Posted on 02/25/2015 10:17:47 AM PST by GIdget2004
The Supreme Court seemed inclined Wednesday to agree with a Muslim woman who charged that retailer Abercrombie & Fitch violated antidiscrimination laws when it denied her a job because her head scarf conflicted with the company’s dress code.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took up the case of Samantha Elauf, who was denied a job at one of the chain’s stores in Tulsa. Elauf, then 17, had worn a head scarf, or hijab, since she was 13.
At issue in the case was whether Elauf needed to volunteer that she wore the head scarf for religious reasons to trigger a federal law that prevents religious discrimination and requires employers to show that accommodating such an employee would be a substantial burden.
In Elauf’s case, she scored high enough during an interview to qualify for a job, and her interviewer later said she believed Elauf wore the hijab for religious reasons. But Elauf was not hired.
Several justices said there was no evidence that Elauf believed wearing a head scarf violated the company’s “Look Policy,” which said that the company promotes its East Coast collegiate or preppy image, and thus no reason to mention why she wore one.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. noted that an interviewee did not have to meet the company’s dress code during the initial meeting. He and other justices indicated that the interviewer had an obligation to explain the company’s policy and begin a dialogue with an applicant about whether he or she could comply, rather than simply deciding not to hire.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Quelle surprise.
She...she... she’s beautiful!
/S
Samantha Elauf, not Samantha Elephant......................
This is an outrage, pure and simple.
The “discrimination laws” in this country should have applied only to the government under the U.S. Constitution.
This ruling (and most of the discrimination laws passed after 1964) are an example of the left wing takeover of the Civil Rights laws.
There is no such thing as a right to a job. A job is simply a trade of labor for pay. It is an economic transaction no different than the purchase of an item in a retail store.
Is it illegal if a consumer decides not to patronize a store because he doesn’t like the race/gender/religion of an owner?
The answer is NO.
So why should it be illegal for an employer to refuse hiring a potential employee for the same reasons?
The right of free people to voluntarily engage in free association and free economic trade is a God-given right. The government has no right to intervene in a voluntary transaction between an employer and an employee period.
This travesty has led to the current situation where the government can arbitrarily impose all sorts of costs on a private business, and the result is in no way a “public good.”
I’m not surprised since one of the SCOTUS justices instituted a department to study Sharia Law at Harvard. Yes, the Senate and Congress let her go through without a peep.
On the one hand, you can’t question applicants about their religion.
On the other hand, you have to accommodate their religion.
Except if you are a muslim. Muslims never have to accommodate other religions, or other “communities”.
Just under 4 minutes of ABSOLUTE DYNAMITE re. ISLAM!
James Aloysius “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (born September 28, 1927) is a retired Admiral in the United States Navy whose 36-year career was capped by serving as Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet from 16 September 1985 to 30 September 1987. (Wikipedia)
Every American should see and share this one!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc0_1423721020
As I recall, there have been a number of cases where Christian employees have been told they could not wear their crosses because they violated company dress codes — and they had to be removed. The double standard once again.
Honestly, I don’t see how something like that....which is not very obtrusive...would really be an issue.
And it’s a cool design for a “hip” place.
But, it’s their rules, and this is a concerning article about the SCOTUS no this matter.
More specifically, note that constitutionally indefensible federal government interference with how intrastate businesses are run seem to have began after FDR’s activist justices wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard) in Congress’s favor in 1942. By deciding Wickard in Congress’s favor, FDR’s thug justices wrongly ignored that the Supreme Court had previously clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce which reasonably includes employer-employee relationships imo.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
What is possibly going on here is the following imo. Regardless that the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws which respect an establishment of religion, activist justices are possibly planning to use the Court’s scandalous decision in Wickard as a back door to legislate pro-religious establishment laws from the bench.
Head scarves have nothing to do with any religion except nuns wear habits or they used to. I do believe that nuns qualify as religious as this mucslim woman does not- coz muslim HAS NO NUNS>
a business should be free to not hire someone whatever reason they choose. If they want to go down this path then the Obama admin should not be allowed to refuse to hire someone who walks into the interview wearing a Free Republic T-shirt.
If a company refuses to hire me,not having a college education,just because they put this out as a qualification,shouldn’t I have the same rights as this person? Why couldn’t I get the job if I felt like I could do it?
Some things you can't compromise on...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.