It's a uniform issue and that makes it important. If you can't do the uniform, you can't do the job.
![]() | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Discussion is locked
It's a uniform issue and that makes it important. If you can't do the uniform, you can't do the job.
Thinking is a good thing. I believe we limit ourselves too much at times by clinging to old traditions that can't cover today's needs. Uniforms have a purpose and they change over time due to changing needs. This isn't new.
and even those can disqualify. This is something she can change. If she is unable to change, then she shouldn't be awarded the job anymore than someone who is physically unable to do so. There are other jobs she can do that won't require her to lay aside the scarf. It's not discrimination, it's a job requirement, but if they change the requirement for her, then they put a religious consideration ahead of the job, and isn't this claimed to be a secular society? For many it would be the same as someone making a cross or crucifix a part of their uniform, outside of being assigned that as a department job. If you can't meet the uniform code and can't meet the requirements, you can seek employment elsewhere, you haven't been discriminated against based on race nor religion, it's your belief that is discriminating against the job and it's requirements. It's no different than hiring a JW who would refuse to carry a weapon on the job where it was a requirement. That person also can have both his beliefs and seek employment elsewhere that doesn't have such requirement.
If she was allowed the scarf, then wouldn't it be due to her religious beliefs? If it was snatched off her her during an arrest, would that not just be resisting arrest but also violating her religious rights? No, she needs to either conform to the job requirements, or look for another job.
would be a stretch as it's not about the making of law. It is about policy and I would hope that good policy has some reasonable thinking behind it. Your mention of JWs having religious restrictions isn't the same as the wearing of religious attire. Even our military has uniform code allowing chaplains (who are commissioned officers) to identify themselves as so and of what faith they adhere to. It's policy not civil law. Now should the woman's faith not allow her to carry out certain routine functions expected of other officers, it would be different. There's a reason she wants to join a police force. If that reason is an admirable one and she can meet all other qualifications, I'd not have a problem with a policy change to let her in. People who put sincere effort into studies and training for a career in public service are different from those who just seek government jobs for the security they offer.
as a possible police job she might apply for, if her religion allowed women to serve as such, and if the police have such position available. Different job requirement that might fit with her particular belief.
That's not going to happen and I doubt that's the door she wants to walk through. Chaplains of other faith don't immerse themselves in military science courses in order to enter the armed services. The article doesn't mention what area of police work she hoped to be a part of but I'd think any position other women engage in should be open to her if the dumb scarf thing can be reconciled.