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 ...
Why did some of the same judges vote FOR this woman who voted AGAINST Hobby Lobby on THEIR religious rights controversy?
Darn!
“Thomas is the only reliably sane person there. 2nd place goes to Scalia”
Yes he is, and I admire him greatly.
I think the reasoning here would support the argument that you can’t force a Christian business to facilitate a gay wedding. And that may be the endgame Roberts, Alito and Scalia had in view when ruling here.
I’m torn on this issue. I support religious freedom, but oppose government meddling in things like dress codes.
Muslim pedophilia also given the green light? Their “prophet” did it, ergo....
Considering the laws as written, I have to agree with this ruling. In this case, a headscarf does not interfere with the execution of her duties. This is no different than wearing of a cross on the necklace.
“Reasonable accommodation” applies to all religions.
If wearing the burka....is a part of sharia law...the supreme court has just invited the camel into the tent, and offered it the entire caravan
What is that fishy odor in the air???
............
Valerie Jarrett is nearby?
I understand there's a lot of friction between the pomodoro and al fredo sects.
Well said. You may mean ex manager.
“But, try wearing a crucifix...”
Especially, if you’re a federal employee on federal property.
As an employer I should have the option of establishing work rules including dress code as long as all are uniformly applied and enforced. If an applicant doesn’t like the rules and code, they can apply elsewhere.
Too much interference by too many different factions in the operation of business today lead many businesses to rethink whether they really want to have employees or even continue to operate. We found our business at this crossroad a couple of years ago and as employees leave we are downsizing and not replacing them.
(Scratching my head...)
Try not baking a cake.
You are spot on with #2. Why would any manager say anything about the head scarf. If she was wearing it during the interview you can bet she would plan to wear it to work. Best to keep your mouth shut. Finish the interview and not hire.
I have interviewed a lot of people I knew within minutes of the interview there was no chance in hell they would be hired. It maybe their dress, exposed tattoos, criminal history, facial hair, etc, You just finish the interview thank them for coming in and don’t offer the job.
Maybe there is a problem with it I would have to read the dissent. I don’t see a problem at this point. I think a business should be able to discriminate in some ways that affect their core purpose or reason for hiring. A scarf at an A&F doesn’t really rise to that level unless the job was for hair products.
Overall I am uncomfortable with government interference in hiring. So there is that. But if the woman was not hired entirely because she wears a scarf for religious purposes, that seems a ridiculous reason.
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.