Great news: Employers are allowed to ban burquas!

[LilSaihah]

That's a bullshit argument.... religious freedom trumps "dress code"

Presumably because 'dress code' involves practical garments and depending on occupation a headdress like a burqa or hijab may not be a practical garment.

As an example, I remember reading that some police departments were trying to develop a hijab that was appropriate for on-duty officers but they could never create one that wasn't just a choking opportunity waiting to be used.

[Mehrunes]

What if a person wears a ring with a cross on it! Like an employee can be like "oh no religious symbol i'm gonna burn we must be rid of it!" Like it's fucking dramatic.

Jewelry is already subject to dress code, what is your point?

[Kujako]

This triggers the liberal

Funny... it seems conservatives are most prone to should "my freedom!" when they dont get to push their religion on others.

[Themius]

I don't this as anything more than a practical consideration to businesses. If people can wear whatever they want because of religious considerations, it would get out of hand. As with all beliefs - practice what you want, just don't flaunt it or force it on others. Easy-peasy.

Explain to me how is sikh wearing aturban is forcing their religion? If anything the only people I have EVER encounterd trying to force religion were Christians wearing no symbols.

[Deleted]

I also dont wear a T-shirt with F. religions on it, i have respect for others maybe religions ppl should do the same by keeping there cult at home like i keep my rejection at home or on the internet :P

I just see it as Religion has no place in the work place, if an employer wants to allow their employees to wear religious items then so be it, but also so be it if they wish to ban religious items. As long as its done fairly, i wouldn't defend it if they banned x religions wear while not banning y religion wear.

[Deleted]

So Christians are getting killed left and right in Malaysia?

Christians are getting killed in africa mostly and the middle east.

And sadly the killing is slowly crouching up on the europe. And we already have it in the US too. You remember that queerfolks club? That muslim guy killed a lot of those unfortunate souls

[Themius]

Presumably because 'dress code' involves practical garments and depending on occupation a headdress like a burqa or hijab may not be a practical garment.

As an example, I remember reading that some police departments were trying to develop a hijab that was appropriate for on-duty officers but they could never create one that wasn't just a choking opportunity waiting to be used.

Okay... but in an office building, a hijab, or a turban is perfectly practical. I'm not islamic or a sikh but I don't even think twice if I see a person in one of those 2 items, it doesn't fucking enrage me and make me think "omg unfair! they get to wear hats! I want to wear my hat!"

[Tommi]

That's a bullshit argument.... religious freedom trumps "dress code"

So if I made up a religion saying I must be naked at all times, that's allowed? What if my religion gets 100 million followers?

Ofcourse it isn't. Private businesses can make whatever fucking dress code they want as long as it's legal.

[Themius]

Christians are getting killed in africa mostly and the middle east.

And sadly the killing is slowly crouching up on the europe. And we already have it in the US too. You remember that queerfolks club? That muslim guy killed a lot of those unfortunate souls

You remember the several muslims or not even muslim but just Indian people who were mistaken for muslim being killed and attacked by fucking white people in America.

- - - Updated - - -

So if I made up a religion saying I must be naked at all times, that's allowed? What if my religion gets 100 million followers?

Ofcourse it isn't. Private businesses can make whatever fucking dress code they want as long as it's legal.

They can't make "whatever fucking dress code" they want, if they couldn't then there wouldn't have been any cases to decide that in Europe now would there? What a stupid thing to say...

[Zandalarian Paladin]

I also dont wear a T-shirt with F. religions on it, i have respect for others maybe religions ppl should do the same by keeping there cult at home like i keep my rejection at home or on the internet :P

I think this should be put more forward.

Religious freedom is to accept the fact that the public spaces are - and should be - "laic". You shouldn't have the right to outwardly expose your religion outside of dedicated areas. I don't support Christianity more than I do Islam. Fundamentally, outside of churches and mosques, I think that excessive exhibition of religious garbs is simply against our fundamental values of freedom, human's rights and equality at large. A dogma is not freedom of speech, it's slavery.

Likewise, I don't support outward exhibitionism of atheism, nor do I think it should be pushed down the throat of people. More often than not, it feel like a secular group trying to push down an interpretation of science down the throat of the world. But at least there's no "atheist" garbs, so there's that.

[Mehrunes]

No they shouldn't be allowed to, allowing to is stupid.

If a person is religious and must wear a turbin for their religion and personal happiness then they must be allowed to, simple.

What if someone wants to wear a cowboy hat because it gives them personal happiness for non religious reason? Oh, wait, that's subject to dress code even in US. And it's treating religious people in a privileged manner. For some reason I don't see you bitching about it.

[Themius]

I think this should be put more forward.

Religious freedom is to accept the fact that the public spaces are - and should be - "laic". You shouldn't have the right to outwardly expose your religion outside of dedicated areas. I don't support Christianity more than I do Islam. Fundamentally, outside of churches and mosques, I think that excessive exhibition of religious garbs is simply against our fundamental values of freedom, human's rights and equality at large. A dogma is not freedom of speech, it's slavery.

Likewise, I don't support outward exhibitionism of atheism, nor do I think it should be pushed down the throat of people. More often than not, it feel like a secular group trying to push down an interpretation of science down the throat of the world. But at least there's no "atheist" garbs, so there's that.

By saying no one should be able to outwardly express anything other than non-religious symbols is you know... marginalizing.

[Mistame]

Should an employer be able to require female employees to go topless? If not, then they shouldn't get to ban hijabs either. Their tits or their hair, both are covered for religious reasons.

Why would Muslim women be applying at titty bars?

Time to ban jews from wearing yarmulkas

And if the employer has a no religious attire policy, that's fine.

[Themius]

What if someone wants to wear a cowboy hat because it gives them personal happiness for non religious reason? Oh, wait, that's subject to dress code even in US. And it's treating religious people in a privileged manner. For some reason I don't see you bitching about it.

Religion being part of one's personal well being and happiness is part of our constitution.

[Deleted]

So if I made up a religion saying I must be naked at all times, that's allowed? What if my religion gets 100 million followers?

Ofcourse it isn't. Private businesses can make whatever fucking dress code they want as long as it's legal.

Id assume that there would be limits to what dress code an employer can actually enforce, it wouldn't stand up if they said people can only come to work in just their socks. Imo if a place allows someone to wear a headscarf at work, people should be allowed to wear hats or hoodies, someone shouldn't get special treatement and exemption from rules just because of their religion, so thge simplest solution imo is give employers the right to ban certain items of clothing, that way its fair for everyone.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

By saying no one should be able to outwardly express anything other than non-religious symbols is you know... marginalizing.

Intersectionality is marginalizing. Public spaces being "laic" is the exact opposite of "marginalizing".

[Kujako]

Why would Muslim women be applying at titty bars?

What about "facey bars"? Everyone has their kink.

[Mehrunes]

Should an employer be able to require female employees to go topless? If not, then they shouldn't get to ban hijabs either. Their tits or their hair, both are covered for religious reasons.

Also personal level of comfort with nudity and, you know, decency laws that forbid it.

[Moratori]

Religion being part of one's personal well being and happiness is part of our constitution.

Go be religious on your free time then.

[Themius]

Intersectionality is marginalizing. Public spaces being "laic" is the exact opposite of "marginalizing".

You'd be forcing people to dress and act a certain way....

- - - Updated - - -

Go be religious on your free time then.

I am not religious. This stupidity though of the non-religious acting like victims because someone is wearing a yarmulka or a hijab, is just fucking pathetic though.