- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 9,122
- Reaction score
- 3,751
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I wonder how many criticizing this decision would disagree if an employer banned wearing crosses.
Employees have rights protected by law because history shows employers are not always reasonable, which negatively impacts society as a whole.Because there are idiots that want to restrict their freedom.
Why cant a private employer ban headgear?
You are allowed to ask ask just about anything. What you are not allowed is to discriminate.
Why? Isn't that the natural conclusion of a company that thinks that Muslim women wearing a scarf do not represent the image of the company?
Why is honesty a bad thing?
Your argument against the notion that the dress code is unreasonably restrictive is to give unreasonable examples that could be very easily restricted? I don't think you grasp the issues at play here.
You assert this without evidence. I dismiss it without evidence.
Because you live in a society with other people and you having money and owning things doesn't give you the right to control anything about anyone else.
If one is attempting to mask discrimination by lack of honesty, is in my view dishonest.
I wonder how many criticizing this decision would disagree if an employer banned wearing crosses.
a hijab is a specific item of clothing.... not a symbol that can be put on many different items ( hats, t-shirts, necklaces, tattoos, etc)
a better analogy would be Mormon Temple garments... or a yarmulke(Kippah)... or something like that.
In the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines, one of the most well-known student rights’ cases it has considered, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students had a constitutional right to wear a black armband to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Since then, courts have continued to hold that students generally have a right to express political views through their clothing.
This can include, for example, wearing clothing that endorses or criticizes a politician or, as in more recent cases, wearing t-shirts supporting or opposing gay rights.
Additionally, schools cannot prohibit students from wearing clothes that are in observance of their religion, such as a Muslim wearing a hijab in school.
While most Muslim women wear the hijab for religious reasons, there are other Arab or Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab as an expression of their cultural identity.
By wearing the hijab, Muslim women hope to communicate their political and social alliance with their country of origin and challenge the prejudice of Western discourses towards the Arabic-speaking world (Zayzafoon, 2005). In many cases, the wearing of the hijab is also used to challenge Western feminist discourses which present hijab-wearing women as oppressed or silenced.
Women > Veiling > What is the Hijab and Why do Women Wear it? - Arabs in America
Ya think?
This might have something to do with the decision in this case. And the Supreme Court didn't state that AF was violating this girls rights. It was a warning ticket.
Just sayin... :shrug:
a hijab is a specific item of clothing.... not a symbol that can be put on many different items ( hats, t-shirts, necklaces, tattoos, etc)
a better analogy would be Mormon Temple garments... or a yarmulke(Kippah)... or something like that.
So it is not honesty that is bad but discrimination and you are OK with masking that with obfuscation and misrepresentation.
eh.. i'm not sure Tinker is relevant ( due the difference in plaintiffs..students in public school versus potential employee with a private firm)
.... but I do agree this was a warning ticket of sorts.
A&F should be smarter with their employee rejections... and train their managers accordingly.
Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
a hijab is a specific item of clothing.... not a symbol that can be put on many different items ( hats, t-shirts, necklaces, tattoos, etc)
a better analogy would be Mormon Temple garments... or a yarmulke(Kippah)... or something like that.
In the 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines, one of the most well-known student rights’ cases it has considered, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that students had a constitutional right to wear a black armband to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Since then, courts have continued to hold that students generally have a right to express political views through their clothing.
This can include, for example, wearing clothing that endorses or criticizes a politician or, as in more recent cases, wearing t-shirts supporting or opposing gay rights.
Additionally, schools cannot prohibit students from wearing clothes that are in observance of their religion, such as a Muslim wearing a hijab in school.
While most Muslim women wear the hijab for religious reasons, there are other Arab or Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab as an expression of their cultural identity.
By wearing the hijab, Muslim women hope to communicate their political and social alliance with their country of origin and challenge the prejudice of Western discourses towards the Arabic-speaking world (Zayzafoon, 2005). In many cases, the wearing of the hijab is also used to challenge Western feminist discourses which present hijab-wearing women as oppressed or silenced.
I hear ya, but you said:.
Then I said...
The scarf and hijab aren't just a piece of clothing to those who wear them. Now, I don't really care how this all turns out. But what I'm pointing out is "relevant". You don't even have to read between the lines to see where the SC is coming from...right or wrong. Ya dig?
ahh...I think I confused you.. or you confused me... maybe both
.. I meant that it's a specific piece of clothing..IE, it's a specific type of headwear....I wasn't trying to say it had no meaning, or a specific meaning... the symbolism of the hijab was irrelevent
in comparison wearing a cross can be a jewelry cross hanging from a necklace.. or an earring.. or a cross on t-shirt.. or a ballcap... or a cross on a skirt.... or even a tattoo
regardless of any symbolism, "wearing a cross" can come in many many forms... "wearing a hijab" comes in exactly 1 form.
the only reason i said i wasn't sure if Tinker was relevant is because that case is about students at a public school.... and this hijab case is about just a person applying for a job.
I dig what your saying. Tinker should have a broader reach with the SC . That's my point, really. It's a similar principle. But I'll look for some case law related to the workplace.
Setting a dress code irrespective of religious beliefs is not unreasonable. No religion should be allowed to dictate how private employees are to look at work. If the business says no headgear, no religious scarves. No necklaces, that means no crosses around the neck.You don't have to accomodate nuttery you only have to make reasonable accomodation
Setting a dress code irrespective of religious beliefs is not unreasonable. No religion should be allowed to dictate how private employees are to look at work. If the business says no headgear, no religious scarves. No necklaces, that means no crosses around the neck.
I don't think "honesty" is the word you're looking for...because there's nothing really dishonest about that statement.
It might not be as specific as you would like, but it's not dishonest.
personally, I don't give a reason for not hiring someone... if they ask, I simply tell them the job offer went to someone else.
it sucks, but that's one of the cons of being in a sue-happy nation.
I do agree with that. I don't know how the court concluded that there was no knowledge requirement. Alito's concurrence there demonstrated well that there should've been. It makes no sense that a business can be held liable without knowing beforehand that something was a religious item or practice and the other party not making them aware of it.
The disparate-treatment provision forbids employers to:
(1) “fail . . . to hire” an applicant (2) “because of ” (3) “such
individual’s . . . religion” (which includes his religious
practice). Here, of course, Abercrombie (1) failed to hire
Elauf. The parties concede that (if Elauf sincerely believes
that her religion so requires) Elauf ’s wearing of a headscarf
is (3) a “religious practice.” All that remains is
whether she was not hired (2) “because of ” her religious
practice
It is significant that §2000e–2(a)(1) does not impose a
knowledge requirement. As Abercrombie acknowledges,
some antidiscrimination statutes do. For example, the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 defines discrimination to include an employer’s failure to make “reasonable
accommodations to the known physical or mental
limitations” of an applicant. §12112(b)(5)(A) (emphasis
added). Title VII contains no such limitation.
Since I've never been in AF, I wonder whether it is a requirement that employees only wear clothing that is sold in AF. If so, that would be about the only way they could have won this case. Having a clothing store setting requirements for the clothing worn by employees does not seem unreasonable to me.
I wonder if there has been any research on the potential impact wearing a head scarf has on retail sales performance.
5. Can an employer exclude someone from a position because of discriminatory customer preference?
No. If an employer takes an action based on the discriminatory religious preferences of others, including customers, clients, or co-workers, the employer is unlawfully discriminating in employment based on religion. Customer preference is not a defense to a claim of discrimination.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?