Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-02-2015, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,057 posts, read 26,024,198 times
Reputation: 15524

Advertisements

She was never informed about the Abercrombie "look" policy when she was denied the position, it appeared that she assumed she did not get the position because of discrimination. Abercrombie later changed their policy to allow headgear, I guess that weakened their position.

I don't understand the court decision because they indicated that it was Abercrombie's responsibility to provide religious accommodation not the applicant and it is unknown if that was the reason she was not hired. Abercrombie does have a history of discriminatory settlements.

 
Old 06-02-2015, 12:55 PM
 
79,908 posts, read 44,064,775 times
Reputation: 17204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taiko View Post
I don't think so as Hooters can hold up their staff a quasi strippers. As long as they don't forbid a head scarf while in the rest of their suggestive uniform. If Abercrombie and Fitch didn't have hair styling requirements then the should have to make the reasonable compromise of allowing a scarf with the rest of their approved staff wardrobe.
This ruling wouldn't apply to just a scarf.
 
Old 06-02-2015, 12:59 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,819,762 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
You can offend me (not likely) but this isn't about me, why would you want to make it so?
I didn't mean the literal you, replace you with one. But you yourself already knew that...

Quote:
Again, totally irrelevant. This isn't about religious conservatives.



Its about whether a business can have a dress code. Something you don't seem to want to discuss.
However I see it as of corporations are allowed to have religious values, why can't a worker. I doubt the hijab in it of itself is actually offensive.
 
Old 06-02-2015, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Newport Beach, California
39,044 posts, read 27,462,475 times
Reputation: 15953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
She was never informed about the Abercrombie "look" policy when she was denied the position, it appeared that she assumed she did not get the position because of discrimination. Abercrombie later changed their policy to allow headgear, I guess that weakened their position.

I don't understand the court decision because they indicated that it was Abercrombie's responsibility to provide religious accommodation not the applicant and it is unknown if that was the reason she was not hired. Abercrombie does have a history of discriminatory settlements.
This is my lawyer's explanation of the case, honestly I still don't "get" it.

[IMG][/IMG]

Therefore, I have this question, but I don't think anybody can really answer this question for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981 View Post
I am not trying to argue with you, but I am curious what do you think of "Equal Employment Opportunity"

Many perhaps don't know, but the swastika is actually an ancient origins are within the Hindu faith. But because the Nazis used the swastika for political purposes it has taken the once great magic out of this symbol of love and peace and turned it into something else.

The swastika is one of the 108 symbols of Hindu deity Vishnu and represents the Sun's rays, upon which life depends.

To this day it is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Odinism.

If a person wears a swastika for religious purpose ONLY, should he or she be denied a job opportunity under equal employment opportunity law? Why or why not?
 
Old 06-02-2015, 01:09 PM
 
79,908 posts, read 44,064,775 times
Reputation: 17204
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post

However I see it as of corporations are allowed to have religious values, why can't a worker. I doubt the hijab in it of itself is actually offensive.
A/F didn't say they couldn't have religious values. They said they had a dress code that you had to abide by to work there. Just as many other businesses like the NY Yankees do.

Its odd to me the idea of the Federal Government directing what a companies dress code would be.
 
Old 06-02-2015, 01:13 PM
 
4,019 posts, read 3,942,001 times
Reputation: 2938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
I don't understand the court decision because they indicated that it was Abercrombie's responsibility to provide religious accommodation not the applicant and it is unknown if that was the reason she was not hired. Abercrombie does have a history of discriminatory settlements.

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.
 
Old 06-02-2015, 01:19 PM
 
1,666 posts, read 1,014,466 times
Reputation: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
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.
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.
 
Old 06-02-2015, 01:23 PM
 
13,289 posts, read 7,841,936 times
Reputation: 2141
Employees are always free to leave an unaccommodating workplace.

The Supreme Court does not accommodate choice.

It's above all that.
 
Old 06-02-2015, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,321,515 times
Reputation: 27718
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
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.
Since the PC police and people take them to court.

You have companies that provide prayer rooms as well as schools.
It's considered "accommodations" and it keeps the companies and schools out of court.

Obey or be sued.

Companies in the UK with uniforms now provide a matching hijab to employees.
 
Old 06-02-2015, 01:25 PM
 
79,908 posts, read 44,064,775 times
Reputation: 17204
I was afraid of this. This doesn't just apply to Muslims. What if a Mennonite could sue Hooters because she wanted to wear an ankle length dress?
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:34 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top