Anonymous wrote:I am pretty liberal, but I agree with Abercrombie in this case. They have a certain "look" they want in their store, and the head scarf was the issue, not the religion itself. I would feel the same way about them not hiring a Christian with the uber long, permed hair (ie Duggar-style), or that needed to wear the long skirts.

If she insisted on wearing clothes that weren't part of the brand (e.g. if she was Amish, or a long skirt wearing person at a store that didn't sell skirts), then they might have had an argument if they had brought it up in the interview, and made an honest offer that was contingent on her wearing their brand.

But she was willing to wear Abercrombie, and was proposing adding something to the Abercrombie clothes that didn't cover or detract from them in any way. Totally different situation. Plus they handled it in a way that was dishonest, and basically showed that they knew what they were doing was discrimination.

Soooo.... I would have been okay wearing the ashes on my forehead to my job interview on Ash Wednesday?

Muslima wrote:Awesome for her. Glad she won!

+ 1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am pretty liberal, but I agree with Abercrombie in this case. They have a certain "look" they want in their store, and the head scarf was the issue, not the religion itself. I would feel the same way about them not hiring a Christian with the uber long, permed hair (ie Duggar-style), or that needed to wear the long skirts.

Doesn't matter because the need to respect religious practices (not simply religion itself) outweighs their argument. The Supreme Court has determined that their "look" is not extensively undermined by a head scarf. Their models sometimes wear head scarfs, bandanas, and when they do it, it's "cool." When a Muslim woman does it, suddenly it affects their "look."

As I posted earlier, why can't a company figure how not to offer a job to someone who doesn't meet their "look" without the person bringing a credible lawsuit?

Simple, just make sure that "look" isn't tied to any religious practice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am pretty liberal, but I agree with Abercrombie in this case. They have a certain "look" they want in their store, and the head scarf was the issue, not the religion itself. I would feel the same way about them not hiring a Christian with the uber long, permed hair (ie Duggar-style), or that needed to wear the long skirts.

Doesn't matter because the need to respect religious practices (not simply religion itself) outweighs their argument. The Supreme Court has determined that their "look" is not extensively undermined by a head scarf. Their models sometimes wear head scarfs, bandanas, and when they do it, it's "cool." When a Muslim woman does it, suddenly it affects their "look."

As I posted earlier, why can't a company figure how not to offer a job to someone who doesn't meet their "look" without the person bringing a credible lawsuit?

Anonymous wrote:I am pretty liberal, but I agree with Abercrombie in this case. They have a certain "look" they want in their store, and the head scarf was the issue, not the religion itself. I would feel the same way about them not hiring a Christian with the uber long, permed hair (ie Duggar-style), or that needed to wear the long skirts.

Doesn't matter because the need to respect religious practices (not simply religion itself) outweighs their argument. The Supreme Court has determined that their "look" is not extensively undermined by a head scarf. Their models sometimes wear head scarfs, bandanas, and when they do it, it's "cool." When a Muslim woman does it, suddenly it affects their "look."

I am pretty liberal, but I agree with Abercrombie in this case. They have a certain "look" they want in their store, and the head scarf was the issue, not the religion itself. I would feel the same way about them not hiring a Christian with the uber long, permed hair (ie Duggar-style), or that needed to wear the long skirts.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how in this day and age a company can't figure out how to hire and not hire whom they want without drawing a lawsuit.

Hire lawyers that can explain the civil rights act?

I don't know how in this day and age a company can't figure out how to hire and not hire whom they want without drawing a lawsuit.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are missing the point. Abercrombie did not want to accept a religious practice. A person who is Muslim but doesn't act or dress like one is acceptable to them. A person who dresses like a Muslim is unacceptable to them. It means they discriminated religious practice.

Anonymous wrote:I think private businesses should be allowed to hire/sell to who they want then public opinion can decide if they want to spend money there.

Businesses were allowed to not serve blacks. And then Civil Rights happened, thank god. What you suggest would set us back 60 years.

Anonymous wrote:I think private businesses should be allowed to hire/sell to who they want then public opinion can decide if they want to spend money there.

but first, "public opinion" has to know how the private business has done its hiring.

I think private businesses should be allowed to hire/sell to who they want then public opinion can decide if they want to spend money there.

Sigh. I wish people would look into things beyond the headlines, but alas that is the state of this country at the moment. The issue is not that it was their policy, it was they they essentially hired her but when the local manager called to ask the district manager about the scarf, instead of saying she needs a religious accommodation, the district manager told the person who hired her to lower this girl's score and make sure she is not hired. That, my friends, is discrimination. Ever heard of the Civil Rights Act?

Awesome for her. Glad she won!