Did This Woman Deserve To Be Fired For Not Wearing Makeup?
Shanoa Vlid lost her job because she refused to wear makeup, against the wishes of the new owners of the restaurant where she worked for five years.
Employers have the right to do this. A few years ago, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is not discrimination for employers to make women wear makeup. (Who are these judges? Maybelline stockholders?)
But just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.
The waiters at the joint are asked to be clean-shaven. Does an owner have a right to tell a man he can’t have a beard or mustache? Is that the same thing as telling a woman she must wear makeup? And can you always even tell if a woman is wearing makeup? Vlid, certainly, appears not to need a trowel to apply makeup; nor does she really need the makeup.
“…just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right.”
Alan, you’ve made a statement capable of universally resonating with people, whatever their personal political idealogy.
And no, Ms. Vlid doesn’t really need the makeup; that smile reveals enough inner beauty to give her a charisma that no makeup could provide
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Alan said: A few years ago, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is not discrimination for employers to make women wear makeup. (Who are these judges? Maybelline stockholders?)
K: No, Alan, they are the most liberal set of judges ever gathered together on a Federal Circuit Court. Eat your heart out…
Lily Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Liberal judges can’t be Maybelline stockholders?
Kregg Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Lily said: Liberal judges can’t be Maybelline stockholders?
K: I”m sure they can, however, they don’t reach decisions like this based on their stock portfolio but on their review of the law and – at least with Libs – their personal belief systems. So, Alan has a beef with his own kind – which is kind of delicious… ;-)
OldLefty Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:44 pm
You mean like Cons had with the courts and Terri Schivo?
Kregg Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:16 am
Left said: You mean like Cons had with the courts and Terri Schivo?
K: Yup, except lipstick isn’t a life and death matter…
OldLefty Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 am
The main point is still the same thing:
Disagreement with a court ruling, even IF the judges tend more your side.
Kregg Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Lefty said: The main point is still the same thing: Disagreement with a court ruling, even IF the judges tend more your side.
K Whats not to agree/disagree with? Employers have the right to make sure their employees represent the business in the way the employer wants them to. If an employee doesn’t want to comply they certainly have the right to leave that employment and seek another more in tune with their attitude. Why should an employee determine the rules of the workplace?
OldLefty Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:38 am
I agree AND disagree….Do they have the right tell the girls to wear more revealing outfits?
What if other employers follow suit?
If your daughter needs a job for tuition, the job market is tough to begin with,…they have a right submit or be unemployed?
If people are smart or true to their principles they won’t go there….I won’t go to Hooters or take my daughters there, but most people just accept and take it.
Kregg Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Lefty said: I agree AND disagree….Do they have the right tell the girls to wear more revealing outfits? What if other employers follow suit?
K: Yes they do. If an employee chooses not to wear a revealing outfit they are free to find employment somewhere else – and I’d advise them to do so. It is the employer’s business – NOT the employees. So, if an employee wishes to be employed there they will follow the rules of the employer and NOT demand that the employer bend to THEIR wishes.
L: If your daughter needs a job for tuition, the job market is tough to begin with,…they have a right submit or be unemployed?
K: It is not a business’ responsibility to provide my daughter a job. Period. My daughter would have to choose to accept the employment rules and be hired – or keep looking for a job who’s rules she agreed with.
L: If people are smart or true to their principles they won’t go there….I won’t go to Hooters or take my daughters there, but most people just accept and take it.
K: I certainly hope you don’t take your daughters to Hooters! How old are they? And, it is your free choice to vote with your wallet but it is NOT your right – or any employee’s – to demand that a business you don’t own be run in a way acceptable to you. It just doesn’t work that way and even those idiots on the 9th circuit couldn’t find a way around it.
May 22nd, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Well lets face it Ms Vlid is no Miss Ca.
That a side … you are right Alan she has the right NOT to wear make-up if she chooses. That is her right. However, her employer has the right present the image he chooses for his business. If he want a clean cut image for both men and women that is his right.
Ms Vlid should quite her whining and open her own business where she can wear whatever her little heart desires.
Lily Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 pm
What whining, Bernie? I don’t see any indication of it.
average james Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Actually that smile makes her pretty hot, in my opinion.
She’s definitely not your barbie doll plastic perfection, but that has always struck me as kinda unreal anyway. I am a fan of the natural look.
deeznuts Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Well lets face it Ms Vlid is no Miss Ca.
Agreed. Ms Vlid is definitely hotter and almost certainly smarter.
Bernie-in-Michigan Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Hmmm if Ms Vlid is so HOT and S M A R T why is she an unemployed waitress?
Lily Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:39 pm
I guess you’d have to actually read what Alan posted for the answer to that question.
average james Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Wow Bernie,
How shallow and judgmental that sounds. I feel bad for you.
average james Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Bernie,
Click on “lost her job” in Alan’s story.
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Actually Alan, it’s being legal, or the law, is exactly what makes it right.
Yes.
The employer has the right to dictate to the employee the expected manner of conduct, and the expected appearance, the employee is not required to work there, the employee has the option to go elsewhere for work.
