Chain To Get Sued Over Headgear

Your logic ends when you compare a business to a home.

It's a business which puts it at the mercy of business and labor laws.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Because someone OWNES the workplace and their rights take precedence over those that enter it.

I love the backward logic of your misguided believe in "freedom." Let me explain why it's wrong in principle: I have a right to fart in my own home. Hell, I probably have the freedom to fat in a public park. Where my right fails is when I enter your home. If you don't like the smell of my farts, you can force me to leave. How's that for discrimination? Fine and dandy, I say.


The store has an owner, or owners. Their place of business is their home. The burqua, or headscarf is a fart. No matter how many times god mandates you to fart on a daily basis, you don't get the right to fart in my house, get it ? Probably not.

My freedom to be in non-contact with your farts in my own home takes precedence over your right to fart. Period. This is what you can't seem to integrate into your concept of "freedom." Your forcing me to tolerate your flatulence in my private property in the name of non-discrimination makes your philosophy identical to those in N. Korea and China. You seem to support the idea of absolute freedom for one of your own chosen few for the slavery of another which is exactly what you're complaining about in the first place.[/QUOTE]

Ridiculous and offensive post, but I just wanted to point out that I did laugh when bmuls said "Hell, I probably have the freedom to fat in a public park."
 
[quote name='camoor']Ridiculous and offensive post, but I just wanted to point out that I did laugh when bmuls said "Hell, I probably have the freedom to fat in a public park."[/QUOTE]

You are offended by the idea that private property owners should be allowed to determine what (legally) happens on their private property?
 
[quote name='HowStern']Your logic ends when you compare a business to a home.

It's a business which puts it at the mercy of business and labor laws.[/QUOTE]

Homes are also subject, or "at the mercy of", laws. It does not automatically make them part of the public domain. Sanitation laws, taxation laws, building code laws all govern where, how you can build a home. Do you know why outlets are placed 16 inches off the ground and never underneath windows? Why galvanized pipe is no longer used? why you cannot build your house at the property line? Laws and regulations.

A place of business is merely a home, or another variation of personal property, where business transactions are performed. Just because someone is conducting business does not make the establishment "public" property by a twist of your imagination. Seriously, in your mind how are they different? Because you sleep there? Take a shit and shave in one and not the other? Some people actually spend more time at their place of business than in their "real" home. There is absolutely no logical reasoning to your premise.

Sorry you are suffering from a thought failure, you may now try again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']You are offended by the idea that private property owners should be allowed to determine what (legally) happens on their private property?[/QUOTE]

Yes, he is offended because he also has a warped, undeveloped "feeling" of what freedom is supposed to be- similar to HowStern's. He thinks it means anything that is denied to him is curtailing his freedom and offensive, yet he would willingly sacrifice others' freedoms to satisfy his own feeling of what is right.

They'll probably never understand that the freedom to be offended by others' points of view is necessary for a free society to exist, and the subjugation of private opinion to that of the state is slavery. Works the same way in religion where you must renounce all selfishness (i.e., private property) to the authority of the common good (the State). In addition, you must replace your will with god's will in order to get into the kingdom of heaven.
 
While it's kind of mean, I don't think it should be illegal. I'm sure if Abercrombie offered their own brand of low cut head scarves they would allow them.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Homes are also subject, or "at the mercy of", laws. It does not automatically make them part of the public domain. Sanitation laws, taxation laws, building code laws all govern where, how you can build a home. Do you know why outlets are placed 16 inches off the ground and never underneath windows? Why galvanized pipe is no longer used? why you cannot build your house at the property line? Laws and regulations.

A place of business is merely a home, or another variation of personal property, where business transactions are performed. Just because someone is conducting business does not make the establishment "public" property by a twist of your imagination. Seriously, in your mind how are they different? Because you sleep there? Take a shit and shave in one and not the other? Some people actually spend more time at their place of business than in their "real" home. There is absolutely no logical reasoning to your premise.

Sorry you are suffering from a thought failure, you may now try again.[/QUOTE]

lol...Good laughs, thanks. :)

I don't employ people at my home. That's how they are different.

And since they do employ people at said business they must follow employment laws.
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html


It's incredibly simple how come you can't grasp it?
 
Simply because something is a law, that doesn't mean it is "right".

And, if I'm correct, the store did not deny her a job because of her religion. The job was denied because of her dress. It is a fine line, and I fully expect the courts to side with the applicant, but "choice of clothing" isn't a protected category.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Simply because something is a law, that doesn't mean it is "right".

And, if I'm correct, the store did not deny her a job because of her religion. The job was denied because of her dress. It is a fine line, and I fully expect the courts to side with the applicant, but "choice of clothing" isn't a protected category.[/QUOTE]

Especially when you take in to account that, as many religious people will tell you, much of what they believe is how they interpret their religious text. So, when a Muslim woman doesn't wear a hijab, it begs the question of what is demanded of of a person from their religion, and what someone reads into it.
 
