As a service to any who might be confused about the rights of workers to to openly express their beliefs, and the sometimes contradictory rights of others to feel free of pressure to conform to religious practices observed at one's workplace, I'm starting this thread with a few links that may help to clarify.

AFAIK, a private business owner may practice openly, and even hold a daily prayer during the workday, and violate no laws. That doesn't mean that there isn't pressure to nonbelievers who work in this same place.

However, if that business works with public funds, then anyone objecting to such practices might have a case against such practices, though I'm not certain.

Any articles or insights you can offer would be most welcome, especially if it describes policy and legislation in your city or state, distinct from national policy.

This first article is less about the workplace than about defending expression publicly.





The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has a Q&A page about workplace discrimination specifically:

[div class="excerpt"]Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers with at least 15 employees, as well as employment agencies and unions, from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. It also prohibits retaliation against persons who complain of discrimination or participate in an EEO investigation. With respect to religion, Title VII prohibits:

---treating applicants or employees differently based on their religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – in any aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, assignments, discipline, promotion, and benefits (disparate treatment);

---subjecting employees to harassment because of their religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – or because of the religious practices or beliefs of people with whom they associate (e.g., relatives, friends, etc.);

---denying a requested reasonable accommodation of an applicant’s or employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – if an accommodation will not impose more than a de minimis cost or burden on business operations; 1 and,

---retaliating against an applicant or employee who has engaged in protected activity, including participation (e.g., filing an EEO charge or testifying as a witness in someone else’s EEO matter), or opposition to religious discrimination (e.g., complaining to human resources department about alleged religious discrimination).

The following questions and answers were adapted from EEOC’s Compliance Manual Section on Religious Discrimination, available at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html, which contains more detailed guidance, legal citations, case examples, and best practices. It is designed to be a practical resource for employers, employees, practitioners, and EEOC enforcement staff on Title VII’s prohibition against religious discrimination, and provides guidance on how to balance the needs of individuals in a diverse religious climate.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html

How do members of our DU E&E group feel about adopting a vacant lot to raise chickens and their eggs, tomatoes, and more?

Done responsibly, is this wrong? Is it better to just leave the lot barren or with native grasses, or are community gardens a better use?

I strongly support projects like the one developed my my friend in Chicago. It builds community and serves as a learning opportunity for school age kids.

To me, it's a move in the right direction-- away from hyper development and toward a sustainable SYMBIOTIC relationship among humans, animals and plants, and the earth.

What say you?

http://wgntv.com/2014/05/15/chickens-in-the-city-urban-coops-growing-in-popularity/

And it has useful links:

Producer Pam Grimes and Photojournalist Steve Scheuer contributed to this report.

http://urbanchickenconsultant.wordpress.com/

http://urbanchickenconsultant.wordpress.com/home-to-roost-services/

http://www.margotmcmahon.com/

https://www.facebook.com/MoahsArk

http://mypetchicken.com

http://1.usa.gov/O8ngKs

These links are for wild bird rescues in the Chicago area:

http://www.flintcreekwildlife.org/

http://www.birdmonitors.net/

I think the dynamic applies to the battle over gun control legislation, but also to other questions about where responsibilities rest.



In case it's not self-evident, the analogy here is that some on the left would look to laws and government to be responsible for preventing calamity, to prevent irresponsibility, to "ensure" safety, while others among us prefer the notions of self-determination, responsibility, access to the tools to take care of ourselves, and training our children and family members to be aware and to be safe.

Well, neither side is completely wrong (except to any extent to which we insist the other side is completely wrong); the solutions probably exist in the universe that treats BOTH sides as valid arguments.

Most of us who support the Second Amendment also support UBCs and strict penalties for misuse and violent used of firearms, and most on the gun control side see a place for education and awareness and grant that some ownership rights are beneficial.

In any event, I really loved the piece on radio and hope you'll all take a listen to it. I'm sorry I couldn't find a written transcript.

And remember:

The world is full of bears.

You really don't get the analogy, do you?

I try, that's all I can do.

Or a Target, Starbuck, or Walmart?

And if you did, what did you do?

I'm, frankly, suspect of any Bloomberg funded mission like this latest one to intimidate Krogers to create a new meaningless policy.

As mayor, he authorized "Stop and Frisk", an unconstitutional policy that disproportionately targeted people of color.

His PR person, Sharon Watts, formerly represented Monsanto. She's a pro and pros are slick, sometimes dishonest.

So, one or two Open Carry gun nuts walk into a Kroger, or maybe the pics are staged, and we're supposed to BOYCOTT them now?

Kroger has 2,640 stores employing more than 310,000 employees, 75% of them are UNION employees.

Here is Krogers' statement on this latest desperate move by Bloomberg Watts, and I think it's solid:



Individual stores remain free to ask anyone to leave and may create, if they like, a policy of no guns for that store.

/rant



PS, I personally think Open Carry protesters are fools, and do nothing but scare people without purpose. Not sure if they're even legit and put me to mind of James O'Keefe.

Including numbers of:

Aircraft, Armored vehicles, Body armor, Grenade launchers, Night vision, and Assault rifles.

My county has refused everything except night vision equipment.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/15/us/surplus-military-equipment-map.html?_r=0

SKP is short for 'escapee', inspired by Barney Fife.
I came to NYC sight unseen for university and work, then got out before it became Disneyfied!

We are not like many of them, on DU you'll see insults come at us far more often than from us.

On other sites, not so much, poo is flung in both directions, and I avoid those sites.

Sites I don't avoid include The Liberal Gun Club: http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

Progressive Gun Owners: http://www.progressiveguns.org/

American Gun Culture Report: http://www.americangunculturereport.com/

Liberals Gun Corner: http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/

Liberals With Guns: http://www.liberalswithguns.com/

Shoot from the Left Hip: http://shootfromthelefthip.com/

Blue Steel Democrats: http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/

Pink Pistols: http://www.pinkpistols.org/

Hosts have discussed this, and admins have replied to the question. Here:

~~~~~~

My emphasis is here:

I tend to think that if one person is strongly opposed to a lock, and is making that stand based on some principle they are able to articulate, then that position should be respected and consensus does not exist.