|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News CAIR: Texas Medical Group Denies Muslim Doctor Right to Hijab|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Previous Posts as Jade_Gate |
There is a big difference, IMV, between "many" Muslims "viewing" wearing a beard or jijab as a religious requirement ... and it actually being one. Seems to me a number of Muslims on this board have refuted the argument that either is a religious requirement ... but that it is a societal norm for some. |
||
|
|
Active Duty 1975-1999  |
Just as different Jewish and Christian denominations have different policies which may, or may not, be explicitly spelled out in the Bible; some Muslim groups view the beard and headcover as a requirement, others do not. Frankly, I can think of no justification for the medical group’s policy, and I agree with CAIR that this may well be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. |
|||
|
Member |
Well of course you do. You probably think that we should all be under Sharia law too, because by not being, we're also violating muslim rights. I say they take to court. |
|||
|
|
Active Duty 1975-1999 |
I have no idea where you would get an idea like that in your brain! ....Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. As you can see, much to the dismay of the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and phred phelps and James Dobsons of this country, NO version of Sharia type law, be it Islamic, Christian or of any other religion will be allowed to have government support in this Great Country of ours. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Religious Discrimination: ....Employers must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. An employer might accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices by allowing: flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers, modification of grooming requirements and other workplace practices, policies and/or procedures. As you can plainly see, grooming requirements are of secondary concern over accommodating an employee’s religious practices as long as it places no undue hardship on the employer. For example, firefighters are often required to wear breathing apparatus so, along with the danger of it catching fire, this makes beards an undue hardship, so fire departments would be correct in requiring fire fighters to be clean shaven. With very few exceptions beards and headcoverings on doctors and nurses bear no such hardship. The vast majority of medical professionals are extremely conscientious about personal hygiene. The small number who aren’t can be dealt with individually, and probably shouldn’t be in the medical field anyway. So, why do you want to waste taxpayer dollars and court time on this, when the medical group doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning? This message has been edited. Last edited by: DaleU, |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member ------------------  Proud Member Derelict Veterans Group OF MUNERIS UT TOTUS (Of Service To All) ------------------  |
Key word there is 'Congress'. This is the 'State' of Texas. Texas seceded once before because of federal interference in their business, I say, let them do it again.  |
|||
|
|
Active Duty 1975-1999 |
Pray, what does that have to do with anything? I only posted the First Amendment because psycho was trying to bait me by saying “You probably think that we should all be under Sharia law too…” Other than to say what’s not going to happen, the First Amendment is irrelevant to the discussion! What is relevant is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Religious Discrimination. I’ve already highlighted and remarked on the appropriate section. If you personally feel the “need to succeed,” the first thing that comes to my mind is “Don’t let the door hit ya…” |
|||
|
Member |
State rights are an intersting argument for the establishment clause, and one that has been challenged and defeated in Supreme Court. Like it has already been pointed out it is also a violation of the Civil Rights Act. I think there would be a very different reaction here if this would have been a Apostolic Pentacostal Christian woman (they also wear a headcovering). However, if this is a states rights issue then you have no issue with the Chicago ban on handguns since that is a local government issue, and what they do is their business. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Looking at it from the medical group's point of view...how many people would really feel comfortable being treated by a Dr. wearing a hijab...that's the way they have to look at it, and that, my friends, is reality. The fact of the matter is that it would be disruptive to the treatment of patients. This isn't McDonald's we're talking about here. Wearing a hijab has to do with wardrobe, not grooming, and the key words stated in the act cited above are "unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer". If it costs them patients, I'd consider that an "undue hardship", so as I said before, let the Islamics take it to court.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
That rationale is the same as saying patients wouldn't feel comfortable with a black doctor or a woman in general so it is alright not to hire them because of their race or gender. That is not a valid reason not to hire someone. |
|||
|
|
|
Why would a headscarf bother people? Unless of course it's the fact that the doctor was a Muslim that was the problem, in which case wouldn't they want to know that the doctor was a Muslim so as to avoid her? After all if she wasn't wearing a hijab they might never know and then where would we be? |
|||
|
Highly Experienced Member |
IMHO, hygienic concerns with the hijab would be the one valid reason I can see for the group not hiring her.
