Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is one of those PC arguments that simply fails on it's face. It's a private company. If you want to work there and they require you to wear pink underwear, then that's their prerogative.
I think this argument is absolute nonsense. Your employer does not own you and you should not be forced to check your personal beliefs at the door. As long as what you are doing or wearing does not interfere with you doing your job, I don't see the problem whatsoever.
Quote:
Abercrombie is a fashion company for God's sake. They sell a look. It's their entire business. They have every right to dictate what that look is and to require their employees to adhere to it. Personally, I think their clothes are mostly ridiculous, but a lot of people disagree with me and are willing to pay a lot of money for the A&F look. The government has no right to step in and tell them to change their basic business model.
I fail to see how allowing an attractive young woman who dresses very fashionably but wears a head scarf because of her religious beliefs is "changing their basic business model." Its a very simple accommodation that doesn't affect the way she performs her job even slightly.
OMG, she's totally ruining their business model.....
If anything, perhaps their business model needs some updating considering that they've been bleeding money for awhile now and their freakish looking long-time CEO who kept sticking his foot in his mouth was basically driven out near the end of last year. Fresh faces like this might be just what the company needs to help them stay afloat.
Quote:
This is the equivalent of the government telling McDonald's that they have to hire Hindu's who won't cook beef because they think it's immoral.
LOL, its not even remotely close to the same thing, your attempt at an analogy quite frankly is ridiculous. As mentioned before, nothing about her head scarf affects any part of her ability to do her job and sell overpriced generic clothes to preppy kids.
I wouldnt even go into the whole analysis of a specific industry and pictures of what she looks like. It makes no difference. Their basic premise is wrong. They are clearly oblivious to the plain text of the civil rights act, and are under some flawed alternate reality that companies have some blanket authority to hire and fire who they want for any reason. ITS NOT TRUE. It hasnt been true since 1964. I dont know if these people are just typical stupid americans who dont know basic law, but I tend to expect more from the conservative side than that. Lets make it crystal clear to these idiots, private companies can not discriminate or make hiring/firing/promotion decisions based on a series of factors, one of which is religion. Deal with the law.
A Muslim women wearing a hijab (Islamic headscarf) was denied a job because according to the private company policy they have a dress code and she did not want to follow. The women filed a charge and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 - 1 against Abercrombie & Fitch retail clothing store company policy due to "discriminating against religious belief."
Political correctness is destroying our society.. Crosses and other non-Islamic symbols and clothing are banned in several Islamic nations, yet people in the west has to accommodate to the Muslims!
heh ... Let her try that in a Public School that requires uniforms ... It would all go to hell and gone
I fail to see how allowing an attractive young woman who dresses very fashionably but wears a head scarf because of her religious beliefs is "changing their basic business model." Its a very simple accommodation that doesn't affect the way she performs her job even slightly.
Well, it affects my willingness to patronize the business. Abercrombie just lost a potential customer, thanks to SCOTUS.
Quote:
OMG, she's totally ruining their business model.....
She could be, if enough customers feel the way I do.
Then push Congress to clarify employment laws to put in more restrictions and limitations on what they can be sued for discrimination whether it is wrongful termination, not hiring, etc. What you are doing is creating a slippery slope that the Supreme Court may not agree to rule infavor of the employee for. See my Muslim, Menonite and Mormon working at a strip club or Hooters comment, their state of dress (or lack there of) is a BFQ that if they have a religious conviction that asks them to have a different and more modest look, they will be fired because they cannot perform the job.
I'd agree that needs done but a law that treats one business differently than another should be ruled unconstitutional.
This is one of those PC arguments that simply fails on it's face. It's a private company. If you want to work there and they require you to wear pink underwear, then that's their prerogative.
Abercrombie is a fashion company for God's sake. They sell a look. It's their entire business. They have every right to dictate what that look is and to require their employees to adhere to it. Personally, I think their clothes are mostly ridiculous, but a lot of people disagree with me and are willing to pay a lot of money for the A&F look. The government has no right to step in and tell them to change their basic business model.
This is the equivalent of the government telling McDonald's that they have to hire Hindu's who won't cook beef because they think it's immoral. I can't believe we are at a point in this country where a Muslim can tell a national fashion chain how she should dress when they employ her to sell their clothes. What's next?
To be fair to the girl that brought the suit, she never got the opportunity to say that she wouldn't abide by the dress code.
In part also, this is the court creating a problem where there might not have even been one.
Where do you idiots get this notion that private companies can discriminate based on religion? Are you slow or stupid, seriously? Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its LAW, its been law. FOR FIFTY YEARS. I mean Im conservative but even I am shocked at the stupidity here.
Then answer the question. Can a Mennonite girl demand to wear an ankle length dress if hired at Hooters?
They don't care about the law. They hate minorities and especially those damn Muzzzlimmmsss. Therefore anything that occurs or is said that supports said minorities and/or their rights will be endlessly criticized. Just bigots of the day.
This isn't about Muslims. I'm pretty sure you are aware that I've defended the rights of Muslims in plenty of instances.
Well, it affects my willingness to patronize the business. Abercrombie just lost a potential customer, thanks to SCOTUS.
And they are quite devastated I'm sure, even though I get the feeling that you're a few years overripe for their target demographic.
Quote:
She could be, if enough customers feel the way I do.
I'm willing to bet that most customers couldn't care less. I know it wouldn't matter to me one way or another. If you're that offended at the sight of a woman wearing a scarf on her head, you may just be better off doing your shopping online.
Then answer the question. Can a Mennonite girl demand to wear an ankle length dress if hired at Hooters?
Reasonable accommodation is what the law reads. Does a fashion scarf instead of a company approved hairstyle, which I doubt is a written policy, make an unreasonable demand on Abercrombie and Fitch, neither congress or 8 of 9 seated Supreme Court justices think so. Does a softcore stripper/waitress demanding to wear concealing clothes make an unreasonable demand upon Hooters and their clone strip club bar restaurants? Probably so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What you are doing is creating a slippery slope that the Supreme Court may not agree to rule infavor of the employee for. See my Muslim, Menonite and Mormon working at a strip club or Hooters comment, their state of dress (or lack there of) is a BFQ that if they have a religious conviction that asks them to have a different and more modest look, they will be fired because they cannot perform the job.