Majority opinion written by Scalia, go figure: Lulz. Can't wait to see how any state anti-Sharia laws (if they exist) hold up to this kind of precedence. To tell you the truth, I've never understood the whole headscarf/headwrap wearing thing when indoors in a well ventilated and air conditioned building. I figure it may be good to have something like that in some hot, sandy country but why would anyone need to wear it indoors in a well ventilated and air conditioned environment? It's a lot like wearing sunglasses in the club. Why? You can't see nothing; it loses all functionality, though it may have some utility.
So employers cannot not hire an applicant based on their religious attire, what happens if a Muslim woman that wears burkas applies to a company with employee uniforms like Best Buy? She wears the burka for religious reasons but can wear the employee uniform underneath, so she's technically wearing the uniform, but Best Buy cannot discriminate hiring her due to her religious attire. Just thinking what-ifs here. I'm on the employer side. If an applicant can't adhere to a look that the employer tries to promote, the employer shouldn't be obligated to hire that person. By look, I'm only describing attire, hair, tattoos and piercings, etc, not skin color or similar things for you race baiters.
Are you serious about this? You think the hijab purely serves as protection against the elements? Also, WTF is up with the clickbait thread title?
Hooters. It's about modesty and privacy. And this isn't about Sharia law, it's about religious freedom as a whole. Let's say the decision went the other way. Then it would be legal for an employer to not hire a Jew because they wore a yarmulke. Or maybe even a Christian if they wore a crucifix necklace.
I think employers should have the freedom to enforce appearance policies and reject anyone that doesn't want to adhere to these policies, as long as it is reasonable off course if a retail company wants to go for a look of no necklaces and other jewelries they have the right to reject a Christian who refuses to not wear a crucifix necklace, same goes for companies that bans headgear should have the right to reject Muslim or Sikh applicants who has to wear head wear to work.
The thing about the hijab is that it isn't apart of Islam. It is cultural and political in some cases.
Usually when one fears Sharia law it is because religious law is forced onto others who do not follow that particular religion. I don't know how allowing an already practicing Muslim woman to let her wear her religious attire is forcing Sharia Law onto America. Nice spin as usual Cohete Rojo. Seriously, I expect click bait articles like this on my Facebook news feed, not here. I thought we didn't have blatant idiots on this message board. If state legislators wasted their time to create these 'anti-sharia law' bills to combat a Muslim woman who wants to wear her hijab during work, then it proves my point I made in another thread where these new state laws were a pure waste of time and blatant bigotry.
What about a Christian company that wants to force their employees to wear crosses? Their 'look' is to have all employees wear crosses . . . . . ..even if they don't want too. Is that good too? Basically most people in this country live by one rule MONEY OVER EVERYTHING If you making money . . if you trying to make money . . if the profit motive is the basis . .. . people generally give you free reign to do almost what ever the ***** you want to do. If you 'in business' most things can be justified as 'acceptable' just by saying 'its for business purposes' That is Capitalism We like to 'act' like we don't discriminate but we give passes alot to businesses. We simply set the bar so high that even those things we don't give passes too . . .are nearly impossible to 'prove' Rocket River
I think employers should be able to hire and set their own policies - and not make any allowances for religion in any way. DD
Understandable and agree, however this is not Sharia Law taking over America as right wing nuts like Cohete Rojo would like to believe.
This is a pretty clear case when 8 of the 9 Justices agree on something. You are a business owner and you don't understand the basics of the law? The law is pretty clear on this: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship. The question presented is whether this prohibition applies only where an applicant has informed the employer of his need for an accommodation. Does wearing a a Hijab create undue hardship on A&F? I would say the answer is No. A jury in Oklahoma agreed with this ruling and awarded her damages A&F has a long and storied history of discrimination. The reason why A&F appealed is that they argued she didn't explicitly tell them she was Muslim so they didn't need to make accommodations which is a pretty BS argument. Here is the gist of the case: She applied for a position in an Abercrombie store, and was interviewed by Heather Cooke, the store’s assistant manager. Using Abercrombie’s ordinarysystem for evaluating applicants, Cooke gave Elauf a rating that qualified her to be hired; Cooke was concerned,however, that Elauf ’s headscarf would conflict with the store’s Look Policy. What is the BS about sharia law. It is sad when people don't even understand the laws of the US.
what is this random rant I said companies have the right to reject applicants, in your case, that Christian company would simply reject applicants who is not willing to wear a giant cross or whatever. Why would anyone apply to a company that have that dress code in the first place if they aren't a devout Christian in the first place.
I thought the hijab was a requirement by Judaism, Christianity, and Hinduism as well.... I didn't know it was a strictly Sharia law policy.
Federal law requires reasonable accommodation with respect to protected categories such as religion. A&F refused to accommodate her and furthermore their defense was predicated on the argument that they had no idea that her hijab was for religious purposes. A&F didn't argue that they didn't have to provide accommodations for her religious clothing. They argued that individuals must expressly ask for accommodation because they claim that they had no idea that her hijab was for religious purposes. Alito basically laughed off that argument during the actual hearing since any idiot could figure out that she was Muslim and that allowing her to wear a hijab wasn't exactly an unreasonable position. Also the court pointed out that its the employer who knows the specifics of their dress code so the burden should be on them to ask about the applicant's dress requirements (as opposed to forcing the applicant to ask).
Sheesh, calm down. What Islamic purpose does the Hijab serve? And why should employers have to assume such details about potential candidates?
what, we can't be critical of the law now? Why does being religious carry over so much benefits, it's not race we are talking about here. Following a religion is voluntary, why should they be accommodated specifically by the employers. If a company has a "look policy" concerning employee uniform they should have the right to enforce it on all applicants. It's not like they are targeting a certain religion, the rule was simply no head wear, it's your choice to wear a scarf at all times.
That's easy to say when you belong to a religion that doesn't require you to do anything. I think when an employer can show that a religious symbol or article of clothing is detrimental to their business than that's a criteria for disallowing it. In this case, it makes reasonable sense that a fashion company with a particular style of clothing might not fit with an employee wearing a hijab. But the same person shouldn't have an issue working at a hardware store for instance. And the thread title is not only misleading, it actually implies that Mr. rojo might have some serious issues.
Wearing a Hijab constitutes an undue hardship for A&F? A jury of her peers found that A&F violated the Law. Courts in general do not try to change jury verdicts. Plus what you are arguing for isn't even what A&F is appealing with. Their argument is she didn't tell them she was Muslim so they didn't need to follow the law.
The Texas legislature did attempt to pass an anti-Sharia law. The topic has come up in other state legislatures, IIRC. I really don't know what Sharia law is but I thought it was a nice twist to get the discussion going. If you're so wound up that it upsets you, that's your own fault.