Face it, work is a benevolent dictatorship. They have a right to dictate apparel worn in the workplace as an employee's appearance and apparel reflect DIRECTLY on them as a business, and if you don't like their policies you have the right to not have to work there. PS - only a small fraction of dimwitted Texans are stupid enough to even give second thought to secession from the Union. |
|||
|
Experienced Member |
 BTW That was sarcasm "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe |
|||
|
|
|
"Hygienic concerns?" Surely it's more hygienic for a doctor to have covered hair? Not by much admittedly but nurses used to wear a quite long headdress to cover their hair precisely for hygiene reasons. |
|||
|
|
Highly Experienced Member |
The operative word being used to. As I said below that though, that isn't the main factor - it's that because your appearance and apparel reflect directly on your employer, they have every right to have and enforce a dress code of their choice. Your only remedy is to not work there. |
|||
|
|
Experienced Member ------------------ Proud Member Derelict Veterans Group OF MUNERIS UT TOTUS (Of Service To All) ------------------ |
I try my best to "succeed" in everything I do. As for as Chitowns gun ban, it is not a 'blanket ban", all the crooks, punks and Citown politicians carry guns, it's only the law abiding citizen that guns are banned. What corrupt Chitown does is their business but it's the control over the whole state with their anti-2nd Ammendment Rights that does concern me, especially since Illinois is 'suppose' to be governed from Springfield. As for 'seceding', the citizens of the state of Illinois would love to 'secede' from Chitown. |
|||
|
|
Active Duty 1975-1999 |
I have no idea why you would think wearing a headscarf would generate “hygienic concerns.” I currently, and have in the past, worked with Muslim women who wear a headscarf, or khimār, as part of their daily dress, and there is nothing unhygienic about it. The woman I currently work with has a variety of very beautiful scarves so she changes them daily, as did the other women. In principal, yes, I agree that the company can dictate general dress code policy, and can provide specific guidance concerning items that affect health and safety issues, as well as company provided uniform issues. However, Title VII holds sway over issues regarding religious dress and not concerning health & safety. As for your “right not to work there” argument, fortunately that went the way of the dodo over 40 years ago. No longer can a company get away with saying “we’re only going to hire people of (fill in the blank) race” or “we only hire people of (fill in the blank) religion.” Title VII also addresses the “appearance and apparel reflect directly on them as a business” aspect of your argument by stating that “employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals…” is a discriminatory practice.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
So....a Dr. that practices Santaria should also be free to sacrifice animals at the hospital where he or she works.....To not allow this would infringe on the rights of that Dr.'s freedom of religious expression...right? How about a Christian Dr. wearing a cross....
Remember the Home Depot thread? The guy was wearing a button, and all of you lefties were jumping all over that....double standard. As long as your religion isn't Christianity, it's good to go, right? Hypocrisy. |
|||
|
|
Member |
"As for your “right not to work there” argument, fortunately that went the way of the dodo over 40 years ago. No longer can a company get away with saying “we’re only going to hire people of (fill in the blank) race” or “we only hire people of (fill in the blank) religion.”
Who said they weren't going to hire her because she's muslim? They just stated that they have a dress code. Every employer I've ever worked for has had a dress code. it appears that they were, in fact, going to hire her, she's the one that's making demands... |
|||
|
|
Always on Warning  |
Actually it may NOT be more hygenic. Depends on what part of a medical center the person(s) are applying for. Hajibs would not be allowed for wear in ICUs, PICUs, Operating Rooms (ORs), ERs, and several other sensitive areas because they can not be made sterile or could contaminate sterile fields. A beard HAS to be able to be contained by a surgical mask for the same reasons. Some religions FORBID the cutting of facial hair... can a beard that is 5" to 10" long be contained? But if you allow a certain dress code in one part of the medical center the cause could be made that the dress code is for the ENTIRE medical center. Does this make sense? |
|||
|
|
Always on Warning |
Dale,
A medical center is a different animal and we do NOT know what position this person was applying for or where in the medical center it would be. I can see no harm for General Practitioners and floor RNs to have some facial hair and/or Hajibs. But there are far too many places in a hospital that both can cost the health and lives of patients.
|
|||
|
| Powered by Eve Community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
Military.com Forums Hot Topics & Current Events In the News CAIR: Texas Medical Group Denies Muslim Doctor Right to Hijab
