How Far Will the SCOTUS Go On Behalf of Muslims ?

[protectionist]

6. Is SCOTUS neutral on religion?

I asked you my questions first. When you answer them which came first, THEN, maybe I'll entertain your question, which came second (if you're good).

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have no say in it at all, Protectionist.

The court is neutral on the subject and nothing you have posted has altered that.

 

[protectionist]

What a bunch of nonsense, Protectionist, that you keep posting

Description: Comparing one thing to another that is really not related, in order to make one thing look more or less desirable than it really is.

(also known as: bad comparison, false comparison, incomplete comparison, inconsistent comparison)

Faulty Comparison

I don't know what that might be referring to.

 

[rcfieldz]

What a bunch of nonsense, Protectionist, that you keep posting

Description: Comparing one thing to another that is really not related, in order to make one thing look more or less desirable than it really is.

(also known as: bad comparison, false comparison, incomplete comparison, inconsistent comparison)

Faulty Comparison

Perhaps you need some reading: Fashion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[protectionist]

You have no say in it at all, Protectionist.

The court is neutral on the subject and nothing you have posted has altered that.

Obviously, they are not neutral. They have chosen the path of Muslim ass-kissing (except for Clarence Thomas - kudos to him) Kudos also to the appeals court who didn't buckle over to the Muslim bully boys.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You and RC keep lowering the bar on silliness.

 

[protectionist]

What a bunch of nonsense, Protectionist, that you keep posting

Description: Comparing one thing to another that is really not related, in order to make one thing look more or less desirable than it really is.

(also known as: bad comparison, false comparison, incomplete comparison, inconsistent comparison)

Faulty Comparison

Perhaps you need some reading: Fashion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Here's what he needs to read >> (and don't forget the footnotes, Jake)

The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America ---- by Andrew McCarthy

American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us ----- by Steven Emerson

Because They Hate ---- by Brigitte Gabriel

They Must Be Stopped ------ by Brigitte Gabriel

Hating America ------ by John Gibson

Stop the Islamization of America ----- by Pamela Geller

Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Secret Saudi-U.S. Connection ------ by Gerald Posner

Stealth Jihad ----- by Robert Spencer

The Brotherhood: America's Next Great Enemy ------ by Erik Stakelbeck

Outrage ----- by Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Infiltration ------ by Paul Sperry

The 9/11 Commission Report

The Truth About Muhammad ------ by Robert Spencer

In Mortal Danger ------- by Tom Tancredo

State of Emergency ----- by Pat Buchanan

Muslim Mafia ----- by P.David Gaubatz & Paul Sperry

 

[protectionist]

You and RC keep lowering the bar on silliness.

Post 427 has your reading assignment. Get started, and don't interrupt your reading (including the footnote reports), to post in here. I expect to not see you back here until 2016.

PS - when you finish, there will be a QUIZ.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS is neutral on religion, and Protectionist has shown clearly he does not know Islam or Christianity. That's fine. It's good he gets to vent here.

 

[protectionist]

How far will the SCOTUS go ? Will it excuse pedophila ?

CAIR Leader Ahmad Saleem Arrested in Major Child Sex Trafficking Ring Bust, Sex with Children as Young as 10

CAIR Leader Ahmad Saleem Arrested in Major Child Sex Trafficking Ring Bust Sex with Children as Young as 10 Pamela Geller Atlas Shrugs Islam Jihad Israel and the Islamic War on the West

 

[protectionist]

SCOTUS is neutral on religion, and Protectionist has shown clearly he does not know Islam or Christianity. That's fine. It's good he gets to vent here.

I know more about Islam in my little finger, than JOKE Starkey knows in his whole body. This MR QUIZ ZERO ran away from the Islamization Quiz. He even ran away from the semi-quiz (only 5 questions)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Protectionist is reported for trolling his own thread.

He has show absolutely on this thread to show that SCOTUS favors Muslims.

The comments about pedophilia are ludicrous.

 

[Coyote]

This means any person wearing anything can sue the employer of their choice for wearing whatever they want even if it is not conforming to that employers rules. Sorry that's not gonna fly. People get sent home from school and asked to turn their shirts inside out at schools and other events. So why can this woman wear her headdress or other? So will A&F hire nuns next. I think not... just wait for the business to go under when that store is not having the foot traffic it once had. Where is this store Dubai?

No it does not.

It only - ONLY - means that the employer must make an allowance for "reasonable accommodation" for religion. Period. Religion and reasonable being the key terms. For example, this case:

Tattoos Facial Piercings and Employment Discrimination Law Office of Matthew Stoloff

In early 2001, Costco implemented a “no facial jewelry” policy to improve its professional image.


When Costco began enforcing its policy in mid-2001, Ms. Cloutier explained for the first time that she was a member of the Church of Body Modification and that her religion prohibited her from removing her eyebrow piercing.


Ms. Cloutier subsequently filed a complaint, alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state law. For whatever reason, Ms. Cloutier made a decision not to return to work until the complaint was resolved. Approximately two weeks after the complaint was filed, however, Costco terminated Ms. Cloutier for unexcused absences and for failing to follow the dress code.


At a mediation session, Costco offered Ms. Cloutier her job back, provided that Ms. Cloutier agreed to do one of two things: replace the eyebrow piercing with a clear plastic retainer (to prevent the hole from closing) or cover the eyebrow piercing with a bandage. (pp. 6-7) Ms. Cloutier refused either accommodation because she believed that removing or covering the eyebrow piercing violated the tenets of the Church of Body Modification.


The case went to federal court and Costco won.


On appeal in 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit noted that there was nothing in the tenets of the Church of Body Modification that required that “body modifications had to be visible at all times or that removing body modifications would violate a religious tenet.” (p. 5) As such, the accommodations Costco proposed would not “violate any of the established tenets” of the Church of Body Modification. (p. 9)


Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower court’s opinion, holding that Costco offered a reasonable accommodation, and that creating an exception in the no facial jewelry policy would create an undue hardship for Costco. In other words, Costco must maintain a neat, clean and professional appearance to attract and retain customers; and creating an exception for Ms. Coultier would adversely affect that image. (p. 22)
​

I would guess that if a Muslim women insisted on a full burka, that would be regarded as an undue hardship for A&F, but a scarf is a reasonable accommodation.

Why would the full burka be any more of a hardship for A & F than the hijab ? Both are violation of the "look policy"

Two words: "Reasonable Accommodation" (geez how many times do I need to repeat that?)

PS - I'm starting a new religion/church (Church of Protectionism). I will make up the rules as I go along. NO ONE can discriminate against my religion. I can do anything I want, and if anybody doesn't like it, TOUGH!

If they give me any trouble I'll sic the Supreme Court on them.

Well you know what sweetie? You have every right to do so...after all, every religion started somewhere with someone. However....I'm sad to inform you...no one said you could do "anything you want".

Human sacrifices and public nude orgies might not fly.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, are you Muslim? Because you are working really, really hard to make this not about islam.

From your post #393, "The same thing applies in more liberal societies like ours. Men can go topless. Women can not." WTF kind of stupid shit is that??? Are you really that desperate for rationales? Why do you feel the need to deflect from islam to the point of absurdity?

It's not about Islam. It's a decision that is supported by Christians and Jews who also submitted briefs on the case. It's about religious freedom and reasonable accommodation. It's not rocket science dude.

As far as "stupid shit" - why did you bring up equality between men and women? Sounds like you just don't like the answers you are getting so you're going to fling monkey poo to see if it sticks.

So if this store is in a mall and my religion declares that I should wear a flak jacket to work to protect me from mall shooters...
patiently awaiting your reply.

Take it up with the courts - it all depends on "reasonable accomodation" and possibly - whether it is a religion. You guys seem to have this bizarre idea that this case means a religious person can do what ever they want. Unfortunately no. The courts did not decide in favor of defendents in many cases such as wearing headgear for ID photos in prison.

 

[Coyote]

How far will the SCOTUS go ? Will it excuse pedophila ?

