Chain To Get Sued Over Headgear

[quote name='rabbitt']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.[/QUOTE]

You're born with a particular skin color and most likely born with a religion. Saying "she's an adult" so her religion is a choice shows a pretty gross misunderstanding of religion, how it works, and even how people work - like I said before, some people in here act like changing your religion is like changing your underpants. You don't need a gun to your head to not have a free choice and there are many things tied to one's religion.

And genetics are irrelevant, your argument is based solely on "choice" and there are many things you can choose to change - your skin color, your gender/sex, your religion, your social class, with varying levels of success. Hell, maybe you can even change your sexual orientation, or at least fake it. So we shouldn't have any laws at all about discrimination, since pretty much everything we use as a basis can be changed in some fashion by choice. Nothing matters if it's a choice, so discriminate away, if somebody doesn't like it, then they should choose to change.
 
[quote name='HowStern']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?[/QUOTE]

Well said.

It makes me irrate that people would have any issue with this in a country FOUNDED ON religious freedom, freedom of expression etc.

Again, people are selfish shit stains who only care about rights when it affects them.
 
[quote name='HowStern']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?[/QUOTE]

I do not think it has been even slightly proven that her faith was discriminated against. It's a remote possibility, but I put it below a long list of factors, first of which is her choice of head garment.

What she is wearing on her head is a matter of religious dogma, IE the articles of faith that are held as absolute truths without need for proof. Sometimes backwards reasoning is applied to dogma but it's akin to creationists trying to use reason to bolster the story of Adam and Eve. For dogmatists it really doesn't matter if you can prove their beliefs/practices to be untrue or harmful because reason is negated by what is written in

There is a long tradition, even in Abrahamic faiths, of dogmatic beliefs frequently being debated, and when they are deemed to be useless or harmful, marginalized (at least among the philosophers and critical thinkers). Witness the millions of Christians who eat shellfish in the modern world.

Noone is talking about her religion - as Thomas Jefferson said

"It does me no harm for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
- Thomas Jefferson

No true American objects to protecting your right to say there is one god or twenty, from the founding fathers onward. But when your religious practices, when your dogmatic beliefs and adherance to anachronistic minutiae affect the bottom line, I think business owners are well within their rights to evaluate whether you can effectively do the job they are hiring for.
 
[quote name='camoor']
No true American objects to protecting your right to say there is one god or twenty, from the founding fathers onward. But when your religious practices, when your dogmatic beliefs and adherance to anachronistic minutiae affect the bottom line, I think business owners are well within their rights to evaluate whether you can effectively do the job they are hiring for.[/QUOTE]

I fail to see how wearing a head scarf would affect the bottom line. Keep racists/ethnocentrists from shopping there?

It doesn't affect her ability to do the job. There's more of a case to be made for say not hiring someone who can't touch pork to work in a pig slaughter house as they simply can't do the job.

In any case, the constitutional protections against discrimination in employment would clearly cover something like that as the scarf must be warn per her beliefs. So it would take changing that amendment to not cover such cases for the store to be able to fire/not hire people for refusing to take off the scarf.
 
[quote name='SpazX']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.[/QUOTE]

What's the difference between that and being a racist? And please show me where I said anything that would indicate I am in favor of the ability to discriminate against minorities and women in hiring (or any other place for that matter). I'll be waiting a long time since I never said that, but somehow you got it in your head or just like to slander someone who disagrees with you.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I fail to see how wearing a head scarf would affect the bottom line. Keep racists/ethnocentrists from shopping there?

It doesn't affect her ability to do the job. There's more of a case to be made for say not hiring someone who can't touch pork to work in a pig slaughter house as they simply can't do the job.

In any case, the constitutional protections against discrimination in employment would clearly cover something like that as the scarf must be warn per her beliefs. So it would take changing that amendment to not cover such cases for the store to be able to fire/not hire people for refusing to take off the scarf.[/QUOTE]

It's a good question, a fair question. I agree with you, personally I also think that A&F should not let it affect their hiring decision. I can't see how it would affect sales either. That said, I'm not really informed or invested, therefore is it fair for me to force their hand?

Let me also say that A&F is a horrible company and I don't know why anyone would want to work or shop there.

I have to question why a Muslim woman, who is so conservative that she wears a Hajib, would want to work at A&F in the first place. They don't embody any Muslim ideals.
 
I'd like to point out, in case anyone is missing this: There is a *HUGE* difference between saying "A private company should discriminate in their hiring practices." and "A private company should be allowed to discriminate in their hiring practices."
 
[quote name='camoor']I have to question why a Muslim woman, who is so conservative that she wears a Hajib, would want to work at A&F in the first place. They don't embody any Muslim ideals.[/QUOTE]

Because faith doesn't put food on the table. With nearly 10% unemployment, people will even do the jobs they used to hire Mexicans for.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Because faith doesn't put food on the table. With nearly 10% unemployment, people will even do the jobs they used to hire Mexicans for.[/QUOTE]

I guess. Kind of seems arbitrary though, doesn't it?

I mean, this woman is so hardcore Muslim that she can't show her neck, but wants a job selling sleazy clothes so badly that she's willing to sue? (need I remind everyone this is an operation that sells underwear to girls that say wink wink)

I guess I'm not so worried about what happens in the case, but I would be concerned about the precedent. What's next - I order a pork burrito at Chipotle and have to wait for the Catholic to come out and make my order?
 
camoor,she never said she wouldn't show her neck. She just wore the scarf to the interview and was denied the job because of it.

You are making things up now to support your argument. She never said she wouldn't take it off.
 
[quote name='HowStern']camoor,she never said she wouldn't show her neck. She just wore the scarf to the interview and was denied the job because of it.

You are making things up now to support your argument. She never said she wouldn't take it off.[/QUOTE]

I do think it was unfair to deny her a job based on wearing the scarf during just the interview. However; I can completely see why they would hire someone over because of the issue of the scarf would be more trouble than it worth. It's just like when I pierced my lip when I was 16, I didn't like that some people wouldn't hire me just because I had a lip ring, but I understood those who thought hire someone who had to put a band aid on their lip or take the ring out every time they came to work would be more trouble than is needed for a 5.50 an hour job.

My point is they aren't discriminating against her based on her religion they are thinking that one of her religious practices is not practical for the position of which she applied for.
 
[quote name='HowStern']camoor,she never said she wouldn't show her neck. She just wore the scarf to the interview and was denied the job because of it.

You are making things up now to support your argument. She never said she wouldn't take it off.[/QUOTE]

Well I think that's it. There really isn't much more that can be said. What I think is a reasonable assumption you call into question, and without more facts I think this thread is cooked.
 
I guess hypothetically you could say they denied her the job because they foresaw her/assumed she would be needing to wear the head dress permanently and that would go against their "look policy." For the sake of argument. But I'm definitely bored with this topic :p I would agree it's cooked. It's going in circles at this point.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']What's the difference between that and being a racist? And please show me where I said anything that would indicate I am in favor of the ability to discriminate against minorities and women in hiring (or any other place for that matter). I'll be waiting a long time since I never said that, but somehow you got it in your head or just like to slander someone who disagrees with you.[/QUOTE]

Well I guess the difference would be between being racist and having the ability to be racist without any regulation by law.

Perhaps it was only Bob and bmull that explicitly support that sort of thing, I apologize if I lumped you in with them unfairly.

And for the scarf/why would she work for AF question - just because she wears a headscarf that doesn't make her a hardcore fundamentalist or something. It's not that black and white.
 
If you're desperate for cash and you don't want to be a drug mule, stripper, or "actress", then you fill out a bunch of applications in the hope of getting a couple interviews. It doesn't matter where as long as you can get a couple hours in and make a little money.

I'm sure she was apprehensive about filling out the app, but money concerns always trump those feelings. She might have a baby. Who knows but we do know she wasn't sitting on the couch looking for a handout.
 
[quote name='depascal22']If you're desperate for cash and you don't want to be a drug mule, stripper, or "actress", then you fill out a bunch of applications in the hope of getting a couple interviews. It doesn't matter where as long as you can get a couple hours in and make a little money.

I'm sure she was apprehensive about filling out the app, but money concerns always trump those feelings. She might have a baby. Who knows but we do know she wasn't sitting on the couch looking for a handout.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I don't know. A&F isn't a strip joint but it sure rivals one in terms of sleaziness. It's kind of like the "Hooters" of clothing stores.

I think the whole problem comes in with the implicit dress code, the unwritten understanding that A&F sales reps should look like they just came out of one of A&F's sleazy ads. Heck though, it could have just been what the lady alleges, it could have been. I can't say, I don't have even half the facts.

I don't know how they're going to argue it in court. Maybe show some MadTV sketches. Who am I kidding, she's in it for the fat settlement check.
 
[quote name='HowStern']The greasy thing is that it's not a dress code. It's what they call a "look policy."

Check this out

http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2009/06/beware_the_look

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/24/business/main5109462.shtml

Here's another.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EPF/is_3_103/ai_108441530/
[/QUOTE]

The weird thing is that I see ppl of all types wearing A&F. I don't get that. Is it that these cases never seem to get media traction? I remember hearing about at least a few of them in mass media (the offensive Chinese shirt comes to mind)
 
[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 love how the principle of private property is now an extremist viewpoint. I'm also curious to know where the line is drawn for acceptable criteria for employment. You may describe the legaleese all you want. The laws state we are not allowed to discriminate according to certain principles, but my argument is that these types of laws are the real injustice.

If I showed up for an interview with a bone through my nose because my religion requires it, can I be discriminated against ? It's more viscerally obtrusive than a scarf, but no less legitimate. Let's say I just wear it because the chicks dig it. Why is a religious requirement any more of a valid reason for mandatory non-discrimination than my own personal preference for the way I present myself? Why is "god's law" getting this special treatment over my right to my own property as a business owner?

Now let's turn the tables around completely. My name is really Hassim and I own The Turkish Coffee Shop. I would like to hire only muslim women as waitstaff because it's important to me to only do business with those of my faith whom I consider more pure - and I have an inherent distrust of the non-believers. Now does my right to private property supersede the right of the tatooed teenager applying for a job at my cafe?

I say it does. It's my restaurant and I should be allowed to hire whomever I see fit. All the arguments about whether the scarf wearing girl chooses to be religious or not, or chooses her skin color, or chooses her lifestyle are moot. The issue is who holds the rights to a job created by an individual person, using his own effort and taking his own risk. Is it the person applying for the job or should it be the person who created the job? I say the person who created it holds those rights, and no one gets to make a claim on his property.

All you leftists who think you're liberals and want to demand a right to privacy from the government should take a good look at the underlying principles of all types of anti-discrimination laws. Allowing the State, or the "people" to have such claims on property invalidates the concept of private property. They may make people feel good thinking it makes things equal for everyone, but in essence, these laws hurt all people by destroying our core ideal - individual freedom.

There is no freedom without private property, there is only allowance.
 
Your argument holds no water because the majority of businesses don't own the property they're on.

Do you think AF owns every single mall they do business in? In fact, they don't own a single part of ANY of the mall they're in. Hell, they rent space in the building their headquarters is in.

They pay rent to the mall in exchange for space and customers that are looking to shop and not just walk from one block to the next. The mall operators also expect that businesses will comply with local laws and regulations.

Again, we wouldn't have any need for anti-discrimination laws if business owners of the past would've hired blacks, Jews, Italians, Irishmen, or any other minority with little to no power. I love how you bitch about how things are now with no recognition for the reason the laws are in the books in the first place.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Your argument holds no water because the majority of businesses don't own the property they're on.

Do you think AF owns every single mall they do business in? In fact, they don't own a single part of ANY of the mall they're in. Hell, they rent space in the building their headquarters is in.[/QUOTE]

If the owner of the property wants to rent the property to a third party, then the decisions of how that property is going to be used should be decided between those two.

If I'm renting an apartment, my landlord should be able to tell me "no pets". The government should not. If I disagree with this rule, I can discuss it with the landlord (higher security deposit? specified type of pet? Spay/Neuter?) or find property where the owner is okay with my plans for it.
 
The business still doesn't own the property. bmull's entire argument was that businesses can do what they want since they're on private property.

This isn't about pets. It's about a business' supposed right to discriminate because they're a private insitution on private property. Since the property isn't truly private, it holds no water.

Here's an example. I can put up a no trespassing sign on a residential property that I own. If I zone that land commercially, I can't. Why? Because in exchange for lower property tax, I agree to open my land up to complete strangers for the intent of doing business. I also agree to follow all laws when it comes to hiring.

So yes, companies can hire whomever they want to but they'd have to pay higher taxes. I don't think AF rezoned that specific piece of the mall to beconsidered a private club or institution did they?

EDIT -- The government can tell you that you can't smoke in your apartment. Why? The landlord pays less taxes if it's an apartment building in excange for losing some property rights.

This doesn't apply to single family dwellings or duplexes since there's no worry about blue clouds of smoke lingering in the halls after you open your door.
 
[quote name='depascal22']The business still doesn't own the property. bmull's entire argument was that businesses can do what they want since they're on private property.

This isn't about pets. It's about a business' supposed right to discriminate because they're a private insitution on private property. Since the property isn't truly private, it holds no water.[/quote]

Private property is not encompassed by the parcel of land you are standing on or doing business on. It's still owned by a private individual or group of individuals if it's not owned by the State. It is not "public" property. Signing a lease with the property owner may include specific use rights that the "public" has no business to interfere. If you want to argue that because it's zoned by the local municipality it "becomes" public, I beg to differ with you - it doesn't. It's merely subject to a different set of laws - the unjust laws we are discussing here.


Here's an example. I can put up a no trespassing sign on a residential property that I own. If I zone that land commercially, I can't. Why? Because in exchange for lower property tax, I agree to open my land up to complete strangers for the intent of doing business. I also agree to follow all laws when it comes to hiring.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you live but I can factually say that zoned commercial properties are freely allowed to post "No Trespassing" signs. Hell, even "Public" parks post them and state hours of operation. And wherever YOU reside must have a booming business community because it's probably the only municipality in existence that charges LOWER taxes for commercial than residential. That really made me chuckle. You must not have ever paid a property tax or sewer bill for a business in your life. And, from your following statement, you've never owned a rental property either if you think landlords pay less tax than a single residence homestead owner.

So yes, companies can hire whomever they want to but they'd have to pay higher taxes. I don't think AF rezoned that specific piece of the mall to be considered a private club or institution did they?

EDIT -- The government can tell you that you can't smoke in your apartment. Why? The landlord pays less taxes if it's an apartment building in excange for losing some property rights.

This doesn't apply to single family dwellings or duplexes since there's no worry about blue clouds of smoke lingering in the halls after you open your door.
Click to expand...

You can't get more wrong than that. So wrong, in fact, I think you're just making shit up off the top of your head. Not only are you wrong about the tax structure, the REASON the government can tell you not to smoke in your apartment is because of the existence of these types of "anti-discrimination" and "public good" laws that encroach on an individuals right to his own life and property.
 
I know this isn't very topical but every time I hear bmulligan speak I think of Andrew Ryan from Bioshock. Eerily similar, right down to the tone of his speech.
 
I owned a business and got significant tax breaks on my operating expenses. My taxes as a business owner were significantly lower that they would've been as a landowner.

And apartment owners (with more than four units) do pay less taxes. The actual rate is exactly the same. X% of land and building's value = tax rate. Here's the caveat. Apartment owners get significant tax breaks on water, electricity, and any other expense that's considered a business expense. With a good accountant/bookkeeper, landlords can and should pay less than single homestead owners. I've helped family out with apartment buildings and actually seen how many breaks my grandfather got on taxes but I guess that didn't count at all. Real experience never trumps some shit pulled out of bmull's omnipotent ass.

You also get tax breaks when you qualify as low income housing. You can get tax breaks for many things if you put the effort in.

I guess it's easier to spout shit when you've never owned a business.

And I'm not talking about operating business hours, I'm talking about a straight no trespassing sign. Ever seen a no trespassing sign at AF? I've never seen one. I think you know the difference between a business' posted operating hours and a private owner's no trespassing sign.

And you keep saying that the laws are unjust. They were put in place to replace unjust hiring practices and would never have been enacted if white business owners hired minorities and when they did, paid them a fair wage.

EDIT -- I guess in the end, you're just gonna sit there like a pompous ass and completely dismiss any real experience I have with owning or operating businesses so I'll just drop it and say you're right bmull. You're always right.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I owned a business and got significant tax breaks on my operating expenses. My taxes as a business owner were significantly lower that they would've been as a landowner....

I guess in the end, you're just gonna sit there like a pompous ass and completely dismiss any real experience I have with owning or operating businesses so I'll just drop it and say you're right bmull. You're always right.[/QUOTE]

Your business experience sounds tenuous, at best. Your grandfather owning an apartment building doesn't mean squat for business experience to me when you're the one whose never had to pay the county tax on a business.

You're speaking about a tax "breaks" on business operating expenses and it is a misnomer. Yes, you get to subtract them from your income as expenditures. You are not receiving money rebates for paying your bills. You still have to pay the out of pocket costs which costs you money. You keep speaking of this as if businesses get a discount on their electric bill because they are a business. This is the complete opposite of the truth. Because you are oblivious to the reality of the situation, it wouldn't be honest to refer to your ignorance as a lie. Your business "tax break" isn't any more egregious than the $5000 dependent deduction, or the mortgage interest deduction, or the standard deduction a typical homeowner would take off of his income when filing his Federal taxes. In fact, business owners don't get half the tax breaks homeowners do for having a "homestead".

And in 99% of municipalities, those expenses, like electricity, sewer, water, gas, and county property taxes are significantly higher than what a typical resident would pay for owning a similar parcel of land with a real development. They're usually referred to as equivalencies. For example: a typical party store owner on a 1/16 acre downtown parcel would pay, on average, 3 equivalencies in sewer charges compared to a residence (which pays an equivalency of 1 for their sewer service every quarter). Even though there's no one living at the property, and it uses much less service than a house with two parents and two teenagers, they are effectively subsidizing the cost of sewer rates for the residents that live near them in that municipality - by sometimes paying triple the normal rate. For you to be oblivious to this makes the shit coming out of my pompous ass taste like apple fucking pie compared to your shit-sandwich business experience.
. You should just stick to endeavors that you know best: calling people racists and greedy selfish bastards.

Unless you're freaking Wal-mart and you can make a deal with an entire State for a tax break, you ain't getting one as a business owner. And 95% of all business owners aren't big like Wal-Mart. They're small, privately owned businesses. Some of them even rent buildings and post no trespassing signs. Isn't it funny that even if you break into a building without one posted, they'll still charge you with trespassing? Mmmmmm. Think about that one for a couple hours and it might hit you as to why they can do that.
 
It's funny. I see businesses with signs that say "Employees Only" on areas within the building or on entire buildings. This is virtually a "No Trespassing Sign" (Both signs are intended to keep unauthorized persons away).

And, this was years ago, but my mother ran a retail craft store out of our home when I was younger. Had to get special zoning done and had to pay more in taxes. Sewage was one of them that went up due to the "commercial zoning". Which is funny, since we had no public restrooms and thus had nothing to increase our sewer usage.
 
Yes, this is why Depscals "experience" in running a business was probably akin to changing lightbulbs. Hell, I'd have a little more credence in the claim if he did something like switch out an air-conditioner coil or something. Maybe even made payroll once or twice, or found a way to achieve all his management goals while keeping labor at 12% for the month and material costs under 18%. Or maybe bringing the building up to code for inspection, struck a credit deal with his material supplier, or negotiated a long term contract with a client.

Something tells me he never had to write out that quarterly check to Uncle Sam's Treasury and home state or commonwealth every January, April, June, and September 15th either. Boy, those business guys have it easy. They get all the breaks and are livin' large on the public dole.

But, hey, that's just me making shit up and blasting it out of my ass and all...
 
[quote name='bmulligan']But, hey, that's just me making shit up and blasting it out of my ass and all...[/QUOTE]

Yeah, you should stop doing that. It makes you look bad... You should try for the method of "insult those who don't agree with you until they leave or you get modded." Seems to work for a lot of folks around here.
 
Not sure if we ever capped the head scarf doubt, but here it is in the NYTimes:

[quote name='nyt']Egypt’s top Islamic cleric, Muhammad Sayed Tantawi, is planning to bar students wearing a face veil from entering the schools of Al Azhar, Sunni Islam’s premier educational institution, according to an independent newspaper, Al Masry al-Youm. A security official also confirmed that the police had orders to bar girls covered from head to toe from entering Al Azhar’s institutions, including middle and high schools, as well as the dormitories of several Cairo universities. The moves appear to be part of a government crackdown on increasingly overt manifestations of ultraconservative Islam in Egypt. There is no uniform opinion across the Muslim world about whether a head scarf is required. But in a recent school visit, Sheik Tantawi said the veil “has nothing to do with Islam,” the paper said.[/quote]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world/middleeast/06briefs-Egypt2.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=egypt&st=cse
 
A security official also confirmed that the police had orders to bar girls covered from head to toe from entering Al Azhar’s institutions...
Click to expand...

I can see the rationale for this policy in a school type setting. I'm not sure how it applies to some retail chain in the US not hiring people who wear headscarfs, but I digress.

No one likes to be discriminated against. I agree it's a shitty thing to not be accepted for who you are, what you look like, or where you come from. The world would be a better place if we all judged people according to their philosophies, and not their hair color, I agree.

Yes, I think it's a dick move to deny a girl a job interview because she wears a headscarf. They're missing out on a marketing avenue here, especially with a burgeoning worldwide middleclass/teenage muslim population in America. But I just can't see how we can promote tolerance by legislating intolerance and disrespect of others' private points of view. This girl is not entitled to a job at this establishment. The lefties in this thread seem to think she, or anyone else, has a claim on that job simply becuase it's been offered on the market. As if the employers should pick a name out of a hat while disregarding all other critria and characteristics of an applicant. As far as I'm concerned, that's just insane.

I know it sounds weird, but forcing people to behave against their wishes is called totalitarianism. Is that what you lefties want? You want to be told what to do and how to act? I'm sure if the next conservative government mandates community service in the national guard you'd be okay with that. You'll have to be because you've already given the government absolute control of your thoughts, opinions, and actions in the name of fairness and equality. When that fairness conflicts with your own point of view I'm sure you'll be the first to cry foul and refer to it as government oppression. As well you should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top