SJC rules in favor of Rastafarian who alleged discrimination

I'm Nudist and I'm going to sue Massachusetts to allow me to expose my blubber sacks.

Since when does the court make administrative and policy decisions for a business? Will the court be held responsible for lost sales or income? Will the state be held responsible for a business going bankrupt? Courts should stay out of the business of running a business unless it affects the general health or welfare of its citizens. We all are aware of how poorly government performs at keeping costs down and profits up.

The state is not running a business. The court is in the business of guaranteeing that the constitutional rights of all citizens are upheld regardless of individual. group, or company preferences.
A constitution is a sacred agreement among the governed in which people give away only those freedoms that THEY deem appropriate for the maintenance of civil order. Under no circumstances does the government or any other enterprise have the right to curtail freedoms except by the consent of the governed.
_Liberal and libertarian

Sigh. Why is it not a reasonable accomodation to have this guy in a position that does not face customers?

Another example of how religion is ruining the country.

If you read the article you then know that the issues was based on religious freedom, the employee is a Rstafarian and his religion prohibits shaving his beard or cutting his hair.

Religious freedoms and protections have a heightened standard of review by courts because of the importance of relgious freedom to the Founding Fathers. You know the whole escaping religious persecution issue that drove the original settlers here. To justify infringing on someone's religious beliefs or practices the state, or a business must have a compelling state interest.

So when the business' policy requiring him to be clean shaven was introduced AFTER he was hired, there has to be a compelling state interst to infringe on his religious freedom, and I don't believe that a grooming policy of a business rises to the standard of a compelling state interest.

If you think having to work all day in the lower bay is a reasonable accomodation for the exercise of one's religious freedom, which is a bit more than not having to face customers, I wonder if you have ever seen one of those lower bays.

If you have seen one of these bays, below floor level, no windows, and a cramped working space, would you like to work there for your entire shift because your religious beliefes are in conflict with a grooming policy that was instituted after you were hired?

Courts do correct bad policies and administrative decisons of businesses when those policies and decisions come into conflict with freedoms protected by the Constitution, or with statutes that are designed to protect the health, safety, and well being of the people that work at the business.

Last I checked, nudism is not a recognized organized religion as is required to trigger constitutional protections for its practitioners.

Jeez - a majority of dumb comments posted so far.

1st ) Nudism, last I checked, is not a religious practice - this is a human rights issue, not just a dress issue.

2nd) The SJC IS ruling on the welfare of the citizens - that is, how citizens are treated at the workplace (and how their rights are protected). It is not even beginning to intrude on how the business is run as a business, though it is involving itself in how the business operates as a social institution.

3rd) Sigh - I think you misunderstand the legal concept of "reasonable accomodation." The point is that the company must prove that treating this employee differently as a result of his religious practice is necessary because otherwise it becomes a hardship for the company. It has not proved this, ergo it may not discriminate against said employee - the company must make a reasonable accommodation to its policies to treat the employee similar to other employees.

------
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to add a comment on a website and remove all doubt. - Abraham Lincoln

On the other side of the coin; To each their own, however, I hold suspect any religion that would tell me that I could not shave or cut my hair.
How is being clean shaven/having a beard or having a little hair or long hair, have anything to do with how your god looks upon you and your deeds?

The SJC, as most people know, is a collection of liberal buffoons.

Communism...do what I say and give me your money. Welcome to Mass.

This decision was a no brainer. Why did this case have to go all the way up?

I am always glad to see the court stick up not jut for the individual or minority group, but especially as a finding of law. This really will begin to teach businesses they have no right to interfere in a person's practice of religion.

Now if only we could get such level minded jurists on the federal Supreme Court as we have on the SJC, the US would be a far better and more tolerant place.

Isn't there a Consittutional Amendment about Freedom of Religion?

I missed the amendment about importance of a business making money over civil rights.

Except maybe in Massachusetts of course.

Good decision by the SJC. No employer should be allowed to tell an employee s/he must work behind closed doors because his or her religious appearance might hurt business. In a democratic society, we should not allow people's prejudices--even those of customers--to result in religious discrimination in the workplace.

I guess they can't drug test the Rastafarians either, eh? This is nonsensical.

When did Rastafarianism graduate from an excuse to stay stoned all day to a religion?

What a bunch of morons sit at the SJC. But why should they be any different than the rest of the MA GOV?

Actually Grego, they can't test him unless they either test all other employees or all employees are subject to random testing and they signed a consent when they were hired. As CriticalThinker points out, this restriction was created after he was hired. After someone is hired you cannot make them change their appearance.... In order to show this is not religiously based the company will have to show a reason for wanting clean shaven employees. Restaurants and supermarkets for example can require this of kitchen deli/meat room staff. If it is a religious issue however, they are required to allow the employee to wear a hair/beard net instead of shaving.

"Since when does the court make administrative and policy decisions for a business?"

Since 1789.

Not all Rastafarians are on drugs and this just shows the ignorance of so many if it isn't judeo-christian. I personally know many Rastafarians who do not do any drugs including marijuana. Your lack of worldly knowledge is just saddening. The question I always pose is when does a length of one's hair or beard stop them from doing a good job, never. If the image of Jiffy Lube was so important then they should have had the rule prior to opening a business, common sense I see that lacks even here. Liberal is religous freedom? The comments here are so sad for the most part as to the ignorance of anyone different and yes if it wasn't for the courts employers would enforce their own religous beliefs and how would you like that?

A beard and hair is no big deal and will not cost the company any business. We are talking about Jiffy Lube for goodness sake! Customers come for an oil change, and that's all. There is no hardship for them to LIGHTEN UP!

Dano, you're right that some people here really don't understand the decision.

Massachusetts's Anti-Discrimination Law (c. 151B) prohibits discrimination in employment (and housing) on the basis of religion (as well as race, gender, etc.). Like the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Massachusetts statute requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs.

The court's point here was that society's ideas about "appearances" may themselves reflect religious biases. There are a lot of jobs in which social norms reflect biases that are simply illegal For example, you can't hire only men as waiters in a fancy restaurant, even though many people may be accustomed to having only men in those positions; to do so would be illegal gender discrimination.

Moreover, in the context of religion, c. 151B and similar statutes seek to protect the minority from the majority's tyranny. It is precisely because the plaintiff in this case is a member of a minority religion that he needs protection. Who are we to decide that his faith does not merit protection, but that another does? Social norms change, particularly as we become more open minded toward other faiths, cultures, etc. Indeed, it wasn't so long ago that prohibiting an employee from wearing a yarmulke could have been justified as promoting an employer's public image.

P.S. FYI, Grego, Massachusetts's privacy statute, ch. 214, sec. 1B, also restricts employers' right to drug test employees.

right wing whiners with nothing left to cry about since they LOST to obama !!!

See ya at 4:20 Bobby

Troublemakers ? is this America (free speech) or Communist China ? I'll start listening to jay Severin and espousing we nuke all other countries as he does. Called free speech people

And Ill go by a Herald - jerkeys

Mr. Brown, if I still lived in western MA (which I used to), I'd patronize your shop and ask to shake your hand and also have you personally change my oil! You are obviously a principled and disciplined person, who should be greeting the public, and maybe running the damned shop!. We need more workers like you!

If you agree with us - we will post you

very sad

Can I work as a stripper and tell my employer it is against my religion to expose myself to anyone other that my husband, and it is against my religion to dance, and still demand equal stage time as the other girls, even though I am fully drewssed and will not dance?
I'll bet it would NOT be the same ruling if the plaintiff was a Christian that was told he should wear a crucifix in plain view at all times, or a Rosary.
The judiciary seems to only care about religious freedoms when it applies to non-Christian religions!

Just goes to show how stupid people have become. no one is forcing him to do anything, If he doesn't wish to comply with company policy he has three choices. He can comply , or he can quit and let someone who really needs the job have it , or he can be an ass and be fired and someone that really needs the job can have it. People who run companys have rights too. The jobs they furnish are for people who wish to earn a living and not create problems for everyone else.

This ruling undermines dress codes in Massachusetts and creates more discrimination. Only Rastafarians are allowed to have facial hair?

This opens the door for religion to do more of it does best: use irrational beliefs to justify its actions. What if I started a religion that requires me to dye my hair pink and pierce my nose? If you say I should not be discriminated against then everyone should be able to dye their hair pink and pierce their nose which means dress codes are worthless. If you say my religion is not valid, well I don't think your religion is valid either.

Unfortunately, appearance means a lot to people so it's important to businesses when they want to make money. Businesses have a right to impose reasonable dress codes (you could argue requiring clean shaven employees is unreasonable but that's not the point right now). A person is in control of how they dress and groom themselves.

The constitution requires equal protection of the law, a jewish person or a muslim person or any other person because of their religious belief cannot be discriminated because of their preference. It applies to every group in society, it is not a religious imposition by the courts

For the other comments I've read, please take the time out to read the Constitution. And add the federalist papers of Madison and Hamilton to that.

Good Day. Our own physical body possesses a wisdom which we who inhabit the body lack.
I am from Belgium and learning to write in English, give true I wrote the following sentence: "The symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of flea bite dermatitis in dogs are explained."

Thank you very much :(. Hope.