How Far Will the SCOTUS Go On Behalf of Muslims ?

[Coyote]

Cherry-picking your civil suits that make it before the SCOTUS is perilous and leaves you with no cred. Not that you ever had any.

Just because you choose to call it cherry picking, doesn't mean a thing. For one thing, your Hobby Lobby case is OFF TOPIC. This thread is about Islamization, and I'll wager I know more about Islamization in my little finger than you know in your whole body. If you want to show that YOU have some credibility on this subject, you can take my Islamization Quiz. Just be warned. Many Islamapologists have taken it. Highest grade any of them got was 5%. Most got zero.

This thread is about a Supreme Court Decision per your OP.

 

[Coyote]

Hey, all you Muslim ass-kissers!! Have you forgotten my question from the OP ? Here it is again. You don't get away with not answering it. >>

"So what's next ? As a longtime student of Islamization, I can assure you that stealth jihad Muslims aren't going to rest on this level. Now that they've gotten this, are they going to push for forcing US businesses to allow niqabs too ? (which cover the entire face except the eyes) That would be a disastrous (and idiotic) blow against our national security.

Niqab

No. We're talking "reasonable accommodation"

You seem to keep missing that critical factor.

If one joins a religion which requires one to wear their hair covered at all times then they have joined a religion which means they are not going to get a job at a place that does not allow employees to wear headgear. And that is the critical factor.

The critical factor is this: there are some occupations where certain accommodations can not be made - for example surgeons and surgical assistants need to be follow strict standards for sterility and hygiene - wearing a turban or headgear might compromise that. Or, factory workers working amongst moving machines might not be allowed to wear dangling jewelry - even it's religiously important like a cross. Police booking procedures and prisons require an ID free of obscuring clothing or ornaments. This article: Prison’s Ban on Muslim Headgear Is Not Religious Discrimination shows that not all of these cases are won.

 

[RandomVariable]

Hey, all you Muslim ass-kissers!! Have you forgotten my question from the OP ? Here it is again. You don't get away with not answering it. >>

"So what's next ? As a longtime student of Islamization, I can assure you that stealth jihad Muslims aren't going to rest on this level. Now that they've gotten this, are they going to push for forcing US businesses to allow niqabs too ? (which cover the entire face except the eyes) That would be a disastrous (and idiotic) blow against our national security.

Niqab

No. We're talking "reasonable accommodation"

You seem to keep missing that critical factor.

If one joins a religion which requires one to wear their hair covered at all times then they have joined a religion which means they are not going to get a job at a place that does not allow employees to wear headgear. And that is the critical factor.

The critical factor is this: there are some occupations where certain accommodations can not be made - for example surgeons and surgical assistants need to be follow strict standards for sterility and hygiene - wearing a turban or headgear might compromise that. Or, factory workers working amongst moving machines might not be allowed to wear dangling jewelry - even it's religiously important like a cross. Police booking procedures and prisons require an ID free of obscuring clothing or ornaments. This article: Prison’s Ban on Muslim Headgear Is Not Religious Discrimination shows that not all of these cases are won.

"accommodations"? It is a place of work, not the Holiday Inn.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RV, the work place is not a law unto itself. Understand that.

 

[RandomVariable]

RV, the work place is not a law unto itself. Understand that.

Recovered from your last implosion already?

 

[pwjohn]

How far the court goes in this matter is determined by how far the company goes to allow others to express their beliefs while working.

That's the answer to your question.

Not at all. All you've done is switch the onus to adjust, on to the company, and away from the sales clerks. The court should respect the company's rule, that everyone else has seen fit to abide by. The court, and all courts need to stop being Muslim ass-kissers.

To be honest I don't care much more for third world Arab Muslim shit hole people than you do but if the company allows others to wear religious garb than I suspect the court is gonna rule in favor of still others wearing their religious garb.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RV, the work place is not a law unto itself. Understand that.

Recovered from your last implosion already?

Your projecting again from getting your face rubbed in your silliness. SCOTUS ruled appropriately. pwjohn got it right, and you got it between the eyes. Keep up, though, and you too can act as silly as Protectionist.

 

[RandomVariable]

RV, the work place is not a law unto itself. Understand that.

Recovered from your last implosion already?

Your projecting again from getting your face rubbed in your silliness. SCOTUS ruled appropriately. pwjohn got it right, and you got it between the eyes. Keep up, though, and you too can act as silly as Protectionist.

Do you know why islamic law requires females considered old enough to wed to wear the hijab?

 

[JakeStarkey]

RV, the work place is not a law unto itself. Understand that.

Recovered from your last implosion already?

Your projecting again from getting your face rubbed in your silliness. SCOTUS ruled appropriately. pwjohn got it right, and you got it between the eyes. Keep up, though, and you too can act as silly as Protectionist.

Do you know why islamic law requires females considered old enough to wed to wear the hijab?

What did SCOTUS say about it? Answer that, and we will talk.

 

[RandomVariable]

RV, the work place is not a law unto itself. Understand that.

Recovered from your last implosion already?

Your projecting again from getting your face rubbed in your silliness. SCOTUS ruled appropriately. pwjohn got it right, and you got it between the eyes. Keep up, though, and you too can act as silly as Protectionist.

Do you know why islamic law requires females considered old enough to wed to wear the hijab?

What did SCOTUS say about it? Answer that, and we will talk.

My thread, merged with this one, was started in religion. My question stands. Answer or walk away.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RV, the work place is not a law unto itself. Understand that.

Recovered from your last implosion already?

Your projecting again from getting your face rubbed in your silliness. SCOTUS ruled appropriately. pwjohn got it right, and you got it between the eyes. Keep up, though, and you too can act as silly as Protectionist.

Do you know why islamic law requires females considered old enough to wed to wear the hijab?

What did SCOTUS say about it? Answer that, and we will talk.

My thread, merged with this one, was started in religion. My question stands. Answer or walk away.

You are not in charge of anything, much less this thread. What did SCOTUS say about it?

 

[A Perez]

Actually, Abercrombie didn't argue that they shouldn't accept any religious item. What they argue is that the hijab is sometimes associated with non-religious people; that is, not always associated with religion. The OP goes even farther than Abercrombie.

A & F simply argued that the hijab didn't fit in with their "look policy". That has nothing to do with Islam. If Samantha Elauf had committed to wear one of these all the time, she could have been rejected quite the same >>

True, but the law doesn't say that employers must accomodate a cowboy hat, or a red non-religious hat or a white non-religious hat. The law treats religious accessories with preference.

 

[protectionist]

This thread is about a Supreme Court Decision per your OP.

It is about about an Islamized Supreme Court Decision, and an Islamized Supreme Court.

 

[protectionist]

To be honest I don't care much more for third world Arab Muslim shit hole people than you do but if the company allows others to wear religious garb than I suspect the court is gonna rule in favor of still others wearing their religious garb.

But the company does not allow others to wear religious garb, if it violates their look policy (for sales clerks in contact with the public)

 

[protectionist]

You are not in charge of anything, much less this thread. What did SCOTUS say about it?

I'M IN CHARGE of the thread (the author and master of it). Now answer his question. Answer or walk away.

 

[protectionist]

True, but the law doesn't say that employers must accomodate a cowboy hat, or a red non-religious hat or a white non-religious hat. The law treats religious accessories with preference.

Islam is not a religion, and the hijab is not part of Islam (the Koran)

 

[protectionist]

Samantha Elauf: Muslima Behind HAMAS CAIR Lawsuit Against Abercrombie Ain’t So Modest; What It’s Really About

By Debbie Schlussel

Click link. Read it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"How Far Will the SCOTUS Go On Behalf of Muslims ?"

Again, as the consequence of the OP's ignorance, stupidity, and unwarranted hatred of Islam, he has no idea what the issues were concerning the case the Court ruled on, in that it had nothing to do with Muslims.

The case could have concerned any person of any faith; at issue was the requirement of employers to acknowledge religious accommodations pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not the merits of Islam nor the Court acting 'on behalf' of Muslims.

The OP is a bigot and liar.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This thread is about a Supreme Court Decision per your OP.

It is about about an Islamized Supreme Court Decision, and an Islamized Supreme Court.

There are no such things. Go chase the laser.

 

[JakeStarkey]

To be honest I don't care much more for third world Arab Muslim shit hole people than you do but if the company allows others to wear religious garb than I suspect the court is gonna rule in favor of still others wearing their religious garb.

But the company does not allow others to wear religious garb, if it violates their look policy (for sales clerks in contact with the public)

That will now change.