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.
Yup, *YOU* with out setting foot a day in law school know better about the constitution and the legalities of the United States than the Supreme Court whom ruled 8-1 on the issue.
The amount of arrogance of people always astounds me. It's ok not to know about something, it's not ok to pretend like you do.
Anyone who has taken history 101 in high school with some basic understanding of our first amendment
should be able to rip this ruling apart. I find it shocking the SC would even accept the case, as it is
entirely without merit. You expect to see this kind of thing in a theocratic state like Saudi Arabia not in a
western supposedly modern secular democracy, its absolutely mind-boggling.
Anyone who has taken history 101 in high school with some basic understanding of our first amendment
should be able to rip this ruling apart. You expect to see this kind of thing in a theocratic state like Saudi
Arabia not in a western supposedly modern secular democracy, its absolutely mind-boggling.
First Amendment does not mention anything about private sectors dress code
Goldman v. Weinberger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case in which a Jewish Air Force officer was denied the right to wear a yarmulke when in uniform on the grounds that the Free Exercise Clause applies less strictly to the military than to ordinary citizens.
Since when was it ever a company's responsibility to provide "religious accomodation?"
That is bizarre to me. You want to practice your religion then you do it in your own free time not company time.
You can't practice religion during business hours, especially when your religious practices conflicts with
other company policies. We are not a theocratic state. If an individual company wants to allow people to wear hijabs that is their right, but also their right to not allow it. It is not discrimination if the policy against headscarves applies to all employees, which was the case with Abercrombie so it cannot be discrimination. The muslim was not being singled out. It was simply their dress code that applied to everyone in the company.
Do companies and government employers now have to accomodate the need for muslim emloyees to pray 5 times a day? What if a Muslim congresswoman wanted to wear a full-on Burga for religious reason to work in the Congress everyday? That would probably be a violation of the 1st amendment separation between church and state.
You want to practice your religion do it on your own time or find a company who is willing to cater to you,
but they should not be forced to do so. The ruling is completely wrong and likely unconstitutional.
Yes they have to reasonably accommodate the employee, this usually comes up in the form of religious observance of holy days around a work schedule.
I saw where she was recommended for the position but she actually was denied because of the head dress so they don't appear to have a case. She is not practicing her religion just wearing a headdress. Company policies can be uniform and at the same time restrictive to individual religions, requiring employees to work every Saturday could impact certain religions.
Title 7 of the Civil Right Act
Quote:
treating applicants or employees differently based on their religious beliefs or practices – or lack thereof – in any aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, assignments, discipline, promotion, and benefits (disparate
treatment);
Sure seems like she was treated differently if she was denied because of her head covering.
Sure seems like she was treated differently if she was denied because of her head covering.
Uh, no. They had a written policy and dress code against headscarves that applied to all employees and potential employees not just to Muslims. That is not discrimination. It had nothing to do with her religion.
Yes they have to reasonably accommodate the employee, this usually comes up in the form of religious observance of holy days around a work schedule.
I saw where she was recommended for the position but she actually was denied because of the head dress so they don't appear to have a case. She is not practicing her religion just wearing a headdress. Company policies can be uniform and at the same time restrictive to individual religions, requiring employees to work every Saturday could impact certain religions.
Title 7 of the Civil Right Act
Sure seems like she was treated differently if she was denied because of her head covering.
Same happened to a Jewish officer in the military that wanted to wear his yarmulke.
Supreme Court ruled against him.
Uh, no. They had a written policy and dress code against headscarves that applied to all employees and potential employees not just to Muslims. That is not discrimination. It had nothing to do with her religion.
According to the Civil Rights Act she was treated differently because of her religion, there was also a prior lawsuit against Abercrombie regarding a stock room employee.
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.
