Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
MisterVeritis (04-23-2019),nathanbforrest45 (04-23-2019)
Standards of dress and grooming, even things like sex and religion, are, in some circumstances, legally acceptable grounds for an employer to pass over a job candidate. They are known as bona fide occupational qualifications. Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_f..._qualification
In the case you create here, the public image that the Christian bookstore wishes to maintain would probably conflict with the pink hair, but as for the "pierced nipples" - as others have asked, who would know except in the unlikely event that the store permitted its employees to go topless? As for the perceived effeminacy and the lisp, I'm sure that most of us have known heterosexual men who displayed those characteristics; that a man seems to fit that old stereotype is no sure indicator.
I would think that a BOQ in your scenario might be knowledge of Christian literature, perhaps the Bible in particular. As I noted before, a conservative (in the true sense) approach to dress and grooming might pass inspection, so long as other employees were held to the same standard. So long as those legitimate and legally defensible standards were met, however, it would not be acceptable to reject a job candidate because he was gay - simply because sexual orientation is not a BOQ of working in a bookstore, Christian or otherwise.
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.” - Robert E. Howard
"Only a rank degenerate would drive 1,500 miles across Texas and not eat a chicken fried steak." - Larry McMurtry
Captdon (04-23-2019)
So, freedom of religion is out the window? I realize my example was kind of lame, but I was merely trying to make a point by using a little bit of absurdity. Really, any religious organization shouldn't have to violate the tenets of their belief system, which is supposed to be protected by the First Amendment, by having employees who do not conform to those tenets. If we force them to do so, there is no longer a First Amendment.
You do raise some valid points. But the trouble with any of your scenarios is, while the prospective employer may be legally justified in their hiring practices, how much undue burden is going to be placed upon them, fighting this stuff in court? This is simply another form of persecution. For the left, winning is never enough, they often seek to punish those who disagree with them.
Cutesy Time is OVER
Captdon (04-23-2019),MisterVeritis (04-23-2019)
Captdon (04-23-2019),MisterVeritis (04-23-2019)
What is freedom from religion? We enjoy freedom of religion, not freedom from it.
Clarence Thomas Speaks Out on Amy Coney Barrett, ‘Dogma’ Charge argues the correct perspective here, that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."Why should anyone be subjected to a religious purity check to become employed?
That applies to restrictions on the government, not the people in their lives, work, business--or should not but for liberal expansion of the power of the government over us.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Captdon (04-23-2019)
MisterVeritis (04-23-2019)
Red Green
The man's prayer:
I'm a man
But I can change
If I have to
I guess