I really don't know a thing about her religion but from all I can gather, hijab is a requirement of her faith and not a fashion choice.

Also, I finally read the entire article and am even more disgusted. They denied her the job simply because she showed up to the INTERVIEW wearing it. It never even got to the point of her wearing it to work.
You can't possibly defend this.
Granted they probably took into account the headwear would be a permanent thing as it it appears to be with those who wear it. And foresaw it would not comply with dress code.

Still falls under federal religious discrimination laws...And as for that law being "wrong"..Well, I can't say I'm so noble as you are to stand up for the giant corporations and fight against our civil rights.
 
[quote name='HowStern']I really don't know a thing about her religion but from all I can gather, hijab is a requirement of her faith and not a fashion choice.

Also, I finally read the entire article and am even more disgusted. They denied her the job simply because she showed up to the INTERVIEW wearing it. It never even got to the point of her wearing it to work.
You can't possibly defend this.
Granted they probably took into account the headwear would be a permanent thing as it it appears to be with those who wear it. And foresaw it would not comply with dress code.

Still falls under federal religious discrimination laws...And as for that law being "wrong"..Well, I can't say I'm so noble as you are to stand up for the giant corporations and fight against our civil rights.[/QUOTE]

Jolly good post.
 
[quote name='HowStern']lol...Good laughs, thanks. :)

I don't employ people at my home. That's how they are different.

And since they do employ people at said business they must follow employment laws.
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html


It's incredibly simple how come you can't grasp it?[/QUOTE]

Really? You've never hired someone to pour a new driveway? Install new windows ? Maid service? Lawn service? Plumbing? Appliance repair? Keep laughing while you think of a real difference between a a home and a place of business. Bought Girl Scout cookies? Garage sale? It's private property, whether it's a business or a home. The laws may differ, but some that govern private business are unjust, and can't be used as a rationale for their own unjust existence.

Additionally, you had to conduct business with the previous owner of a home or an agent to even purchase the home to begin with. You also nourish and maintain your life in that home in order to distribute a product (your labor) and accept an income in exchange for your labor on a daily basis. How is this diferent than any other business again?

Keep trying and maybe think a little harder on how private business is any different than private residence, morally, conceptually, and not just as entries on a piece of paper. C'mon, it just takes a little more effort than you're used to.
 
You are kind of speaking in absolutes. A majority of the "employment" you are speaking of is handled by companies outside of the home. Landscapers, Girl Scouts and maids are all employed by a company, not your house. If you have a maid off the street, you're probably paying him or her off the books.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Well, I can't say I'm so noble as you are to stand up for the giant corporations and fight against our civil rights.[/QUOTE]

You are certainly very noble, when you look at it from this warped point of view. Maybe try considering another point of view: that you are getting the government involved in simple HR decisions in the workplace, having the government determine what business practices are allowed, when there is no proven discrimination against a group (only against a type of clothing).

As for the hijab, if you do a little research, you'll find that it is a cultural garment and not a religious one per se, like the burkha. Some Muslims wear it, some don't. It's entirely up to the individual as to their interpretation of their own religion.

Let me try another analogy and see if that helps us out here in terms of understanding. I've known devout Mormons who won't drink caffeinated drinks such as Coke or Pepsi. Should Coke be liable for not hiring someone to be in its commercials who refuses to drink a Coke in said commercial due to their religious beliefs? Of course not; it's a requirement of the job. I would certainly respect that person for putting their beliefs above money, which is their right, but don't tell me the government must force a business to make a bad hiring decision because someone's beliefs are not compatible with said business' standard operating procedure.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
As for the hijab, if you do a little research, you'll find that it is a cultural garment and not a religious one per se, like the burkha. Some Muslims wear it, some don't. It's entirely up to the individual as to their interpretation of their own religion.

[/QUOTE]

Clutch argument. This is like a tennis match.
 
[quote name='elprincipe'] As for the hijab, if you do a little research, you'll find that it is a cultural garment and not a religious one per se, like the burkha. Some Muslims wear it, some don't. It's entirely up to the individual as to their interpretation of their own religion.[/QUOTE]

Saying some Muslims wear it and some don't doesn't necessarily equal "up to the individual." Her interpretation is more than likely determined by her family and/or community, and changing it could alienate her from that, depending on the strength of the belief. You (and others in this thread) seem to act like changing your religion is like changing your underpants. I believe it's a bit more complicated than that.

[quote name='elprincipe']Let me try another analogy and see if that helps us out here in terms of understanding. I've known devout Mormons who won't drink caffeinated drinks such as Coke or Pepsi. Should Coke be liable for not hiring someone to be in its commercials who refuses to drink a Coke in said commercial due to their religious beliefs? Of course not; it's a requirement of the job. I would certainly respect that person for putting their beliefs above money, which is their right, but don't tell me the government must force a business to make a bad hiring decision because someone's beliefs are not compatible with said business' standard operating procedure.[/QUOTE]

Another bad analogy. If you're trying to hire somebody to drink coke and someone won't drink coke, well obviously it makes no sense to hire them, they're not going to do what you hired them for. If you're hiring someone to sell clothes and they wear a scarf on their head...well I still don't see why you and others can't see a difference there.

So they have a rule against wearing hats, yippee, I don't understand why you can't see a difference between wearing a scarf for religious reasons and wearing a yankees cap because you feel like it. Again, reasonable accommodations.

I don't hire black people, but it's not because of their race, it's the darkness of their skin, I just don't want to see their skin, all dark and everything, it's messing up my image...

Abercrombie has gotten in trouble before for putting minorities in the stockroom and only white people on the sales floor. But honestly, you, bmull, and others in here would argue against keeping them from doing that or not hiring non-white people at all too, so whatever. If they don't want dark people on their property that's their right! Would you want the government forcing you to let anybody in your house?! IT'S LIKE THE EXACT SAME THING!
 
[quote name='SpazX']If they don't want dark people on their property that's their right! Would you want the government forcing you to let anybody in your house?! IT'S LIKE THE EXACT SAME THING![/QUOTE]

*Finally* someone gets it.

If I have a business that I've dedicated my savings and time to building, then *I* should be the one who gets to make the decisions on who's hired, who's fired and who never gets interviewed. If you don't like it, go start your own business. It's that simple, really.
 
A&F is not discriminating against her religion they are simply saying that one of the results of her religious practice is against the A&F dress code. If they said, "yer a MOOSLIM get outta here!!!", then yes, but just like some Christian pharmacist who won't fill a Plan B prescription, then one needs to either tweak their beliefs or find a new line of profession.

For once I agree with Uncle Bob religion is a choice and if one chooses to practice in a way that is counter to how an employer wants one to speak, dress, or act, then the problem is on the religious person not the business owner.
 
[quote name='gareman']A&F is not discriminating against her religion they are simply saying that one of the results of her religious practice is against the A&F dress code. If they said, "yer a MOOSLIM get outta here!!!", then yes, but just like some Christian pharmacist who won't fill a Plan B prescription, then one needs to either tweak their beliefs or find a new line of profession.[/QUOTE]

There is a difference in degrees here. A head scarf may not be the whitebread image A&F is going for, but wearing it is not going to cause harm. However the radical pharmacist in your example is likely to cause physical harm by denying drugs to patients that must be administered within a certain timeframe to be effective.

One of these is obviously wrong to any rational adult, the other is a matter of debate. Back on topic, I think A&F is an awful store but I also think that any business is entitled to have a dress code that employees must abide by.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']*Finally* someone gets it.[/QUOTE]

Bob, *you* don't get it. He was being facetious. Did you read his whole post?? omg..

If I have a business that I've dedicated my savings and time to building, then *I* should be the one who gets to make the decisions on who's hired, who's fired and who never gets interviewed. If you don't like it, go start your own business. It's that simple, really.
Click to expand...
We used to do this. It didn't work out so well...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='gareman']A&F is not discriminating against her religion they are simply saying that one of the results of her religious practice is against the A&F dress code. If they said, "yer a MOOSLIM get outta here!!!", then yes, but just like some Christian pharmacist who won't fill a Plan B prescription, then one needs to either tweak their beliefs or find a new line of profession.

For once I agree with Uncle Bob religion is a choice and if one chooses to practice in a way that is counter to how an employer wants one to speak, dress, or act, then the problem is on the religious person not the business owner.[/QUOTE]

Ugh, I echo camoor on the pharmacist comparison.

Most of the comparisons in here are so extreme I don't even see how anybody thinks they're analogous.

I know bmull, prince, and bob wouldn't be against discriminating based on gender or race in the first place, but if it's ok to discriminate against someone's religion because it's a choice, maybe a company can hire women and minorities, but they're required to undergo skin bleaching treatments and sex change operations so that they become white men to keep up their image. They'll even pay for it! Does that make it non-discriminatory? I mean, they'll hire any minority or woman who wants to work there, they only require a few simple and free changes to the way they look. They might even technically be reversible in some instances! Maybe if you're light enough or kind of masculine looking you won't even need an operation! Maybe just some fake junk and makeup!

How's that for extreme examples?

Scarf on the head - not a big fucking deal. Dress codes are fine, and I would understand not hiring someone who maybe refuses to wear the name tag or clothing or douche smile or whatever it is that they use to distinguish between employees and customers and kill individuality, but come the fuck on, a headscarf? I don't see how it's an unreasonable accommodation or would so totally fuck up their image that nobody would think it's abercrombie anymore.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Ugh, I echo camoor on the pharmacist comparison.

