This case is a demonstration of misunderstandings of fundamental rights and religious freedom. In the first place the owners of a business have the right to run it any way they choose as long as they do not offend someone’s rights. They have the right to dictate clothing for the job, e.g., uniforms, while the employee does not have the right to contradict the owner’s direction. Religious freedom, for the most part, means that a person may accept whatever theory and accompanying doctrine of things supernatural that he/she chooses. It also implies that a person may wear whatever clothing, emblems and the like wherever he/she has the right of control, e.g., the home, vehicle, boat, etc. This does not include the premises of others, nor public places (common elements) if a consensus of the community forbids certain apparel, symbols, etc. This consensus may put limits on religious apparel and symbols.
The subject article is more socialist liberal ideology. Those behind it are designing society, not defending real rights. We have seen a great deal of this in the past five decades and will undoubtedly see more.
Filed under: Comments on News Stories | June 2nd, 2015