Muslim Woman sues Abercrombie

[the_alcatraz]

The constitution protects her right to walk down the street wearing her hijab -- as it should. It doesn't protect her right to wear it on private property nor should it force a private business to comply with her wishes.

It's like free speech. You have the right to say whatever you want (except things like "FIRE" in a crowded theater), but your employer has the right to react to whatever you say.

Look at it this way... If I started hurling horrible insults your way on this thread and said some deplorable things, would you be forbidden to ban me since I have a constitutional right to free speech? Or would you ban my ass and be done with it?

lol @ comparing RL legal practices to an internet forums about roids

 

[75th]

Ok but EEOC laws apply to private business, and if you go check what those laws are under "religion", they include laws against firing someone for religious dress like Muslim headscarves.

From the quote you provided:

Unless it would be an undue hardship on the employer's operation of its business

A company such as Abercrombie can easily make that case. They are an imagine retailer that caters to a particular image-conscious section of the population.

 

[the_alcatraz]

From the quote you provided:



A company such as Abercrombie can easily make that case. They are an imagine retailer that caters to a particular image-conscious section of the population.

It's called "compelling interest" and it's NOT an easy case for them to make.

They would have to make a case saying: only white fit people are allowed in the store, because that's what our image presents...yeh, this will go down real smooth in court.

What image are they trying to promote exactly? That if you don't look like a certain demographic, you are not fit to wear our clothes?

 

[AFeedz]

From the quote you provided:



A company such as Abercrombie can easily make that case. They are an imagine retailer that caters to a particular image-conscious section of the population.

Lol did you even read about this? They can't make that case. She worked in the stockroom. Meaning it's likely no customers ever saw her meaning it'd be hard to prove any loss of business or decrease in sales was any result of her hijab screwing with the Abercrombie image.

 

[75th]

It's called "compelling interest" and it's NOT an easy case for them to make.

They would have to make a case saying: only white fit people are allowed in the store, because that's what our image presents...yeh, this will go down real smooth in court.

Again, apples and oranges.

What image are they trying to promote exactly? That if you don't look like a certain demographic, you are not fit to wear our clothes?

Perhaps, but the point is that they are well within their right to promote that image.

Dont like their image? Dont shop there.

 

[75th]

Lol did you even read about this? They can't make that case. She worked in the stockroom. Meaning it's likely no customers ever saw her meaning it'd be hard to prove any loss of business or decrease in sales was any result of her hijab screwing with the Abercrombie image.

So? Appearance guidelines apply to all employees working on the premises. Just because she loaded the stockroom doesnt mean she wasnt in customers' view. Id be very surprised if that was the case.

 

[mrplunkey]

Private companies are not above the law. I'm not sure what you are implying. This has been going on for the lingest times, different times, same discussion,

Read this:

Free exercise of religionMain article: Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment
In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), the Supreme Court required that states have a "compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct. The case involved Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional.

The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), that as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), the Supreme Court ruled Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santería religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter. Since the ordinance was not "generally applicable," the Court ruled that it was subject to the compelling interest test, which it failed to meet, and was therefore declared unconstitutional.

In 1993, the Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which sought to restore the "compelling interest" standard. In City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Court struck down the provisions of the Act that forced state and local governments to provide protections exceeding those required by the First Amendment on the grounds that while the Congress could enforce the Supreme Court's interpretation of a constitutional right, the Congress could not impose its own interpretation on states and localities. According to the court's ruling in Gonzales v. UDV, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), RFRA remains applicable to federal statutes and those laws must still meet the "compelling interest"


Free Exercise Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only way this woman can lose is if Abercrombi has compelling interest:

"compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct .....

This has to be substancial too...They can't just say "it doesn't fit with the image of the store, etc...

LOL @ not knowing the difference between state-controlled and privately-controlled entities.

That's part of what's wrong with this country. People don't understand the difference between the government and private sector.

 

[nefertiti]

From the quote you provided:



A company such as Abercrombie can easily make that case. They are an imagine retailer that caters to a particular image-conscious section of the population.

I find it hard to believe that a headscarf with otherwise secular dress would cause any sort of hardship.

Aside from that, they allowed her to wear it for four months.

 

[mrplunkey]

I need to land an NFL job then complain that my religion prevents me from engaging in violence on Sundays.

I'll sue and make a billion dollars. Religious freedom FTMFW!

 

[AFeedz]

So? Appearance guidelines apply to all employees working on the premises. Just because she loaded the stockroom doesnt mean she wasnt in customers' view. Id be very surprised if that was the case.

Really? Obv youve never worked retail, bc I've worked in several retail stock rooms. At some I never saw customers at all. At others, I'd go out maybe twice a day to restock clothes. MAYBE 10 minutes. Stock rooms aren't in customer views in retail and they aren't at Abercrombie.

She likely wasn't seen at all, and if she was maybe for minutes out of all the time she worked there. So I find it pretty difficult to believe Abercrombie will possibly be able to make a proven argument that she affected business, meaning what they did was unlawful.