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.
Employers have a right to enforce a dress code, imho. If someone's religious practice violates that dress code, that person should find work in a place which will accommodate them - not the other way around.
Sorry the Civil Rights Act does not trump the US Constitution.
You have a strange way of reading the 1st and 14th Amendments, not to mention the Supremacy Clause.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Is it your argument that the free expression of religion can be barred within reason by an employer? If so what is your understand of the 14th Amendment that guarantees equal protection of the law? And when you get finished with that, explain how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't passed in the "pursuance" of guaranteeing rights granted under the Constitution as stipulated in the 1st Amendment?
Is it your argument that the free expression of religion can be barred within reason by an employer? If so what is your understand of the 14th Amendment that guarantees equal protection of the law? And when you get finished with that, explain how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't passed in the "pursuance" of guaranteeing rights granted under the Constitution as stipulated in the 1st Amendment?
I eagerly await your response.
Actually, it is not all black and white
Did you know you could be fired for not removing a political sticker from your car — or even having a beer after work? Lewis Maltby says it's more than possible — it's happened. His new book, Can They Do That? explores rights in the workplace.
"What most Americans generally don't know is that the Constitution doesn't apply to private corporations at all."
In terms of monitoring its employees, the list of things a corporation can't do is a short one — it's basically confined to eavesdropping on a personal oral conversation, Maltby said. "Anything else is open season."
In this particular case, Yes religion trumps everything. To my knowledge, not all Muslims are happy about the result. There are a lot of them who actually support AF. A lot of Muslims are business owners. This is about private businesses rules and regulations, dress codes, etc.
Did you know you could be fired for not removing a political sticker from your car — or even having a beer after work? Lewis Maltby says it's more than possible — it's happened. His new book, Can They Do That? explores rights in the workplace.
"What most Americans generally don't know is that the Constitution doesn't apply to private corporations at all."
In terms of monitoring its employees, the list of things a corporation can't do is a short one — it's basically confined to eavesdropping on a personal oral conversation, Maltby said. "Anything else is open season."
In this particular case, Yes religion trumps everything. To my knowledge, not all Muslims are happy about the result. There are a lot of them who actually support AF. A lot of Muslims are business owners. This is about private businesses rules and regulations, dress codes, etc.
lol coincidentally my wife was actually a bit angry at the girl. Her question was, "Why would any Muslim girl want to work in a place with scantily clad models and the like? It seems hypocritical."
lol coincidentally my wife was actually a bit angry at the girl. Her question was, "Why would any Muslim girl want to work in a place with scantily clad models and the like? It seems hypocritical."
Just a thought.
That is right. Couple girls worked at a chain store in our mall say the same thing. They are all Muslim girls. Most Muslim girls make excellent employees I must admit.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Is it your argument that the free expression of religion can be barred within reason by an employer? If so what is your understand of the 14th Amendment that guarantees equal protection of the law? And when you get finished with that, explain how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn't passed in the "pursuance" of guaranteeing rights granted under the Constitution as stipulated in the 1st Amendment?
I eagerly await your response.
You are free to practice your religion on your own time. You cannot practice your religion at work. Government officials cannot hold prayer sessions in the middle of the Senate floor for example
which would be clear violation of the establishment clause.
Quote:
"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship."
Yes it would be an undue hardship for this company to accommodate her headscarf. First of all, it violates their dress code that applies to all sales associates. If the Muslim woman were applying for an office job and the company didn't hire her because of the headscarf then yeah that would be unreasonable. The headscarf won't hinder her office work in anyway.
But for a sales associate position in a fashion company where you are dealing face to face with the public and directly with customers all the time, then yeah it would be unreasonable to expect them to accommodate her in that position. You can't expect them to hire a Muslim model who insists on wearing a hijab or Burka on every photo shoot.
The ruling was absurd, even going strictly by the standards of the Civil Rights Act because it fails to meet the standard of "undue hardship." Probably the first time I ever agreed with Clarence Thomas who wrote a pretty good dissenting opinion.
This one is tough for me. Ambercrombie is trying to project a specific image and DRESS, This was not a religious issue for them. So I am not sure I agree with the supreme court. Anyone read the briefs to see what the reasoning is?
She should of went to work for Amazon. At least they carry the product she wears. When Ambercrombie starts carrying Hijabs the SCOTUS would have a point.
Did you know you could be fired for not removing a political sticker from your car — or even having a beer after work? Lewis Maltby says it's more than possible — it's happened. His new book, Can They Do That? explores rights in the workplace.
"What most Americans generally don't know is that the Constitution doesn't apply to private corporations at all."
In terms of monitoring its employees, the list of things a corporation can't do is a short one — it's basically confined to eavesdropping on a personal oral conversation, Maltby said. "Anything else is open season."
In this particular case, Yes religion trumps everything. To my knowledge, not all Muslims are happy about the result. There are a lot of them who actually support AF. A lot of Muslims are business owners. This is about private businesses rules and regulations, dress codes, etc.
True. This is just about the civil rights law. The constitution is not in play here. The Supreme Court now says that employers can't enforce dress codes if they violate a religious practice. I feel bad for the next person who gets a surgeon's dangling cross lost in their body.
I wonder what the opinion would be if it was a Christian being told they couldn't wear a cross necklace, or a Jew not being allowed to wear a head cover. It's that these items aren't about looks, dress or style. They are religious items and it's illegal to discriminate based on that.
I said what I thought of that when I mentioned the Mennonite and Hooters. IMO a business should have a right to hire who they choose. They have a right to impose a dress code, especially if it's important to the image they are trying to maintain.
The NY Yankee's should be able to demand you wear a Yankee's hat while playing for the Yankee's. Hooters should be able to require shorts and if you have someone so offended by a cross they could ask that they not be worn.
Personally I would have fired whoever decided to not hire this lady if she was well qualified before asking her if she was willing to adhere to our dress code, if that is what happened.
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.
