Posted on 06/02/2015 4:48:40 AM PDT by markomalley
Two takes on the ruling. Rosslyn Smith writes:
In a ruling Monday, the Supreme Court held that the chain of Abercrombie & Fitch, which is known for some pretty scanty outfits, must accommodate a sales employee who wears a head scarf in accordance with her Muslim faith. In this the Court was being consist with rulings about Jewish men who wear yarmulkes and Sihks who wear turbans.
What may be the twist here is that Abercrombie & Fitch is very vocal about its inclusive policies. Here are the qualifications for the three in-store positions listed on the Abercombie & Fitch website
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Sharia on the march.
Coming to a madrassa (formerly known as high school) nearest you...
This would be less important if A&F sold, say, pizza or furniture.
As a side note, many pet stores sell dogs. Must such a store now be forced to hire a muslim who refuses to touch a dog?
Interestingly, this was an 8-1 decision. I suspect they got it right when it comes to the letter of the law.
You're right about what you've posted here, but Abercrombie & Fitch can't make that argument unless they've described the position accordingly. They can probably circumvent this law by changing the job classification from a "sales associate" to a "model." Modeling is one of the few jobs where an employer can engage in blatant discrimination on racial or ethnic grounds, since the models they used are aimed at marketing to specific genders, demographic groups, etc.
SCOTUS continues to march into illrelevency. Roberts could easily have made up some proper laws here.
While I utterly despise islime, this ruling seems logically consistent. If Jews and Sikhs are allowed to wear the accoutrements of their religions, so must muslimes.
But I don’t want to hear a peep from A&F or the courts when an employee shows up wearing a cross necklace or with ashes on their foreheads.
I know that if I ever saw a Muslim either in A&F or Victoria’s Secret, I would go to another saleslady. So I guess if a self proclaimed nudist could work at A&F nude? Some nudist could say nudism is their religion.
What about Bibles or having a Bible verse on my computer?
And the wearing of a cross or crucifix?
What about celebrating the birth and resurrection of my saviour?
Will those protections also apply to me?
What I love when I see stuff like that in this country is that the feminists says absolutely NOTHING about it. This is women being enslaved, oppressed, right in front of their eyes and they say absolutely nothing. Instead they’re too busy screaming and foaming at the mouth because they can’t kill babies after 5 months of pregnancy.
Yet they don’t question why a muzzie wants to work there. Every company needs to institute free bacon day.
<sarcasm on>How dare you...traitor. You must WANT the US to collapse.</sarcasm off>
Scary, isn't it?
I'm just waiting to hear about muzzies applying to work as waitresses at Hooters, Twin Peaks, and the like...(wish I had the time to photoshop something...)
I would never work at A&F, because modest appearance and chaste conduct are standards of my religion. This woman is a hypocrite.
I could never live in a world (much less shop in one) where everybody scurries about dressed as Casper’s evil twin...
What about Hobby Lobby? How come they can’t have freedom to ban Jimmy Hats on their employees?
Could they do it by having the sales associates wear a uniform that specified no head gear or jewelry?
A&F is outrageously "out there" with its clothing. If they were as free-thinking as they pretend, they wouldn't be objecting to an associate's clothing choices.
It is a private business and if this female wanted to show her religion then wear a necklace with a crescent .
According to the SCOTUS.
So a muslim inmate can grow a beard because of his religion and this woman can wear her scarf because of her religion , but a Christian has no rights and has to bake a cake, take photo’s etc to homosexuals and their sham wedding when it goes against their religion.
If one studies the reasoning and holdings of this opinion it strongly helps the legal argument that a Christian business cannot be forced to violate its religious beliefs by facilitating a gay wedding. I believe this issue was very much in Justice Scalia’s mind when he wrote the opinion.
Oh yeah that would be rich! Muslims working at Hooters
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.