How Far Will the SCOTUS Go On Behalf of Muslims ?

[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.

Nope.

Yep. She could have believed that she was justified to kill all her potential coworkers, which she does, but that is not what A & F had an issue with. It was the hat.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Of course it is. You would lose at the first step and every appeal thereafter. SCOTUS would refuse to hear it.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Of course it is. You would lose at the first step and every appeal thereafter. SCOTUS would refuse to hear it.

Random isnt very well versed on these things. Matter of fact he has been wrong practically every post so far on this thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

because she wore a religious symbol

RV, you like Sunshine or bripat or Yurt, don't get you own definitions.

 

[RandomVariable]

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.

Of course it is. You would lose at the first step and every appeal thereafter. SCOTUS would refuse to hear it.

SCOTUS is there to make themselves feel like gods. The merits of the case have very little bearing on the matter.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

Of course it is. You would lose at the first step and every appeal thereafter. SCOTUS would refuse to hear it.

Random isnt very well versed on these things. Matter of fact he has been wrong practically every post so far on this thread.

RV is arguing feelings not facts.

 

[RandomVariable]

because she wore a religious symbol

RV, you like Sunshine or bripat or Yurt, don't get you own definitions.

On her head.

 

[Asclepias]

because she wore a religious symbol

RV, you like Sunshine or bripat or Yurt, don't get you own definitions.

On her head.

Which is besides the point. She could have had it tattooed on her face and it would still be discrimination.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Of course it is. You would lose at the first step and every appeal thereafter. SCOTUS would refuse to hear it.

SCOTUS is there to make themselves feel like gods. The merits of the case have very little bearing on the matter.

You have no clue what legal merits are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

because she wore a religious symbol

RV, you like Sunshine or bripat or Yurt, don't get you own definitions.

On her head.

No different than a cross on a chain around your neck.

Get used to the fact your feelings don't rule American law.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

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.

This SCOTUS ruling didn't "create" anything. The law has been clear since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

[RandomVariable]

On what grounds?

Look up "frivolous."

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

Of course it is. You would lose at the first step and every appeal thereafter. SCOTUS would refuse to hear it.

Random isnt very well versed on these things. Matter of fact he has been wrong practically every post so far on this thread.

RV is arguing feelings not facts.

And you have no clue what reality is but let's not get off topic.

 

[RandomVariable]

because she wore a religious symbol

RV, you like Sunshine or bripat or Yurt, don't get you own definitions.

On her head.

No different than a cross on a chain around your neck.

Get used to the fact your feelings don't rule American law.

And you just realized where you are wrong but won't admit 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.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Of course it is. You would lose at the first step and every appeal thereafter. SCOTUS would refuse to hear it.

SCOTUS is there to make themselves feel like gods. The merits of the case have very little bearing on the matter.

Uh, you might want to educate yourself on the legal duties of SCOTUS.

And, there is no "hat".

 

[RandomVariable]

On what grounds?

Look up "frivolous."

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

Of course it is. You would lose at the first step and every appeal thereafter. SCOTUS would refuse to hear it.

SCOTUS is there to make themselves feel like gods. The merits of the case have very little bearing on the matter.

Uh, you might want to educate yourself on the legal duties of SCOTUS.

And, there is no "hat".

They might want to do the same.

SAY NO!!! TO THE ONE WORLD RELIGION!!!!

 

[RandomVariable]

"Remember! Reality is an illusion, the universe is a hologram, buy gold, bye!"

 

[JakeStarkey]

because she wore a religious symbol

RV, you like Sunshine or bripat or Yurt, don't get you own definitions.

On her head.

No different than a cross on a chain around your neck.

Get used to the fact your feelings don't rule American law.

And you just realized where you are wrong but won't admit it.

Immoral stubborness like yours is not admirable only laughable.

 

[protectionist]

Gee, look at the throngs of conservative religious rights types on USMB flocking to praise this court ruling in favor of religion.

Islam is not a religion.

Post # 56.

 

[protectionist]

No different than a cross on a chain around your neck.

Get used to the fact your feelings don't rule American law.

The Constitution rules American law. It would be nice if the SCOTUS would recognize that.