League News: NHL Talk - (News n' Scores n' Stuff) - 2022-23 season, Vol. 4, Off-season Edition

[RedRocking]

Useful, thanks. I find it interesting that including him in--rather than excluding him from--something qualifies as discriminatory, but it's just a curiosity at this point.

Well it’s discriminatory as it asking him to wear something that - he subjectively, but sincerely believes - is against his religious beliefs.

Like asking you, or I, to wear a shirt featuring Jesus on a cross to work. Wouldn’t you consider that a problem? (Just building on your Yom Kippur/Star of David hypotheticals, I mean no offense to anyone here).

I’m in no way trying to justify his actions. And a rainbow shirt isn’t particularly religious to me. Just saw lots of big statements being thrown around that aren’t quite legally correct.

 

[Calicaps]

Well it’s discriminatory as it asking him to wear something that - he subjectively, but sincerely believes - is against his religious beliefs.

Like asking you, or I, to wear a shirt featuring Jesus on a cross to work. Wouldn’t you consider that a problem? (Just building on your Yom Kippur/Star of David hypotheticals, I mean no offense to anyone here).

I’m in no way trying to justify his actions. Just saw lots of big statements being thrown around that aren’t quite legally correct.

I'm bristling at the idea that a jersey with a rainbow or the words "hockey is for everyone" is equivalent to a shirt with Jesus, but I realize that's subjective.

 

[bacchist]

You may be right. In that case I'd like to see 3 things happen: 1. these jerks not be allowed to make public appeals to their faith and instead simply be reported by the team as refusing to participate in a Hockey is for Everyone activity. 2. These players be denied the right to participate in any Hockey is for Everyone, Hockey Fights Cancer, etc activities--that is, make it all or nothing, and 3. Some player refuse to wear a sponsor patch because they don't believe in the product/company--that is, test the resolve

Have any players refused to wear patches promoting gambling sites? That would be a great test case.

 

[Calicaps]

Have any players refused to wear patches promoting gambling sites? That would be a great test case.

right? I wonder how JR feels about that? and why not plant your flag there rather than in opposition to just being nice to folks you claim to "love."

 

[g00n]

Well it’s discriminatory as it asking him to wear something that - he subjectively, but sincerely believes - is against his religious beliefs.

Like asking you, or I, to wear a shirt featuring Jesus on a cross to work. Wouldn’t you consider that a problem? (Just building on your Yom Kippur/Star of David hypotheticals, I mean no offense to anyone here).

I’m in no way trying to justify his actions. And a rainbow shirt isn’t particularly religious to me. Just saw lots of big statements being thrown around that aren’t quite legally correct.

Except Jesus is clearly a religious figure whereas objections to wearing a tolerance shirt WHEN YOU CLAIM YOU AGREE WITH THE SHIRT'S MESSAGE seems like a questionable manifestation of a set religious doctrine.

This will probably never go to the SCOTUS but if it did I would rely on expert theological opinion to examine and question the exact religious doctrine and any founding documents for his particular religious sect, whatever it is, regarding homosexuality AND SPECIFICALLY WEARING SHIRTS IN THE WORKPLACE.

Pleading religious exemption is not absolute and unlimited. One can't just invent a religion and claim "sorry, can't work overtime, against my religion", for example. So there must be something that defines it as a religion vs secular group, and that should be scrutinized.

There is also the question of what "make reasonable accommodations" means here. Could they say "well you can wear a shirt with a cross on it" and satisfy that clause?

 

[ClevelandCapsfan]

Can we get back to hockey discussions on this thread?

 

[g00n]

Can we get back to hockey discussions on this thread?

Go right ahead. But don't try to cut off our conversation because you don't like the topic.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

College Ice Hockey Player Carson Briere Charged Over Wheelchair Push — TMZ

College ice hockey player Carson Briere -- the son of Philadelphia Flyers GM Daniel Briere -- was hit with three criminal charges on Monday ... after he was seen on video pushing a woman's wheelchair down a flight of stairs earlier this month.

apple.news

 

[Calicaps]

College Ice Hockey Player Carson Briere Charged Over Wheelchair Push — TMZ

College ice hockey player Carson Briere -- the son of Philadelphia Flyers GM Daniel Briere -- was hit with three criminal charges on Monday ... after he was seen on video pushing a woman's wheelchair down a flight of stairs earlier this month.

apple.news

What a fool.

 

[RedRocking]

Except Jesus is clearly a religious figure whereas objections to wearing a tolerance shirt WHEN YOU CLAIM YOU AGREE WITH THE SHIRT'S MESSAGE seems like a questionable manifestation of a set religious doctrine.

