Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 123

Thread: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

  1. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 04:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by CycloneWanderer View Post
    I wonder if there has been any research on the potential impact wearing a head scarf has on retail sales performance.
    I doubt there is a significant difference in sales. Even if there was, pandering to bigots doesn't justify illegal discrimination.

  2. #112
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Last Seen
    07-19-15 @ 06:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    972

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    I doubt there is a significant difference in sales. Even if there was, pandering to bigots doesn't justify illegal discrimination.
    I'm surprised your contention went a minute without being hotly contested!

    You have a SIGNIFICANT misunderestimation of Islam and Kafirs.

    The only provable bigotry involved in this matter is the bigotry demonstrated and ordered by the Koran, Sira and Hadith.

    Check it out.

    Tears of Jihad

    by Bill Warner

    These figures are a rough estimate of the death of non-Muslims by the political act of jihad.

    Africa

    Thomas Sowell [Thomas Sowell, Race and Culture, BasicBooks, 1994, p. 188] estimates that 11 million slaves were shipped across the Atlantic and 14 million were sent to the Islamic nations of North Africa and the Middle East. For every slave captured many others died. Estimates of this collateral damage vary. The renowned missionary David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march.[Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.

    120 million Africans


    Christians

    The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10] . A rough estimate by Raphael Moore in History of Asia Minor is that another 50 million died in wars by jihad. So counting the million African Christians killed in the 20th century we have:

    60 million Christians
    Continued at link.

    Tears of Jihad - Political Islam
    Last edited by Tazmanian Devil; 06-03-15 at 12:46 PM.

  3. #113
    Randian PUA
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,645

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by AliHajiSheik View Post
    Unless there is an undue hardship on the employer, which I don't even see as being argued in this case. Without specific previously litigated cases, it is all just opinions.
    True, an undue hardship is a valid defense but I think the reason why that was not argued in this case was because A&F did not even try to find a reasonable accommodation. Instead, they denied employment based on a desire to avoid making any accommodation which is the textbook definition of discrimination.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  4. #114
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    01-17-16 @ 04:09 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,122

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Thanks for proving my point that the motivation was probably to pander to bigots.

    Sorry, but I have seen the evil passages in the Bible, know enough about Christian's (and other religions) history of atrocities, have actually gotten to know some Muslims, and have been to a Muslim nation to believe all or most of the two billion Muslims are uniquely evil. Besides, I have heard the same BS about Jews, socialists, Asians and blacks to believe that crap.
    Last edited by Hard Truth; 06-03-15 at 01:25 PM.

  5. #115
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Last Seen
    07-19-15 @ 06:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    972

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard Truth View Post
    Thanks for proving my point that the motivation was probably to pander to bigots.
    You have a lot to learn.

    Start here.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/religi...post1064684160

    And here is an hors-d’œuvre:

    64% of the Koran deals with the Kafir, the unbeliever.

    The Sira, 81%.

    And the Hadith: 37% is devoted to Kafirs who are filthy, to be deceived, beheaded, crucified, plotted against, terrorized, humiliated.

    Every act of jihad is to eliminate the Kafir.
    Last edited by Tazmanian Devil; 06-03-15 at 01:24 PM.

  6. #116
    Irremovable Intelligence
    Removable Mind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    22,485

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    True, an undue hardship is a valid defense but I think the reason why that was not argued in this case was because A&F did not even try to find a reasonable accommodation. Instead, they denied employment based on a desire to avoid making any accommodation which is the textbook definition of discrimination.
    As much as people would like ridicule the SC for making the decision it did regarding the A&F case, I suggest that the SC had no alternative based on current laws that have been on the books for sometime and are Constitutional.

    Check out the following from The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission:

    Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities

    This publication by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) answers questions about how federal employment discrimination law applies to religious dress and grooming practices, and what steps employers can take to meet their legal responsibilities in this area.

