Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-03-2015, 01:54 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,935,929 times
Reputation: 17189

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Meyers View Post
The Yankees cant have a dress code either IF IT VIOLATES THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. I dont know why this is so complocated for some people. The uniform itself is not illegal but the employer can not exclude religions purposely by way of the uniform policy.
And yet it does. Does it exclude a Jew from wearing his religious head wear?

 
Old 06-03-2015, 01:55 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,935,929 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juram View Post
The company flat out admitted that her wearing the hijab lowered her hiring score.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
 
Old 06-03-2015, 01:56 PM
 
7,573 posts, read 5,290,275 times
Reputation: 9437
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Typical answer when you know you are unable to answer.
Seriously, is that the best you can come up with?

Quote:
why can the Yankees have a dress code but A/F can't?
If and when the Yankees find a devote Sikh who can throw 95 mph fastball or a wicked change up... the Yankees and MLB will find it there heart of be more than accommodating. Now remember the last word in the sentence, A-C-C-O-M-M-O-D-A-T-E!

First the case was not about a dress code, it was not hiring a young woman because as Muslim she might violate their dress code.
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants
for employment in any way which would deprive
or tend to deprive any individual of employment
opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status
as an employee, because of such individual’s race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U. S. C.
§2000e–2(a).
To seek an exemption from the statute, Abercrombie could have argued that granting Ms Elauf an exemption from the dress code would have placed a harsh and undue burden on the Abercrombie. Obviously Abercrombie didn't attempt to make such a frivolous argument but instead argued before the Court that the were unaware that Ms. Elauf would require an accommodation due to her religion, which on the face of it was just as ridiculous as arguing that it would have placed an undue burden on their business.

So no the case wasn't about Abercrombies unbridled right to have a dress code of their choosing, not that it would have mattered.

So why not do us all a favor and read the bloody decision so that you don't have to waste time and energy asking ridiculous questions.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...14-86_p86b.pdf
 
Old 06-03-2015, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,515 posts, read 3,664,823 times
Reputation: 6403
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.


Sure it does. Other stories have also stated that she hadn't fit the company dress code when she contacted them which she then took up to the EEOC. In anycase, A&F made it pretty cut and dry for the Supreme Court.


There's absolutely nothing unreasonable about allowing someone to wear a hijab in a retail store environment and doesn't detract from the job or affect the employee's ability to do the job in any fashion.
 
Old 06-03-2015, 02:06 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,935,929 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino View Post
Seriously, is that the best you can come up with?



If and when the Yankees find a devote Sikh who can throw 95 mph fastball or a wicked change up... the Yankees and MLB will find it there heart of be more than accommodating. Now remember the last word in the sentence, A-C-C-O-M-M-O-D-A-T-E!
They might, but it will be their choice. Will The court force the Yankees to allow it if they don't?

Can a Mennonite force Hooters to allow her to wear an ankle length skirt?
 
Old 06-03-2015, 02:32 PM
 
7,573 posts, read 5,290,275 times
Reputation: 9437
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
They might, but it will be their choice. Will The court force the Yankees to allow it if they don't? Can a Mennonite force Hooters to allow her to wear an ankle length skirt?
Can this get any sillier? Yep it can and will.
 
Old 06-03-2015, 02:38 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,935,929 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWiseWino View Post
Can this get any sillier? Yep it can and will.
Yes or no? Can a Mennonite force Hooters to allow her to wear an ankle length dress?
 
Old 06-03-2015, 02:48 PM
Status: "Ephesians 6:12" (set 25 days ago)
 
45,034 posts, read 26,196,433 times
Reputation: 24777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juram View Post
Violations of federal law. Once they told this girl that she wasn't hired because of her head scarf not fitting the dress code, they opened themselves up to this by discriminating on the basis of religion and refusing to make a reasonable accommodation. Their legal defense was basically that they didn't know that she was wearing the scarf for religious purposes which was a ridiculous claim to make.



Facts About Religious Discrimination



.
A common sheep could have replied with this^

In your own words, why shouldnt A&F decide their own best practices for hiring?
 
Old 06-03-2015, 04:57 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,762,944 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
I still can't make much out of what you are saying but my position is, a business should be able to do business with whoever they want to or not do business with whoever they want.

A business should be able to hire whoever they want to or not hire those they don't want to.
Yes but they also have to be willing to face the backlash to come from it or otherwise deal with the people they have to deal business with. In the 1950's and 60's you had boycotts, now you see Twitter and Yelp reviews.

I fail to see why not wearing a hijab at an Abercrombie & Fitch is a BFQ. Explain why showing your hair is truly a BFQ at an Ambercrombie & Fitch like the Hooters uniform is for Hooters.
 
Old 06-03-2015, 05:18 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 43,935,929 times
Reputation: 17189
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Yes but they also have to be willing to face the backlash to come from it or otherwise deal with the people they have to deal business with. In the 1950's and 60's you had boycotts, now you see Twitter and Yelp reviews.
Absolutely. I'm not going to feel bad for them when someone starts a boycott.

Quote:
I fail to see why not wearing a hijab at an Abercrombie & Fitch is a BFQ. Explain why showing your hair is truly a BFQ at an Ambercrombie & Fitch like the Hooters uniform is for Hooters.
Neither do I but as far as I'm concerned it's not my call.
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top