How Far Will the SCOTUS Go On Behalf of Muslims ?

[Uncensored2008]

No. You can sue the company that wont hire you due to discriminatory policies without ever accepting the job which is actually what happened.

You can sue a company over having a period in their name, or for lack of punctuation.

The issue is that when learned minds forward such absurdity. How long until this is used for precedent of a Disney employee refusing to wear a Micky Mouse logo because rodents are unclean in Islam? Or a Muzzie Beast suing PetCo for firing them for refusing to sell dog food. (the Warlord Muhammad hated dogs - dogs and kids have a sense about evil, so naturally dogs barked and growled at him.)

 

[Uncensored2008]

i think most religious "rituals" are performed in private,alone or with other members of the sect....not at work.....i could be wrong though.....

Religious attire likewise should be worn at worship or with other members of the sect, not at work.

 

[Asclepias]

No. You can sue the company that wont hire you due to discriminatory policies without ever accepting the job which is actually what happened.

You can sue a company over having a period in their name, or for lack of punctuation.

The issue is that when learned minds forward such absurdity. How long until this is used for precedent of a Disney employee refusing to wear a Micky Mouse logo because rodents are unclean in Islam? Or a Muzzie Beast suing PetCo for firing them for refusing to sell dog food. (the Warlord Muhammad hated dogs - dogs and kids have a sense about evil, so naturally dogs barked and growled at him.)

Actually you can sue anyone for anything. The point is she can sue this company and actually win something.

I have no problem with this being used as a precedent. Anyone doing such a thing would be just as under educated as you are for accepting the terms of the job then suing and expecting to win.

 

[Asclepias]

i think most religious "rituals" are performed in private,alone or with other members of the sect....not at work.....i could be wrong though.....

Religious attire likewise should be worn at worship or with other members of the sect, not at work.

You are no one important enough to make rules. Sorry.

 

[RandomVariable]

i think most religious "rituals" are performed in private,alone or with other members of the sect....not at work.....i could be wrong though.....

Religious attire likewise should be worn at worship or with other members of the sect, not at work.

When in Rome...

 

[RandomVariable]

i think most religious "rituals" are performed in private,alone or with other members of the sect....not at work.....i could be wrong though.....

Religious attire likewise should be worn at worship or with other members of the sect, not at work.

You are no one important enough to make rules. Sorry.

You got total butt-hurt from me so you spin around and insult US2008? You're the MAN! (That was more sarcastic than you can even imagine.)

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your stupidity.

The case had nothing to do with 'freedom of religion,' making 'special provisions' for anyone, or the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where Title VII of the Act addresses discrimination in hiring practices concerning – among other criteria – religion:

'The case grew out of a policy that Abercrombie & Fitch enforces in its clothing stores, which cater to a “preppy” or “casual” look. Part of that rule is a ban on wearing a cap of any kind for those who work as sales clerks. When seventeen-year-old Samantha Elauf applied for a sales job at a company outlet in Tulsa in 2008, she was wearing a head scarf as part of her Muslim practice.

Although there is a dispute about what the management knew about the applicant’s faith, the Court found on Monday that it had at least a suspicion that she needed a religious accommodation, and yet refused to hire her. That was enough, the Scalia opinion said, to potentially make the company liable for refusing an accommodation.'

Opinion analysis New shield against religious bias SCOTUSblog

The company was liable because it failed to follow the law, in no way passing judgment on the merits of the Act and the Act's requirement that employers make religious accommodations to applicants and employees.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Actually you can sue anyone for anything. The point is she can sue this company and actually win something.

Oh, you caught on to that? Which part clued you in, the period in the name, or the lack of punctuation?

I have no problem with this being used as a precedent. Anyone doing such a thing would be just as under educated as you are for accepting the terms of the job then suing and expecting to win.

You have no problem, but you have no grasp of law nor any respect for American jurisprudence.

This was a REALLY stupid ruling, one that will wreak havoc.

 

[RandomVariable]

No balloon hats.

 

[Asclepias]

Actually you can sue anyone for anything. The point is she can sue this company and actually win something.

Oh, you caught on to that? Which part clued you in, the period in the name, or the lack of punctuation?

I have no problem with this being used as a precedent. Anyone doing such a thing would be just as under educated as you are for accepting the terms of the job then suing and expecting to win.

You have no problem, but you have no grasp of law nor any respect for American jurisprudence.

This was a REALLY stupid ruling, one that will wreak havoc.

Tough shit. You dont like it do something about the ruling.. Anything at all but please stop pouting.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

At least you're consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

The difference can be found in the fact that a just and proper law, such as prohibiting public nudity, cannot be ignored or violated using 'religious belief' as 'justification' for doing so.

Consequently, prohibiting public nudity at work has nothing to do with a company's hiring or employment policies, where the provisions of Title VII simply don't apply, and the employer has violated no laws.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your stupidity.

Saul, you are a coward and lack the reasoning ability to debate law, or any subject. You flame and then run - which you will do again.

