Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Thomas was the lone dissent.
1 posted on 06/01/2015 7:20:17 AM PDT by GIdget2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last
To: GIdget2004

This is a very dangerous precedent indeed!

Kudos and Thank You To Judge Thomas


2 posted on 06/01/2015 7:23:17 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey ("Never, Never, Never, Give Up," Winston Churchill ><>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

A victory for religious freedom. Let’s hope there’s another one forthcoming.


3 posted on 06/01/2015 7:23:32 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

What far reaching unintended consequences could this ruling hold? I guess it will depend on the perceived precedence it lays out.


4 posted on 06/01/2015 7:24:11 AM PDT by umgud (When under attack, victims want 2 things; God & a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

But, try wearing a crucifix...


5 posted on 06/01/2015 7:24:54 AM PDT by fwdude (The last time the GOP ran an "extremist," Reagan won 44 states.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004
If the Founding Fathers were still alive they'd be rolling over in their graves.

The government isn't supposed to tell private citizens what they can and cannot do, the citizens are supposed to tell the government what it can or cannot do.

We better learn this quick, people.

7 posted on 06/01/2015 7:25:26 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

So, my religion calls for my toes to always be exposed, never covered. Can I sue an employer for not allowing me to wear flip flops on the job?


8 posted on 06/01/2015 7:25:47 AM PDT by Right Brother
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004
In case anyone is interested, the full decision is available here (PDF, new window).
9 posted on 06/01/2015 7:26:36 AM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

I wonder WHO paid her legal fees all the way to the SCOTUS over a head scarf??? What is that fishy odor in the air???


10 posted on 06/01/2015 7:26:55 AM PDT by EagleUSA (Liberalism removes the significance of everything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

This could be a pretty interesting precedent.

People have the right to bring their religious observances into the workplace.

If Abercrombie and Fitch can’t compel employees to follow dress codes if doing so violates that employees religious freedom, can a homosexual couple compel a small businessman to bake a wedding cake if doing do violates that businessman’s religious freedom?


11 posted on 06/01/2015 7:27:06 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004
Does this mean that women who are members of: "The Church of the Thong Panties... ...and Nothing Else" will be able to wear the sacred garment required of their religion to work without fear of discrimination?
12 posted on 06/01/2015 7:27:17 AM PDT by WayneS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

What about facial hair/beards for “religious reasons”?


14 posted on 06/01/2015 7:28:24 AM PDT by rainee (Her)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

We are so screwed.


15 posted on 06/01/2015 7:28:27 AM PDT by Lazamataz (America has less than a year left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004
And there are people who actually think The Supremes are going to support traditional marriage.

Is it wrong for me to WANT people to be turned into pillars of salt?

16 posted on 06/01/2015 7:28:56 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

Thomas is the only reliably sane person there. 2nd place goes to Scalia


19 posted on 06/01/2015 7:30:35 AM PDT by Ray76 (Obama says, "Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

I don’t have a problem with this, as long as it’s not covering her face like a mask.

I would not want a Jewish man denied a job because he wears a yarmulke either.


20 posted on 06/01/2015 7:30:44 AM PDT by katnip (May we always be happy and may our enemies always know it. - Sarah Palin, 10-18-2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

1. The Court was shockingly wrong. FedGov may not discriminate based on religion, but private employers should have no obligation to accommodate religion. Even if a law says otherwise, that law is outside the scope of FedGov’s Enumerated Powers and should be overturned.

2. The manager at Abercrombie & Fitch was shockingly stupid to say anything at all that might have been interpreted as a reason for not hiring any applicant. It doesn’t matter if the applicant has been convicted of murder and shows up swinging an axe, you don’t comment. Employment law is too complex and variable to take any risks.


25 posted on 06/01/2015 7:32:49 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

So, an employee can exercise their religious beliefs in the workplace, but the employer can’t?

Also, now a privately owned business cannot require a dress code for,their employees? After all, can’t the employee just say, “Oh, yeah my devil tatto on my forehead is part of my religion.”


26 posted on 06/01/2015 7:32:52 AM PDT by rusty schucklefurd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

The courts fail to see that a head scarf is a decision made by the person.


31 posted on 06/01/2015 7:38:20 AM PDT by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004

I’ve been to jobs sites where the laborers were not permitted to wear a bandanna? But i guess i they could wear a scarf?


33 posted on 06/01/2015 7:39:05 AM PDT by Leep ("Soon you won't be able to live in America as a Muslim. The noose is tightening," Elton Simpson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: GIdget2004
In a truly free country, a business owner could mandate the wardrobe of his employess. If they didn't like the mandate, they could leave.

On December 31, 2014 I posted my predictions for 2015. Dr. Thornes' Predictions for 2015. Considering this ruling, I feel confident in #16:

16. The Supreme Court will NOT overturn Obamacare or the Executive Amnesty. However, they will rule that same-sex marriage must be the law of the land.

39 posted on 06/01/2015 7:47:00 AM PDT by Dr. Thorne (The night is far spent, the day is at hand.- Romans 13:12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-35 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson