How Far Will the SCOTUS Go On Behalf of Muslims ?

[Asclepias]

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?

Ballon hat is not a religion. You have some amazingly severe flaws of logic in your conclusions.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What part of

Its illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion

Do you not understand?

A&F has a consistent dress code, applicable to all. The SCOTUS ruling creates a discriminatory workplace in that is applies work place rules differently depending on the religion of the employee.

This is a VERY bad ruling.

 

[RandomVariable]

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?

Ballon hat is not a religion. You have some amazingly severe flaws of logic in your conclusions.

Shut the fuck up.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It comes down to property rights, and there is no freedom of religion on other people's private property. The Court, of course, ruled against property rights.

Property rights in the public forum cannot trump human rights.

Property rights are human rights, and absent property rights there are no other rights. For example, if I send a letter to the editor to the New York Times and they don't print it, have they violated my freedom of press? Of course not, because it's their property and they can print whatever they like. This girl has no human right to wear a Hijab on somebody else's property.

 

[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.

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?

Ballon hat is not a religion. You have some amazingly severe flaws of logic in your conclusions.

Shut the fuck up.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ballon hat is not a religion. You have some amazingly severe flaws of logic in your conclusions.

You are dumb as a dog turd, asslips.

I mean, seriously fucking stupid.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Do you get anything right? I mean like anything at all?


"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who sued after being denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch Co clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a head scarf for religious reasons.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Supreme Court Rules for Muslim Woman Denied Job at Clothing Store "

 

[Asclepias]

Ballon hat is not a religion. You have some amazingly severe flaws of logic in your conclusions.

You are dumb as a dog turd, asslips.

I mean, seriously fucking stupid.

Youre just mad because you lack education.

 

[bodecea]

So...the same people arguing against this ruling would also have no problem with A & F not hiring someone with a yamulke.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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"?

You're wrong.

Sharia law is alive and well in fundie beliefs. Just shake a fundie and you'll get lots of examples of sharia law ... homosexuality, abortion, children ...

 

[RandomVariable]

So...the same people arguing against this ruling would also have no problem with A & F not hiring someone with a yamulke.

Face the wrath of the Jewish community but, yes, if A & F says 'no headgear' then no headgear.

 

[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?

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

You mean, like a yarmulke?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So...the same people arguing against this ruling would also have no problem with A & F not hiring someone with a yamulke.

Face the wrath of the Jewish community but, yes, if A & F says 'no headgear' then no headgear.

So they should get a pass on federal law?

How about a cross on a chain around your neck?

 

[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.

On what grounds?

Look up "frivolous."

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Nope.

 

[RandomVariable]

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"?

You're wrong.

Sharia law is alive and well in fundie beliefs. Just shake a fundie and you'll get lots of examples of sharia law ... homosexuality, abortion, children ...

There is just a bit of a difference (sp edit) in what one wants the government to enforce and wanting to change the government. Every single person who has sworn allegiance to islam has sworn an allegiance to work to overthrow this government.

 

[RandomVariable]

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?

Look up "frivolous."

Frivolous is no grounds for dismissal. This is the SCOTUS after all.

 

[Asclepias]

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"?

You're wrong.

Sharia law is alive and well in fundie beliefs. Just shake a fundie and you'll get lots of examples of sharia law ... homosexuality, abortion, children ...

There is just a bit of a deference in what one wants the government to enforce and wanting to change the government. Every single person who has sworn allegiance to islam has sworn an allegiance to work to overthrow this government.

Take off your tinfoil hat.

That moment when you realized the person you are talking to is insane

 

[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.

Do you get anything right? I mean like anything at all?


"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who sued after being denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch Co clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a head scarf for religious reasons.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Supreme Court Rules for Muslim Woman Denied Job at Clothing Store "

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who sued after being denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch Co clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a hat

See? Now I changed the headline and it says something different. Gives a different impression. Some people take the impression they give very serious. Some companies even put more effort into their brand then their merchandise.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Do you get anything right? I mean like anything at all?


"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who sued after being denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch Co clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a head scarf for religious reasons.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Supreme Court Rules for Muslim Woman Denied Job at Clothing Store "

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who sued after being denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch Co clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a hat

See? Now I changed the headline and it says something different. Gives a different impression. Some people take the impression they give very serious. Some companies even put more effort into their brand then their merchandise.

Just because you changed the wording doesnt make you correct. Matter of fact it makes you a revisionist.

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a Muslim woman who sued after being denied a job at an Abercrombie & Fitch Co clothing store in Oklahoma because she wore a head scarf for religious reasons."