CAIR Leader Ahmad Saleem Arrested in Major Child Sex Trafficking Ring Bust, Sex with Children as Young as 10

CAIR Leader Ahmad Saleem Arrested in Major Child Sex Trafficking Ring Bust Sex with Children as Young as 10 Pamela Geller Atlas Shrugs Islam Jihad Israel and the Islamic War on the West

This has nothing to do with the SCOTUS. A criminal act was performed - religion had nothing to do with it - and the perps arrested including a number of (OMG) non-Muslims and this guy who is not a CAIR leader and is not even associated with CAIR anymore

Can we say "grasping for straws"?

 

[Coyote]

SCOTUS is neutral on religion, and Protectionist has shown clearly he does not know Islam or Christianity. That's fine. It's good he gets to vent here.

I know more about Islam in my little finger, than JOKE Starkey knows in his whole body. This MR QUIZ ZERO ran away from the Islamization Quiz. He even ran away from the semi-quiz (only 5 questions)

Your obsession with your so-called "Islamization Quiz" is duly noted.

 

[protectionist]

This means any person wearing anything can sue the employer of their choice for wearing whatever they want even if it is not conforming to that employers rules. Sorry that's not gonna fly. People get sent home from school and asked to turn their shirts inside out at schools and other events. So why can this woman wear her headdress or other? So will A&F hire nuns next. I think not... just wait for the business to go under when that store is not having the foot traffic it once had. Where is this store Dubai?

No it does not.

It only - ONLY - means that the employer must make an allowance for "reasonable accommodation" for religion. Period. Religion and reasonable being the key terms. For example, this case:

Tattoos Facial Piercings and Employment Discrimination Law Office of Matthew Stoloff

In early 2001, Costco implemented a “no facial jewelry” policy to improve its professional image.


When Costco began enforcing its policy in mid-2001, Ms. Cloutier explained for the first time that she was a member of the Church of Body Modification and that her religion prohibited her from removing her eyebrow piercing.


Ms. Cloutier subsequently filed a complaint, alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state law. For whatever reason, Ms. Cloutier made a decision not to return to work until the complaint was resolved. Approximately two weeks after the complaint was filed, however, Costco terminated Ms. Cloutier for unexcused absences and for failing to follow the dress code.


At a mediation session, Costco offered Ms. Cloutier her job back, provided that Ms. Cloutier agreed to do one of two things: replace the eyebrow piercing with a clear plastic retainer (to prevent the hole from closing) or cover the eyebrow piercing with a bandage. (pp. 6-7) Ms. Cloutier refused either accommodation because she believed that removing or covering the eyebrow piercing violated the tenets of the Church of Body Modification.


The case went to federal court and Costco won.


On appeal in 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit noted that there was nothing in the tenets of the Church of Body Modification that required that “body modifications had to be visible at all times or that removing body modifications would violate a religious tenet.” (p. 5) As such, the accommodations Costco proposed would not “violate any of the established tenets” of the Church of Body Modification. (p. 9)


Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower court’s opinion, holding that Costco offered a reasonable accommodation, and that creating an exception in the no facial jewelry policy would create an undue hardship for Costco. In other words, Costco must maintain a neat, clean and professional appearance to attract and retain customers; and creating an exception for Ms. Coultier would adversely affect that image. (p. 22)
​

I would guess that if a Muslim women insisted on a full burka, that would be regarded as an undue hardship for A&F, but a scarf is a reasonable accommodation.

Why would the full burka be any more of a hardship for A & F than the hijab ? Both are violation of the "look policy"

Two words: "Reasonable Accommodation" (geez how many times do I need to repeat that?)

PS - I'm starting a new religion/church (Church of Protectionism). I will make up the rules as I go along. NO ONE can discriminate against my religion. I can do anything I want, and if anybody doesn't like it, TOUGH!

If they give me any trouble I'll sic the Supreme Court on them.

Well you know what sweetie? You have every right to do so...after all, every religion started somewhere with someone. However....I'm sad to inform you...no one said you could do "anything you want".

Human sacrifices and public nude orgies might not fly.

