How Far Will the SCOTUS Go On Behalf of Muslims ?

[Uncensored2008]

Sonny boy, if you don't know the difference between a head scarf and nudity, you're in big trouble.

So you have no answer, I thought not.

The reason you can't offer a rational response is that there is no answer. Forcing companies to alter dress codes to accommodate favored religions is insane. You have the right to practice your religion as you see fit, on your own time. You do NOT have the right to force an employer to conform to your religion.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Would that be considered "reasonable accommodation"? Has any such demand been made?

Not every religious demand is reasonable. For example an hijab vs a burka.

Why not? What is the difference? Why should Islam be so much more equal than other religions?

 

[Coyote]

.

You are saying reasonable accommodation is a euphamism for being "forced to conform"?

The Constitution also says something about freedom of religion.

Where do you draw the line?

"Freedom of Religion," which you routinely fight against, does not give free liberty at work. A Christian is not protected to proselytize on the job. But since this is Muslims, we must make special provisions. Muslims certainly have the right to practice their religion, but forcing a company to bend to that religion crosses every conceivable line.

I don't fight against freedom of religion. Like any right - it's not unrestricted.

There is a huge difference between proselytizing on the job and wearing a piece of jewelry with a cross for example.

You seem to have missed the point that this is not a "special provision" for Muslims. Sikhs, Jews and Christians all filed briefs in this.

 

[Sunni Man]

The government itself does not follow this concept. Try being in the military and wearing a hijab – see how far that gets you.

I don't know if there are any muslim women wearing the hijab in the US military.

But there are Sikh soldiers serving in the US Army who are allowed to wear their religious headgear and have beards.

 

[Coyote]

Sonny boy, if you don't know the difference between a head scarf and nudity, you're in big trouble.

So you have no answer, I thought not.

The reason you can't offer a rational response is that there is no answer. Forcing companies to alter dress codes to accommodate favored religions is insane. You have the right to practice your religion as you see fit, on your own time. You do NOT have the right to force an employer to conform to your religion.

What favored religion? Muslim? Sikh? Jew? Christian?

There are court cases all the time for religious accommodation. Some have merit, some don't.

 

[Statistikhengst]

This isn't about Muslims. This is about any religion. Groups representing Christians, Jews and Sikhs also filed court papers backing Elauf. It's not a niqab - it's a simple hijab headscarf.

There are sects of Wicca that perform rituals in the nude; must an employer allow workers to be nude at work? Explain how this is different?

Sonny boy, if you don't know the difference between a head scarf and nudity, you're in big trouble.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Statistikhengst]

.

You are saying reasonable accommodation is a euphamism for being "forced to conform"?

The Constitution also says something about freedom of religion.

Where do you draw the line?

"Freedom of Religion," which you routinely fight against, does not give free liberty at work. A Christian is not protected to proselytize on the job. But since this is Muslims, we must make special provisions. Muslims certainly have the right to practice their religion, but forcing a company to bend to that religion crosses every conceivable line.

I don't fight against freedom of religion. Like any right - it's not unrestricted.

There is a huge difference between proselytizing on the job and wearing a piece of jewelry with a cross for example.

You seem to have missed the point that this is not a "special provision" for Muslims. Sikhs, Jews and Christians all filed briefs in this.

Yes.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Sonny boy, if you don't know the difference between a head scarf and nudity, you're in big trouble.

So you have no answer, I thought not.

The reason you can't offer a rational response is that there is no answer. Forcing companies to alter dress codes to accommodate favored religions is insane. You have the right to practice your religion as you see fit, on your own time. You do NOT have the right to force an employer to conform to your religion.

Hey, you said it. And, you don't have to take my word for it - ask your mommy.

This is not a dress code. This decision does not force anyone to wear a head scarf. And no one is being forced to "conform" to any particular religion anymore than if one chooses to wear a cross on a chain around their neck.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

You are saying reasonable accommodation is a euphamism for being "forced to conform"?

The Constitution also says something about freedom of religion.

Where do you draw the line?

"Freedom of Religion," which you routinely fight against, does not give free liberty at work. A Christian is not protected to proselytize on the job. But since this is Muslims, we must make special provisions. Muslims certainly have the right to practice their religion, but forcing a company to bend to that religion crosses every conceivable line.

So, wearing a head scarf is "proselytizing"?

If so, then so is wearing a cross or a Star of David.

If one religion cannot wear such a symbol then none should be able to.

If some religions are allowed to wear a symbol, then all must be.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

"...This dopey court doesn't seem to get it that their [sic] is a war going on between Islam (call it radical or not) and Western civilization..."

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

Yes it does.

 

[S.J.]

Liberals will be the first to be beheaded when our SCOTUS eventually rules in favor of Sharia Law. Poetic justice?

 

[Coyote]

Liberals will be the first to be beheaded when our SCOTUS eventually rules in favor of Sharia Law. Poetic justice?

Delusional paranoia.

 

[bodecea]

The government itself does not follow this concept. Try being in the military and wearing a hijab – see how far that gets you.

I don't know if there are any muslim women wearing the hijab in the US military.

But there are Sikh soldiers serving in the US Army who are allowed to wear their religious headgear and have beards.

Good...Sikhs are some badass fighters. We can definitely use them.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What favored religion? Muslim? Sikh? Jew? Christian?

There are court cases all the time for religious accommodation. Some have merit, some don't.

Islam is beloved of the left and FAR more equal than other religions.

 

[Coyote]

What favored religion? Muslim? Sikh? Jew? Christian?

There are court cases all the time for religious accommodation. Some have merit, some don't.

Islam is beloved of the left and FAR more equal than other religions.

Cute little mantra however it has little basis in reality.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"...This dopey court doesn't seem to get it that their [sic] is a war going on between Islam (call it radical or not) and Western civilization..."

Which has absolutely nothing to do with this case.

Yes it does.

So, you believe that all whites are racists? All christians are fundies?

 

[S.J.]

What favored religion? Muslim? Sikh? Jew? Christian?

There are court cases all the time for religious accommodation. Some have merit, some don't.

Islam is beloved of the left and FAR more equal than other religions.

Cute little mantra however it has little basis in reality.

No, he's right. You guys fall all over yourselves to defend them. You've confirmed that already in this thread.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hey, you said it. And, you don't have to take my word for it - ask your mommy.

This is not a dress code. This decision does not force anyone to wear a head scarf. And no one is being forced to "conform" to any particular religion anymore than if one chooses to wear a cross on a chain around their neck.

Again, I realize that Radical Islam and the left are allied against the United States Constitution, a war of convenience.

But religious freedom is not license to impose your beliefs on others, particularly not your employer. Violating a dress code on behalf of religion is an imposition not protected by the first. Do what you want on your own time, but just like McDonald's can require an employee to wear a uniform as a condition of employment, an employer can require that certain attire be left at home or at the mosque.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So, wearing a head scarf is "proselytizing"?

If so, then so is wearing a cross or a Star of David.

If one religion cannot wear such a symbol then none should be able to.

If some religions are allowed to wear a symbol, then all must be.

Pillowbite, you are an assclown, ergo you have an IQ<40.

It is up to the employer to set the dress code. MANY employers have told employees that wearing a cross (or earrings on a man) are not appropriate for work. It's part of the grownup world that you assclowns simply can't grasp.

 

[Slyhunter]

Darn that pesky Constitution.

Shure does get in the way, doesn't it.

so we should let hijabs in at Hooters as waitresses too eh?