This will probably never go to the SCOTUS but if it did I would rely on expert theological opinion to examine and question the exact religious doctrine and any founding documents for his particular religious sect, whatever it is, regarding homosexuality AND SPECIFICALLY WEARING SHIRTS IN THE WORKPLACE.

Pleading religious exemption is not absolute and unlimited. One can't just invent a religion and claim "sorry, can't work overtime, against my religion", for example. So there must be something that defines it as a religion vs secular group, and that should be scrutinized.

There is also the question of what "make reasonable accommodations" means here. Could they say "well you can wear a shirt with a cross on it" and satisfy that clause?

I feel like I’m making people mad here, which wasn’t my intent. I don’t agree with what these players are doing. And fair disclaimer: employment law isn’t my practice area. I was just curious myself as I remembered from LS that there were some federal religious protections for those in private organizations.

So, the EEOC is the agency that deals with these disputes. I found something from them that is fairly on point:

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/fact-sheet-religious-garb-and-grooming-workplace-rights-and-responsibilities:

___
In most instances, employers covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must make exceptions to their usual rules or preferences to permit applicants and employees to follow religious dress and grooming practices.

Examples of religious dress and grooming practices may include: wearing religious clothing or articles (e.g., a Christian cross, a Muslim hijab (headscarf), a Sikh turban, a Sikh kirpan (symbolic miniature sword)); observing a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (e.g., a Muslim, Pentecostal Christian, or Orthodox Jewish woman's practice of wearing modest clothing, and of not wearing pants or short skirts); or adhering to shaving or hair length observances (e.g., Sikh uncut hair and beard, Rastafarian dreadlocks, or Jewish peyes (sidelocks)).
___
I think you and @Calicaps seized on what would likely be the key issue: whether wearing a “rainbow shirt” would be explicitly against a player’s religion.

It does differ from some of the examples provided, since wearing a rainbow shirt is not some obvious Christian prohibition. (AFAIK, this is not my faith). Though, I don’t think it would be hard to argue that a player believes in those portions of the Bible that are often cited by those against homosexuality. And probably not hard to show that the rainbow symbol has become inextricably tied to the LGBTQIA community.

I imagine those would be some of the arguments for and against. In addition to how easy accommodation is here. There are probably helpful cases re symbology and religious expression - but this post is long enough already, and I have no billing code for that research

Moreover, trying to argue dispassionately here is proving a bit difficult.

 

[kicksavedave]

Just to clarify the legal aspects of this issue, if anyone is curious.

TL;DR - Reimer is likely well within his rights to refuse to participate, based on his sincerely held religious beliefs, as covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

First, the First Amendment generally doesn’t apply to private organizations. So you can certainly make employees due all manner of things as conditions of employment.

In this instance, the CBA likely has provisions regarding player compliance in these various “cause” events, that likely gives them some latitude to opt out. I’m just inferring here, didn’t look it up.

Most on point, I think, is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prevents private organizations from discriminating against individuals based on “sincerely held religious beliefs”. (unless it would cause an undue hardship to the business).

This is where someone like Reimer would likely win any kind of legal fight, since the courts are very generous when it comes to recognizing any semblance of religious beliefs. And not requiring a player to wear a warmup jersey for one game is almost certainly a reasonable religious accommodation. Further, such an accommodation is most likely not more than a “de minimus” hardship to the business.

Maybe one could argue that, in the aggregate, the players’ refusal to participate in these events is creating an undue hardship to the business of the NHL. Probably difficult to show or win, but it’s not a unreasonable argument.

So, there’s the legal analysis that no one asked for - thanks for reading if you made it this far.

How would it play out if the owner of the team simply decided to change their every day game uniforms to rainbow colors, because he likes rainbows. Would Reimer then have a religious objection? Of course not. So the idea that he can object to being asked to wear a rainbow jersey (or socks, or anything "uniform" based") is going to have a really hard time passing the religious objection sniff test.

The CRA of 1964 was designed (in part) to stop businesses from telling someone they CAN'T wear their religious garb, like a turban or headscarf unless the act itself actually unduly burdens the company. The application is being twisted to apply to say a business "can't" make me wear something I don't like. That was never its intent.

I don't see any valid connection to religious freedom claims and a hockey team that wears uniforms every day for practice and games, deciding to wear a slightly different uniform. The player already agrees that he should wear the chosen uniform of the team and does so without objection every day. All he objects to in this case is supporting a color scheme associated with a lifestyle which he claims to tolerate and says they are welcome, but he won't wear a uniform that is designed to show that support. Its a hypocritical mess, on Reimer's part.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

I feel like I’m making people mad here, which wasn’t my intent. I don’t agree with what these players are doing. And fair disclaimer: employment law isn’t my practice area. I was just curious myself as I remembered from LS that there were some federal religious protections for those in private organizations.

So, the EEOC is the agency that deals with these disputes. I found something from them that is fairly on point:

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/fact-sheet-religious-garb-and-grooming-workplace-rights-and-responsibilities:

___
In most instances, employers covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must make exceptions to their usual rules or preferences to permit applicants and employees to follow religious dress and grooming practices.

Examples of religious dress and grooming practices may include: wearing religious clothing or articles (e.g., a Christian cross, a Muslim hijab (headscarf), a Sikh turban, a Sikh kirpan (symbolic miniature sword)); observing a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (e.g., a Muslim, Pentecostal Christian, or Orthodox Jewish woman's practice of wearing modest clothing, and of not wearing pants or short skirts); or adhering to shaving or hair length observances (e.g., Sikh uncut hair and beard, Rastafarian dreadlocks, or Jewish peyes (sidelocks)).
___
I think you and @Calicaps seized on what would likely be the key issue: whether wearing a “rainbow shirt” would be explicitly against a player’s religion.

It does differ from some of the examples provided, since wearing a rainbow shirt is not some obvious Christian prohibition. (AFAIK, this is not my faith). Though, I don’t think it would be hard to argue that a player believes in those portions of the Bible that are often cited by those against homosexuality. And probably not hard to show that the rainbow symbol has become inextricably tied to the LGBTQIA community.

I imagine those would be some of the arguments for and against. In addition to how easy accommodation is here. There are probably helpful cases re symbology and religious expression - but this post is long enough already, and I have no billing code for that research

Moreover, trying to argue dispassionately here is proving a bit difficult.

@g00n is always mad. .

I’m sure we all appreciate your legal view of this…thanks.

 

[CapitalsCupReality]

How would it play out if the owner of the team simply decided to change their every day game uniforms to rainbow colors, because he likes rainbows. Would Reimer then have a religious objection? Of course not. So the idea that he can object to being asked to wear a rainbow jersey (or socks, or anything "uniform" based") is going to have a really hard time passing the religious objection sniff test.

The CRA of 1964 was designed (in part) to stop businesses from telling someone they CAN'T wear their religious garb, like a turban or headscarf unless the act itself actually unduly burdens the company. The application is being twisted to apply to say a business "can't" make me wear something I don't like. That was never its intent.

I don't see any valid connection to religious freedom claims and a hockey team that wears uniforms every day for practice and games, deciding to wear a slightly different uniform. The player already agrees that he should wear the chosen uniform of the team and does so without objection every day. All he objects to in this case is supporting a color scheme associated with a lifestyle which he claims to tolerate and says they are welcome, but he won't wear a uniform that is designed to show that support. It’s a hypocritical mess, on Reimer's part.

“probably not hard to show that the rainbow symbol has become inextricably tied to the LGBTQIA community.”


I doubt it would get approved by the league myself.

 

[ClevelandCapsfan]

Go right ahead. But don't try to cut off our conversation because you don't like the topic.

Your arrogance as usual shines through. Carry on with your non-hockey debate.

 

[HTFN]

Your arrogance as usual shines through. Carry on with your non-hockey debate.

Nah, that ain't it.

Don't call a debate sparked by an NHL player in an NHL context based around NHL Pride sponsorship a non-hockey debate.

 

[twabby]

Ottawa and Florida with wins. At least by points the Penguins currently sit outside the playoffs.

 

[Marshall]

Uh, sorry to interrupt, but Ottawa's rookie goalie might have forked PIT.

Please continue.

 

[g00n]

Your arrogance as usual shines through. Carry on with your non-hockey debate.

Stop trying to literally do the thing I was being accused of doing: stifling otherwise legitimate discussion due to personal preference.

Nothing stopping you from talking. So scroll on by if you don't like the topic. Wonder why.

I feel like I’m making people mad here, which wasn’t my intent. I don’t agree with what these players are doing. And fair disclaimer: employment law isn’t my practice area. I was just curious myself as I remembered from LS that there were some federal religious protections for those in private organizations.

So, the EEOC is the agency that deals with these disputes. I found something from them that is fairly on point:

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/fact-sheet-religious-garb-and-grooming-workplace-rights-and-responsibilities:

___
In most instances, employers covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must make exceptions to their usual rules or preferences to permit applicants and employees to follow religious dress and grooming practices.

Examples of religious dress and grooming practices may include: wearing religious clothing or articles (e.g., a Christian cross, a Muslim hijab (headscarf), a Sikh turban, a Sikh kirpan (symbolic miniature sword)); observing a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (e.g., a Muslim, Pentecostal Christian, or Orthodox Jewish woman's practice of wearing modest clothing, and of not wearing pants or short skirts); or adhering to shaving or hair length observances (e.g., Sikh uncut hair and beard, Rastafarian dreadlocks, or Jewish peyes (sidelocks)).
___
I think you and @Calicaps seized on what would likely be the key issue: whether wearing a “rainbow shirt” would be explicitly against a player’s religion.

It does differ from some of the examples provided, since wearing a rainbow shirt is not some obvious Christian prohibition. (AFAIK, this is not my faith). Though, I don’t think it would be hard to argue that a player believes in those portions of the Bible that are often cited by those against homosexuality. And probably not hard to show that the rainbow symbol has become inextricably tied to the LGBTQIA community.

I imagine those would be some of the arguments for and against. In addition to how easy accommodation is here. There are probably helpful cases re symbology and religious expression - but this post is long enough already, and I have no billing code for that research

Moreover, trying to argue dispassionately here is proving a bit difficult.

Wasn't mad. Got your point. Added emphasis is all.

 

[Silky mitts]

I root for 3 point games in every game that involves 2 teams in the East wild card race - unless one of those teams is the Penguins

 

[Calicaps]

I root for 3 point games in every game that involves 2 teams in the East wild card race - unless one of those teams is the Penguins

This is a very rational strategy. On board.

 

[Pigskin]

Ottawa have a terrible draw. Unless we literally stop trying and lose every game, I can't see how they pass us.

 

[Calicaps]

Ottawa have a terrible draw. Unless we literally stop trying and lose every game, I can't see how they pass us.

They're past us now and have a game in hand.

 

[AlexModvechkin8]

I’m going to take a blowtorch to this thread in the morning.

 

[trick9]

It's actually pretty funny that basically year after year when we were in the Playoff hunt that the 3-point games galore around us and now suddenly when most are rooting for other teams to gain points around us, the 3-point games have completely vanished.

 

[YippieKaey]

I feel like I’m making people mad here, which wasn’t my intent. I don’t agree with what these players are doing. And fair disclaimer: employment law isn’t my practice area. I was just curious myself as I remembered from LS that there were some federal religious protections for those in private organizations.

So, the EEOC is the agency that deals with these disputes. I found something from them that is fairly on point:

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/fact-sheet-religious-garb-and-grooming-workplace-rights-and-responsibilities:

___
In most instances, employers covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must make exceptions to their usual rules or preferences to permit applicants and employees to follow religious dress and grooming practices.

Examples of religious dress and grooming practices may include: wearing religious clothing or articles (e.g., a Christian cross, a Muslim hijab (headscarf), a Sikh turban, a Sikh kirpan (symbolic miniature sword)); observing a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (e.g., a Muslim, Pentecostal Christian, or Orthodox Jewish woman's practice of wearing modest clothing, and of not wearing pants or short skirts); or adhering to shaving or hair length observances (e.g., Sikh uncut hair and beard, Rastafarian dreadlocks, or Jewish peyes (sidelocks)).
___
I think you and @Calicaps seized on what would likely be the key issue: whether wearing a “rainbow shirt” would be explicitly against a player’s religion.

It does differ from some of the examples provided, since wearing a rainbow shirt is not some obvious Christian prohibition. (AFAIK, this is not my faith). Though, I don’t think it would be hard to argue that a player believes in those portions of the Bible that are often cited by those against homosexuality. And probably not hard to show that the rainbow symbol has become inextricably tied to the LGBTQIA community.

I imagine those would be some of the arguments for and against. In addition to how easy accommodation is here. There are probably helpful cases re symbology and religious expression - but this post is long enough already, and I have no billing code for that research

Moreover, trying to argue dispassionately here is proving a bit difficult.

I think the problem here is that if the doctrine referred to as the moral code for not wearing a Pride jersey is only selectively followed, it becomes arbitrary.

And since Reimer plays on Sabbat, eats meat, supports gambling through his workwear, perhaps drinks, certainly lies, and im sure does a lot of things that are prohibited in the doctrine referred to it would be hard to make a case stating that he is excercising his right to practice his religion which, according to the doctrine referred to, he very much isn't. He commits sins on a daily basis. He just chooses to follow the parts he likes and ignores the parts he doesn't, thus making it a personal opinion and not in fact a religious practice.