Most of the comparisons in here are so extreme I don't even see how anybody thinks they're analogous.

I know bmull, prince, and bob wouldn't be against discriminating based on gender or race in the first place, but if it's ok to discriminate against someone's religion because it's a choice, maybe a company can hire women and minorities, but they're required to undergo skin bleaching treatments and sex change operations so that they become white men to keep up their image. They'll even pay for it! Does that make it non-discriminatory? I mean, they'll hire any minority or woman who wants to work there, they only require a few simple and free changes to the way they look. They might even technically be reversible in some instances! Maybe if you're light enough or kind of masculine looking you won't even need an operation! Maybe just some fake junk and makeup!

How's that for extreme examples?

Scarf on the head - not a big fucking deal. Dress codes are fine, and I would understand not hiring someone who maybe refuses to wear the name tag or clothing or douche smile or whatever it is that they use to distinguish between employees and customers and kill individuality, but come the fuck on, a headscarf? I don't see how it's an unreasonable accommodation or would so totally fuck up their image that nobody would think it's abercrombie anymore.[/QUOTE]

The point of my comparison was not to say wearing a headscarf is as damaging to a job as not giving someone a drug they need to not ruin their life, but the point was that if the a religious provision impedes one's ability to serve the function of their job (even if its something as trivial as fashion) then I think a company has every right to not hire someone.

I think your skin and sex change analogy is extreme, although; I see your point that it is the company telling someone they need to change who one is in order to get a job. the thing about religion is that it is based upon faith and faith is by definition irrational, so what is stopping anyone from claiming their religious beliefs stop them from wearing a tie, working on Fridays, or needing a 20 minute break every hour to pray.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Ugh, I echo camoor on the pharmacist comparison.

Most of the comparisons in here are so extreme I don't even see how anybody thinks they're analogous.

I know bmull, prince, and bob wouldn't be against discriminating based on gender or race in the first place, but if it's ok to discriminate against someone's religion because it's a choice, maybe a company can hire women and minorities, but they're required to undergo skin bleaching treatments and sex change operations so that they become white men to keep up their image. They'll even pay for it! Does that make it non-discriminatory? I mean, they'll hire any minority or woman who wants to work there, they only require a few simple and free changes to the way they look. They might even technically be reversible in some instances! Maybe if you're light enough or kind of masculine looking you won't even need an operation! Maybe just some fake junk and makeup!

How's that for extreme examples?

Scarf on the head - not a big fucking deal. Dress codes are fine, and I would understand not hiring someone who maybe refuses to wear the name tag or clothing or douche smile or whatever it is that they use to distinguish between employees and customers and kill individuality, but come the fuck on, a headscarf? I don't see how it's an unreasonable accommodation or would so totally fuck up their image that nobody would think it's abercrombie anymore.[/QUOTE]

The point of my comparison was not to say wearing a headscarf is as damaging to a job as not giving someone a drug they need to not ruin their life, but the point was that if the a religious provision impedes one's ability to serve the function of their job (even if its something as trivial as fashion) then I think a company has every right to not hire someone.

I think your skin and sex change analogy is extreme, although; I see your point that it is the company telling someone they need to change who one is in order to get a job. the thing about religion is that it is based upon faith and faith is by definition irrational, so what is stopping anyone from claiming their religious beliefs stop them from wearing a tie, working on Fridays, or needing a 20 minute break every hour to pray.

It seems to be me, as an Atheist, to discriminate against me. Why does someone get to break the dress code or not work a day or whatever based on something that:

-serves no real world function
-is not rational
-has nothing to do with the natural world
-there are many of other people that could be hired where this wouldn't be a problem.

Also my Girlfriend's sister worked at an A&F for a while, and they view their workers as models not salespeople ( I Know its dumb), but the company wants people that just stand there look pretty smile and look fashionable. If one looks at the job from that paradigm would it be unreasonable for a modeling agency to not hire a Muslim model for a shoot if he/she refused to remove his/her headscarf while getting the shots taken?
 
[quote name='gareman']The point of my comparison was not to say wearing a headscarf is as damaging to a job as not giving someone a drug they need to not ruin their life, but the point was that if the a religious provision impedes one's ability to serve the function of their job (even if its something as trivial as fashion) then I think a company has every right to not hire someone.[/quote]

I think there are reasonable accommodations.

[quote name='gareman']I think your skin and sex change analogy is extreme, although; I see your point that it is the company telling someone they need to change who one is in order to get a job. the thing about religion is that it is based upon faith and faith is by definition irrational, so what is stopping anyone from claiming their religious beliefs stop them from wearing a tie, working on Fridays, or needing a 20 minute break every hour to pray.[/quote]

People are irrational, all of us.

What's stopping them is that you just made those things up. They're not part of a religious tradition. And out of those anyway - not wearing a tie - probably a reasonable accommodation, working on Fridays - reasonable accommodation if there is a way to make up the hours, 20 min break every hour - probably not reasonable, but doable if it was knocked down to a 5 min break or part of it came out of lunch, something like that, you're probably legally required to have reasonable breaks anyway.

You can see that a lot of things can be accommodated for in a reasonable way that doesn't impact the ability to do the job.

[quote name='gareman']It seems to be me, as an Atheist, to discriminate against me. Why does someone get to break the dress code or not work a day or whatever based on something that:

-serves no real world function
-is not rational
-has nothing to do with the natural world
-there are many of other people that could be hired where this wouldn't be a problem.[/quote]

It seems to me, as an atheist, to not be that big of a deal. Most of what we do anyway serves no real purpose and isn't really rational. I don't think that's a legitimate reason to deny all religious accommodations.

It seems very whiny "why does he get to do that!?" to me to complain about such trivial things as a difference in dress because of religion. If there was a situation where not doing a particular thing for religious reasons really mattered then it would be a legitimate reason not to hire someone, but if not then it isn't.


[quote name='gareman']Also my Girlfriend's sister worked at an A&F for a while, and they view their workers as models not salespeople ( I Know its dumb), but the company wants people that just stand there look pretty smile and look fashionable. If one looks at the job from that paradigm would it be unreasonable for a modeling agency to not hire a Muslim model for a shoot if he/she refused to remove his/her headscarf while getting the shots taken?[/QUOTE]

If it's a modeling job, advertised and described as a modeling job, and made clear to the applicants that it's a modeling job where you're going to be given some clothes to wear and a certain way to look so that pictures can be taken of you or something similar, then it's a different job. If it's a retail job selling clothes or pushing buttons on a cash register then it's not a modeling job and I don't see how it's unreasonable to accommodate a headscarf.

It seems Abercrombie has also gotten in trouble in the past for trying to force their employees to buy and wear their clothes. Should they be able to do that? I imagine models don't normally have to buy their own clothes for their shoots...
 
[quote name='SpazX']What's stopping them is that you just made those things up. They're not part of a religious tradition. And out of those anyway - not wearing a tie - probably a reasonable accommodation, working on Fridays - reasonable accommodation if there is a way to make up the hours, 20 min break every hour - probably not reasonable, but doable if it was knocked down to a 5 min break or part of it came out of lunch, something like that, you're probably legally required to have reasonable breaks anyway.

You can see that a lot of things can be accommodated for in a reasonable way that doesn't impact the ability to do the job.[/QUOTE]

I don't want to get totally off-topic but those are not reasonable accommodations.

If the company uniform has a tie, you wear a damn tie. When it comes to uniforms or business attire, putting on more clothes is possibly acceptable depending on the nature of the job and the whims of the boss. Taking off required clothes is not.

If everybody needs to do shift work or the project requires a dedicated on-site team effort, why is it reasonable if one employee gets to skip out on a set day every week or a set time every day - just because he belongs to a certain religion? If the boss wants to put up with it then that's their decision, but noone should be able to demand that it's reasonable they not pull their own weight.

Five minute breaks every hour - I can see where this could be a problem too. For example, somebody steals your wallet, are you really going to be happy that the cop on the beat is on his five minute break?
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't want to get totally off-topic but those are not reasonable accommodations.

If the company uniform has a tie, you wear a damn tie. When it comes to uniforms or business attire, putting on more clothes is possibly acceptable depending on the nature of the job and the whims of the boss. Taking off required clothes is not.

If everybody needs to do shift work or the project requires a dedicated on-site team effort, why is it reasonable if one employee gets to skip out on a set day every week or a set time every day - just because he belongs to a certain religion? If the boss wants to put up with it then that's their decision, but noone should be able to demand that it's reasonable they not pull their own weight.

Five minute breaks every hour - I can see where this could be a problem too. For example, somebody steals your wallet, are you really going to be happy that the cop on the beat is on his five minute break?[/QUOTE]

AND WHAT IF THE DOCTOR GOES ON BREAK WHILE TRYING TO RESTART YOUR HEART AND YOU DIE!

Jesus, did you try to misunderstand what I was saying?

Obviously not every job can make the same accommodations. That's why I said what matters is whether or not it actually affects the job. Dress code would be one of the least important things 90% of the time. Who the fuck cares if some dude in a cubicle wears a tie? Nobody does, it's an arbitrary rule and that company isn't going to collapse because of it, so if there was some religion that somebody belonged to where you can't wear a tie (which afaik does not exist), then it seems like a reasonable accommodation to let them not do that, and completely unreasonable to not hire someone based simply on that.