The employer has control of the work environment, not the employee….
Lily Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Yep, slavery was right when it was legal. Women and blacks not having the right to vote was just fine til the laws changed.
You’re further proof of the conservative/authoritarian theory.
trees are people too Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:27 pm
This issue has absolutely zero to do with either of your two non sequitur’s…….
I hope you didn’t hurt your foot when you reflexively jerked your knee like that………..
average james Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Lack of make up
“Actually alan, it’s being legal, or the law, is exactly what makes it right.”—-TREES
————————————————-
Abortion
Actually Trees, it’s being legal, or the law, is exactly what makes it right.
Lily Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:35 pm
If you claim that something is right solely on the basis that it’s legal, then my comments are not non sequiturs.
trees are people too Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Hmmm….capitol punishment, it’s being legal, or the law, is exactly what makes it right….
How do you feel about that issue in this context?
Is capitol punishment “ok”?
And I’m not sure here AJ, but are you pro choice?
trees are people too Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:48 pm
So lily, are we a nation of laws or not??
Who’s rights reign supreme, the business owner or the employee??
Does the business owner have the right to set the standard in regards to conduct and appearance??
Does the Maitre’d of the restaurant have “the right” to wear flip flops, or shorts in the workplace?
Can the cook in the kitchen have hair down to his waist and get it in the food he’s preparing?
Can he refuse to clip his nose hair?? Doesn’t he have the right?
Can the waiter come to work without bathing for a week, or maybe he’s decided to forgo wearing deodorant or perhaps brushing his teeth??
Sorry, but the businessman has the right to set the rules in the workplace, and you don’t have to work there, you are not a slave, you have the right to stay home…..
average james Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Actually Trees, I am a pro-life liberal.
I’m not the only one. Harry Reid and that governor from ….Colorado ? is it? He spoke at the Dems convention.
I am anti-death penalty as well. Frankly I do not think that the US gov ought to be killing anybody. Defensive military action as well as some police protecting citizens as obvious exceptions.
I am also a Christian, with serious issues at the organized church level. What Christ are they following ?
average james Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Trees my initial point was,
Just because something is legal, does not make it right.
Do you think that it does ?
Then abortion is right, because it is legal.
Do you now think that abortion is right ?
average james Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Trees man,
Do you remember proofs, in school ?
Critical thinking ? Logic ?
I know you are not pro-choice, so what’s up ?
Lily Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:25 pm
Trees, the article clearly says, “Employers have the right to do this.”
If all our laws are ok, why do we ever change them? As AJ said, use critical thinking. Women being denied the right to vote was not ok, even when it was legal. There are many, many examples of laws being changed because they weren’t right. I’m sure you realize this and I’m equally sure you’d agree that changing some of them was, in fact, the right thing to do.
trees are people too Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Well, there are churches that I have serious issues with as well. (Joel Osteen’s prosperity doctrine being but one example)
But there are excellent churches, and it requires some effort to find one, but they do exist.
Without getting into specifics it would be hard to know just what we agree on and disagree on.
If you are ever interested you can google ccesco dot com and check out Miles DeBenedictis, he’s a 28 yr old senior pastor. (which is practically unheard of) I think you would find his sermons extremely interesting and you can hear them for free online. I promise you will not be bored or disapointed, it’s good stuff Brother.
Anyhow, you made an excellent point…
The problem the young lady in this article has is that not every woman is considered acceptable without make up in an industry where sex appeal is part and parcel of the trade.
The business owner is trying to project a certain appearance, and his business depends on attracting customers.
If he allows for the appearance to be according to the whim of the employee then his business could suffer as a result. Most women understand that their tips are derived in part based on their appearance, and don’t have to be told to try and make themselves attractive.
The business owner is wanting attractive women as waitresses to attract business…do I like this practice??
No.
Does he have the right to mandate a certain appearance?
Yes, he does…however he must remain consistent in his policy…which is why he dismissed the woman, even though she looks fine without make up. He has the right to determine the practices within his place of business.
Is it discriminatory?
It could be…..but proving that you weren’t hired because you’re ugly is a difficult case to prove I would imagine…….is that the real underlying question in regards to this topic???
Does a business owner have the right to hire only attractive waitresses???
That’s a pretty good question, I think.
Does a business owner have a right to hire only people who are smart???
Isn’t that discriminating against stupid people?
Please understand this James, my point was that we are a nation of laws, and that without laws we would be a nation of anarchy…
So do I approve of abortion?
No.
Do I recognize that abortion is legal?
Yes.
Do we need to change the law in regards to abortion?
Yes.
average james Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:56 pm
OK Trees,
I get ya. I don’t like it either, but apparently it is legal. I also do not have to support establishments that I do not agree with.
The logic and consistency thing is an important element in constructive dialogue. It throws me for a loop when I see it go awry.
Jusy because something is legal, doesn’t make it right.
Agreed.
average james Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Trees bud,
I can’t let you slide on this one.
Abortion is legal.
Kregg Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:38 pm
That which is legal is NOT necessarily ‘right’ because ‘right’ is in the eye of the beholder. However, that which is legal is permissible.
average james Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Well put, sir Kregg.
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:10 pm
As the TV show on Daria is titled, “It’s a Sick, Sad, World”.
I guess customers who hold different values for their daughters are free to boycott the joint, too.
Kregg Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Exactly right, Lefty.
Kregg Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Or, “exactly left, righty?”
May 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 pm
My thoughts on this—-A big fat whoop-dee-doo!!!!
Lily Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Daddio, I was wondering if you’ve had the chance to answer the 3 questions I had asked you? The latest is in the GITMO Detainee article near the bottom just above the 2 long posts. The other 2 questions were referenced right there too.
Daddio Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Refresh me on that Lily. I apparently had left before you had posed the questions. Thanks.
Lily Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Refresh me on that Lily.
———————-
I just did, right above your post it tells you exactly where the questions are posted. I will C & P them here if you like?
Lily Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Just let me know if you want me to post the questions here…
Lily Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 8:56 am
Whenever it’s convenient for you, just say the word.
Daddio Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:19 am
Sorry Lily, but I have a slow computer. It might be easier for you to post your questions again. My apologies again for not getting to your questions.
The word. There you go.
Lily Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:26 am
Ok, the first was from the Gitmo detainee thread.
Daddio: Maybe we could make the argument about Clinton ignoring the three chances he had to get Osama on a silver platter.
Lily: Daddio, I’m not arguing, but what crime should Clinton have accused him of?
Lily Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:29 am
The second was from the GOP losing voters thread, though it might be best for you to look it up there since I referenced someone else’s post along with your own. (there are only a few comments, easy to navigate through)
Lily Reply:
May 20th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Jared, Daddio, no comment about BarryB’s findings?
Lily Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:33 am
Apologies to the rest of you for reposting all this. I’ll be back in an hour or so.
GuidoVanHorn Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:34 am
Lily: Daddio, I’m not arguing, but what crime should Clinton have accused him of?
—
I think Osama Bin Laden took direct responsibility for the first WTC bombing, and some others that happened against US embassies/bases all over the world.
Daddio Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:36 am
First–Osama basically was a war with the US. He had already committed terror attacks against the US. So bring him in for that.
Second–I mentioned a Gallop poll taken just a few days ago showing those who call themselves Democrat or Republican. In both cases the poll numbers show 32% calling themselves Democrat and 32% calling themselves Republican. Both parties are losing voters. This poll also showed more lost on the Democrats.
Lily Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:31 am
And from the Ventura thread, in 2 parts:
1.
Daddio, you said:
“Funny Lily how you believe that in this country a person is innocent until proven guilty unless the person is Dick Cheney, George Bush, Rumsfeld, or any other that served in the Bush Administration.
You have already found them all guilty and you want to march them to the gallows.
Is that innocent until proven guilty just apply to liberals?”
—————————————-
Can you point to one post I’ve made stating or suggesting that anyone in the Bush administration should be accused without investigation?
Daddio Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:25 am
Not sure Lily. But I do get the impression from your posts that you want him arrested and thrown into jail before any evidence is actually brought up.
I don’t recall if I was posting at you directly though Lily. I do know there are many here who would rejoice if Cheney was arrested with no evidence of wrongdoing.
Lily Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
I guess that’s a ‘no’
Lily Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:31 am
2.
You also said:
“And the ACLU has prosecuted many cases where a student was “caught” reading his/her Bible at school. Just one example.”
—————————————
Can you post a source for this statement?
OldLefty Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 9:56 am
Don’t make me print my pages of ACLU cases supporting religious freedom of individuals.
Daddio Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:26 am
Come on Lefty. Print them again. Please. Pretty please.
Daddio Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:29 am
Gotta go. Have business to attend to in town. Get back to you later.
But, Lily I do remember a few cases where students were hauled into court to defend their right to read the bible. Don’t have particular cases or dates. Don’t write that stuff down as it happens. My apologies.
OldLefty Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:36 am
Alright, don’t say I didn’t warn you!
The ACLU has taken many cases protecting religious freedom:
Here’s about 5% of the list, one only has to google to link to the cases.
The ACLU of Rhode Island (2003) interceded on behalf of an interdenominational group of carolers who were told they could not sing Christmas carols on Christmas Eve to inmates at the women’s prison in Cranston, Rhode Island.
The ACLU of Southern California (2008) filed suit on behalf of members of a faith-based charity organization after park rangers threatened to arrest the members for serving hot meals and distributing Bibles to the homeless on Doheny State Beach.
The ACLU of Louisiana (2008) filed a brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting an individual’s right to quote Bible verses on public streets in Zachary, Louisiana.
The ACLU of Wisconsin (2007) filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that individual pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their religious scruples, provided that patients can obtain prescriptions from willing providers in a safe and timely manner.
The ACLU of New Jersey (2007) defended the right of an elementary school student who was prohibited from singing “Awesome God” in a voluntary, after-school talent show for which students selected their own material. The ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief. After a favorable settlement was reached for the student, the federal lawsuit was dismissed.
