Reply to Supreme Court decision in favor of muslim woman vs. abercrombie

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Supreme Court decision in favor of muslim woman vs. abercrombie"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.[/quote]

Yes, I thought if you wanted accommodation, you had to ask for it? [/quote]

not anymore according to the Supreme Court.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics