U.S. Supreme Court rules for Muslim woman denied job at clothing store

Reuters ^ | 06/01/2015 | Reuters

[GIdget2004]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who filed a lawsuit after she was denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch Co clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a head scarf for religious reasons.

On a 8-1 vote, the court handed a win to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that sued the company on behalf of Samantha Elauf. She was denied a sales job in 2008 at an Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa when she was 17.

[GIdget2004]

Thomas was the lone dissent.

[MeshugeMikey]

This is a very dangerous precedent indeed!

Kudos and Thank You To Judge Thomas

[Wolfie]

A victory for religious freedom. Let’s hope there’s another one forthcoming.

[umgud]

What far reaching unintended consequences could this ruling hold? I guess it will depend on the perceived precedence it lays out.

[fwdude]

But, try wearing a crucifix...

[Sacajaweau]

The problem is....the head scarf is not really part of their religion. It’s a custom....and no more.

[Texas Eagle]

If the Founding Fathers were still alive they'd be rolling over in their graves.

The government isn't supposed to tell private citizens what they can and cannot do, the citizens are supposed to tell the government what it can or cannot do.

We better learn this quick, people.

[Right Brother]

So, my religion calls for my toes to always be exposed, never covered. Can I sue an employer for not allowing me to wear flip flops on the job?

[Conscience of a Conservative]

In case anyone is interested, the full decision is available here (PDF, new window).

[EagleUSA]

I wonder WHO paid her legal fees all the way to the SCOTUS over a head scarf??? What is that fishy odor in the air???

[tanknetter]

This could be a pretty interesting precedent.

People have the right to bring their religious observances into the workplace.

If Abercrombie and Fitch can’t compel employees to follow dress codes if doing so violates that employees religious freedom, can a homosexual couple compel a small businessman to bake a wedding cake if doing do violates that businessman’s religious freedom?

[WayneS]

Does this mean that women who are members of: "The Church of the Thong Panties... ...and Nothing Else" will be able to wear the sacred garment required of their religion to work without fear of discrimination?

[WayneS]

I see what you did there...

[rainee]

What about facial hair/beards for “religious reasons”?

[Lazamataz]

We are so screwed.

[Texas Eagle]

And there are people who actually think The Supremes are going to support traditional marriage.

Is it wrong for me to WANT people to be turned into pillars of salt?

[WayneS]

Yes.

Even if you work in a machine shop.

[Lazamataz]

This could be a pretty interesting precedent. People have the right to bring their religious observances into the workplace.

I belong to the Precious Church of the AR.

An AR15 is our religious symbol, and I claim the right to wear my religious symbol anywhere.

[Ray76]

Thomas is the only reliably sane person there. 2nd place goes to Scalia

[katnip]

I don’t have a problem with this, as long as it’s not covering her face like a mask.

I would not want a Jewish man denied a job because he wears a yarmulke either.