Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship Community Forums

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
News Feeder

A Sikh Man’s Beard Cost Him His Job. Kamala Harris Fought Him In Court

Recommended Posts

By Peter Hasson -

Kamala-Harris-250x188.jpg

http://dailycaller.com/

California Sen. Kamala Harris, a Democratic presidential candidate, once sided against a Sikh man who was barred from a job as a prison guard because he refused to shave the beard his religious faith requires him to keep.

California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation required prison guards to be clean shaven, in order to ensure gas masks fit properly, but allowed prison guards with medical conditions that prevent them from shaving to grow beards up to one inch long. Prison guards whose religious beliefs forbid them from shaving received no such exemption.

Trilochan Oberoi, the former prison guard, sued the state agency in 2007, alleging religious discrimination. An arbitration board ruled in his favor in October 2008, ruling that the state “made no efforts to accommodate him at all.”

But the state opted to continue fighting the case in court.

Harris continued litigating Oberoi’s case after she took over as attorney general in January 2011, which angered a broad swath of civil rights groups.

A coalition of groups including the Anti-Defamation League, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Center for Constitutional Rights, Japanese American Citizens League and Sikh Coalition sharply criticized Harris in a letter to former Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown.

The civil rights groups complained that more than two years after the arbitration ruling, Harris’s office was “using California taxpayer dollars to vigorously oppose the right of Mr. Oberoi to work as a state corrections officer, thus jeopardizing the civil rights of Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, and indeed all others who still face the ignominy of having to choose between religious freedom and a job.”

“We find the California Attorney General’s adversarial posture in this case to be demeaning to religious minorities and utterly inconsistent with your own obligation to defend civil rights for all Californians,” the civil rights groups said.

The state settled with Obeori in October 2011, agreeing to pay him $295,000 in damages and giving him a manager position in the corrections department, but leaving the policy in place.

“What I take away from that is [Harris] will only do the right thing when there is political scrutiny from her allies on it,” Oberoi’s lawyer, Harmeet Dhillon, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in a phone interview.

Harris’s presidential campaign did not return an email seeking comment.

“All of the same facts were there throughout those four years. None of the facts changed,” added Dhillon, who now also sits on the Republican National Committee.

“The case law didn’t change, the facts didn’t change, only the political circumstances changed, and that’s what finally led to the case resolving and my client being hired by the CDCR,” she added.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected]

A Sikh Man’s Beard Cost Him His Job. Kamala Harris Fought Him In Court is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more.

View the original full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Not liking her politics one bit  .. does not change the rules of the job are most often those rule are known from the beginning the man should not have applied for the job,. 

 

What was held in place was the protection of the guards in the case of needing a gas mask . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gas Masks are the same reason I could never grow a beard in the Army.  As a Forklift Technician, several Chemical Plants did not allow men with beards past the gate for the same reason.

 

Wanna work... shave.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I work in an oil field with high concentrations of H2S so pretty much everyone is required to be in the respiratory program, which means we are supposed to be able to put on a SCBA at a moments notice, so no beards.  It is pretty much a requirement of employment.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, News Feeder said:

California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation required prison guards to be clean shaven, in order to ensure gas masks fit properly, but allowed prison guards with medical conditions that prevent them from shaving to grow beards up to one inch long. Prison guards whose religious beliefs forbid them from shaving received no such exemption.

Apparently shaving wasn’t ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL.  That is what they were complaining about.  Some people WERE allowed to grow a beard and some were not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation required prison guards to be clean shaven, in order to ensure gas masks fit properly, but allowed prison guards with medical conditions that prevent them from shaving to grow beards up to one inch long. Prison guards whose religious beliefs forbid them from shaving received no such exemption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If management is not uniformly applying the rules to all of their employees then there is a case for unfair discrimination.  Could this be the thing that brings Harris' presidential campaign to a screeching halt?  I sure hope so.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If being clean shaven is essential to safely perform the job (like being able to wear a gas mask), then guards with skin conditions and one-inch beards are not safely performing their jobs and should not be allowed an exception.  We don't make allowances for blind firefighters.  Being able to see is part of the requirement to do the job of a firefighter and if a firefighter goes blind, he can no longer be a firefighter.

 

So either being clean shaven is necessary for the job of prison guard or it is not.  One rule for all.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Where does it stop? The basketball hoop is discriminatory against short people . The 'rules' of strength were lowered to allow for women fire fighters.  Women want this all equal and yet change uniforms  hair length for example. Could it be a lesser beard fits into a gas mask?  Congress did not make this rule it was California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. If it can be proven full beards beards DO NOT interfere with safety any more then inch beards then the guy has a case. I understand Sikh and muslem are not  the same, although i do not know the differences .  Lets take this to the liberal extreme  . There is a fire burning in the neighborhood. Ambulance is heading out to rescue the injured.  It is the time to call for prayers to allah do some of the firefighters stop working as it there their religion and the ambulance personal stop driving?  Some where along the line all of us need to grasp the regulations of what we choose to get involved in before we go there. 

I believe it was you @atpollard who made a comment about  living places where "they' tell ya what colour to paint your house. I will not live in such a place. cause i totally agree. Say i live another 10-20 years,  then i need some kind of help  maybe i would be living where some one else makes the rules for the colours of my home . 

 

In the case above good for the guy to take a 'desk job' where his religious beliefs did not conflict with the required uniform. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
1 hour ago, Knotical said:

If management is not uniformly applying the rules to all of their employees then there is a case for unfair discrimination.  Could this be the thing that brings Harris' presidential campaign to a screeching halt?  I sure hope so.

If she is the darling of the media they will plaster every where how she was concerned for the safety of all the employees and some how give her credit for the guy having the 'desk job' . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Becky said:

In the case above good for the guy to take a 'desk job' where his religious beliefs did not conflict with the required uniform. 

If "clean shaven" is required, then the requirement should apply to all and if some are allowed to grow a 1 inch beard then everyone should be allowed to grow a 1 inch beard.  It is the dishonesty of claiming shaving is essential to the job for some but not for others that I object to.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

These arguments remind me of slippery slope arguments that lead to the current policies after Obama took over Commander and Chief.

 

1967269964_HibjabsandBeards.jpg.183f0ac861f739b3422b759e879f14e9.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
23 minutes ago, atpollard said:

If "clean shaven" is required, then the requirement should apply to all and if some are allowed to grow a 1 inch beard then everyone should be allowed to grow a 1 inch beard.  It is the dishonesty of claiming shaving is essential to the job for some but not for others that I object to.

 

Was/is it dishonest to say or know beards and gas masks over an inch do not work for the safety of the employee? Guessing  the rules were written long before the guy in the article applied. 

Quote

If "clean shaven" is required, then the requirement should apply to all and if some are allowed to grow a 1 inch beard then everyone should be allowed to grow a 1 inch beard

Totally agree 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
1 hour ago, Becky said:

If she is the darling of the media they will plaster every where how she was concerned for the safety of all the employees and some how give her credit for the guy having the 'desk job' . 

This is an example of how an action may be right but for wrong reasons.

 

Personally, if wearing a beard reduces the effectiveness of a gas mask then from a "militarily" stand point I see no reason why they should be allowed. Now, if you noted during the Obama years of Commander of Chief there were those that actively championed "freedom of individual expression" even in the military. Such arguments took part of both what yous @atpollard and @Becky suggest and then tried to level or eliminate any exceptions. For example, Navy Seal are allowed to wear beards, therefore all military personal ought to be allowed to wear beards. The argument does not address why Navy Seals are allowed to wear beards but only that a reason why military personal are not to wear beards is to properly seal a gas/chem mask. Individual freedom of expression won under Obama, so:

 

