Go Back   Fratching! > General > Church and State

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #21  
Old 02-01-2014, 08:09 AM
Nyoibo Nyoibo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The land of beer, Vegemite and Drop Bears
Posts: 1,914
Default

Wait, what other religions are being forbidden from carrying weapons that thier faith requires?
__________________
I am a sexy shoeless god of war!
Minus the sexy and I'm wearing shoes.
Reply With Quote

  #22  
Old 02-01-2014, 03:24 PM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfie View Post
Also, who defines whether or not a religion whose tenets require bearing of arms is a legitimate faith?
simple: what are the beliefs of the religion? if there are more beliefs than " we wear a weapon all the time" then it is more or less fine. If the sole belief of the religion is bearing arms, then it is likely fake.
Reply With Quote

  #23  
Old 02-02-2014, 01:42 AM
Hyena Dandy's Avatar
Hyena Dandy Hyena Dandy is offline
Omnomnom
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,415
Default

Quote:
Also, who defines whether or not a religion whose tenets require bearing of arms is a legitimate faith? A few hypotheticals:
I would guess that from United States v. Ballard, the choice would be that if it's a sincerely held belief, you can be allowed to. Sikhs in the army are given an exemption for facial hair and turbans. I don't know about construction sites, but I would think the answer is that they SHOULD be allowed to, as the only person endangered in a construction site would be the Sikh.

As for your hypotheticals.

If Church of Jesus Christ (Crusader) actually exists, then I think a religious exemption may be made. Though they may be asked to do the same thing Sikhs are, and render the sword inoperable.

H. Beam Piper and David Drake are fiction writers, and thus, beliefs that fictional characters hold are not protected, because those aren't real people. But since Wenzil doesn't exist, he can't take his gun anywhere anyway.
__________________
"Nam castum esse decet pium poetam
ipsum, versiculos nihil necessest"
Reply With Quote

  #24  
Old 02-17-2014, 03:54 PM
otakuneko's Avatar
otakuneko otakuneko is offline
Consumer of vapid Animu
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfie View Post
How about construction sites (must wear hard hat) where Sikhs refuse to wear a hard hat because it can't be worn at the same time as a turban? Or the military, where being clean-shaven is mandatory so that a gas mask will fit properly?
Two options:

a) Have the Sikh applicant sign a waiver, indemnifying his employer from any liability should he suffer an injury that could've been prevented by a hardhat or gas mask.
b) Refuse to hire the Sikh on grounds that wearing a hardhat is a bona-fide job requirement. Anti-discrimination/Equal Employment laws have exceptions, and this is one. If Steven Hawking applied for a job as a forklift operator, no one would bat an eye when he was refused.
Reply With Quote

  #25  
Old 02-17-2014, 09:18 PM
wolfie wolfie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 937
Default

a) In a number of cases, waivers (though I haven't heard of one on this issue getting to court) have been judged to have no legal standing. Also, in the military case, someone being incapacitated will put their co-workers in danger. If the incapacitation is unnecessary (i.e. if they'd shaved, their gas mask would have worked properly), allowing a waiver would put their religious beliefs ahead of their co-workers' safety.

b) I was living in B.C. at the time this went to court. A construction company had refused to hire Sikhs because they couldn't/wouldn't wear hard hats due to incompatibility with turbans. The court ruled that their religious freedom trumped the "hard hats must be worn" safety rule. Of course, in the event of an injury that a hard hat would have prevented, the employer would still have been penalized by Worker's Comp as a result of the injury.
Reply With Quote

  #26  
Old 02-18-2014, 06:42 AM
HYHYBT's Avatar
HYHYBT HYHYBT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 5,191
Default

So get a hard hat big enough to fit over the turban, problem solved.
__________________
"My in-laws are country people and at night you can hear their distinctive howl."
Reply With Quote

  #27  
Old 02-18-2014, 08:14 AM
SongsOfDragons SongsOfDragons is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: England
Posts: 391
Default

I swear I've heard of Sikh head protection that fits under the turban. The turban itself isn't the thing - iirc it's their long long hair which they're not allowed to cut...
Reply With Quote

  #28  
Old 02-19-2014, 11:43 PM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfie View Post
a) In a number of cases, waivers (though I haven't heard of one on this issue getting to court) have been judged to have no legal standing. Also, in the military case, someone being incapacitated will put their co-workers in danger. If the incapacitation is unnecessary (i.e. if they'd shaved, their gas mask would have worked properly), allowing a waiver would put their religious beliefs ahead of their co-workers' safety.

b) I was living in B.C. at the time this went to court. A construction company had refused to hire Sikhs because they couldn't/wouldn't wear hard hats due to incompatibility with turbans. The court ruled that their religious freedom trumped the "hard hats must be worn" safety rule. Of course, in the event of an injury that a hard hat would have prevented, the employer would still have been penalized by Worker's Comp as a result of the injury.

with waivers, it isn't that they have no legal standing, IIRC- it is that they are interpreted as narrowly as possible- in other words, the waiver protects against reasonably foreseeable risks, but not if the employer got careless.(for example, if you do extreme sports, a waiver won't help if the operator doesn't bother with safety gear. In the case of the Sikhs, there is a reasonable accomodation- there are less risky jobs that a Sikh can do, while still being employed by the company ( I'm sure there are office-=based positions)
Reply With Quote

  #29  
Old 03-09-2014, 05:17 AM
Seshat Seshat is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,032
Default

In many religions (all that I know of, but I don't know every single religion out there!); the religious leaders will consult with safety experts and come up with a compromise accomodation that suits both the religious requirements and the safety issues.

So in the case of the sikh turbans and hard hats, I expect (might be wrong, but expect) that there is some sort of hard hat that fits under or over a turban; or that there is an exemption in the religious law that says a hard hat is a suitable head covering when it's needed for safety reasons, or .. I dunno. Something.

Again, I may be wrong. But few religions actually would prefer their people having their brains bleeding out their ears, rather than wearing something safety orange on their head.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:53 PM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.