like