Those with beards were allowed to express their religion. From that I glean 1) reduced gas/chem mask interoperability increased the risk posed to an individual and those around them in the unit 2) Individual expression increased risk as an individual's religious identity was targeted by the enemy. 3) LGBT~Q wanted to redefine the argument from freedom to express our religion to freedom to express sexuality. 4) LGBT~Q were at increased risk within the ranks from hate crimes 'repeat of being targeted by the enemy' 5) reeducation of military personal was issued to embrace the LGBT~Q 6) LGBT~Q members had to be treated according to their individual needs and the military had to provide gender reassignment surgery. 7) LGBT~Q were combat ineffective if undergoing gender reassignment surgery for over 2 years while enlisted or commissioned. 8 ) LGBT~Q soldiers were not only at higher risk individually to various dangers but also increased risks to the unit and disturbed unit cohesion. 

 

By the way, at the end activist attempted to eliminate "ranks" in the military as they argued it was discriminatory. The very arguments they worked for towards individuality were beginning to reverse in favor of solidarity. Though, the argument for solidarity was attempting to eliminate any opposition's ideology etc.

 

In short, I can think of a lot of reasons to not allow beards in the prison guard unit, military etc. If however, the prison only gave and defended one reason then they made a poor defense.

 

A proper act for the wrong reason is quite normal when considering the position of the left. It comes as no surprise that the left ruled against the religious man in question and then ruled in favor of his claim.

 

On a last note, if I wanted to destroy the first amendment I would take it to the extreme. When the example of an extreme is limited then I successfully won against the 1st amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 8:04 AM, News Feeder said:

By Peter Hasson -

Kamala-Harris-250x188.jpg

http://dailycaller.com/

California Sen. Kamala Harris, a Democratic presidential candidate, once sided against a Sikh man who was barred from a job as a prison guard because he refused to shave the beard his religious faith requires him to keep.

California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation required prison guards to be clean shaven, in order to ensure gas masks fit properly, but allowed prison guards with medical conditions that prevent them from shaving to grow beards up to one inch long. Prison guards whose religious beliefs forbid them from shaving received no such exemption.

Trilochan Oberoi, the former prison guard, sued the state agency in 2007, alleging religious discrimination. An arbitration board ruled in his favor in October 2008, ruling that the state “made no efforts to accommodate him at all.”

But the state opted to continue fighting the case in court.

Harris continued litigating Oberoi’s case after she took over as attorney general in January 2011, which angered a broad swath of civil rights groups.

A coalition of groups including the Anti-Defamation League, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Center for Constitutional Rights, Japanese American Citizens League and Sikh Coalition sharply criticized Harris in a letter to former Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown.

The civil rights groups complained that more than two years after the arbitration ruling, Harris’s office was “using California taxpayer dollars to vigorously oppose the right of Mr. Oberoi to work as a state corrections officer, thus jeopardizing the civil rights of Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, and indeed all others who still face the ignominy of having to choose between religious freedom and a job.”

“We find the California Attorney General’s adversarial posture in this case to be demeaning to religious minorities and utterly inconsistent with your own obligation to defend civil rights for all Californians,” the civil rights groups said.

The state settled with Obeori in October 2011, agreeing to pay him $295,000 in damages and giving him a manager position in the corrections department, but leaving the policy in place.

“What I take away from that is [Harris] will only do the right thing when there is political scrutiny from her allies on it,” Oberoi’s lawyer, Harmeet Dhillon, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in a phone interview.

Harris’s presidential campaign did not return an email seeking comment.

“All of the same facts were there throughout those four years. None of the facts changed,” added Dhillon, who now also sits on the Republican National Committee.

“The case law didn’t change, the facts didn’t change, only the political circumstances changed, and that’s what finally led to the case resolving and my client being hired by the CDCR,” she added.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected]

A Sikh Man’s Beard Cost Him His Job. Kamala Harris Fought Him In Court is original content from Conservative Daily News - Where Americans go for news, current events and commentary they can trust - Conservative News Website for U.S. News, Political Cartoons and more.

View the original full article

Another twisted mind from the liberal democrat hopefuls .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...