1. Both are violation of the "look policy" (geez how many times do I need to repeat that?)

2. The SCOTUS said Elauf could do what SHE wanted (despite a company's rule against it), and they gave religion as the reason. So if she can get away with that, why not ANY religion, and as the title of this thread asks >> How far will the SCOTUS go ?

 

[Coyote]

This means any person wearing anything can sue the employer of their choice for wearing whatever they want even if it is not conforming to that employers rules. Sorry that's not gonna fly. People get sent home from school and asked to turn their shirts inside out at schools and other events. So why can this woman wear her headdress or other? So will A&F hire nuns next. I think not... just wait for the business to go under when that store is not having the foot traffic it once had. Where is this store Dubai?

No it does not.

It only - ONLY - means that the employer must make an allowance for "reasonable accommodation" for religion. Period. Religion and reasonable being the key terms. For example, this case:

Tattoos Facial Piercings and Employment Discrimination Law Office of Matthew Stoloff

In early 2001, Costco implemented a “no facial jewelry” policy to improve its professional image.


When Costco began enforcing its policy in mid-2001, Ms. Cloutier explained for the first time that she was a member of the Church of Body Modification and that her religion prohibited her from removing her eyebrow piercing.


Ms. Cloutier subsequently filed a complaint, alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state law. For whatever reason, Ms. Cloutier made a decision not to return to work until the complaint was resolved. Approximately two weeks after the complaint was filed, however, Costco terminated Ms. Cloutier for unexcused absences and for failing to follow the dress code.


At a mediation session, Costco offered Ms. Cloutier her job back, provided that Ms. Cloutier agreed to do one of two things: replace the eyebrow piercing with a clear plastic retainer (to prevent the hole from closing) or cover the eyebrow piercing with a bandage. (pp. 6-7) Ms. Cloutier refused either accommodation because she believed that removing or covering the eyebrow piercing violated the tenets of the Church of Body Modification.


The case went to federal court and Costco won.


On appeal in 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit noted that there was nothing in the tenets of the Church of Body Modification that required that “body modifications had to be visible at all times or that removing body modifications would violate a religious tenet.” (p. 5) As such, the accommodations Costco proposed would not “violate any of the established tenets” of the Church of Body Modification. (p. 9)


Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower court’s opinion, holding that Costco offered a reasonable accommodation, and that creating an exception in the no facial jewelry policy would create an undue hardship for Costco. In other words, Costco must maintain a neat, clean and professional appearance to attract and retain customers; and creating an exception for Ms. Coultier would adversely affect that image. (p. 22)
​

I would guess that if a Muslim women insisted on a full burka, that would be regarded as an undue hardship for A&F, but a scarf is a reasonable accommodation.

Why would the full burka be any more of a hardship for A & F than the hijab ? Both are violation of the "look policy"

Two words: "Reasonable Accommodation" (geez how many times do I need to repeat that?)

PS - I'm starting a new religion/church (Church of Protectionism). I will make up the rules as I go along. NO ONE can discriminate against my religion. I can do anything I want, and if anybody doesn't like it, TOUGH!

If they give me any trouble I'll sic the Supreme Court on them.

Well you know what sweetie? You have every right to do so...after all, every religion started somewhere with someone. However....I'm sad to inform you...no one said you could do "anything you want".

Human sacrifices and public nude orgies might not fly.

1. Both are violation of the "look policy" (geez how many times do I need to repeat that?)

2. The SCOTUS said Elauf could do what SHE wanted (despite a company's rule against it), and they gave religion as the reason. So if she can get away with that, why not ANY religion, and as the title of this thread asks >> How far will the SCOTUS go ?

Oh really? Show me where they said that.

 

[protectionist]

Your obsession with your so-called "Islamization Quiz" is duly noted.

I only mentioned it because Joke said >> "Protectionist has shown clearly he does not know Islam"

Not hard to see where he got the name "Joke" from. As are all ignorant Islamapologists who know little or nothing about Islam and Islamization.

 

[protectionist]

Oh really? Show me where they said that.

Well, she won the case, didn't she ? And it was based on religious discrimination, wasn't it ? Are you tuned in here ?