Cross-posted at ACA Signups
Since the SCOTUS's Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision, a lot of people have been pointing out the Pandora's Box that this could potentially open for company owners to start violating civil rights laws willy-nilly, all based on whatever their particular flavor of religion happens to be.
The most commonly used example (one I've used myself) is "What if a Muslim Company Used the 'Hobby Lobby' Decision to Impose Its Values on White Christians?"
How would conservatives and their agents respond if a company with Islamic beliefs (however defined) decided to impose its religious values on white, Christian, American employees?
Sharia hysteria would spread in such a way as to make the present day-to-day Islamophobia of the Right-wing echo chamber appear benign and muted by comparison.
What if a Black cultural nationalist organization such as the Nation of Islam or the Black Israelites claimed that they possessed a "religious freedom" to actively discriminate against white people in the workplace or elsewhere?
The White Right would explode with claims of "reverse discrimination" and "black racism".
I agree with this analysis completely, and using the "Muslim Sharia Law" example is a pretty obvious one given mainstream America's continuing distrust of all things Muslim-ish.
However, I'm also starting to find it a bit troubling to keep rhetorically beating up on the Muslims, even if we're doing so to make a larger point about the hypocrisy of a Christian-centric mindset. I find it doubly troubling given that I happen to be Jewish myself. So, instead, let's take a look at a potential landmine right here in my own religion: Niddah.
Niddah, as defined by Wikipedia, is defined as
"a Hebrew term describing a woman during menstruation, or a woman who has menstruated and not yet completed the associated requirement of immersion in amikveh (ritual bath).
In Leviticus, the Torah prohibits sexual intercourse with a niddah[1]and the prohibition has been maintained in traditional Jewish law. The laws concerning niddah are also referred to as taharath hamishpacha (טהרת המשפחה, Hebrew for family purity).
There's obviously a lot more detail, but you get the gist of it: Niddah law delves directly into all things dealing with female physiology, in particular menstruation, pregnancy and so forth. Here's the key point I want to focus on:
As with most of the arayot (Biblically forbidden sexual relationships), all physical contact "Derech Chiba v'Taavah" (in an affectionate or lustful manner) is rabbinically forbidden when a woman is in her niddah status.[12][13]
Here's the punchline, though:
Such contact is forbidden whether or not the man and woman are husband and wife.[14]
Huh...well, now. There's obviously no way of "proving" whether a particular physical contact is meant in "an affectionate or lustful manner"...that is, "lustful" falls under the category of sexual harrassment laws, I suppose, but "affectionate"? "Affection" simply means "liking the other person", which can range from finding them to be a nice person to a good friend or even holding a secret crush on them (never acted upon).
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, it seems to me that if I, as a Jew, was an owner of a "closely held" corporation, and I followed the strict interpretation of the Laws of Niddah, I should be able, using the SCOTUS's logic, to require all female employees to either:
a) Publicly post their menstrual cycles on the company bulletin board (including any variances) every month for all male employees to see, so that they know to steer clear; and/or
b) Cover their entire bodies from head to toe in some form of garment, to avoid even the slightest possibility of physical contact. There's a word for such a garment; it's on the tip of my tongue...
Here's some more info on the Laws of Niddah, if you're so interested.