Welcome to Gaia! ::

In this case, the law is protecting people from discrimination in the private sector.
For example, the right to refuse service to people with a certain skin color is not the same as the right to refuse service to someone who negatively effects your ability to work. Because of this, laws have cropped up that reflect rights granted to people through the Constitution.


I used the term Constitution because the Amendments, including the Bill of Rights, are Amendments to the US Constitution. I apologize if my wording was confusing.


That would be the case if the law granted special rights to a specific religion. Having said that, the Law also acknowledges that commentary and decisions made that apply equally to religious and non-religious peoples can be made without "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity".

I feel there is also a misunderstanding about the interrelationship between Constitutional Law and the laws we are speaking of. While Congress passes amendments to our Constitution, it is the Court's duty to interpret those laws in a way that does not undermine the principles of our country or the spirit of our government and it's ideals.

Because of this, the US Constitution is not in a vacuum. Without understanding the case law, which I have been providing, we cannot understand Constitutional Law- because we only would see the principle devoid of how it effects our rights as citizens. I feel that for your side of the argument to sway me, you would have to demonstrate that case law supports the right of an employer to discriminate based on people's religions.

The legal application of the First Amendment requires a deeper understanding of the principles than are recorded in the document itself. This is why I quoted the decision of the Lemon case earlier. The establishment of religion has a very specific meaning.

And groups that fall under the scope of religious discussion, such as Secular Humanism are entitled to the same protection a Catholic or a Pagan would be. Because of this, the laws protecting people from religious discrimination are Constitutional.

I feel I have demonstrated this several times by showing the court decisions and the case law. If you can show me later decisions that have struck down those rulings, it would go a long way towards changing my understanding of the law.


Unfortunately, being a democrat does not ensure that you hold a certain set of ideas and philosophies. Some are democrats because their independent groups which are far closer to their actual political ideas are not viable in a two party system.


I have not claimed he is a member of Congress. What I have shown in the previous pages is that the interpretation of the First Amendment has, through case law and legal discourse in nationally published law journals, taken a foothold in the private sector.

Having said that, it is not a Title III violation. It is a Title VII violation since it specifically addresses employment discrimination.

Do you feel that this kind of favoritism could be equally considered as bias?

While that is a reasonable spiritual accommodation, it seems physically impractical.

An analogy I would make would be asking a Muslim woman to hide the fact she is wearing a hijab by wearing a motorcycle helmet. It will cover the hijab, it is far more attention drawing than a simple scarf- if we ignore the physical impracticalities of working with such a helmet.

... Okay why is editing and deleting posts disabled?nvm

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights specifically lay out the rules and rights of the federal government and in some cases, what falls to the state governments. However, they are such a part of the fabric of our society, that we as citizens feel they should extend elsewhere.This is where all the tension begins.

Sorry for not reading the full thread, but has the OP contacted her state or local ACLU? Many branches have handled issues regarding religious emblems at school and work and might be able to offer some guidance.

If jewelry is barred for safety reasons, your friend probably doesn't have much of an argument. I worked around machinery in one job, and you absolutely could NOT wear necklaces, even chokers. One person did get injured when her necklace caught in the machine and it was, as I recall being told, a cross necklace. She had it tucked into her bra but it came out and caught in a roller on a machine. It snapped, but it cut her neck pretty badly and of course, broke an expensive machine and affected business costs and production.

But there are always ways to make accommodations. The ACLU might be able to help with suggestions, etc...

*casts phoenix down*

Don't know if there was any resolution to all of this, but I was posting in another guild about this and it occurred to me that (if he's still having issues), it might be worth it for him to contact these people - if nothing else at least for some advice.

A girl was recently suspended from school for having piercings that went against the schools dress code. They filed a lawsuit, claiming religious exemption because she and her mom were members of the Church of Body Modification.