• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Would it matter if the preference was irreligious? E.g., if research found that customers preferred to interact with and were more likely to make purchases from salespeople not wearing hats or headgear of any kind?

It would not matter

The test is pretty clear: If the employer believes a religious practice of the applicant would require a reasonable accommodation and the employer doesn't hire in order to avoid having to make such an accommodation then it is illegal discrimination.

Customer preference is not a defense to a claim of discrimination.
 
I've waited to see if something bubbles up from the mind spring and here it is.

I support the ruling.

The issue is tangentially about Islam.

May the resistance to America's Islamization take place elsewhere.
 
Employees have rights protected by law because history shows employers are not always reasonable, which negatively impacts society as a whole.

That is totally true. That does not mean that the laws and rulings regarding the rights of the citizens running companies should be trampled.
 
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 don't think her wearing a head scarf would really affect their business, but the business should have the right to set their own dress codes. I do believe that businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against this woman because of her beliefs. By discriminate I mean they shouldn't be allowed to treat her differently than any other employees. As long as other employees have to follow the dress code, so should she. That isn't discrimination in my opinion. We as a country tend to get carried away with these types of things. We started with a good idea of working toward ending workplace discrimination and are now to the point that businesses are being forced to allow people to break dress code to wear religious attire.
 
I don't think her wearing a head scarf would really affect their business, but the business should have the right to set their own dress codes. I do believe that businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against this woman because of her beliefs. By discriminate I mean they shouldn't be allowed to treat her differently than any other employees. As long as other employees have to follow the dress code, so should she. That isn't discrimination in my opinion. We as a country tend to get carried away with these types of things. We started with a good idea of working toward ending workplace discrimination and are now to the point that businesses are being forced to allow people to break dress code to wear religious attire.

But as the court stated: "Abercrombie’s argument that a neutral policy cannot constitute “intentional discrimination” may make sense in other contexts. But Title VII does not demand mere neutrality with regard to religious practices—that they be treated no worse than other practices. Rather, it gives them favored treatment, affirmatively obligating employers not “to failor refuse to hire or discharge any individual . . . because of such individual’s” “religious observance and practice.” Anemployer is surely entitled to have, for example, a noheadwear policy as an ordinary matter. But when an applicant requires an accommodation as an “aspec[t] ofreligious . . . practice,” it is no response that the subsequent “fail[ure] . . . to hire” was due to an otherwise-neutral policy. Title VII requires otherwise-neutral policies to give way to the need for an accommodation." http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-86_p86b.pdf
 
In looking for their dress code, out of curiousity, found they've been in trouble in the past related to wearing of hijabs.

Abercrombie & Fitch Sued For  Religious Discrimination
Abercrombie & Fitch Liable for Religious Discrimination in EEOC Suit, Court Says

I have to relook up the first, as I think it was settled out of court so EEOC didn't have anything on the outcome (or my search missed it completely). The second was one in which she already worked for the company but the complaint comes down to the same (also shows that they had no issue with the hijab in the past). It's also mentioned about the exceptions in the Press Release for the original decision in this case, in 2011
Court Finds for EEOC in Religious Discrimination Suit Against Abercrombie & Fitch

Through those found this nugget as well:
USATODAY.com - Abercrombie & Fitch to pay $40M to settle bias case

The lawsuit was filed last June in San Francisco by Hispanic and Asian groups charging that Abercrombie & Fitch, known for its "classic casual American" clothing styles, hires a disproportionately white sales force, puts minorities in less-visible jobs and cultivates a virtually all-white image in its catalogs and elsewhere. A second, similar lawsuit was filed against the company last November in New Jersey.

If you are curious the dress code, if buzzfeed article is correct, does allow religious exemption to the headwear rule, but the one in this article is also from 2013 so it doesn't exactly apply to the case in the OP. Might explain why A&F tried to argue that they didn't know it was religious so okay to not hire her (that and the other earlier lawsuits).
http://www.buzzfeed.com/sapna/exclu...style-rules-add-to-strict-look-pol#.obEQVqKEx
 
It would not make a difference. Regardless of any policy, an employer must make reasonable accommodations for a religious practice. This requirement applies regardless of the policy or the reason for having the policy

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.
 
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.

That's what A&F will have to argue now. The case was remanded to the 10th Circuit.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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:
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/relig...ecognize-bigotry-religion.html#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:
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...... :shrug: Personally I'm no fan of any RFRA's. But that's just me.

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

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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Any Muslims who see an employee of a business wearing Muslim garb will rightly infer that business welcomes Muslims. Other Muslims will feel welcome to apply for jobs there. Muslim customers will feel welcomed to shop there.

And we must ask ourselves, if we can't know anything else about a person except that they are a Muslim...

And we know that all Muslims are obligated to perform Jihad for the ultimate objective of making the world Sharia ruled...

Then we must assume that the business doesn't understand the implications of its hiring policy and that they are uninformed about the true nature of Islam.

Or we must assume they are being advised or influenced by Muslims to make this their hiring policy.

It is silly to believe they are suicidal or masochistic.

Even though that IS the long term implication which they, no doubt, are unaware of or do not believe can or will happen.
 
Any Muslims who see an employee of a business wearing Muslim garb will rightly infer that business welcomes Muslims. Other Muslims will feel welcome to apply for jobs there. Muslim customers will feel welcomed to shop there.

And we must ask ourselves, if we can't know anything else about a person except that they are a Muslim...

And we know that all Muslims are obligated to perform Jihad for the ultimate objective of making the world Sharia ruled...

Then we must assume that the business doesn't understand the implications of its hiring policy and that they are uninformed about the true nature of Islam.

Or we must assume they are being advised or influenced by Muslims to make this their hiring policy.

It is silly to believe they are suicidal or masochistic.

Even though that IS the long term implication which they, no doubt, are unaware of or do not believe can or will happen.

Yanno when one stares into the abyss....


You are radicalized Tazmanian.
 
Back
Top Bottom