SCOTUS sets a WRONG precedent with ruling in favor of Muslim and her headscarf...

[JustAlex]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-w...over-headscarf

^Absolutely RIDICULOUS!

So a Muslim woman applies to Abercrombie and Fitch where they initially give her the job as a model to one of their stores....they find out she wears a headscarf that she did NOT tell them during the interview and tell her she can't work in A&F because it goes against their policy as to how they want their employees to look.

She sues and wins! (WHAT?!?)

However, it is appealed and the decision is overturned.....

It goes to SCOTUS and they rule in favor of her....UNFREAKINGBELIEVABLE!


So....a company has to cater to the religious BS of employees in regards to how they look and that surpasses the way they want to do business?!

I'm missing something here!!

Why should A&F (Who I don't even like, but am very happy to defend in this situation) have to comply with an employee who doesn't want to look the way THEY want them to look like?!

OK....let me give you an example.

Most of us are men....we LOVE going to places like Hooters (for obvious reasons).....now imagine a Muslim applies to Hooters, doesn't disclose she's a Muslim....arrives on the first day and is wearing a headscarf.....WHAT?!!?

NOOOOOOOO!!!

Our customers (the overwhelming majority) do NOT go to Hooters for that!

Hooters has a STRICT Dress policy as to how their employees MUST look like.

And just like Hooters has a strict dress policy, so did A&F.

SCOTUS Dropped the ball here....BIG TIME!





BTW....do you see Christians? THIS is why religious beliefs do NOT always mix well with business.

You can be a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Satanist, whatever in your life.....but that doesn't mean that you should dictate to your employer special privileges and exemptions that the company should NOT have to accommodate.

And I truly believe that the reason why SCOTUS ultimately ruled the way they did is because they have this urge to protect religious beliefs in the workplace EVEN if it means compromising reasonable policies put in place by employers.

[duane1969]

I don't see how she would have a right to wear it at work if she didn't wear it for her interview. There was some obvious deception involved there.

[sanfran22]

I think all of the laws in this country are getting twisted into stupidity. What do you expect I guess. I think the law was intended to not allow someone to deny employment because they were a satanist. But that doesn't give them the right to wear horns and upsidedown cross earrings to their job at the Disney Store. At least that's my interpretation....

[ajcorleone]

A great and obvious point.

I don't see how she would have a right to wear it at work if she didn't wear it for her interview. There was some obvious deception involved there.

[duane1969]

A great and obvious point.

Apparently not obvious to SCOTUS...

I am all for religious freedom, but I no more support this than I would support a Christian carrying a Bible around at work all day. This woman agreed to adhere to a dress code as defined by her employer and then waffled on it to get her way. I imagine Muslim appeasement had something to do with this particular ruling.

[habsheaven]

I am willing to accept that I read something wrong here considering you all seem to have missed what I read.

I read that she wore jeans and a t-shirt to the interview ALONG with the headscarf.
The interviewer RECOMMENDED her for the job.
She was NOT given the job by A&F because she didn't comply with their "look policy".

What did I miss?

[duane1969]

I am willing to accept that I read something wrong here considering you all seem to have missed what I read.

I read that she wore jeans and a t-shirt to the interview ALONG with the headscarf.
The interviewer RECOMMENDED her for the job.
She was NOT given the job by A&F because she didn't comply with their "look policy".

What did I miss?

I don't see where it says she wore a headscarf to the interview. I guess it depends on how you interpret it. I read it that she wore a t-shirt and jeans.

Elauf's dress for the interview — a T-shirt and jeans — fit well with that policy, which is described as 'classic East Coast collegiate style of clothing.' But her headscarf did not fit at all.

[shrewsbury]

is it written in the policy or is it a vague interpretation?

also, what is wrong with wearing it as a model? maybe they would get more muslim customers.

[shrewsbury]

found this

Abercrombie has been accused of discrimination in the past: In 2005, the company paid $40 million to several thousand minority and female plaintiffs, to settle a case brought for racial and sexual discrimination. In 2008, the EEOC sued on behalf of 18-year-old Halla Banafa, in a case similar to Elauf’s. In 2011, 19-year-old Umme-Hani Khan sued after Abercrombie’s sister brand Hollister fired her for refusing to remove her headscarf.

http://qz.com/275737/abercrombies-ab...supreme-court/

also found this;

http://www.buzzfeed.com/sapna/abercr...-do#.jpqZY6Qey

[Rockin Robbie]

I am willing to accept that I read something wrong here considering you all seem to have missed what I read.

I read that she wore jeans and a t-shirt to the interview ALONG with the headscarf.
The interviewer RECOMMENDED her for the job.
She was NOT given the job by A&F because she didn't comply with their "look policy".

What did I miss?

You didn't miss anything. From the Supreme Court ruling:

Samantha Elauf is a practicing Muslim who, consistent with her understanding of her religion’s requirements, wears a headscarf. She applied for a position in an Abercrombie store, and was interviewed by Heather Cooke, the store’s assistant manager. Using Abercrombie’s ordinary system for evaluating applicants, Cooke gave Elauf a rating that qualified her to be hired; Cooke was concerned, however, that Elauf ’s headscarf would conflict with the store’s Look Policy.

Cooke sought the store manager’s guidance to clarify whether the headscarf was a forbidden “cap.” When this yielded no answer, Cooke turned to Randall Johnson, the district manager. Cooke informed Johnson that she believed Elauf wore her headscarf because of her faith. Johnson told Cooke that Elauf ’s headscarf would violate the Look Policy, as would all other headwear, religious or otherwise, and directed Cooke not to hire Elauf.