Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 123

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

  1. #41
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 03:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    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...
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    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.
    Because controlling what someone wears on their head that doesn't affect their ability to do the job isn't reasonable.

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    they didn't hire her because her headscarf was not part of their dress code policy.
    it also interfered with their brand and look.
    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.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  2. #42
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,490

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

    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).
    Actually Grace Kelly wore head scarves to very elegant effect. But I do feel it bad to force private groups to adhere to such political correctness. We have gone too far.

  3. #43
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,490

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

    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    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
    I would say the same, but would add that A&F is a private entity and should not be forced to adhere to political correctness.

  4. #44
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,490

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Why cant a private employer ban headgear?
    Because there are idiots that want to restrict their freedom.

  5. #45
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The South Pacific
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:44 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    57,088

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    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.
    That is just silly... suppressing clutural expressions.

    No, can express herself to her hearts content if she likes... just not where an employer has rules or standards for the business.

    Damn, huge thunder and lightning blasting away right now!! Building just shook...

    Because controlling what someone wears on their head that doesn't affect their ability to do the job isn't reasonable.
    So what? Smelling badly does not affect a lawyer from winning a case but poor hygiene will get you understandably fired. It is perfectly reasonable for any number of reasons and one could be health and safety, one could be because of head gear that they are supposed to wear like a hat or visor at a pub and another could be simply because the employer wants them to be clean shaven or to have well groomed and visible hair.

    How about my monk scenario? Monk wants to wear orange robes at Subway Sandwiches instead of a Subway T-Shirt. That OK? Seems like you think it should be.

  6. #46
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The South Pacific
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:44 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    57,088

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    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.
    Really? Email Tom Brady and tell him he can play Monday Night Football with the gear but instead of the uniform just wear a t-shirt from home.

    How about telling fast food worker that they do not have to wear the uniform/shirt provided? A waiter at a restaurant requiring a tie can wear a belly showing shirt?

    Really?

  7. #47
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 10:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

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

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    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?
    Well, if you think that's what this is.......
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 08:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    Because there are idiots that want to restrict their freedom.
    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.

  9. #49
    Educator
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,198

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

    A pretty ridiculous ruling. An employer should be able to demand that his employees do not advertise their religious beliefs on the workfloor.

  10. #50
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,584

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    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.
    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?

Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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
  •