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 ...
The key concept is reasonable accomodations. An employer may refuse to accomodate a religious practice where accomodating the practice would creawe a health or safety issue.
That would seem to me to be a little more of a sign of "unfreedom" than not getting hired.
But that's me.
wearing a Crucifix around your neck is not religion either but a custom...hopefully people now wear large Crucifix’ around their neck to work- if possible in Arab run business...
1. The Court was shockingly wrong. FedGov may not discriminate based on religion, but private employers should have no obligation to accommodate religion. Even if a law says otherwise, that law is outside the scope of FedGov’s Enumerated Powers and should be overturned.
2. The manager at Abercrombie & Fitch was shockingly stupid to say anything at all that might have been interpreted as a reason for not hiring any applicant. It doesn’t matter if the applicant has been convicted of murder and shows up swinging an axe, you don’t comment. Employment law is too complex and variable to take any risks.
So, an employee can exercise their religious beliefs in the workplace, but the employer can’t?
Also, now a privately owned business cannot require a dress code for,their employees? After all, can’t the employee just say, “Oh, yeah my devil tatto on my forehead is part of my religion.”
I was joking.
You don’t get your head cut off in this country.
I know you were joking - just seemed like a number of people were heading towards the “employees now have to accomodate any religious practice” line of thinking, and thought it worth pointing out that even this ruling has its limitations.
The courts fail to see that a head scarf is a decision made by the person.
Wait till the Pastafarians show up.
I’ve been to jobs sites where the laborers were not permitted to wear a bandanna? But i guess i they could wear a scarf?
“religious freedom” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
When i see these burka clad receptacles at the mall i ignore them. They cannot be offering anything of use to me. Its really too bad that employers have to have their public facing image controlled by the government.
Okay. But what about my question in Post#12?
I suspect that a judge would find that coming to work (un-)dressed like that is not a “reasonable accomodation.”
On December 31, 2014 I posted my predictions for 2015. Dr. Thornes' Predictions for 2015. Considering this ruling, I feel confident in #16:
16. The Supreme Court will NOT overturn Obamacare or the Executive Amnesty. However, they will rule that same-sex marriage must be the law of the land.
“You don’t get your head cut off in this country.”
Tell that to the grieving family of the woman in Moore, OK who was beheaded by a Muslim co-worker on Sept. 25 last year.
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.