    Examples of religious dress and grooming practices include wearing religious clothing or articles (e.g., a Muslim hijab (headscarf), a Sikh turban, or a Christian cross); observing a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (e.g., a Muslim, Pentecostal Christian, or Orthodox Jewish woman's practice 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)).

    In most instances, employers are required by federal law to make exceptions to their usual rules or preferences to permit applicants and employees to observe religious dress and grooming practices.

    1. What is the federal law relating to religious dress and grooming in the workplace?

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended ("Title VII"),prohibits employers with at least 15 employees (including private sector, state, and local government employers), as well as employment agencies, unions, and federal government agencies, from discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

    It also prohibits retaliation against persons who complain of discrimination or participate in an EEO investigation. With respect to religion, Title VII prohibits among other things:

    disparate treatment based on religion in recruitment, hiring, promotion, benefits, training, job duties, termination, or any other aspect of employment (except that "religious organizations" as defined under Title VII are permitted to prefer members of their own religion in deciding whom to employ);

    denial of reasonable accommodation for sincerely held religious practices, unless the accommodation would cause an undue hardship for the employer;

    workplace or job segregation based on religion;

    workplace harassment based on religion;

    retaliation for requesting an accommodation (whether or not granted), for filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC, for testifying, assisting, or participating in any manner in an EEOC investigation or EEO proceeding, or for opposing discrimination.

    There may be state or local laws in your jurisdiction that have protections that are parallel to or broader than those in Title VII.


    Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities
    For all of you who are Religious Freedom Restoration Act fans...HERE YA GO! You're government has got your back. For those who aren't. Well...... Personally I'm no fan of any RFRA's. But that's just me.

    Thanks...

  7. #117
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The anals of history
    Last Seen
    07-25-15 @ 01:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,348

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Retarded ruling. A&F shouldn't have to change their dress policies to accommodate anyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by coyotedelmar View Post
    SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch - CNNPolitics.com





    A&F didn't really help themselves with a pretty dumb argument for their side, boiling down to "well, how are we supposed to know they are wearing a head scarf for religious reasons?" Maybe I'm not knowledge on recent fashion, but I never recall head scarfs being worn for reasons besides religion or related to religion (e.g. doing a show/play/etc. where a character is a Muslim woman).

    I don't really agree with their policy on head gear in the first place, and there is a question of how far does accommodation go for a business which deals with the public. I don't really think a head scarf, at least in A&F's case, is going to do any damage to the image the company is trying to promote though. ro be honest, I'm not sure it'd damage the image of any business (outside of ones that exclusively only cater to a particular religion, but most of those I'd assume are run by a church and thus immune anyways).

  8. #118
    Guru
    pinqy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,995

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Grimm View Post
    Retarded ruling. A&F shouldn't have to change their dress policies to accommodate anyone.
    The Court didn't actually rule on that. The ruling was only about whether it would only be discrimination if she asked for accommodation. The just assumed she would and didn't hire her.

    And it's already part of A&F's dress policy that religious issues can be accommodated.
    Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
    And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
    I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.

  9. #119
    Guru
    Lakryte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    06-02-17 @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,982

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    But no business should dictate how someone practices their religion and that should not be a choice someone has to make IF the accommodation is reasonable.
    Setting a dress code isn't dictating how someone practices their religion. It is dictating how employees who represent the business are to dress. And you bet a business should have that right. If the business says no headgear, no religious scarves. No necklaces, that means no crosses around the neck. Don't like it? Don't work there.
    "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."
    "When we live authentically we create an opportunity for others to walk out of their dark prisons of pretend into freedom."

  10. #120
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Last Seen
    07-19-15 @ 06:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    972

    Re: SCOTUS rules in favor of Muslim woman in suit against Abercrombie and Fitch

    Quote Originally Posted by pinqy View Post
    The Court didn't actually rule on that. The ruling was only about whether it would only be discrimination if she asked for accommodation. The just assumed she would and didn't hire her.

    And it's already part of A&F's dress policy that religious issues can be accommodated.
    I expect businesses across America to review their dress code and hiring policies after this ruling.

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •