Skip to comments.
U.S. Supreme Court rules for Muslim woman denied job at clothing store
Reuters ^
| 06/01/2015
| Reuters
Posted on 06/01/2015 7:20:17 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: hijab; islam; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
Thomas was the lone dissent.
To: GIdget2004
This is a very dangerous precedent indeed!
Kudos and Thank You To Judge Thomas
2
posted on
06/01/2015 7:23:17 AM PDT
by
MeshugeMikey
("Never, Never, Never, Give Up," Winston Churchill ><>)
To: GIdget2004
A victory for religious freedom. Let’s hope there’s another one forthcoming.
3
posted on
06/01/2015 7:23:32 AM PDT
by
Wolfie
To: GIdget2004
What far reaching unintended consequences could this ruling hold? I guess it will depend on the perceived precedence it lays out.
4
posted on
06/01/2015 7:24:11 AM PDT
by
umgud
(When under attack, victims want 2 things; God & a gun)
To: GIdget2004
But, try wearing a crucifix...
5
posted on
06/01/2015 7:24:54 AM PDT
by
fwdude
(The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
To: Wolfie
The problem is....the head scarf is not really part of their religion. It’s a custom....and no more.
To: GIdget2004
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.
7
posted on
06/01/2015 7:25:26 AM PDT
by
Texas Eagle
(If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
To: GIdget2004
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?
To: GIdget2004
In case anyone is interested, the full decision is available
here (PDF, new window).
To: GIdget2004
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???
10
posted on
06/01/2015 7:26:55 AM PDT
by
EagleUSA
(Liberalism removes the significance of everything.)
To: GIdget2004
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?
To: GIdget2004
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?
12
posted on
06/01/2015 7:27:17 AM PDT
by
WayneS
To: Texas Eagle
I see what you did there...
13
posted on
06/01/2015 7:27:42 AM PDT
by
WayneS
To: GIdget2004
What about facial hair/beards for “religious reasons”?
14
posted on
06/01/2015 7:28:24 AM PDT
by
rainee
(Her)
To: GIdget2004
15
posted on
06/01/2015 7:28:27 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(America has less than a year left.)
To: GIdget2004
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?
16
posted on
06/01/2015 7:28:56 AM PDT
by
Texas Eagle
(If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
To: Right Brother
Yes.
Even if you work in a machine shop.
17
posted on
06/01/2015 7:29:00 AM PDT
by
WayneS
To: tanknetter
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.
18
posted on
06/01/2015 7:30:02 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(America has less than a year left.)
To: GIdget2004
Thomas is the only reliably sane person there. 2nd place goes to Scalia
19
posted on
06/01/2015 7:30:35 AM PDT
by
Ray76
(Obama says, "Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was.")
To: GIdget2004
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.
20
posted on
06/01/2015 7:30:44 AM PDT
by
katnip
(May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-92 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson