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.
It's a private company. They should be able to establish a dress code. So if a Muslim wanted to work at a strip club, should they be allowed to force the bar to allow them to be fully clothed? Should a Muslim in the military be able to not wear the uniform? What's the difference?
It's a private company. They should be able to establish a dress code. So if a Muslim wanted to work at a strip club, should they be allowed to force the bar to allow them to be fully clothed? Should a Muslim in the military be able to not wear the uniform? What's the difference?
This was a stupid decision by the Supreme Court.
Strip clubs similar hooters have BFQs about dress codes/uniform so they do not need to accommodate employees who have religious convictions on dress, Abercrombie & Fitch don't really have BFQs so they have to accommodate employees with religious conviction within reason. I am yet to see a reason why wearing a hijab isn't unreasonable request in this case at all.
Strip clubs similar hooters have BFQs about dress codes/uniform so they do not need to accommodate employees who have religious convictions on dress, Abercrombie & Fitch don't really have BFQs so they have to accommodate employees with religious conviction within reason. I am yet to see a reason why wearing a hijab isn't unreasonable request in this case at all.
The problem is a ruling doesn't just apply to the case that is ruled on in general which is why the questions are asked about how far this goes and who decides what employer can have a dress code and which can't?
The problem is a ruling doesn't just apply to the case that is ruled on in general which is why the questions are asked about how far this goes and who decides what employer can have a dress code and which can't?
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.
And yet it does. Does it exclude a Jew from wearing his religious head wear?
I do believe in the specific example of the Yankees and Major League Baseball the requirement is that the head be covered at all times which the Yankee cap and batting helmet would satisfy. Now if the NBA said no caps there might be a case. Or if the Dodgers said you are not Sandy Kofax so you can't get away with honoring one religious day a year as oppose to a weekly day of worship again there may be a case of breaking the law.
It's a private company. They should be able to establish a dress code. So if a Muslim wanted to work at a strip club, should they be allowed to force the bar to allow them to be fully clothed? Should a Muslim in the military be able to not wear the uniform? What's the difference?
"New US military guidelines have opened the way for service members to wear religious clothing such as turbans or skullcaps while on duty, the Department of Defense has announced.
The guidelines, published on Wednesday, also allow for facial hair, body art and other expressions of religious belief. It is not a blanket permission, however; requests for dispensation from stated uniform policy are to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis."
This happened back in 01/2014, but I just recently heard about it.
Strip clubs similar hooters have BFQs about dress codes/uniform so they do not need to accommodate employees who have religious convictions on dress, Abercrombie & Fitch don't really have BFQs so they have to accommodate employees with religious conviction within reason. I am yet to see a reason why wearing a hijab isn't unreasonable request in this case at all.
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?
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.
And to further elaborate, I really think some of these nuts on here REALLY believe that there is some right that private companies have which they havent had for 50 years! I mean how are you that stupid? Here is the law, read it. CAREFULLY
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(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.
And to further elaborate, I really think some of these nuts on here REALLY believe that there is some right that private companies have which they havent had for 50 years! I mean how are you that stupid? Here is the law, read it. CAREFULLY
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(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.
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.
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.