• 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

Deuce said:
The outfit doesn't work as well when men wear it!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Fletch said:
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.
Click to expand...

A surprising number of kids are brought to Hooters and I suspect this would get you into some trouble.
 
Deuce said:
A surprising number of kids are brought to Hooters and I suspect this would get you into some trouble.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that might be a problem.
 
Hard Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...

actually one did and they settled out of court.
it was stupid.

here is the real kicker wait till these men try to get a job at hooters because they think they are women. that lawsuit is going to really be screwed up and you will have
people up in arms because hooters wants real women to work for them not fake.

you just wait it is coming.
 
Fletch said:
Why cant a private employer ban headgear?
Click to expand...

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."
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Anagram said:
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
Click to expand...

Either way a business should have the right to determine how the people are going to work for them are dressed. 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.

AF went with a horrible defense. their defense is that we have a dress code policy that requires this look due to our brand that we have with the company.
wearing any kind of head gear would not support that brand and there is the possibility of financial loss.
 
Ahlevah said:
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."
Click to expand...

bingo.
 
ludin said:
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.
Click to expand...

I do agree with that. I don't know how the court concluded that there was no knowledge requirement. Alito's concurrence there demonstrated well that there should've been. It makes no sense that a business can be held liable without knowing beforehand that something was a religious item or practice and the other party not making them aware of it.
 
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Montecresto said:
Muslim women probably aren't going to be applying for such a job given their religious dress code.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Ahlevah said:
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."
Click to expand...

Same here... Lesson #1: You never give the real reason.
 
DiAnna said:
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.
Click to expand...

...and then some use the SCOTUS Decisions as gospel of how it SHOULD BE only because that is how it is, due to a poor Decision... :roll:
 
Fletch said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Bodhisattva said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.

Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because controlling what someone wears on their head that doesn't affect their ability to do the job isn't reasonable.

ludin said:
they didn't hire her because her headscarf was not part of their dress code policy.
it also interfered with their brand and look.
Click to expand...

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.
 
coyotedelmar said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is just silly... suppressing clutural expressions. :lol:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
jamesrage said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well, if you think that's what this is.......
 
joG said:
Because there are idiots that want to restrict their freedom.
Click to expand...
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.
 
A pretty ridiculous ruling. An employer should be able to demand that his employees do not advertise their religious beliefs on the workfloor.
 
Paschendale said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom