- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 100,778
- Reaction score
- 53,541
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Why not?
The outfit doesn't work as well when men wear it!
Why not?
The outfit doesn't work as well when men wear it!
Well, that's true. But my point is that it is the employer who decides the dress code. So my Hooters would have waitresses with tear-away jerseys.
A surprising number of kids are brought to Hooters and I suspect this would get you into some trouble.
The Supremes made the right decision. I don't know if it was A&F's intent, but banning religious or ethnic clothing or discriminating against people to pander to bigots is not a legitimate reason.
I understand that none probably have and why... but it seems that a stink could be made about so many things. Why not just adhere to what the emplyoer wants, as long as it is reasonable.
Why cant a private employer ban headgear?
they didn't hire her because her headscarf was not part of their dress code policy.
it also interfered with their brand and look.
the SCOTUS got this 100% wrong as usual.
It might be a bad law but after reading the ruling, I'm pretty convinced by the court's logic. Title VII is pretty specific about what constitutes religious belief and practice.
Here's a link to Scalia's ruling if you want. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-86_p86b.pdf
I've done hiring and the first thing you learn is never tell an applicant anything other than "Thanks for your interest. There were other, better qualified applicants."
with this ruling that is no longer the case.
it also means that the business has to be able to read the persons brain before hand to know if it is a religious item or not. please tell me how any employer can do that.
They should be allowed to not hire her for wearing a head scarf, having tattoos or a guy with long hair or dreds... this decision is ****ed up.
There are Jews in name only and cafeteria Christians. Why not someone who is a Muslim in name only or a feminist masquerading a Muslim trying to ruin or shut down a business?Muslim women probably aren't going to be applying for such a job given their religious dress code.
I've done hiring and the first thing you learn is never tell an applicant anything other than "Thanks for your interest. There were other, better qualified applicants."
I agree. A private employer should be able to hire anyone they want, and not hire someone they don't want, based on anything which is not constitutionally discriminatory. Having a dress code does not violate constitutional protections. It's silly. What if my religion prevented me from covering my legs, so I wanted to come to work wearing short-shorts? Or a man had a full beard because of his religion, and the company in question insisted upon clean-cut, short-haired individuals?
A truly foolish, facepalm decision, disheartening at the Supreme Court level.
Why do I, as an employer, have to accommodate anyones religious nuttery? They came to my place of business looking for work, they follow my dress code. If they don't like it, they can work for you.
If she wants a job she should do what the employer wants and not bitch to SCOTUS about it... should a buddhist monk get a job wear a uniform is required but refuse to wear the uniform because they want to wear their orange robes? This whole thing is freaking retarded...
I understand that none probably have and why... but it seems that a stink could be made about so many things. Why not just adhere to what the emplyoer wants, as long as it is reasonable.
they didn't hire her because her headscarf was not part of their dress code policy.
it also interfered with their brand and look.
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).
I find it sad this case had to go that far. This should've been resolved way before going to even the district court level. If the young lady was qualified she should've gotten the gig. The head scarves don't look unprofessional and there's no safety reason in a retail setting to ban them
Why cant a private employer ban headgear?
Essentially what you're saying is that it is perfectly permissible to suppress cultural expressions that differ from what we consider the norm. That's what religious accommodation ultimately boils down to. Religious traditions about dress or food or language are ultimately just an expression of culture. As a nation based on the idea of being a cultural melting pot, it really isn't okay to only accept cultures that we deem close enough to our own.
Because controlling what someone wears on their head that doesn't affect their ability to do the job isn't reasonable.
Their dress code is unreasonably and unduly restrictive. That's the point. They are allowed, within reasonable limits, to determine a dress code. They do not have an unlimited right to do that.
There are Jews in name only and cafeteria Christians. Why not someone who is a Muslim in name only or a feminist masquerading a Muslim trying to ruin or shut down a business?
Fedex hired a woman, in Canada, who turned up a week later in full Muslim gear, which made her unable to climb ladders, sort packages, etc. They settled out of court for $200,000 (I know the head of that agency) because the costs and publicity weren't worth it. I have no way of knowing but suggest this may not be an uncommon scam, especially with the larger companies.Because there are idiots that want to restrict their freedom.
Does every leftist live in a fantasy land like you? Or is it just that you have never actually had a job yet and don't understand that it will be your employer who sets the rules and conditions in his business?Because you live in a society with other people and you having money and owning things doesn't give you the right to control anything about anyone else.