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.
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.
Muslims don't wear what they wear as a fashion statement.
That you aren't honest in any of your reply assures me I am on the right track.
Muslims don't wear what they wear as a fashion statement.
That you aren't honest in any of your reply assures me I am on the right track.
I never said they wore it as a fashion statement. They can choose a fashionable scarf and not wear a Catholic nun circa 1902 headdress or a Saudi/Taliban approved gear.
But if the SCOTUS is going to grant 'personhood' to corporations, can they really allow one 'person' to stifle another's religious practices including prescribed manner of dress?
I never said they wore it as a fashion statement. They can choose a fashionable scarf and not wear a Catholic nun circa 1902 headdress or a Saudi/Taliban approved gear.
But they can. Seems you are arguing that they can't tell employees they can't wear religious headwear but they can tell them how it must be "fashionable"?
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.
You would lose that bet because the salesperson is part of the product.
When your product is style, you want sales people who represent your product. If I'm selling chic clothing I want my front line people to wear the same style and look good doing it. If my business model requires attractive women, then I will hire only attractive women. There should be no laws telling a business what they can require employees to wear. If I'm offended by an employer's dress code, I can CHOOSE not to work there.
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.
This is the point I've made, it is.about a reasonable accommodation. A burka isn't going to fall under a reasonable accommodation but a hijab would. Perhaps for her job she could wear a more trendy style. Instead her bosses said drop it or you're not working here. Because of that and that they cannot prove that showing hair at an apparel store is a BFQ like say wearing short shorts, even bikinis at say a Hooters, Twin Peaks, Tilted Kilt, etc. That is the difference.
But they can. Seems you are arguing that they can't tell employees they can't wear religious headwear but they can tell them how it must be "fashionable"?
It is not religious headgear. That would be something like a Mormon's undergarments. The religious requirement is simply covering the hair and the reasonable compromise is to choose a style which both parties can work with.
This is the point I've made, it is.about a reasonable accommodation. A burka isn't going to fall under a reasonable accommodation but a hijab would. Perhaps for her job she could wear a more trendy style. Instead her bosses said drop it or you're not working here.
No they didn't. They never gave her the option.
Quote:
Because of that and that they cannot prove that showing hair at an apparel store is a BFQ like say wearing short shorts, even bikinis at say a Hooters, Twin Peaks, Tilted Kilt, etc. That is the difference.
Its crazy that this is what we have devolved to. "Yes, you have a legitimate reason for a clothing policy but no you do not" is not a legitimate decision for the government to make.
It is not religious headgear. That would be something like a Mormon's undergarments. The religious requirement is simply covering the hair and the reasonable compromise is to choose a style which both parties can work with.
And if the requirement is to cover the face completely?
To make sure your legs down to your ankles are covered?
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.
