Apparently, the U.S. Justice department, always on the lookout to protect the interests of the delusional, is suing the D.C. area Metro,1 alleging religious discrimination over the Metro’s policy of barring employees from altering their uniforms to comply with their religious beliefs.2
At the focus of the lawsuit is Gloria Jones, an Apostolic Pentecostal Christian, who was allegedly denied employment as a Metro bus driver in 2005 because according to her religious beliefs, she’s not allowed to wear pants. And pants are part of the required uniform for Metro bus drivers, and that’s something Metro apparently doesn’t feel the need to change. A few months ago, I wrote about Intolerable Tolerance in Britain, citing a case where a judge didn’t allow a Muslim attorney to practice specifically because the attorney insisted on wearing a traditional Muslim face covering that made it impossible for the attorney to be understood in the courtroom. I opined that it was the right decision to make — if you can’t do the job, you shouldn’t be doing the job. I can see some potential ways around that one (give the attorney a special microphone?), but it’s practically efficient, and it shouldn’t be up to the court to pander to religious quirks.
What interests me about this Metro case is that, although I don’t think the requirement for pants (over, say, a conservative skirt) is necessary in order for a Metro bus driver to do the job (I could be wrong — for all I know, there are a dozen safety reasons for not wearing a skirt, and that, in my mind, would be case dismissed), the ramifications of a decision in favor of such religious favoritism could be burdensome to the court in the future and could open the door for some really wacky claims that the court would not humor (and thus would, in ignoring such additional claims, be making two standards — one for Christians and probably Muslims, and one for non mainstream religions and beliefs). And that would be bad.
It’s similar to the situation I’d encounter if I insisted on giving a Satanic prayer at the start of the next Congressional session. Isn’t the Church of Satan a recognized religion?
If the court decides against Metro, how would it decide a case where a Buddhist monk insisted on wearing robes and being barefooted? What if a follower of Gaia insisted that her religion forbade her from wearing clothing above the waist? When we start sampling from the fringes of religiously diverse practices, we have the opportunity to compare and contrast those oddities with the rituals and practices that we’ve accepted as “normal” in society, and we hopefully realize that the normal practices are just as odd and should not be allowed as a free pass to deviate from the law (like what’s happening in Britain) or from workplace requirements that probably exist for a reason (safety, uniformity?).
Note that Metro is not government owned or operated, so there’s no whining about free speech or religious freedom. It’s a business, and business owners have the right to require uniform uniforms. Right? I mean, heck, the Supreme Court allowed the Boy Scouts to discriminate against homosexuals, and the Scouts get federal funding! 3 Apparently wrong. The case is based on the federal law that prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (so far, I haven’t seen which specific law Justice is using, but it’s likely one directly related to the Civil Rights Act, based on organizations that are at least partially federally funded, which I believe Metro is). However, I still think the Boy Scouts case creates a precedent that might be useful, depending on how far this case gets.
My take? If I were Metro, I’d say that I’m not discriminating based on religion, I’m discriminating based on FRIGGIN PANTS! Sheesh. Metro isn’t prohibiting the lady from believing in something. Metro isn’t trying to shove secularism or another religion down this lady’s throat. Metro isn’t punishing the lady (like paying her differently (if they had hired her) because of her religious preference). We, as a society governed by laws, must ensure those laws are not misused and abused. The Justice Department should have not taken up this case. It’s going to cost Metro money (which will cost thousands of regular Metro riders and taxpayers money), and it’s not going to solve any actual problems.
Imagine other federally funded occupations where skirt-wearing would be so utterly insane, that the mere thought of trying to bring a case on behalf of some religious nut would warrant a lengthy asylum stay for the Justice attorney. Astronaut sues NASA for not allowing her to wear a no-pants skirt space suit. Government-employed MRI tester insists that religion forbids removal of crucifix necklace, despite medical safety regulations and danger of decapitation. School teacher insists on having stoning parties when a child breaks a Commandment — because that’s what Abraham would do. Oh, and again, school teachers insisting on having the right to teach Creationism in school — preventing them from doing so would be religious discrimination!
One more: According to Sikhism, men’s hair4is a gift from God, not to be cut. This tenet is the most important of all the Sikh requirements. To cut hair is to offend God.5 If a Sikh joined the U.S. military, but refused to have his hair shaved (like the military does to all male recruits), would the U.S. Justice Department sue the U.S. military on behalf of the Sikh?
Where do we draw the line? I say: at the door. Specifically for government-funded organizations or any private entity that wants to draw a line. You don’t have to stop believing at the door, but you shouldn’t be able to insist on doing things your way if your way infringes upon others and is being paid for by the taxpayers.
- That’d be the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, at http://www.wmata.com/ [<]
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100201740.html?nav=rss_metro [<]
- See Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZO.html [<]
- Kesh, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesh_(Sikhism) [<]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikhism#Baptism_and_the_Khalsa [<]
Tags: Abraham, abuse, America, apostolic, astronaut, attorney, belief, Britain, Buddhist, Christ, church, Civil Rights, commandment, Congress, conservative, Cornel, creationism, Eden, free speech, freedom, Gaia, god, Government, Law, lawsuit, medical, metro, metropolitan, Muslim, NASA, Pentecostal, prayer, Religion, rights, Satan, school, Scouts, secular, sex, Sikh, tax, tolerance, war, Washington