Supreme Court decision in favor of muslim woman vs. abercrombie

[Anonymous]

The only time the US Supreme Court "stands up" for women is to keep them covered up.

[Anonymous]

I don't agree with this ruling. The company has a "look" they want (which I also don't agree with) and they should have the ability to hire people who conform to their brand. Same with Hooters hiring hot girls. It's no different to me than actors/actresses who have a look to play a part.

[Anonymous]

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't agree with this ruling. The company has a "look" they want (which I also don't agree with) and they should have the ability to hire people who conform to their brand. Same with Hooters hiring hot girls. It's no different to me than actors/actresses who have a look to play a part.

It's the religion thing - if Hooters refused to hire women of a certain religion, they'd be in trouble too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't agree with this ruling. The company has a "look" they want (which I also don't agree with) and they should have the ability to hire people who conform to their brand. Same with Hooters hiring hot girls. It's no different to me than actors/actresses who have a look to play a part.

It's the religion thing - if Hooters refused to hire women of a certain religion, they'd be in trouble too.

No. Abercrombie doesn't care what religion you are, just didn't want the scarf. Even though the scarf is tied to a religion, they aren't the same. All Muslims don't wear head scarfs and Abercrombie has hired Muslims who don't wear scarves.

[Anonymous]

that's right pp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:that's right pp

So hooters could hire a waitress who wore a veil as long as she wore the rest of the outfit? Or would a muslim be able to wear her own outfit, including a veil and not get fired because she was following her religion.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I just don't understand where this would stop. Would they be forced to hire a woman who is 100% covered except her eyes?

[Anonymous]

It was not a veil, but a head scarf. If they said crosses are not allowed, but applied that to all employees, not just Christians, would that be okay?

Actually, I think they said it was not that they would allow the hijab if she had said it was about religion. But since they did not ask for the reason and she did not state it explicitly in her interview, they did not hire her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was not a veil, but a head scarf. If they said crosses are not allowed, but applied that to all employees, not just Christians, would that be okay?

Actually, I think they said it was not that they would allow the hijab if she had said it was about religion. But since they did not ask for the reason and she did not state it explicitly in her interview, they did not hire her.

Yes, I thought if you wanted accommodation, you had to ask for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was not a veil, but a head scarf. If they said crosses are not allowed, but applied that to all employees, not just Christians, would that be okay?

Actually, I think they said it was not that they would allow the hijab if she had said it was about religion. But since they did not ask for the reason and she did not state it explicitly in her interview, they did not hire her.

Yes, I thought if you wanted accommodation, you had to ask for it?

not anymore according to the Supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was not a veil, but a head scarf. If they said crosses are not allowed, but applied that to all employees, not just Christians, would that be okay?

Actually, I think they said it was not that they would allow the hijab if she had said it was about religion. But since they did not ask for the reason and she did not state it explicitly in her interview, they did not hire her.

Yes, I thought if you wanted accommodation, you had to ask for it?

not anymore according to the Supreme Court.

In her case, how was she supposed to ask? She didn't know it was an issue.

I agree with the ruling. There is no reason why they can't accommodate a hijab while selling their look. At least, they haven't provided one -- in fact they have provided exceptions to others. If someone wore a full veil or a burka, that would obviously be a lot more difficult to accommodate since the point is to wear their clothes. But since their clothes apparently don't include head coverings, the hijab doesn't interfere with anything. Same as wearing a yarmulke or a crucifix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was not a veil, but a head scarf. If they said crosses are not allowed, but applied that to all employees, not just Christians, would that be okay?

Actually, I think they said it was not that they would allow the hijab if she had said it was about religion. But since they did not ask for the reason and she did not state it explicitly in her interview, they did not hire her.

Yes, I thought if you wanted accommodation, you had to ask for it?

not anymore according to the Supreme Court.

In her case, how was she supposed to ask? She didn't know it was an issue.

I agree with the ruling. There is no reason why they can't accommodate a hijab while selling their look. At least, they haven't provided one -- in fact they have provided exceptions to others. If someone wore a full veil or a burka, that would obviously be a lot more difficult to accommodate since the point is to wear their clothes. But since their clothes apparently don't include head coverings, the hijab doesn't interfere with anything. Same as wearing a yarmulke or a crucifix.

In this case, the burden never falls on her to ask. That was the Supreme Court's point: the employer may not have a motive to discriminate on the basis of a religious practice, regardless of whether they had knowledge it was a religious practice or knew the candidate was seeking an accommodation.

This is a clear violation of Title VII.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't agree with this ruling. The company has a "look" they want (which I also don't agree with) and they should have the ability to hire people who conform to their brand. Same with Hooters hiring hot girls. It's no different to me than actors/actresses who have a look to play a part.

It's the religion thing - if Hooters refused to hire women of a certain religion, they'd be in trouble too.

No. Abercrombie doesn't care what religion you are, just didn't want the scarf. Even though the scarf is tied to a religion, they aren't the same. All Muslims don't wear head scarfs and Abercrombie has hired Muslims who don't wear scarves.

This.

It's about the scarf, not the religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I just don't understand where this would stop. Would they be forced to hire a woman who is 100% covered except her eyes?

This should not be allowed ANYWHERE in this country, and I have no problem staring at them. It SHOULD be uncomfortable.