The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) prevailed in its lawsuit defending the right of a Christian man to exercise his religious and speech rights by protesting against homosexuality in front of a Wal-Mart store with a sign that read: “Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Marriage and Gay Lifestyles. Don’t Shop There.”
The ACLU of Nevada (2006) defended the free exercise and free speech rights of evangelical Christians to preach on the sidewalks of Las Vegas. When the County government refused to change its unconstitutional policy, the ACLU filed suit in federal court.
ACLU Cases Defending Religious Freedom
The ACLU of Southern California (2008) filed suit on behalf of members of a faith-based charity organization after park rangers threatened to arrest the members for serving hot meals and distributing Bibles to the homeless on Doheny State Beach.
The ACLU of Louisiana (2008) filed a brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting an individual’s right to quote Bible verses on public streets in Zachary, Louisiana.
The ACLU and the ACLU of Texas(2008) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Texas Supreme Court in support of mothers who had been separated from their children by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). The DFPS seized more than 450 children from their homes in Eldorado, Texas following vague allegations about child abuse by some members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While fully supporting the state’s commitment to protecting children from abuse, the ACLU argued that Texas law and the U.S. Constitution required that the children be returned unless the state could provide the requisite evidence of abuse. Neither Texas law nor the U.S. Constitution allows the state to separate children and their parents based on purported cultural harm alone or on the state’s disapproval of the families’ religious beliefs. In May 2008, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously ruled, consistent with the ACLU position, that the state must return the children to their homes pending further investigation of allegations of abuse.
The ACLU of Florida (2007) argued in favor of the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event held in the City of St. Petersburg. The City had proposed limiting opposition speech, including speech motivated by religious beliefs, to restricted “free speech zones.” After receiving the ACLU’s letter, the City revised its proposed ordinance.
The ACLU of Oregon (2007) defended the right of students at a private religious school not to be pressured to violate their Sabbath day by playing in a state basketball tournament. The Oregon School Activities Association scheduled state tournament games on Saturdays, the recognized Sabbath of students and faculty of the Portland Adventist Academy. The ACLU argued that the school’s team, having successfully made it to the tournament, should not be required to violate their religious beliefs in order to participate.
The ACLU of West Virginia (2007) sued on behalf of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) university student who won a prestigious scholarship to West Virginia University. Although the state scholarship board provided leaves of absence for military, medical, and family reasons, it denied the ACLU’s client a leave of absence to serve on a 2-year mission for his church. The ACLU filed a religious freedom claim in federal court.
The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) challenged a North Carolina Department of Corrections policy making all religious services in prison English-only, thereby denying access to many inmates. The North Carolina Division of Prisons agreed to review the policy and the need for religious services in languages other than English in the state correctional system.
The ACLU of Wisconsin (2007) filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that individual pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their religious scruples, provided that patients can obtain prescriptions from willing providers in a safe and timely manner.
The ACLU of New Jersey (2007) defended the right of an elementary school student who was prohibited from singing “Awesome God” in a voluntary, after-school talent show for which students selected their own material. The ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief. After a favorable settlement was reached for the student, the federal lawsuit was dismissed.
The ACLU and the ACLU of Pennsylvania (2007) prevailed in their case on behalf of an Egyptian Coptic Christian who had been detained and who claimed he had been tortured by the Egyptian government because he refused to convert to Islam. After permitting Sameh Khouzam to stay in the United States for nine years based on evidence that he would probably be tortured if he returned to Egypt, the U.S. government changed its position in 2007 and sought to deport Mr. Khouzam based on diplomatic assurances from the Egyptian government that Mr. Khouzam would not be tortured upon return. As a result of the ACLU’s advocacy, a federal court granted Mr. Khouzam an indefinite stay of deportation to Egypt.
The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) wrote a letter to the Dismas Charities Community Correction Center on behalf of a former resident who was told he could not drink wine during communion services while confined at the Center. After the ACLU advised the Center of its obligations under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, the Center revised its communion policy to comply with federal law.
The ACLU of Georgia (2007) filed a federal lawsuit to help obtain a zoning permit for a house of worship on behalf of the Tabernacle Community Baptist Church after the city of East Point denied the request. The city has since repealed the ordinance and churches are now allowed to occupy buildings that were previously used for commercial purposes.
The ACLU of Delaware (2007) prevailed in a lawsuit brought on behalf of Christians, pagans, and Wiccans, alleging that a department store violated a Delaware public accommodations law by canceling community courses after individuals complained about the religious beliefs that were being taught in the centers.
The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (2007) represented Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, whose religious beliefs led her to condemn homosexuality as a sin and insist that God is punishing the United States. The protests in which she has been involved have been confrontational and have involved funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. While the ACLU does not endorse her message, it does believe that she has both religious and free-speech rights to express her viewpoint criticizing homosexuality.
The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) assisted with the naturalization of a Jehovah’s Witness who was originally denied citizenship based on his conscientious refusal to swear an oath that he would be willing to bear arms on behalf of the country.
The ACLU of Rhode Island (2007) prevailed in its arguments on behalf of a Christian inmate, Wesley Spratt, who had been preaching in prison for over seven years before administrators told him to stop based on vague and unsubstantiated security concerns. After the ACLU prevailed in the First Circuit, the parties reached a settlement under which Mr. Spratt is free to preach again.
The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) prevailed in its lawsuit defending the right of a Christian man to exercise his religious and speech rights by protesting against homosexuality in front of a Wal-Mart store with a sign that read: “Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Marriage and Gay Lifestyles. Don’t Shop There.”
The ACLU of Texas (2006) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a Christian pastor and his faith-based rehabilitation facility in Sinton, Texas. The ACLU of Texas urged the court to reverse a decision that prohibited the pastor from operating his rehabilitation program near his church and also sharply limited the reach of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
http://www.aclutx.org/article.php?aid=391
The ACLU of Nevada (2006) defended the free exercise and free speech rights of evangelical Christians to preach on the sidewalks of Las Vegas. When the County government refused to change its unconstitutional policy, the ACLU filed suit in federal court.
http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3379553&nav=15MVaB2T
The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) reached a favorable settlement on behalf of a student teacher who objected to classroom prayers and other religious activitiesled by her supervising teacher. After she voiced disagreement with her supervisor’s unconstitutional practice of telling children how to pray, the student teacher received a failing grade and was not permitted to graduate from the teaching program. Under the settlement obtained by the ACLU of Louisiana, the university removed the failing grade and allowed the student to complete her graduation requirements.
http://www.laaclu.org/News/2006/aclu_settlement_ThompsonvSLU_Oct0306.htm
The ACLU and its affiliates (1999-2006) have been instrumental supporters of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which gives religious organizations added protection in erecting religious buildings and enhances the religious freedom rights of prisoners and other institutionalized persons. The ACLU worked with a broad coalition of organizations to secure the law’s passage in 2000. After the law was enacted, the ACLU (2005) defended its constitutionality in a friend-of-the-court brief before the United States Supreme Court and the ACLU of Virginia (2006) opposed a challenge to the law before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2004/20956res20041230039877/20956res20041230.html
http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/26018prs20060612.html
The Iowa Civil Liberties Union (2005) defended the rights of two teenage girls who, for religious reasons, sought to wear anti-abortion t-shirts to school after school officials threatened to punish them.
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12852prs20050429.html
The ACLU of New Mexico (2005) helped release a street preacher who had been incarcerated in Roosevelt County jail for 109 days. The case was brought to the ACLU by the preacher’s wife and was supported by the American Family Association.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/19918prs20050804.html
The ACLU of Michigan (2005) filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Joseph Hanas, a Roman Catholic who was punished for not completing a drug rehabilitation program run by a Pentecostal group whose religious beliefs he did not share. Part of the program required reading the Bible for seven hours a day, proclaiming one’s salvation at the altar, and being tested on Pentecostal principles. The staff confiscated Mr. Hanas’s rosary beads and told him Catholicism was witchcraft.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22354prs20051206.html
The ACLU of Southern California (2005) defended an evangelical scholar who monitored the fundraising practices of several ministries and their leaders after a defamation suit was brought against him in order to silence him.
http://www.aclu-sc.org/News/Releases/2005/101364/
The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2004-2005) won two cases on behalf of predominantly African-American churches that were denied permits to worship in churches previously occupied by white congregations. In 2005, the ACLU of Pennsylvania settled a case against Turtle Creek Borough brought on behalf of Ekklesia church. After the ACLU of Pennsylvania’s advocacy, the Borough of West Mifflin granted Second Baptist Church of Homestead an occupancy permit in 2002 and, in 2004, agreed to pay it damages and compensate it for its losses.
http://www.pogazette.com/neigh_south/20021029churchsuitsouth2p2. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04111/303298.stm
http://www.aclu.org/RacialEquality/RacialEquality.cfm?ID=11083&c=28
The ACLU of New Jersey (2004) appeared as a friend of the court to argue that a prosecutor violated the New Jersey Constitution by striking individuals from a jury pool after deciding that they were “demonstrative about their religion.” One potential juror was a missionary; the other was wearing Muslim religious garb, including a skull cap. The ACLU-NJ also argued that permitting strikes based on jurors’ display of their religion would often amount to discrimination against identifiable religious minorities.
http://www.aclu-nj.org/legal/closedcasearchive/statevlloydfuller.htm(This case is also listed in Part I.)
The ACLU of Nebraska (2004) defended the Church of the Awesome God, a Presbyterian church, from forced eviction under the city of Lincoln’s zoning laws. The ACLU of Nebraska also challenged city ordinances requiring religious organizations to meet safety standards not imposed on non-religious groups.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/frb/16347prs20040811.html
The ACLU of Pennsylvania (2004) prevailed in its arguments that the government had to allow Amish drivers to use highly reflective gray tape on their buggies instead of orange triangles, to which the drivers objected for religious reasons.
http://www.post-gazette.com/localnews/20021020amish1020p6.asp
The ACLU of Virginia (2004) threatened to file suit against the Fredericksburg-Stafford Park Authority after the Park Authority enacted an unconstitutional policy prohibiting religious activity in the park and the Park Manager stopped a Cornerstone Baptist Church minister from conducting baptisms in the park. Under pressure from the ACLU, the Park Authority revoked the prohibition and allowed baptisms in the park.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16230prs20040603.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A16839-2004Jun4?language=printer
http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16230prs20040603.html
The ACLU of Washington (2004) reached a favorable settlement on behalf of Donald Ausderau, a Christian minister, who wanted to preach to the public and distribute leaflets on the sidewalks around a downtown bus station in Spokane, WA.
http://www.aclu-wa.org/detail.cfm?id=57
With the help of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (2004), an Episcopal social services group was able to keep its program of feeding the homeless running. The County Health Department reversed its decision that meals served to homeless people in a church must be cooked on the premises, as opposed to in individual homes. Had the decision not been reversed, the ministry would have been forced to cease the program.
The ACLU of Virginia (2004) told the city of Richmond that it would file suit unless Richmond officials reconsidered their decision to close a Sunday meal program for the homeless at a local church because of zoning violations. “[T]he right of a church to perform a core function of its religious mission,” the ACLU wrote, “is protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20040109051557/archive.aclu.org/news/w091196b.html
The ACLU of Nevada (2004) represented a Mormon high school student, Kim Jacobs, whom school authorities suspended and then attempted to expel for wearing T-shirts with religious messages.
The ACLU of Michigan (2004) represented Abby Moler, a student at Sterling Stevenson High School, whose yearbook entry, a Bible verse, was deleted because of its religious content. A settlement was reached under which the school placed a sticker with Moler’s original entry in the yearbooks and agreed not to censor students’ yearbook entries based on their religious or political viewpoints in the future.
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12845prs20040511.html
The Indiana Civil Liberties Union (2004) filed suit on behalf of the Old Paths Baptist Church against the City of Scottsburg after the city repeatedly threatened to cite or arrest members who held demonstrations regarding various subjects dealing with their religious beliefs.
http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/protest/11484prs20040716.html
The ACLU of Massachusetts (2003) intervened on behalf of a group of students at Westfield High School who were suspended for distributing candy canes and a religious message in school. The ACLU succeeded in having the suspensions revoked and filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a lawsuit brought on behalf of the students against the school district.
http://www.aclu.org/studentsrights/expression/12828prs20030221.html
OldLefty Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:38 am
Alright, but don’t say I didn’t warn you:
The ACLU has taken many cases protecting religious freedom:
Here’s about 5% of the list, one only has to google to link to the cases.
The ACLU of Rhode Island (2003) interceded on behalf of an interdenominational group of carolers who were told they could not sing Christmas carols on Christmas Eve to inmates at the women’s prison in Cranston, Rhode Island.
The ACLU of Southern California (2008) filed suit on behalf of members of a faith-based charity organization after park rangers threatened to arrest the members for serving hot meals and distributing Bibles to the homeless on Doheny State Beach.
The ACLU of Louisiana (2008) filed a brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting an individual’s right to quote Bible verses on public streets in Zachary, Louisiana.
The ACLU of Wisconsin (2007) filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that individual pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their religious scruples, provided that patients can obtain prescriptions from willing providers in a safe and timely manner.
The ACLU of New Jersey (2007) defended the right of an elementary school student who was prohibited from singing “Awesome God” in a voluntary, after-school talent show for which students selected their own material. The ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief. After a favorable settlement was reached for the student, the federal lawsuit was dismissed.
The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) prevailed in its lawsuit defending the right of a Christian man to exercise his religious and speech rights by protesting against homosexuality in front of a Wal-Mart store with a sign that read: “Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Marriage and Gay Lifestyles. Don’t Shop There.”
The ACLU of Nevada (2006) defended the free exercise and free speech rights of evangelical Christians to preach on the sidewalks of Las Vegas. When the County government refused to change its unconstitutional policy, the ACLU filed suit in federal court.
ACLU Cases Defending Religious Freedom
The ACLU of Southern California (2008) filed suit on behalf of members of a faith-based charity organization after park rangers threatened to arrest the members for serving hot meals and distributing Bibles to the homeless on Doheny State Beach.
The ACLU of Louisiana (2008) filed a brief before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting an individual’s right to quote Bible verses on public streets in Zachary, Louisiana.
OldLefty Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:39 am
The ACLU and the ACLU of Texas(2008) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Texas Supreme Court in support of mothers who had been separated from their children by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). The DFPS seized more than 450 children from their homes in Eldorado, Texas following vague allegations about child abuse by some members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. While fully supporting the state’s commitment to protecting children from abuse, the ACLU argued that Texas law and the U.S. Constitution required that the children be returned unless the state could provide the requisite evidence of abuse. Neither Texas law nor the U.S. Constitution allows the state to separate children and their parents based on purported cultural harm alone or on the state’s disapproval of the families’ religious beliefs. In May 2008, the Texas Supreme Court unanimously ruled, consistent with the ACLU position, that the state must return the children to their homes pending further investigation of allegations of abuse.
The ACLU of Florida (2007) argued in favor of the right of Christians to protest against a gay pride event held in the City of St. Petersburg. The City had proposed limiting opposition speech, including speech motivated by religious beliefs, to restricted “free speech zones.” After receiving the ACLU’s letter, the City revised its proposed ordinance.
The ACLU of Oregon (2007) defended the right of students at a private religious school not to be pressured to violate their Sabbath day by playing in a state basketball tournament. The Oregon School Activities Association scheduled state tournament games on Saturdays, the recognized Sabbath of students and faculty of the Portland Adventist Academy. The ACLU argued that the school’s team, having successfully made it to the tournament, should not be required to violate their religious beliefs in order to participate.
The ACLU of West Virginia (2007) sued on behalf of a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) university student who won a prestigious scholarship to West Virginia University. Although the state scholarship board provided leaves of absence for military, medical, and family reasons, it denied the ACLU’s client a leave of absence to serve on a 2-year mission for his church. The ACLU filed a religious freedom claim in federal court.
The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) challenged a North Carolina Department of Corrections policy making all religious services in prison English-only, thereby denying access to many inmates. The North Carolina Division of Prisons agreed to review the policy and the need for religious services in languages other than English in the state correctional system.
The ACLU of Wisconsin (2007) filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that individual pharmacists should be able to refuse to fill prescriptions that violate their religious scruples, provided that patients can obtain prescriptions from willing providers in a safe and timely manner.
OldLefty Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 am
Don’t know if I will be repeating due to:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I seem to get this anytime I have a link.
The ACLU of New Jersey (2007) defended the right of an elementary school student who was prohibited from singing “Awesome God” in a voluntary, after-school talent show for which students selected their own material. The ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief. After a favorable settlement was reached for the student, the federal lawsuit was dismissed.
The ACLU and the ACLU of Pennsylvania (2007) prevailed in their case on behalf of an Egyptian Coptic Christian who had been detained and who claimed he had been tortured by the Egyptian government because he refused to convert to Islam. After permitting Sameh Khouzam to stay in the United States for nine years based on evidence that he would probably be tortured if he returned to Egypt, the U.S. government changed its position in 2007 and sought to deport Mr. Khouzam based on diplomatic assurances from the Egyptian government that Mr. Khouzam would not be tortured upon return. As a result of the ACLU’s advocacy, a federal court granted Mr. Khouzam an indefinite stay of deportation to Egypt.
The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) wrote a letter to the Dismas Charities Community Correction Center on behalf of a former resident who was told he could not drink wine during communion services while confined at the Center. After the ACLU advised the Center of its obligations under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, the Center revised its communion policy to comply with federal law.
The ACLU of Georgia (2007) filed a federal lawsuit to help obtain a zoning permit for a house of worship on behalf of the Tabernacle Community Baptist Church after the city of East Point denied the request. The city has since repealed the ordinance and churches are now allowed to occupy buildings that were previously used for commercial purposes.
The ACLU of Delaware (2007) prevailed in a lawsuit brought on behalf of Christians, pagans, and Wiccans, alleging that a department store violated a Delaware public accommodations law by canceling community courses after individuals complained about the religious beliefs that were being taught in the centers.
The ACLU of Eastern Missouri (2007) represented Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a member of the Westboro Baptist Church, whose religious beliefs led her to condemn homosexuality as a sin and insist that God is punishing the United States. The protests in which she has been involved have been confrontational and have involved funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. While the ACLU does not endorse her message, it does believe that she has both religious and free-speech rights to express her viewpoint criticizing homosexuality.
The ACLU of North Carolina (2007) assisted with the naturalization of a Jehovah’s Witness who was originally denied citizenship based on his conscientious refusal to swear an oath that he would be willing to bear arms on behalf of the country.
The ACLU of Rhode Island (2007) prevailed in its arguments on behalf of a Christian inmate, Wesley Spratt, who had been preaching in prison for over seven years before administrators told him to stop based on vague and unsubstantiated security concerns. After the ACLU prevailed in the First Circuit, the parties reached a settlement under which Mr. Spratt is free to preach again.
The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) prevailed in its lawsuit defending the right of a Christian man to exercise his religious and speech rights by protesting against homosexuality in front of a Wal-Mart store with a sign that read: “Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Marriage and Gay Lifestyles. Don’t Shop There.”
The ACLU of Texas (2006) filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of a Christian pastor and his faith-based rehabilitation facility in Sinton, Texas. The ACLU of Texas urged the court to reverse a decision that prohibited the pastor from operating his rehabilitation program near his church and also sharply limited the reach of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Daddio Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
I know how much you love posting these looooooonnngggg posts Lefty. But they are to long for me to read entirely. My eyes become blurry.
