we got ourselves a rich boy it looks like. too fancy for the other parts of town like katy or sharpstown
freedom of religion is an important part of america so that's why it's the standard. if you don't like it you can leave and move to france
it might be a symbol of oppression if it were forced on her by her bearded male family members. what if she likes to wear it of her free will? why do you get to be a white knight? some of the girls in my school have to wear crosses and dress nicely otherwise they would be thought as sluts and athiests which a is a big no no where im from. would that be a symbol of oppression? who gets to decide what symbols matter? wearing that stuff is religion in your face... im glad you europeans live there and not in our country. i have no problem with amish, jews, sikhs, buddhists, moslems, or whoever wearing what they want where they want as long as the face isn't covered in public like a ninja.
Stop it... No one in high school has to wear a cross so they are not labeled an atheist or slut... Just move on.
I think we all agree that people need rules and also the freedom of choice... The disagreements come when deciding on what rules and choices people should have. Just because in this country there are women who spend a lot of money and time on their appearance and treated as sex symbols (some drug on stage as little girls and put in beauty pageants for pervs) doesn't mean that's the way it should be. And I asked the gentlemen if they view nuns covering up as a symbol of oppression against women. It doesn't matter if it was their choice. Oh really... Lol. I've never heard the story of a dude who had the face that launched a thousand ships full of chicks that went to war. And are there a bunch of clubs that have Men's Night when dudes get in free and women have to pay... And it may not be a common occurrence of women catching men in a dark alley and raping and beating them. And women don't ware a hijab so men will pay attention to them. One of the reasons they ware a hijab and don't dress provocative is so they won't be judged by their looks. I believe you got it backwards.
I still think that point is irrelevant. A brand like A&F is super strict about it's image (ironically it's probably why they are fading as a brand) The real irony is that this will probably be a boost for A&F sales. Fashion is not for the devout. Title VII whatever - the reason A&F lost this case is only because they were terrible in defending themselves. This was all about dress code and nothing about religion.
nah i wont. just b.c a upper middle class city boy like you...prolly a dad from the sound of it so you haven't been in school for a long a$s time...don't see that sort of thing at st john's high school or bellaire don't mean it doesn't happen in smaller towns where there are christian high schools like where im from. dont be that liberal who think's he's in touch with common people, your ignorance is condescending
Abercrombie and Fitch has been sued before over its hiring practices. It has been sued for alleged racist practices in hiring primarily white applicants over black and Hispanic and also in its advertizing. Image is all important to its business practice but that is a problem when it runs smack into civil rights law. I'm not surprised that the USSC ruled overwhelmingly against A+F as the law is very clear in regard to reasonable accommodation. In this case just for image purposes it is hard to make an argument that a head covering is so burdensome to the business that it couldn't be reasonably accommodated. I think a burkha and a niqab could be shown to be burdensome as such a covering would make it difficult to identify if someone was even an employee. As for A+F's argument about maintaining its image that opens up a can of worms for them regarding what is exactly their image. It's clear from their marketing that their image is mostly young, fit and white. Even if they feel that is good marketing that makes for very risky hiring practices and open to lawsuits.
Let's be honest though. Let's say a 75 year old applies for a position at A+F. They are going to get turned down. They will get turned down from the Gap. You don't see many seniors working retail. Why is that? Is it qualifications? A lack of a desire? There's plenty of old people working at men clothing stores I have shopped at that are targeted to older business men. So clearly it's not that they can't do the job effectively. No, it's because these guys want young people selling to young people. So the fact is that those risky hiring practices already exist. And everyone seems ok with ageism here and it's an accepted form of discrimination. So I ask where is that line? Why doesn't Hooters have to hire men? Who is to say what is a brand's image is outside of the brand? A court can over-rule that? What if a brand's target audience is Hispanic? Can they prefer to hire Latino employees to make their audience feel more comfortable and thus sell more? Is that wrong? Because guess what it happens all the time and no one files a lawsuit over it.
Not knowing the history of A+F but I doubt they get a lot of elderly applicants. If they did though the labor laws would apply. Unless they could show that they couldn't make a reasonable accommodation for an elderly applicant I'm guessing there is a lawsuit there and an argument that it doesn't fit their image wouldn't hold as it did in this case. Hooters has been sued over that and settled. http://www.foxnews.com/story/2009/0...suit-against-hooters-for-not-hiring-male.html A brand image isn't a defense against discrimination in hiring as this case shows. Why we probably haven't seen lawsuits of other cases probably has more to do with that suits haven't been filed, plaintiffs don't have standing or they have been settled out of court. The civil rights laws are pretty clear that companies cannot discriminate in hiring over race, gender, religion or disability when reasonable accommodation can be made.
I love that this question is an 8-1 no-brainer for the Supreme Court, but we still see material for 5 pages of debate.
Are you saying that 1 Supreme Court judge has no brain? I recommend this film to you: Let it be a lesson to you.
A lot of people find this ruling dumb and setting a bad precedent. Brands and businesses should be able to hire applicants that fit their clientele and can promote their brand. That's business. If you don't like it, there are other similar brands with similar skill sets but cater to different groups that applicants can apply for. This topic came up on another forum I read. An attorney there felt this makes it easier for applicants to state claims that they were discriminated against due to a business not being able to accommodate their religious beliefs, even if the requests were never asked or stated in the interview. A business would spend a small fortune in legal fees defending the case, but most would rather settle for less fees, less hassle. The man who sued Hooters because they wouldn't hire him as a waiter is a perfect example and similar. Instead of defending in court, Hooters settled. Do you think Hooters should have sacrificed their brand image for equality? Are there no other restaurants that he could have applied for?
You kind of have it backwards. If a company's business plan or business model is based on discriminatory practices then they have a flawed business model/plan. They profit based on that model and they're also held responsible for that model. I don't see the issue.
Yes, it's discriminatory but it's a business that caters to specific clientele. What about strip clubs? Why can't a man be hired to strip for other men who go there to see women strip?
Waiting tables really isn't gender specific. I'm not sure how the law handles things that are gender specific. We wouldn't expect a man to be hired to model women's swimwear for example.
Waiting tables at Hooters, Twin Peaks, or Tallywackers is gender specific. Those businesses are based on a model that caters to specific clientele. There are plenty of other restaurants that a man could wait at. Instead of looking for a payout because of hurt feelings, go apply to those. With this ruling, potentially, a woman with a hijab could apply as a waitress to Hooters. Let's say she has small knockers, too. Hooters doesn't want her as a waitress because she has small hooters. She can sue Hooters claiming religious discrimination and win. It's an easy case. There are women's clubs as well as gentleman's clubs. Stripping isn't gender specific, but if we're all for equality here, men should have as much right to strip at gentleman's clubs as women. There's nothing wrong with businesses hiring applicants who they feel can further their business model and brand. Some businesses are based on niche clientele that will inherently lead to discriminatory hiring practices. In thinking more about that potential case, that idea is brilliant. As a man, I will become a transgendered person identifying as a woman. Then I will convert to Islam. As a trangender Muslim female, I'll apply to Hooters. If I'm not hired, I'll claim religious intolerance and sexual orientation discrimination.
