Rastafarian believer
The Associated Press just recently published an article titled Rastafarian can sue over Jiffy Lube hair policy. You can read it here. The gist of the article is that Jiffy Lube had already in its employ a person who follows the Rastafarian religion. He had been allowed to follow the Rastafarian hair regulations previously, then Jiffy Lube decided to change its hair policies and ordered him to cut it off. Needless to say, he took his case to court on the grounds that he was already employed and they had already made the necessary “religious adjustments” and could not now go back and revoke them.
Oddly enough, the first court agreed with the employer. Thankfully, the appeals court has ruled that the federal law mandating accommodations for religious beliefs did apply. My guess would be that what weighed particularly on the minds of the justices was that the person was already an employee of Jiffy Lube.
And so, we should all be glad for this ruling. I do not agree with the Rastafarians in any way. But, I am a hearty supporter of our First Amendments freedoms. I know that many of us would wish that the courts had ruled more differently in many other cases involving religion. But, on this one, at least, we have a ruling that defends the right of religion to have a public place in this country.
I am also a hearty supporter of 1st Ammendment freedoms…that is why I believe that the court was wrong to deny them to the employer.
Why should an employer be denied the right to choose or change the policies as to the dress code or appearance of employess representing them?
A real loss for those who value freedom, and a real victory for those who are in favor of government being able to tell people what to do.
I can’t find it anywhere in our Bill of Rights or the Constitution where we are guaranteed the right of employment.
All rights have limits. For instance, it was unanimously ruled in one of our Supreme Court cases that our right to free speech has limits, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
That same type of reasoning is used when rights conflict. In the case cited above, the right of free speech lost out to the right to be free of “clear and present danger.” I would point out here that the right of a person to conduct their own business, is losing out to the right of a person to espouse their own religion.
Let me give you two examples. If I wanted to keep from hiring any observant Orthodox Jews, all I would have to do is forbid the wearing of yarmulkes. In the schools, there have been attempts to forbid students from wearing neck crosses, even if they are the type of tiny baptismal cross worn by many Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
What the courts have consistently ruled is that businesses, even private ones, do not have the right to so set up rules that they deliberately exclude certain classes of people, given our Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.
Mind you, there are various exclusions. For instance, if you are running a Catholic bookstore, you do not have to hire a non-Catholic. As well, the courts actually rule more often in favor of a business than against one. Let me remind you that the reason the US Congress had to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 was the growing feeling that religion was beginning to lose out to other pressures in this country.
Though the act applies to government agencies, its general tenor has been taken to apply to all of us, except for the previously mentioned exemptions.
The act read in part:
SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND DECLARATION OF PURPOSES.
(a) Findings: The Congress finds that–
(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution;
(2) laws ‘neutral’ toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise;
(3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification;
(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
(5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances between religious liberty and competing prior governmental interests.
(b) Purposes: The purposes of this Act are–
(1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened; and
(2) to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.
I believe in freedom. I don’t believe that I should be forced to hire anyone. If I have a bad feeling about someone, if I don’t like the color of his hair, if I don’t like the way he speaks…it ought be my right to hire or not.
Like I said, I don’t remember the right to be employed (by me) to be in the Constitution.
I have lost out to others in competition for jobs. The employer liked something about the other person more than they liked it about me. Do I sue them? Well, I didn’t. But in this day of whiney, what about my rights, self-obsessed people…maybe I should sue.
A business is not forced to hire anyone in particular. But, it is legally forbidden from excluding any particular class of persons from its employ (except in certain cases). Thus, if the boss does not like a particular person, the boss does not have to hire that particular person. One can even fire a person if they are disruptive, with certain limitations to keep one from abusing one’s employees with false charges.
However, a business may not refuse to hire any person due simply to their race, religion, or sex (with some exceptions). Society, that means us, decided many decades ago that the right of the individual to advance himself or herself far outweighed the rights of a store owner (again with certain well recorded exceptions). So, if a business never hires a black or a Jew or a Latino it will end up with a fine and possibly a jail term for the management individual involved.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states in part, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” That has been interpreted to include making or enforcing any laws which can be interpreted in such a way as to give a business unfettered control over its employees or unquestioned hiring practices. All of us are protected by those laws and decisions.
“All of us are protected by those laws and decisions.”
Except the employers.
Hmm, actually businesses do win their share of decisions, for instance this news release from February of this year:
“In the second ruling, the court shielded shippers and delivery services from state regulations that require them to check for proof of age before dropping off cigarettes or alcohol at a residence. In the age of Internet commerce, state officials want to make sure minors are not ordering illegal products for themselves. But in the 9-0 ruling, the court said a federal deregulation law protects shippers from state rules, even those designed to protect health and safety.”
And from a March 2008 article about the US Chamber of Commerce:
“The Supreme Court term that ended last June was, by all measures, exceptionally good for American business. The chamber’s litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them “the highest percentage of victories in the center’s 30-year history. The current term, which ends this summer, has also been shaping up nicely for business interests.”
What happens is that the news media (hungry for readers and viewers) tends to only publish the controversial cases without mentioning that they are the minority of cases. The Supreme Court protects business owners as often as they protect individuals. It is a balancing act.
I just can’t stand class warfare. I believe in freedom. Freedom of association being one of those freedoms.
If the government were to come along and tell the Orthodox Church that they were discriminating against women and therefore needed to allow women priests or be in violation of some law…I would deem that a loss of freedom.
If a priest was caught in adultery…same thing…government said…”you can’t let him go” would that be protecting his personal freedom?
Just some food for thought.