Posted on 06/02/2015 4:48:40 AM PDT by markomalley
I guess the job like a cake is now a civil right
So is she going to sell women’s bikinis or men’s boxers and briefs?
Not really a bad call. The point is, if the company wants to retain this employee, she should be able to wear her religious garb.
That is not to say that the company must be forced to retain the employee. It's simply that if they do, they must accommodate the garb, just like a yarmulke or turban.
In Florida, I think any company can still terminate an employee without providing a reason, as long as there is no employment contract being breached.
Maybe there are different rules for corporations vs. proprietorships, etc.?
I really don't understand how any company could be forced to retain an employee against its better judgement...
Due to the religious basis for the headscarf one truly has to wonder how scotus thinks the Fed can force businesses to violate their religion but businesses can’t do the same with their employees. It’s the first amendment on it’s head. “Business shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, nor denying the free exercise thereof.”
That must be how it actually reads.
My local grocery store has that sign posted at their entrances. Makes total sense.
I would go to another store - there's no way I'm shopping in a store if a muslim clerk is wearing one of those sacks!
I think AF will need to make a mandatory uniform-
and ask the employee if they have a problem with it-
Not sure if a company can do that—
just curious- can this woman work as a fire fighter?
or any number of jobs where you cannot have scarves
and loose clothing?- (I believe these occupations
make their uniforms mandatory)-
“Due to the religious basis for the headscarf one truly has to wonder how scotus thinks the Fed can force businesses to violate their religion but businesses can’t do the same with their employees.”
I’m not a lawyer but I get the sense that society and in turn the courts are beginning to move away from viewing a business as having personal rights. They will eventually be some other kind of entity with few protections, just mandates.
If she interviewed wearing the head rag and was hired I could see where telling her to no longer wear it could be a problem. I understood she was not wearing it and just showed up to work one day insisting she had to wear it. I disagree with the court ruling. I should be able to prescribe a dress code at a business I run.
I remember being Near Raleigh North Carolina on a 100 degree day being served ice cream by a woman who was totally covered with long sleeves.
Not very appetizing...
I agree completely. But, can you imagine the stretch it takes to consider any business to be part of the government?
Yet, that is what social corporatism (fascism) and corporate socialism (communism) envision.
That’s why these traitors so easily engage in crony corporatism. It’s very near to what they actually believe.
> 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.
Bingo. If the Muzzies can wear their attire which is ALL about their religion then Christians should be able to wear items reflecting their faith. Of course we know how insane this world is lately so we’ve learned to expect trouble from the Left daily where double standards apply.
Question:
How does a head scarfed woman, serve a deaf customer
that gets by, by reading lips?
I’m partially deaf, and have found reading lips comes
in handy. Since i can’t see what that woman might b
saying , in my mindset, i might take that wrong and
deck the broad.
A food factory (cheese cakes, I think) in MN instituted a regulation that required all dresses to be no lower than the top of an employees boots for safety around the equipment. They had Muslim men on strike protesting that it violated their religion and the modesty of their women.
The head scarf is different from the full body covering.
This is one reason why Islam is incompatible with and does not belong in a free society. Most religions make no requirement that adherents dress a certain way. But Islam does along with many other requirements (no images of Mohammed allowed, prayer fives time per day).
There is a long list of 'accomodations' Moslems want from the more open and free societies they invade. SCOTUS is wrong on this one.
And will SCOTUS also rule that food stores must accomodate Moslems where Islam prohibits them from handling pork? This has already been an employment issue, though I don't think it's made it into the court system yet.
Customers purchasing pork must not enter checkout lines with a Moslem clerk? Employers must never ask Moslem employees to stock pork products, or otherwise handle them? Same questions for restaurants which serve port.
Once institutions start caving and 'accomodating' Moslem demands, the list will become longer and longer.
This is America & people who come here from other lands with different customs have apparently done so voluntarily. If they can’t deal with our laws,customs,& job requirements,then they can voluntarily hit the road back home where they might fit in.
AFAIK, SCOTUS has not yet dealt with the issue of requiring Christians to bake cakes or take pictures, etc., for homosexual "weddings".
But when the list of reasons an employer cannot fire an employee becomes longer and longer, there are more and more reasons a law suit can be brought.
You fired me because of my race, my gender, my religion, my sexual orientation, my age, and on and on.
Employers should be able to establish dress codes and other basic requirements, and if people have reasons to not meet those, they should seek employment elsewhere.
Now it’s:
No Burqa
No Hijab
No Fatwa
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.