Quelle surprise.
This is an outrage, pure and simple.
The “discrimination laws” in this country should have applied only to the government under the U.S. Constitution.
This ruling (and most of the discrimination laws passed after 1964) are an example of the left wing takeover of the Civil Rights laws.
There is no such thing as a right to a job. A job is simply a trade of labor for pay. It is an economic transaction no different than the purchase of an item in a retail store.
Is it illegal if a consumer decides not to patronize a store because he doesn’t like the race/gender/religion of an owner?
The answer is NO.
So why should it be illegal for an employer to refuse hiring a potential employee for the same reasons?
The right of free people to voluntarily engage in free association and free economic trade is a God-given right. The government has no right to intervene in a voluntary transaction between an employer and an employee period.
This travesty has led to the current situation where the government can arbitrarily impose all sorts of costs on a private business, and the result is in no way a “public good.”
I’m not surprised since one of the SCOTUS justices instituted a department to study Sharia Law at Harvard. Yes, the Senate and Congress let her go through without a peep.
On the one hand, you can’t question applicants about their religion.
On the other hand, you have to accommodate their religion.
Except if you are a muslim. Muslims never have to accommodate other religions, or other “communities”.
Just under 4 minutes of ABSOLUTE DYNAMITE re. ISLAM!
James Aloysius “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (born September 28, 1927) is a retired Admiral in the United States Navy whose 36-year career was capped by serving as Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet from 16 September 1985 to 30 September 1987. (Wikipedia)
Every American should see and share this one!
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bc0_1423721020
As I recall, there have been a number of cases where Christian employees have been told they could not wear their crosses because they violated company dress codes — and they had to be removed. The double standard once again.
More specifically, note that constitutionally indefensible federal government interference with how intrastate businesses are run seem to have began after FDR’s activist justices wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn (Wickard) in Congress’s favor in 1942. By deciding Wickard in Congress’s favor, FDR’s thug justices wrongly ignored that the Supreme Court had previously clarified that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate commerce which reasonably includes employer-employee relationships imo.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
What is possibly going on here is the following imo. Regardless that the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws which respect an establishment of religion, activist justices are possibly planning to use the Court’s scandalous decision in Wickard as a back door to legislate pro-religious establishment laws from the bench.
Head scarves have nothing to do with any religion except nuns wear habits or they used to. I do believe that nuns qualify as religious as this mucslim woman does not- coz muslim HAS NO NUNS>
a business should be free to not hire someone whatever reason they choose. If they want to go down this path then the Obama admin should not be allowed to refuse to hire someone who walks into the interview wearing a Free Republic T-shirt.