The case had nothing to do with 'freedom of religion,' making 'special provisions' for anyone, or the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where Title VII of the Act addresses discrimination in hiring practices concerning – among other criteria – religion:

I realize that your lack of understanding of American law leaves you little choice but to employ a "baffle em with bullshit" ploy, but you are employing a straw man. No one has said anything of these.

'The case grew out of a policy that Abercrombie & Fitch enforces in its clothing stores, which cater to a “preppy” or “casual” look. Part of that rule is a ban on wearing a cap of any kind for those who work as sales clerks. When seventeen-year-old Samantha Elauf applied for a sales job at a company outlet in Tulsa in 2008, she was wearing a head scarf as part of her Muslim practice.

Although there is a dispute about what the management knew about the applicant’s faith, the Court found on Monday that it had at least a suspicion that she needed a religious accommodation, and yet refused to hire her. That was enough, the Scalia opinion said, to potentially make the company liable for refusing an accommodation.'

Opinion analysis New shield against religious bias SCOTUSblog

The company was liable because it failed to follow the law, in no way passing judgment on the merits of the Act and the Act's requirement that employers make religious accommodations to applicants and employees.

Unlike you Saul, everyone here already knew the particulars of the case. Does the religious preference of an applicant supersede the right of an employer to enforce a policy of appropriate workplace attire? A&F have a particular brand presence, to deny them the right to enforce a certain level of decorum in the dress of employees substantially undermines the value of their brand.

I realize you lack the legal acumen to grasp this argument, but I return to the refusal of a potential Disney hire to wear a mouse logo due to claims that mice are unclean under Islam. The underlying argument is identical, though you lack the wits to grasp it.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

At least you're consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

The difference can be found in the fact that a just and proper law, such as prohibiting public nudity, cannot be ignored or violated using 'religious belief' as 'justification' for doing so.

Consequently, prohibiting public nudity at work has nothing to do with a company's hiring or employment policies, where the provisions of Title VII simply don't apply, and the employer has violated no laws.

Simply put...Uneducated is a fucking idiot. SMDH

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who is going to argue that the Constitution bans Islam should be simply ignored, in business, in society, at church, by the family. Absolute nutcase thinking.

Does the fact that islam specifically states it wants to overthrow the government count?

Show me where the Constitution bans Islam, please.

We have far right social conservative Christians that would subordinate our government to the Bible and their councils. We are not going to ban Christianity.

But Christianity does not specifically say it should overthrow the government. You dodged the question.

Nonsense. Christianity, since it believes in its God as the source of all power and righteousness, obviously would replace secular government if citizens permitted it. Plymouth, Boston, Nauvoo, Salt Lake City are but several examples of such movements. We have a group of bozos who want to turn South Carolina into a Christian state.

 

[RandomVariable]

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your stupidity.

Saul, you are a coward and lack the reasoning ability to debate law, or any subject. You flame and then run - which you will do again.

The case had nothing to do with 'freedom of religion,' making 'special provisions' for anyone, or the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where Title VII of the Act addresses discrimination in hiring practices concerning – among other criteria – religion:

I realize that your lack of understanding of American law leaves you little choice but to employ a "baffle em with bullshit" ploy, but you are employing a straw man. No one has said anything of these.

'The case grew out of a policy that Abercrombie & Fitch enforces in its clothing stores, which cater to a “preppy” or “casual” look. Part of that rule is a ban on wearing a cap of any kind for those who work as sales clerks. When seventeen-year-old Samantha Elauf applied for a sales job at a company outlet in Tulsa in 2008, she was wearing a head scarf as part of her Muslim practice.

Although there is a dispute about what the management knew about the applicant’s faith, the Court found on Monday that it had at least a suspicion that she needed a religious accommodation, and yet refused to hire her. That was enough, the Scalia opinion said, to potentially make the company liable for refusing an accommodation.'

Opinion analysis New shield against religious bias SCOTUSblog

The company was liable because it failed to follow the law, in no way passing judgment on the merits of the Act and the Act's requirement that employers make religious accommodations to applicants and employees.

Unlike you Saul, everyone here already knew the particulars of the case. Does the religious preference of an applicant supersede the right of an employer to enforce a policy of appropriate workplace attire? A&F have a particular brand presence, to deny them the right to enforce a certain level of decorum in the dress of employees substantially undermines the value of their brand.

I realize you lack the legal acumen to grasp this argument, but I return to the refusal of a potential Disney hire to wear a mouse logo due to claims that mice are unclean under Islam. The underlying argument is identical, though you lack the wits to grasp it.

It is exactly this reason muslims go insane, more insane, if anyone hints at insulting mo. Samantha Elauf knew exactly what she was doing, she knows exactly what just happened, and she could not be happier. Unfortunately Americans have a very difficult time seeing the big picture. It will be our downfall yet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

they cant wait till after work to perform the ritual?....

Perhaps clothes offend the goddess? The point is, when you accept a job, you accept the terms of the job, including what attire you will wear.

No. You can sue the company that wont hire you due to discriminatory policies without ever accepting the job which is actually what happened.

Can I wear a balloon hat to an interview, call it a religious thing, and sue because of discrimination against the balloon hat religion?

Sure you can, and you will be chastised by the court as a fool.

 

[RandomVariable]

Anyone who is going to argue that the Constitution bans Islam should be simply ignored, in business, in society, at church, by the family. Absolute nutcase thinking.

Does the fact that islam specifically states it wants to overthrow the government count?

Show me where the Constitution bans Islam, please.

We have far right social conservative Christians that would subordinate our government to the Bible and their councils. We are not going to ban Christianity.

But Christianity does not specifically say it should overthrow the government. You dodged the question.

Nonsense. Christianity, since it believes in its God as the source of all power and righteousness, obviously would replace secular government if citizens permitted it. Plymouth, Boston, Nauvoo, Salt Lake City are but several examples of such movements. We have a group of bozos who want to turn South Carolina into a Christian state.

There is no version of sharia law in Christianity so how does one create a "Christian state"?

 

[RandomVariable]

they cant wait till after work to perform the ritual?....

Perhaps clothes offend the goddess? The point is, when you accept a job, you accept the terms of the job, including what attire you will wear.

No. You can sue the company that wont hire you due to discriminatory policies without ever accepting the job which is actually what happened.

Can I wear a balloon hat to an interview, call it a religious thing, and sue because of discrimination against the balloon hat religion?

Sure you can, and you will be chastised by the court as a fool.

On what grounds?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your stupidity.

Saul, you are a coward and lack the reasoning ability to debate law, or any subject. You flame and then run - which you will do again.

The case had nothing to do with 'freedom of religion,' making 'special provisions' for anyone, or the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where Title VII of the Act addresses discrimination in hiring practices concerning – among other criteria – religion:

I realize that your lack of understanding of American law leaves you little choice but to employ a "baffle em with bullshit" ploy, but you are employing a straw man. No one has said anything of these.

'The case grew out of a policy that Abercrombie & Fitch enforces in its clothing stores, which cater to a “preppy” or “casual” look. Part of that rule is a ban on wearing a cap of any kind for those who work as sales clerks. When seventeen-year-old Samantha Elauf applied for a sales job at a company outlet in Tulsa in 2008, she was wearing a head scarf as part of her Muslim practice.

Although there is a dispute about what the management knew about the applicant’s faith, the Court found on Monday that it had at least a suspicion that she needed a religious accommodation, and yet refused to hire her. That was enough, the Scalia opinion said, to potentially make the company liable for refusing an accommodation.'

Opinion analysis New shield against religious bias SCOTUSblog

The company was liable because it failed to follow the law, in no way passing judgment on the merits of the Act and the Act's requirement that employers make religious accommodations to applicants and employees.

Unlike you Saul, everyone here already knew the particulars of the case. Does the religious preference of an applicant supersede the right of an employer to enforce a policy of appropriate workplace attire? A&F have a particular brand presence, to deny them the right to enforce a certain level of decorum in the dress of employees substantially undermines the value of their brand.

I realize you lack the legal acumen to grasp this argument, but I return to the refusal of a potential Disney hire to wear a mouse logo due to claims that mice are unclean under Islam. The underlying argument is identical, though you lack the wits to grasp it.

What part of

Its illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion

Do you not understand?

 

[RandomVariable]

Your ignorance is exceeded only by your stupidity.

Saul, you are a coward and lack the reasoning ability to debate law, or any subject. You flame and then run - which you will do again.

The case had nothing to do with 'freedom of religion,' making 'special provisions' for anyone, or the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, where Title VII of the Act addresses discrimination in hiring practices concerning – among other criteria – religion:

I realize that your lack of understanding of American law leaves you little choice but to employ a "baffle em with bullshit" ploy, but you are employing a straw man. No one has said anything of these.

'The case grew out of a policy that Abercrombie & Fitch enforces in its clothing stores, which cater to a “preppy” or “casual” look. Part of that rule is a ban on wearing a cap of any kind for those who work as sales clerks. When seventeen-year-old Samantha Elauf applied for a sales job at a company outlet in Tulsa in 2008, she was wearing a head scarf as part of her Muslim practice.

Although there is a dispute about what the management knew about the applicant’s faith, the Court found on Monday that it had at least a suspicion that she needed a religious accommodation, and yet refused to hire her. That was enough, the Scalia opinion said, to potentially make the company liable for refusing an accommodation.'

Opinion analysis New shield against religious bias SCOTUSblog

The company was liable because it failed to follow the law, in no way passing judgment on the merits of the Act and the Act's requirement that employers make religious accommodations to applicants and employees.

Unlike you Saul, everyone here already knew the particulars of the case. Does the religious preference of an applicant supersede the right of an employer to enforce a policy of appropriate workplace attire? A&F have a particular brand presence, to deny them the right to enforce a certain level of decorum in the dress of employees substantially undermines the value of their brand.

I realize you lack the legal acumen to grasp this argument, but I return to the refusal of a potential Disney hire to wear a mouse logo due to claims that mice are unclean under Islam. The underlying argument is identical, though you lack the wits to grasp it.

What part of

Its illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion

Do you not understand?

It was not based on religion. It was the fact she wanted to wear a hat to work.