U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Abercrombie's dress code banning the wear of "hijab" (Levin, 2015)

[MX City visiting]

Supreme Court rules against Abercrombie in hijab case - Marianne LeVine - POLITICO

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politi...arf/index.html

A Muslim women wearing a hijab (Islamic headscarf) was denied a job because according to the private company policy they have a dress code and she did not want to follow. The women filed a charge and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8 - 1 against Abercrombie & Fitch retail clothing store company policy due to "discriminating against religious belief."

Political correctness is destroying our society.. Crosses and other non-Islamic symbols and clothing are banned in several Islamic nations, yet people in the west has to accommodate to the Muslims!

[greywar]

This one is tough for me. Ambercrombie is trying to project a specific image and DRESS, This was not a religious issue for them. So I am not sure I agree with the supreme court. Anyone read the briefs to see what the reasoning is?

[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?

[burdell]

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?

But if the SCOTUS is going to grant 'personhood' to corporations, can they really allow one 'person' to stifle another's religious practices including prescribed manner of dress?

[arjay57]

Count on gazillions of teenage girls starting to wear scarves on their heads. Preppie is out, sticking it to the man is in.

[HappyTexan]

I think this was a wrong decision.

All those types of clothing stores want their employees to dress a certain way..usually wearing the style of clothes they sell.

I think this set a bad precedent.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by burdell

But if the SCOTUS is going to grant 'personhood' to corporations, can they really allow one 'person' to stifle another's religious practices including prescribed manner of dress?

IMO I explained why they can. Do you have a thought on that?

[desertdetroiter]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

I think this was a wrong decision.

All those types of clothing stores want their employees to dress a certain way..usually wearing the style of clothes they sell.

I think this set a bad precedent.

It's a head scarf...not a burkha. Geez.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by pknopp

IMO I explained why they can. Do you have a thought on that?

I already said it, what is it that should make one 'person' outrank another in the eyes of the court?

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by burdell

I already said it, what is it that should make one 'person' outrank another in the eyes of the court?

Nothing, which is why they needed to stay out of it.