Posted on 06/01/2015 7:20:17 AM PDT by GIdget2004
How soon before this happens at Hooters and they have to hire a fully burka clad waitress exempt from serving baby back ribs?
Back in 1995 I knew that political correctness would be the death of us. The sheep are going willingly to the slaughter.
Will somebody please remind me what the Supreme Court is supposed to do for a living?
Regarding any case that deals with federal laws in our constitutionally limited power federal government republic, the first thing that the Supreme Court needs to do in deciding such cases is this. The Court needs to check whether or not the states have delegated to the corrupt feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to make such a law in the first place. And with respect to so-called intrastate federal employment laws, please consider the following.
Regardless that FDR’s actvist justice put on their “magic glasses” to find new powers for corrupt Congress in the Constitution’s Commerce Clause (1.8.3) when the Supremes wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress favor in 1942 imo, FDR’s thug justices wrongly ignored this. They blatantly ignored that a previous generation of Constitution-respecting justices had clarifed that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce, intrastate employment issues reasonably an aspect of intrastate commerce.
”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.
Note that there is nothing stopping the states from amending the Constitution to delegate the specific power to regulate intrastate employment to the feds if the states decide it appropriate to do so.
Also, citizens need to start demanding that the judicial system stops using only the vague, PC, vote-winning terms “constitutional” and “unconstitutional” in deciding cases. Citizens need to require judges and justices to substantiate their decisions by referencing specific constitutional clauses which the Supremes cannot do, imo, with respect to the so-called federal law referenced by this thread.
Finally, consider that if the ill-conceived 17th Amendment had not been ratified then there would probably be all different faces on the Supreme Court at this time. And if such was the case then patriots probably wouldn’t need to keep an eye on the Court as if it were being run by two-year-olds.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and actvist justices along with it.
She didn't sue. The federal EEOC was the plaintiff.
There’s gonna be a whole lot of salt standing around.
This ruling is going to prove highly problematic to employers wanting to enforce dress codes in general.
That is right up there with “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”; a relic of the past. Not going to happen anymore.
Looks like the only right we currently have for the time being is the right not to patronize a company/individual/organization, etc. If the government is allowed to have their way though, it’s going to be only two options - their choice for us or none!
Islam is not a religion.
Dose Abercrombie & Fitch sell anything a devout Muslim woman can wear?
Kudos to Thomas.
Scalia and Alito deserve a swift kick in the nuts for voting wrong on this.
Roberts and Kennedy should be flogged.
And the other 4 have long since earned a rocket trip to the Sun.
OTOH, the precedent’s been set. Christians and Hebrews are protected too.
Thanks Impy.
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.