OldLefty Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Daddio,
I don’t expect anyone to read these posts, just get the gist that the ACLU defends the 1st amendment rights of many, many Christians, like the penultimate example:
The ACLU of Louisiana (2006) prevailed in its lawsuit defending the right of a Christian man to exercise his religious and speech rights by protesting against homosexuality in front of a Wal-Mart store with a sign that read:
“Christians: Wal-Mart Supports Gay Marriage and Gay Lifestyles. Don’t Shop There.”
Lily Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
And that’s another ‘no’
May 22nd, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Did This Woman Deserve To Be Fired For Not Wearing Makeup?
How about this:
Did This Woman Deserve To
Be FiredGet Second Place For NotWearing Makeupsaying that gay marriage is A-OK?trees are people too Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:13 pm
That’s a great point Pino.
OldLefty Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:14 pm
I thought she got in trouble because she violated her contract.
average james Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I thought she lost because what’s her name beat her.
Shame really, that what’s her name won but, Prejean gets all the attention.
Lily Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:40 pm
What makes you think she would have won had her answer been otherwise? The judge who asked the question was not the sole decider of Miss America ‘09.
average james Reply:
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Bingo,
I saw a woman on Fox who was involved with the event in question. Conservative and fairly well spoken, she said that Prejean was already behind and would have lost to …..what’s her name…..with or without that question being asked. It disappointed my boss greatly and he just poo-pooed her as a closet liberal. I just had to laugh.
EricG Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 12:12 am
For whatever reason I looked up this issue and what was said back and forth.
Perez Hilton asked Carrie Prejean for a specific response regarding the state laws and the differences between state and federal law. Basically he asked he a minor, mostly indirect civics question.
Apparently, his desired response needed to have something about the states setting some laws and the federal the other. This is why he claims to have marked her a zero? (I don’t know that part.)
Anyway, her freedom of speech has RESOUNDED throughout the nation since that moment.
Not answering that question correctly has skyrocketed her career, is my impression of it.
The dirty photos and all this just made it more juicy!!!
So she lost because of this and all those pageant people are all accepting this and everyone except conservatives have all moved on from there … the fact is that Civics scores are just as bad as can be so I think it was unfair. But in a different way.
Hilton just probably has no idea that most people can’t articulate such things regardless. He set a higher bar than he is aware of, I think.
Dpesn’t change a thing about the fight for social justice and equality.
Robert Blair Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 10:39 am
She lost for other reasons….her point total was testified to by Trump himself…of course, his hairpiece thought otherwise, but Trump insisted that her opinion did not place her in second.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I think she’s hot, in an Iggy Pop kind of way…yeah, and I mean Iggy in ‘09.
May 22nd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
That anyone would actually care if any woman wears makeup just gives further proof to the theory that we are descended from apes.
You can’t libel the human race.
May 22nd, 2009 at 11:06 pm
She’s a waitress….not exactly a profession that is hard to get reemployed in.
and the employer has the right to employ people who project the image they would like to put forth to their customers.
Some makeup is offensive and the employer has the right to restrict how makeup is applied. They can tell employees to not have piercings.
I worked in an office where no customers were ever on premises, the office had a strict dress code, and people were reprimanded and fired for not adhereing to it. (the dress code included men wearing long sleeve shirts and ties…no short sleeves allowed, some managers in the company required that tie lengths fall within the top half of the belt buckle, beards had to be well-groomed, to the point that most all the men decided to not have any facial hair, short hair was discouraged and hair had to be combed and styled nicely)
Although it doesn’t seem fair, no one has the right to work at any particular location, and employers have the right to strictly enforce appearance and dress codes (including makeup)
Robert Blair Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 2:07 am
Sounds like an episode of Mad Men. I can remember standards like those back in the early 70’s. It has been a very slow progression to freedom since then, but some changes are more difficult to accept.
May 23rd, 2009 at 2:45 am
It is not much different than working at Hooters, where one must fill a double “D” cup, to get hired. WoW!
Kregg Reply:
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:49 pm
That would shorten the waiting list for a job by quite a bit, I’d think… ;-)
sbj Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:35 am
I think perhaps, we have finally come to an agreement…:-)
Kregg Reply:
May 24th, 2009 at 12:45 am
I love to agree… ;-)
May 23rd, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Two words:
Butt Ugly
Um Cara Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
You may well be, but I bet your mother thinks you are cute. Buck up, Bobby!
bobfrommadison Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
We’re getting personal? Cool.
You are entitled to your delusions, but I don’t rely on my mother’s checkbook for my income, either.
Um Cara Reply:
May 25th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
We’re getting personal?
Well, you are the one who got personal, when you talked about your self image problems concerning your looks. I was just trying to make you feel a little better.
I don’t rely on my mother’s checkbook for my income
That’s the spirit! I bet you have other things to be proud of as well.
Please take this as a first step towards not only focusing on your negative qualities. You may be butt ugly, as you earlier confessed, but remember the huge (for you) accomplishment of moving out of your mother’s basement!
Congrats!
May 25th, 2009 at 5:10 pm