why does it have to be a hardship. I believe it is perfectly reasonable for a fashion retail company to reject applicant if they can't follow a very simple dress code of no head gear which they believe have a ill effect on the clothing that they sell, it is a fashion retail company after all. like someone else said above, if it was a hardware store, or like a call center company that rejected her based on this, it would be totally unreasonable, but in my opinion it is passable because it is a clothing company. again I'm not arguing about this specific case, I'm just pointing out the law itself is flawed and what 12 random people found to be true or not does not hold much weight to me in a issue like this.
Let's be real here. Not every applicant is cut out for every job. Business owners that try to promote certain looks for specific clientele shouldn't be required to hire those that don't meet that criteria. Likewise, applicants shouldn't be upset if they're not hired because they couldn't match their employer's look. A fashion store shouldn't hire someone nonfashionable. A Christian store shouldn't hire a Goth. A gay imam would be hypocritical to his religion and is unfit to preach. A handicapped person should not be a skydiving instructor. Hooters doesn't hire male waiters and Tallywhackers doesn't hire female waitresses. A strip club doesn't hire a woman who wears a burka. There are many jobs where certain groups are not matches for their job prospect. That should be acceptable as long as it's within reason and not discriminatory towards protected groups, although there are some exclusions depending on the job. A job pays you to promote their business and brand and follow their rules. They should not have to hire you because you can't do that. Business is about money. That's obvious.
This is not an example of Sharia law, OP is a the type of buffoon that keeps this place as a cesspool. Its always the narrow minded, low IQ neocons on this board. Go back 50 years, and they would be arguing why it was necessary to hire blacks and whatnot.
Oh please.. Everyone sees past your ****ty click-bait thread title. If you want an honest discussion about something, how about not posting a disingenuous title?
You wake up on the wrong side of the bed? You seem to do that a lot. And unlike you, I'm not concerned about Sharia law or radical Christian theology. Talk about paranoid delusions.
Agreed. Every store in the galleria has employees with a distinct look. Undue hardship seems to be a really dumb standard and I can't believe that is the law.
Or, posters could just ignore the messenger and discuss the message. There might be some actual debate in this forum if that happened. Instead, it's just monkeys flinging poo.
Here's the original verdict: http://www.law360.com/articles/259565/jury-awards-hijab-wearer-20k-in-abercrombie-hiring-suit She got $20K. Bad call by abercrombie to take this further. So many ways to not hire her without making it obvious it's about the hjab. And per the story they do sometimes accommodate religious sensitivities. Fact pattern too blatant here to fool an Oklahoma jury or 8 of 9 SCJs. A+F lawyers must have needed the chargeables.
You're not concerned with Sharia, you don't know what Sharia law is by your own admission, and yet you put in the title of this thread about a case that has nothing to do with Sharia. Sounds legit. This is just a religious freedom case. You know, the type of stuff that conservatives are constantly passing laws about.
No, I'm worried about state legislators wasting time combating far fetched hypotheticals such as sharia law invading the United States hence why I created a thread that exposed how it's a waste of time.
A debate would be more civilized if the other side is willing to not post disingenuous bull****. The onus is on the disingenuous bull**** messenger to prevent the poo flinging. You expect a civilized debate with someone who equates a woman wanting to wear a hijab to a work as Sharia Law being defended by the Supreme Court? No it's not going to happen, and I'll keep on calling out other poster's bullshiat.
Well, I guess some supporters of sharia law would argue that having to wear the hijab is mandated by sharia law.
Correct. But I am curious as to what part of Islamic tradition the hijab belongs to. I don't see wearing a cross or crucifix as a religious freedom issue with Christians; though certainly everyone has their own interpretation.
