Religious Persecution At Work?

In “Working it Out” by Diana Eck, she writes about religious oppression in the workplace. The examples she gives on the many ways people have been fired, or the ways in which people's faiths have been compromised, reiterates that the amendment that states freedom of religion in the United States, is

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution founded the concrete belief that government and faith-based institutions must and will remain separate from one another. This section of the first amendment disavows the U.S. government to establish or sanction any system of organized faiths or religions upon the people or to outlaw or disgrace any systems of organized faiths as well. But the line discerning the legitimacy of a faith and the true extent of the government's power over faith-based organizations has only remained to become muddled over the past 240 years of its establishment. Over the years, the ideology and true intent of the founding fathers had remained in question, where some believe the amendment addresses to the general

The United States is one of the most culturally and religiously diverse countries in the world. The founding fathers of the United States wanted to ensure that its people would have the ability to practice their religion with no threat of persecution. In order to accomplish the goal of religious freedom and continue to ensure that all people of any religion would be free to practice their religion, the United States passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits an employer from discriminating based on the religious views of its employees. As the citizens of the United States spend a large amount of time in their places of employment, religious practices that these employees feel are necessary for the true observance of their religion must be accommodated by the employers. This law contends that in cases where the accommodation of religious practices of its employees does not create undue hardships, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for employees to practices the beliefs of their religion. As the demographics of the United States continues to change with more religiously diverse people immigrating to the country, employers are coming under more pressure to ensure they are taking all possible precautions to accommodate the religious practices of its employees. These precautions are important as the once an employee has established a bona fide complaint of religious discrimination, the burden of proof then falls on the employer to prove they

Under the first amendment right a person has the right to exercise whatever religion that they so choose. And that is why Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came along is there to protect all employees that are and may be discriminated by employers, which means that an employer should not refuses to hire a candidate based on their religious beliefs or practices, or they cannot refuse to promote an employee, or adjust their rate of pay on their religion, they must be treated exactly as any other employee within the company, they should not be discriminated or be segregated against. Title VII also protects employees against employers or employees making any prejudice remarks against them. Employees are protected by both Title V11 and

Reasonable Accommodation & Religion: The law requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause difficulty or expense for the employer. This means an employer may have to make reasonable adjustments at work that will allow the employee to practice his or her religion, such as allowing an employee to voluntarily swap shifts with a co- worker.

upon an employee's religion. This means, that generally an employer has to give their workers

The ability for religious people to exercise their religion in opinion and practice has been a sacred right held up since the beginning of the United States. What happens when one’s religious practices conflicts with public values? This question was integral to the Supreme Court and its rulings in the cases of Bob Jones University v. United States and Church of the Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah. In Bob Jones, the university’s tax exempt status was revoked because the university’s religious beliefs were contrary to the public values of racial equality. In Lukumi Babalu, the religious beliefs of the Santeria Church in Florida about animal sacrifices were in conflict with the public values of the community. Bob Jones University lost their religious

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is responsible for freedom and religion and it allows individuals to to practice whatever religion that they chose (Moran, 2014). Also, due to the Title VII, employers can not refuse to hire a person because he or she is a member of a particular religion.

Everyone is entitled to natural rights such as freedom of speech, freedom to protest, and freedom of beliefs or religion. However, these are personal, or private, rights, and are therefore limited in the work force. Once one brings these personal rights, more specifically freedom of religion, into the work force, they violate the separation of church and state. The separation of church and state is simply a law preventing government officials to serve with biased opinions based on personal beliefs. All government agents are expected to serve with an unbiased opinion, and it is difficult to do that if one

Businesses have been the heart of economic growth since the beginning of the United States. Not only has businesses been at the center of this nation but also freedom of religion as well. In this case, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., its how the business (Abercrombie & Fitch), denies Samantha Elauf the job at that store because she wore a head scarf because she was a practicing Muslim.

Freedom of religion has been a right guaranteed to individuals in society. However, it is ultimately just an idea put in place that is disregarded as something insignificant. The workplaces of many people choose to deny employees the right to express their religion freely, for fear it may leave a bad image for the company. It is apparent that freedom of religion is not a strong right as many people may have originally thought it was. The limits of this right have been tested for decades and continue to be an issue for people today. Freedom of religion may go on to exist as a right in society, but when investigating deeper into this privilege, it is evident that it is merely an idea taken for granted.

On the issue of one’s religious practices versus the law it can be a complicated issue. In the Kim Davis situation, she had held a position within government that complicated the matter with that of her own beliefs versus her duties and obligations to her job. Kim Davis while serving had decided that due to her beliefs she would be unable follow through with giving out same-sex licenses to marriage couples, however, her decision to do is not fair as her personal opinion on the issue conflicts with what could be in the law books. For example, it is normal for Kim Davis to personally not believe in same-sex marriage and condemn it, but to use her views in denying people potential legal rights that they have while occupying a legal position herself

Cultural differences in the workplace can sometimes become a challenge in the work environment. In order to facilitate these differences, there must be some form of cultural awareness. Cultural awareness can help employees face the challenge of responding to individuals with different religions in the workplace, expose religious practices, and eliminate stereotyping in the workplace. Awareness of religions, and the beliefs associated with different religions, can be accomplished in many ways, such as training courses, workshops or company handouts (Thomas Kochan, 2003, p. 4). Companies must embrace multiculturalism and diversity.

Religion in the workplace can bring up some of the most difficult issues employers have to face. Resolving these issues requires understanding the law and balancing the business's needs with an employee's desire to practice his or her religion. One of the most contentious conflicts is between an employee's desire to take time off and the potential reduction in productivity and profitability. In ruling on Title VII religion cases, the courts have held that employers aren't required to accommodate employees' religious activities when it involves increased financial costs, transferring supervisory personnel or employees from other departments resulting in inefficiency, or discriminating against other employees or violating seniority systems. Accommodations that don't constitute undue hardship to the employer include voluntary substitutions or employee "swaps," flexible work schedules, floating or optional holidays, staggered work hours, and allowing employees to make up lost time. Transfers and job changes also are options if they don't cause reduced efficiency or

Today there are over 900 religious employee resource groups, according to the International Coalition of Workplace Ministries (Cañas & Sondak, 2010). These affinity groups can help encourage religious understanding by offering panel discussions that educate employees on their beliefs. By allowing open discussion, answering religious questions and creating an open, welcoming religious environment in the workplace employees can better relate to one another through shared religious principles (Cañas & Sondak, 2010). When looking at the business case for diversity, not asking employees to hide their faith at work allows for greater productivity, and time and energy focused on business results (Cañas