Christ.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't want to get totally off-topic but those are not reasonable accommodations.

If the company uniform has a tie, you wear a damn tie. When it comes to uniforms or business attire, putting on more clothes is possibly acceptable depending on the nature of the job and the whims of the boss. Taking off required clothes is not.

If everybody needs to do shift work or the project requires a dedicated on-site team effort, why is it reasonable if one employee gets to skip out on a set day every week or a set time every day - just because he belongs to a certain religion? If the boss wants to put up with it then that's their decision, but noone should be able to demand that it's reasonable they not pull their own weight.

Five minute breaks every hour - I can see where this could be a problem too. For example, somebody steals your wallet, are you really going to be happy that the cop on the beat is on his five minute break?[/QUOTE]

Right. The eeoc says that accomodations for religious reasons are mandatory unless the accomodation imposes "undue hardship" on the company.

I don't believe putting extra clothes (a scarf) over required dress is an undue hardship. That will be argued at the trial, no doubt.

Bob, prince, Bmul, and some others, don't believe this right is fair to the corporations/businesses. But their analogies are so extreme that I don't think they understand the line where "undue hardship" starts and ends.

The real reason the EEO laws are important is because what actually happened. The girl was denied the job because she showed up to the interview wearing a scarf. Not because she wanted to wear it during her work hours.

Those arguing against the EEO laws seem to forget the newspapers help wanted ads that used to read "Jews need not apply" or the way the Irish came here starving only to be denied work, and that the whole country is made up of immigrants and yet they were all shunned for being immigrants.

Finally we have some civil rights to make some sensible guidelines, And I think they are fair laws, with "undue hardship" being a fairly easy thing to define.
 
[quote name='SpazX']
I don't hire black people, but it's not because of their race, it's the darkness of their skin, I just don't want to see their skin, all dark and everything, it's messing up my image...[/QUOTE]

Show of hands, who here chose their skin color?
 
[quote name='rabbitt']Show of hands, who here chose their skin color?[/QUOTE]

Oh right, she probably chose her religion. I remember when I was born and given a selection of religions to choose from and I picked one. But afterall, she could just switch if she wanted to! I mean c'mon, it's not like religions involve community and family ties or deeply held beliefs!

You can change your skin color too, though it probably requires some upkeep. I don't think skin color should be used as a basis of discrimination when it can be changed.
 
[quote name='seanr1221']She's an adult, not a child.[/QUOTE]

I agree. 19 years old according to the article.
 
[quote name='SpazX']AND WHAT IF THE DOCTOR GOES ON BREAK WHILE TRYING TO RESTART YOUR HEART AND YOU DIE!

Jesus, did you try to misunderstand what I was saying?

Obviously not every job can make the same accommodations. That's why I said what matters is whether or not it actually affects the job. Dress code would be one of the least important things 90% of the time. Who the fuck cares if some dude in a cubicle wears a tie? Nobody does, it's an arbitrary rule and that company isn't going to collapse because of it, so if there was some religion that somebody belonged to where you can't wear a tie (which afaik does not exist), then it seems like a reasonable accommodation to let them not do that, and completely unreasonable to not hire someone based simply on that.

Christ.[/QUOTE]

The problem is that you don't seem to have much business experience so it is hard to explain how the business world works. The cop thing was something so basic I thought anyone could understand. But you have no idea how maddening it is to work with a unionized employee in a key position who, right in the middle of a challenging assignment with hard deadlines, puts out their lights and packs up their briefcase because the clock just went from 4:59pm to 5:00pm. I would be just as put out if they did it for religious reasons (need to get home by sundown, can't work sabbath, etc). To me it wouldn't matter - allowing this behavior can have a profoundly negative effect on business and morale.

These things may seem small to you but they can have a profound effect on the operation of a business. Allow someone to ditch the tie, eventually someone else stops shaving, someone else wears black sneakers, and when confronted they'll all start whining about the arbitrary nature of uniform rules and how they sort of comply too - until pretty soon your workforce is a whiny bunch of slobs. From experience uniforms and business attire really is a slippery slope affair - you either have it or you don't.

I don't want to live in a country where opportunists and lawyers can sink their claws deeper into the meat of companies facing big lawsuits over clashes with the minutae of religious dogma that ends up having a big affect on the bottom line. I'm not as worried about the big corpos with their armies of high-priced attorneys, but I am concerned for the small corporations who will get further sqeezed by opportunists and their slick ambulance chasers looking to make a buck off of quick-to-settlement religious discrimination cases.

Noone is saying that it would be ok for Wal-Martians to enforce a policy of worshipping Christ or for Ben&Jerry's to only hire communist athiests. I just ask that in the modern industrialized world can we please free business from cowtowing to the minutae of religious dogma. Last I saw we're not governed by the Ten Commanments or Sharia.

[quote name='HowStern']Right. The eeoc says that accomodations for religious reasons are mandatory unless the accomodation imposes "undue hardship" on the company.

I don't believe putting extra clothes (a scarf) over required dress is an undue hardship. That will be argued at the trial, no doubt.

Bob, prince, Bmul, and some others, don't believe this right is fair to the corporations/businesses. But their analogies are so extreme that I don't think they understand the line where "undue hardship" starts and ends.

The real reason the EEO laws are important is because what actually happened. The girl was denied the job because she showed up to the interview wearing a scarf. Not because she wanted to wear it during her work hours.

Those arguing against the EEO laws seem to forget the newspapers help wanted ads that used to read "Jews need not apply" or the way the Irish came here starving only to be denied work, and that the whole country is made up of immigrants and yet they were all shunned for being immigrants.

Finally we have some civil rights to make some sensible guidelines, And I think they are fair laws, with "undue hardship" being a fairly easy thing to define.[/QUOTE]

Right in this case A&F acted in a ridiculous and possibly illegal fashion. Which is why I said I was going slightly off-topic.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Bob, *you* don't get it. He was being facetious. Did you read his whole post?? omg..[/QUOTE]

Sarcasm doesn't travel well over the internet. My post was intended to be partially sarcastic.


[quote name='SpazX']Scarf on the head - not a big fucking deal.[/QUOTE]

You're right. A scarf isn't a big deal. Totally agree with you there.

Wonder why this girl is suing over it.

[quote name='HowStern']Bob, prince, Bmul, and some others, don't believe this right is fair to the corporations/businesses. But their analogies are so extreme that I don't think they understand the line where "undue hardship" starts and ends.[/quote]

I haven't really made any analogies on this one, have I? My point is that the owners of a business should have the right to make the decisions on who they want to trust the future of their business with based on whatever crazy criteria they want.

The girl was denied the job because she showed up to the interview wearing a scarf.
Click to expand...

So, here's a question. Let's say applicants come in for an interview. The boss looks at them - and since A&F is a business about "fashion", they only want to hire people who seem to have good taste in fashion. So, someone shows up in ratty jeans and a white t-shirt, no job for you. Someone shows up in pajamas, no job for you. Let's say, for a moment, that's what happened here. Let's pretend the person doing the interviews saw this individual and, because of the way she was dressed - including her scarf - with no knowledge of her religious choices - thought "Wow, did this person get dressed in the dark this morning?" and sent the applicant on her merry way. Would that be okay?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Abercrombie has gotten in trouble before for putting minorities in the stockroom and only white people on the sales floor. But honestly, you, bmull, and others in here would argue against keeping them from doing that or not hiring non-white people at all too, so whatever. If they don't want dark people on their property that's their right! Would you want the government forcing you to let anybody in your house?! IT'S LIKE THE EXACT SAME THING![/QUOTE]

It's pretty low to pull the "racism" card just because you disagree with me. But you're the second person just in this thread to do so. Quite frankly, such false accusations and rank stupidity disgust me.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']It's pretty low to pull the "racism" card just because you disagree with me. But you're the second person just in this thread to do so. Quite frankly, such false accusations and rank stupidity disgust me.[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying you're racist, I'm saying you think it's fine to discriminate against minorities (and women, I said that too somewhere) in hiring. That it's the right of the person who owns the business to discriminate against whomever they please.

And Bob - I thought your response was sarcastic and his response to you was sarcastic as well...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']

You're right. A scarf isn't a big deal. Totally agree with you there.

Wonder why this girl is suing over it.

[/QUOTE]

Again showing you clearly don't get it. It' just a scarf to the company it's a job she was religiously dicriminated against being hired for to her.

It's very poor showing when you have to explain what you are debating about to the person you are debating with,
 
[quote name='HowStern']Again showing you clearly don't get it. It' just a scarf to the company it's a job she was religiously dicriminated against being hired for to her.

It's very poor showing when you have to explain what you are debating about to the person you are debating with,[/QUOTE]

Except the part where she likely wasn't discriminated because of her religion, she was discriminated against because of her choice in fashion. Don't forget that part.
 
Was she guaranteed a job at the beginning, or is she just whining about not being given an interview because of her dress?

(and yes, this is a real question)
 
@troy the person who interviewed her told an employee at the store whom the girl was friends with that the girl was denied the job because she had muslim head dress on. So, the friend told the girl (can't believe the manager didn't see that coming lol..)


@Bob, except hijab isn't a choice in fashion it's a religious requirement. Don't forget that part.
 
[quote name='HowStern']@troy the person who interviewed her told an employee at the store whom the girl was friends with that the girl was denied the job because she had muslim head dress on. So, the friend told the girl (can't believe the manager didn't see that coming lol..)
[/QUOTE]

Thank you.
 
[quote name='HowStern']@Bob, except hijab isn't a choice in fashion it's a religious requirement. Don't forget that part.[/QUOTE]

Wearing a hijab is not a religious requirement - it is a choice. Witness the multitude of modern muslim women that do not wear a hijab (historically its use was even more spotty, where do you guys think belly dancers come from)

IMO this case is more about religious dogma then religion. That is not an insignificant distinction.

For example - if Microsoft did not hire a devout Amish person due to concerns about whether he could do the job, we would not be saying that they discriminate against Christians.

I understand the headscarf/fashion issue is a great deal more in the gray area, especially since we don't even know whether it would be worn on the job. That having been said, being that I am not a fashion industry expert I do not feel entitled to overrule A&F management's dress policy for A&F workers.
 
[quote name='HowStern']@camoor, you're mistaken. Hijab actually is an obligation to traditional followers of the Qur'an. Not choice.

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...nglish-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaEAskTheScholar

Here's another good link
http://www.islam101.com/women/hijabfaq.html

That one talks about hijab in the workplace.[/QUOTE]

Tell the truth, are you part of the Saudi Arabian Sharia police? I only ask because I didn't know you were such an Islamic authority figure, all from reading two random posts on the web. While we're at it, you want to tell my female friends who don't wear hijabs that they aren't Muslims?

Here's another one for you to ponder:
http://www.islamfortoday.com/syed01.htm
 
That's a good article, camoor, but nothing in it contradicts anything I have posted. It offers a couple other views that it admits are debatable.

This part
Semantically and legally, that is, regarding both the terms and also the parameters of its application, Islamic interpretation extended the concept of hijab. In scripturalist method, this was achieved in several ways. Firstly, the hijab was associated with two of the Qur'an's "clothing laws" imposed upon all Muslim females: the "mantle" verse of 33:59 and the "modesty" verse of 24:31. On the one hand, the semantic association of domestic segregation (hijab) with garments to be worn in public (jilbab, khimar) resulted in the use of the term hijab for concealing garments that women wore outside of their houses. This language use is fully documented in the medireview Hadith. However, unlike female garments such as jilbab, lihaf, milhafa, izar, dir' (traditional garments for the body), khimar, niqab, burqu', qina', miqna'a (traditional garments for the head and neck) and also a large number of other articles of clothing, the medireview meaning of hijab remained conceptual and generic. In their debates on which parts of the woman's body, if any, are not "awra" (literally, "genital," "pudendum") and many therefore be legally exposed to nonrelatives, the medireview scholars often contrastively paired woman's' awra with this generic hijab. This permitted the debate to remain conceptual rather than get bogged down in the specifics of articles of clothing whose meaning, in any case, was prone to changes both geographic/regional and also chronological. At present we know very little about the precise stages of the process by which the hijab in its multiple meanings was made obligatory for Muslim women at large, except to say that these occurred during the first centuries after the expansion of Islam beyond the borders of Arabia, and then mainly in the Islamicized societies still ruled by preexisting (Sasanian and Byzantine) social traditions.
Click to expand...


outright states the garment is law of the religion. Only to be genericized by later interpretation.

The article states it is up to the conscience of the wearer to decide if she fits within the parameters of being required to wear it. Not so much that she can just plain out decide to wear it or not.

So, either your female friends who disregard the garments have concluded they are exempt or they are practicing the religion similar in fashion to christians who still have sex before marriage, etc.

edit: I also never claimed to be an expert, in fact, I flat out said I know little. I'm only going by what I have read in the links you and I have provided.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='SpazX']Oh right, she probably chose her religion. I remember when I was born and given a selection of religions to choose from and I picked one. But afterall, she could just switch if she wanted to! I mean c'mon, it's not like religions involve community and family ties or deeply held beliefs!

You can change your skin color too, though it probably requires some upkeep. I don't think skin color should be used as a basis of discrimination when it can be changed.[/QUOTE]

Probably, her parents raised her Muslim, but she's an adult now and quite capable of making her own decisions. Why act like she's too stupid to think for herself? Of course, if she were to commit apostasy in a Middle Eastern country, she'd be killed for it.

You have a genetic disposition to skin color. While some people seem to be more susceptible to being religious, there is no coding for any specific religion.

You are born with a particular skin color and religion is a choice. Your argument reeks of fatuity.
 
What does her being old enough to cycle her chosen religion anew have anything to do with anything?

Even if she did choose this religion she is free to do so. Are you claiming she is dumb for practicing a faith that may have cost her a minimum wage retail job despite the fact she's federally protected from being discriminated against?
 
He made the inane argument that religion was as much a choice to us as our skin color. I cannot believe I am actually debating this with someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top