• 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!

Is A&F obligated to change its "Look Policy" to accommodate religious garb?

Read the thread title and answer accordingly...

  • Total voters
    23
I think the Manager(or whomever was doing the interview) was the idiot. You don't EVER tell somebody the reason they weren't hired is because of what they are wearing. You tell them you'll discuss it with somebody else, you'll review their application, whatever and get back to them. The minute he got into the whole head scarf thing they screwed up. You don't ever give reason for not hiring somebody. You don't have to.

On a second note : Now that people mention it....I've never even seen a black kid at A&F.....or AE....Aeropostale has a few.
 
Hatuey said:
I think the Manager(or whomever was doing the interview) was the idiot. You don't EVER tell somebody the reason they weren't hired is because of what they are wearing. You tell them you'll discuss it with somebody else, you'll review their application, whatever and get back to them. The minute he got into the whole head scarf thing they screwed up. You don't ever give reason for not hiring somebody. You don't have to.

On a second note : Now that people mention it....I've never even seen a black kid at A&F.....or AE....Aeropostale has a few.
Click to expand...

Why should a company be pc about telling people why they were not hired. The woman is an adult she should be able to handle a company telling her why she didn't get the job.
 
jamesrage said:
Why should a company be pc about telling people why they were not hired.
Click to expand...

So that they(the people who they refused to hired because of race, religion, gender etc.) have no grounds to sue them under the Civil Rights act. Next question?
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
So that they(the people who they refused to hired because of race, religion, gender etc.) have no grounds to sue them under the Civil Rights act. Next question?
Click to expand...

She wasn't refused a job because of religion she was refused a job because of clothing.
 
jamesrage said:
She wasn't refused a job because of religion she was refused a job because of clothing.
Click to expand...

Read the article :

In the lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Tulsa by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 17-year-old Samantha Elauf said she applied for a sales position at the Abercrombie Kids store in the Woodland Hills Mall in June 2008. The teen, who wears a hijab in accordance with her religious beliefs, claims the manager told her the head scarf violates the store's "Look Policy."
Click to expand...

Muslim justification for the Hijab in the Koran :

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear therof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, or their brothers' sons or their sisters' sons, or their women or the servants whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex, and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O you Believers, turn you all together towards Allah, that you may attain Bliss.” (Quran 24:31).
Click to expand...

“O you Children of Adam! We have bestowed on you raiment to cover your shame as well as to be an adornment to you. But the raiment of righteousness, that is the best. Such are among the Signs of Allah, that they may receive admonition.” (Quran 7:26)
Click to expand...

“O Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.” (Quran 33:59)
Click to expand...

The clothing is part of the religion in this case. Just like the Yamulka is part of Judaism.
 
new coup for you said:
making an allowance for religious dress, particularly if it's as inoffensive as a head scarf is pretty reasonable. Maybe to you or even I, but the store still has the right to discriminate; and this has nothing DIRECTLY to do with religion...When one works for another; one's religion, philosophy, etc., must be left at the door-stop.

this basically cements Abercrombie and Fitch as the nazi retailer, if their Hitler Youth-esque catalogs didn't already.
Click to expand...

Absolutely and strongly disagree.
Lets try to keep things in balance.
The store wishes to maintain a certain image.
Whats wrong with that ?
This infringes on no man's rights.
Religious nuts can apply elsewhere, or not apply, its their choice.
 
Hatuey said:
Read the article :



Muslim justification for the Hijab in the Koran :







The clothing is part of the religion in this case. Just like the Yamulka is part of Judaism.
Click to expand...

Again its based on clothing and not her religion. The fact that a sect(because not all muslim women wear hijabs) of her religion forces her to wear a it is irrelevant. The fact the company has a dress code that applies to everyone regardless of race,religion or what ever for specific positions. She would not adhere to that dress code and that is why she was not hired, not because she was a muslim.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
In this case you are incorrect. Hospitals generally have strict policies as to the requirement to work every other weekend. If someone has the overriding need to avoid work on Saturday then a hospital is not required to accommodate them upon hire.

Sometimes, yes, they work it out in individual cases, if there is someone with the opposite need, such as the case of a nurse who wants Sundays off. But I know for a fact that you can't march into an HR office and demand this.
Click to expand...
I agree, there are limits to tolerance.
The patient must come number one.
And, as I have said, the man working for another must leave his philosophy, his religion and irreverent things at the door-stop.
The law makers have work to do.
The applicant, with their so-called religious garb, could put a little mom/pop store out of business if denied work....and this is not right....
 
MyOwnDrum said:
What about an observant Jewish nurse? Does she/he have a right to expect not to work on Saturdays, when working every other weekend is standard for hospital nurses?
Click to expand...

My view? No. While the hospital in question might voluntarily allow her to have Saturdays off, she shouldn't get an automatic exception just because of her religious views. She chose to become a nurse, knowing full well what the expectations would be and she still did it. She gets no more sympathy than the religious pharmacists who don't want to dispense medications they morally disagree with. Don't like it? Find a different job.
 
Hatuey said:
The clothing is part of the religion in this case. Just like the Yamulka is part of Judaism.
Click to expand...

But like all religious followers, not all Muslims literally interpret and practice their religion the same way. Every talk a walk about Jakarta, the most populous Islamic country in the world?
 
rathi said:
When it comes to choices like a dress code, abercrombie can make a clear case as to how it is relevant to them operating as a business. Brand image is very important in selling clothing, and it is reasonable to take steps to create that image.

However, I think it is important to note that this applies to choices like wearing clothes, not other factors like race. Abercrombie could credibly claim that hiring black kids would counteract their target demographic, and that definitely would not fly.
Click to expand...

Why should A & F HAVE to hire black people? Why should they HAVE to hire anyone? Who are you to decide?
 
MyOwnDrum said:
What about an observant Jewish nurse? Does she/he have a right to expect not to work on Saturdays, when working every other weekend is standard for hospital nurses?
Click to expand...

She should expect to have her schedule dictated to her by the people who pay her salary. If she doesn't like it she can quit.
 
Why should A & F HAVE to hire black people? Why should they HAVE to hire anyone? Who are you to decide?
Click to expand...

I can decide because they are choosing to operate in my country. If they want to discriminate against employees based on the color of their skin, they can go move somewhere else.
 
this has nothing to do with skin color or religious beliefs

it has to do with dress codes at a private employer
l
lets not forget that fact in our hyperpartisanship folks :)
 
DeeJayH said:
this has nothing to do with skin color or religious beliefs...
Click to expand...

Well to be fair, the last two posts being concerned, Ethereal brought it up,and Rathi was just responding to it.

Yes Ethereal, they HAVE to have equality in their hiring practices in this country, and people can sue (and have successfully) for blatant racial discrimination in hiring.
 
rathi said:
I can decide because they are choosing to operate in my country. If they want to discriminate against employees based on the color of their skin, they can go move somewhere else.
Click to expand...

So, because a business operates in "your" country they must abide by your hiring standards? I thought the Constitution decided what was lawful in America...

Bottom line is that it's my money, my business, and my property - I'm perfectly within my rights to discriminate in the dispensation of my possessions. Am I violating someone's "civil rights" because I only give money to white homeless and not black ones? No? Then why does the same logic apply to hiring practices which is the same general concept?

Tell me, how successful do you think A & F would be if they refused to hire black people? My guess is that they would go out of business, and rightfully so.
 
Travelsonic said:
Well to be fair, the last two posts being concerned, Ethereal brought it up,and Rathi was just responding to it.

Yes Ethereal, they HAVE to have equality in their hiring practices in this country, and people can sue (and have successfully) for blatant racial discrimination in hiring.
Click to expand...

Why? That money doesn't belong to you or anyone else, which makes any imposition on the dispensation of that money nonsensical and ultimately immoral.
 
Ethereal said:
So, because a business operates in "your" country they must abide by your hiring standards? I thought the Constitution decided what was lawful in America...
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has not ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unconstitutional.

Ethereal said:
Bottom line is that it's my money, my business, and my property - I'm perfectly within my rights to discriminate in the dispensation of my possessions. Am I violating someone's "civil rights" because I only give money to white homeless and not black ones? No? Then why does the same logic apply to hiring practices which is the same general concept?
Click to expand...

Because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to the work place, and does not apply to giving money to homeless people.

Ethereal said:
Tell me, how successful do you think A & F would be if they refused to hire black people? My guess is that they would go out of business, and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But getting back on subject, this particular case involved a person expecting A&F to make an exception for her, which they are under no obligation to do. Businesses may discriminate on the basis of anything they want if it affects the employee's ability to perform the job. In her case, wearing the hijab would have affected her ability to successfully market A&F products, and so they were well within the law when they decided not to hire her.
 
Last edited:
So, because a business operates in "your" country they must abide by your hiring standards? I thought the Constitution decided what was lawful in America...
Click to expand...

Exactly. The anti-discrimination laws are passed fully according the law set down in the constitution.


Bottom line is that it's my money, my business, and my property - I'm perfectly within my rights to discriminate in the dispensation of my possessions. Am I violating someone's "civil rights" because I only give money to white homeless and not black ones? No? Then why does the same logic apply to hiring practices which is the same general concept?
Click to expand...

Fine, but give up limited liability, copyright and trademark protection, use of public roads to ship your merchandise, use of the police and fire department and legal protection when a race riot torches your store. Until then, understand that the vast benefits you get from being in America comes with certain requirements. It is a more than even deal.

Tell me, how successful do you think A & F would be if they refused to hire black people? My guess is that they would go out of business, and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

Considering that only the most extreme government intervention managed to force the end of slavery and segregation, the market clearly does not have the capability to insure against racial discrimination. A vast number of businesses in the south thrived despite being openly discriminatory.
 
jamesrage said:
Again its based on clothing and not her religion.
Click to expand...

A repetition of a point which has already been clarified to you. Her clothing is part of her religion. Specifically that item. When you discriminate somebody based on that item then it falls under the Civil rights Act. Please understand this? Second time I explain to you.

The fact that a sect(because not all muslim women wear hijabs) of her religion forces her to wear a it is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Her sect doesn't force her to wear anything. She's made this choice in accordance to her religious beliefs. Read what I showed you.

fact the company has a dress code that applies to everyone regardless of race,religion or what ever for specific positions. She would not adhere to that dress code and that is why she was not hired, not because she was a muslim.
Click to expand...

And again. When the manager made it his duty to tell her why she wasn't hired, the matter fell under the Civil Rights Act. Why you choose to misunderstand this is, is beyond me. If the manager had not given a reason, which he is in his right, the matter would probably have been ignored but he didn't and made it clearly a matter of discrimination.
 
How would you feel if the woman had even more extreme Muslim attire, with only her eyes showing? Would that be discrimination for a company to refuse to hire her for a position that deals with the public?
 
Hatuey said:
A repetition of a point which has already been clarified to you. Her clothing is part of her religion. Specifically that item. When you discriminate somebody based on that item then it falls under the Civil rights Act. Please understand this? Second time I explain to you.
Click to expand...

It is not a violation of the Civil Rights Act if it has some relevance to her ability to effectively perform her duties.

It's the same reason why Hooters doesn't have to hire guys to be waitresses. It's the same reason why movie studios don't have to hire Asian females to play black male characters. It's the same reason why pharmacies don't have to hire Christians who refuse to dispense birth control, or why bars don't have to hire Mormons as bartenders, or why newspapers don't have to hire kosher-conscious Jews as food critics.

The hijab certainly affects her ability to successfully market A&F products to customers. If she can't perform the duties of the job because of her religious beliefs, that is her problem.
 
Kandahar said:
It is not a violation of the Civil Rights Act if it has some relevance to her ability to effectively perform her duties.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with her not being hired because of a religious item?

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-166) (CRA) amends several sections of Title VII.
Click to expand...

The moment he gave a reason for not employing her, one that had to do with her religion it came under the Civil Rights Act.
 
so if an employer has a 'no jewelry policy' and i wear a flavor flav size crucifix, they must hire me, & let me wear it or face a Lawsuit

BS
 
Hatuey said:
The moment he gave a reason for not employing her, one that had to do with her religion it came under the Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...

It had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with her refusal to conform to a store "uniform" policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom