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.
Was Justice Thomas the lone dissenting voter? What was his argument?
Yes Abercrombie's dress code was neutral, until a Muslim came along, they subsequently changed their dress code regarding headgear not sure if it was related to the lawsuit.
Quote:
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas Thomas found the majority’s
interpretation of Title VII too broad and said Abercrombie’s “look policy” was
“neutral.”
“Merely refusing to create an exception to a neutral policy for a religious
practice cannot be described as treating a particular applicant ‘less favorably
than others,’” Thomas wrote.
The last paragraph of that article is what bothers me. Part of the reason for that happening though is intrusive laws.
IMO the best scenario would be where the employer wouldn't be afraid to ask. "We would like to hire you, this is our policy, can you live with that". Yes or no.They get hired or go on their way.
IMO whoever made this decision was still a moron for assuming without asking whether there would be a problem.
The last paragraph of that article is what bothers me. Part of the reason for that happening though is intrusive laws.
IMO the best scenario would be where the employer wouldn't be afraid to ask. "We would like to hire you, this is our policy, can you live with that". Yes or no.They get hired or go on their way.
IMO whoever made this decision was still a moron for assuming without asking whether there would be a problem.
So a company should be allowed to discriminate against religious conviction but at the same time discriminate against employees and customers based on their convictions? This don't make sense to me. As I said before, the only added difference is that the Muslim woman would wear a hijab and that is it. It is a scarf that goes over the hair and the face is exposed. No super big exemption nor is showing your hair truly a BFQ.
So a company should be allowed to discriminate against religious conviction but at the same time discriminate against employees and customers based on their convictions? This don't make sense to me.
Maybe its me but the way you worded this doesnt make sense to me either. I'd appreciate it if you explained what you are saying again.
Quote:
As I said before, the only added difference is that the Muslim woman would wear a hijab and that is it. It is a scarf that goes over the hair and the face is exposed. No super big exemption nor is showing your hair truly a BFQ.
Why should A/F be treated differently in the eyes of the law than another company? Its O.K. for one but not the other?
Maybe its me but the way you worded this doesnt make sense to me either. I'd appreciate it if you explained what you are saying again.
Why should A/F be treated differently in the eyes of the law than another company? Its O.K. for one but not the other?
I believe you were one who defended the cake places being forced to bake gay wedding cakes and the religious freedom to discriminate law making you have no problem with one existing their religion if they own a company. Now you have a problem with an employee having the same freedom if their employer is secular.
I believe you were one who defended the cake places being forced to bake gay wedding cakes and the religious freedom to discriminate law making you have no problem with one existing their religion if they own a company. Now you have a problem with an employee having the same freedom if their employer is secular.
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.
Muslims can shop for their clothing at A&F, and what's wrong with having a sales clerk wearing a hijab ? Times are changing. No turning back. I have dealt with Muslims for the last 10 years without any problems.
Muslims can shop for their clothing at A&F, and what's wrong with having a sales clerk wearing a hijab ? Times are changing. No turning back. I have dealt with Muslims for the last 10 years without any problems.
Whats wrong with A and F deciding their own best practices for hiring?
Whats wrong with A and F deciding their own best practices for hiring?
They have a history of discrimination against minorities, they settled a lawsuit around 10 years ago maybe they have changed, maybe not.
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.
This don't make sense to me. As I said before, the only added difference is that the Muslim woman would wear a hijab and that is it. It is a scarf that goes over the hair and the face is exposed. No super big exemption nor is showing your hair truly a BFQ.