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.
See, I have a real problem with "undue hardship". There is no way to qualify what that is.
Now if she had went in wearing her religious headwear and someone decided to simply not hire her because of their policy without informing her of that policy and asking if she could accept it, I'd grant her a case to sue.
How does a business determine when their dress code becomes a "undue hardship"? How can we create law that is so vague? Is it really a hardship on Hooters if someone wants to wear a something that fully covers them? Will people refuse to allow this person to serve them?
I agree that one shouldn't be passed over because of someone's perceived problem with one's religion especially when they do not get a chance to address that perception but I also believe a business should be able to enforce it's standard on those they hire.
In today's society I can understand why someone would simply not want to risk saying "I would hire you as long as you are willing to give up your religious garb while at work" but it shouldn't be that way. One can't wear whatever they want where I work as it would be dangerous but is it really the place of the government to tell a business that they can't present a certain image to the public?
Yeah they hit it out of the park.
businesses no longer have to worry about coming up with dress codes for their staff, nine robe wearing government apostles have done it for them.
Whats next for them, writing schedules?
Interesting point. So this means if on of the supremes shows up wearing bermuda shorts and a tank top for a group photo, no problem!
I think it was right, I don't know why right wing people supporting an "closely held company" from discriminating against gays based on religious convictions are disagreeing with this. It is still expressing religious freedom. I am fine with this more so than the company issue though because religious beliefs are not being pushed onto one's face with a crucifix, yamacha or hijab.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
I'm not sure they got this right either.
So if a Muslim pitcher wanted to wear a traditional head covering he could forgo the hat the team gives him?
Disneyland could get sued because they hired a Muslim to portray little red riding hood but they wanted to wear their own head covering?
Most Muslim Americans do not wear had hear so they would need to wear a cap in the dugout or on field and a batting helmet at bat or on base.
Disney got sued for a similar Muslim belief, a longer beard. This was back when they only really allowed mustaches. Eventually they allowed kept beards. If I am not mistaken, that was a condition of a settlement.
Most Muslim Americans do not wear had hear so they would need to wear a cap in the dugout or on field and a batting helmet at bat or on base.
We arent speaking about those who do not wear religious head gear are we? We are discussing those who do.
Quote:
Disney got sued for a similar Muslim belief, a longer beard. This was back when they only really allowed mustaches. Eventually they allowed kept beards. If I am not mistaken, that was a condition of a settlement.
Those who don't want to conform to dress codes should just look elsewhere for a job. I wouldn't want to go shopping at Abercrombie if the workers all looked like they should be in Hot Topic. You need to look the part of what you are trying to sell...that's what makes the company money. I used to work at Abercrombie as a part time job in my early twenties and the dress code was that you had to wear Abercrombie clothing... needless to say the cost of the clothing was more than what I was making so I eventually quit but those were the rules. Some people are always trying to stir the pot.
We arent speaking about those who do not wear religious head gear are we? We are discussing those who do.
Ah but to me it sounds like I have the freedom to express my religion even if it offends you but if you do, I am. I may not personally agree with hijabs but they need to wear them for religious reasons. It's not like Ambercrombie & Fitch are religious company, they are in fact a secular company that have been raled by religious conservatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Nor does this address what I said.
It is when you talk about religious conviction vs. uniform. That is what the argument here is, isn't it?
Ah but to me it sounds like I have the freedom to express my religion even if it offends you but if you do, I am.
You can offend me (not likely) but this isn't about me, why would you want to make it so?
Quote:
I may not personally agree with hijabs but they need to wear them for religious reasons. It's not like Ambercrombie & Fitch are religious company, they are in fact a secular company that have been raled by religious conservatives.
Again, totally irrelevant. This isn't about religious conservatives.
Quote:
It is when you talk about religious conviction vs. uniform. That is what the argument here is, isn't it?
Its about whether a business can have a dress code. Something you don't seem to want to discuss.
So if an employee wants to wear a burkha in the store the company
would have to allow it?
What an absolutely moronic decision.
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.
