muslim woman refused job at abercrombie and fitch because of head scarf

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by Alceste

A&F violated the plaintiff's freedom to practice religion in accordance with the 1st amendment of the US constitution. What other "motive" does there need to be for suing them?

Well, I don't think that's at all clear. I disagree with A&F's decision, but I don't think we can countenance a blanket rule that anybody has the right to practice his religion in any way and at any time and place he sees fit.

What I object to is not the wearing of hijab at work, but this notion that religion trumps all other considerations. I would not, personally, hire a person who wears the niqab for a position dealing with the public; though I recognize her right to wear the niqab, I don't think it is appropriate in that kind of situation. I don't challenge your right to sacrifice a chicken in a graveyard at midnight, but I would also not challenge the right of a cemetery association to say You can't do it here.

I also don't understand this peculiar regard for religious convictions over other convictions that are equally protected under the First Amendment. If a Quaker may be allowed to wear his hat in a courtroom, then why should anybody else be prohibited from wearing a hat in a courtroom?

Further, the argument on religious grounds is plainly faulty. If you force an employer to allow an employee to wear hijab on religious grounds, then you must also force an employer to allow the burqa or complete nudity on religious grounds. Everybody recognizes that at some point -- at least in matters of employment -- religious conviction gives way to business considerations.

That is to say, I think your argument is way over the top. I would not argue an absolute right to practice one's religion in all circumstances and to be employed with that understanding. I would argue that A&F's decision is not reasonable -- that allowing an employee to wear a headscarf does not pose any safety hazard or otherwise negatively impact the employer, and thus should be permitted.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by Smoke

Well, I don't think that's at all clear. I disagree with A&F's decision, but I don't think we can countenance a blanket rule that anybody has the right to practice his religion in any way and at any time and place he sees fit.

What I object to is not the wearing of hijab at work, but this notion that religion trumps all other considerations. I would not, personally, hire a person who wears the niqab for a position dealing with the public; though I recognize her right to wear the niqab, I don't think it is appropriate in that kind of situation. I don't challenge your right to sacrifice a chicken in a graveyard at midnight, but I would also not challenge the right of a cemetery association to say You can't do it here.

I also don't understand this peculiar regard for religious convictions over other convictions that are equally protected under the First Amendment. If a Quaker may be allowed to wear his hat in a courtroom, then why should anybody else be prohibited from wearing a hat in a courtroom?

Further, the argument on religious grounds is plainly faulty. If you force an employer to allow an employee to wear hijab on religious grounds, then you must also force an employer to allow the burqa or complete nudity on religious grounds. Everybody recognizes that at some point -- at least in matters of employment -- religious conviction gives way to business considerations.

That is to say, I think your argument is way over the top. I would not argue an absolute right to practice one's religion in all circumstances and to be employed with that understanding. I would argue that A&F's decision is not reasonable -- that allowing an employee to wear a headscarf does not pose any safety hazard or otherwise negatively impact the employer, and thus should be permitted.

No one does, and that is not at issue. As I said, there is a reasonableness test. That's what courts are for. I think this hijab is MORE than reasonable.

[themadhair]

Originally Posted by Alceste

A&F violated the plaintiff's freedom to practice religion in accordance with the 1st amendment of the US constitution. What other "motive" does there need to be for suing them?

Some people really need to learn what freedom of religion really means. It grants you the right to choose the beliefs of your choice and, within reason, the practice thereof. It doesn’t grant your religious practice any rights above non-religious practices. If A&F have the legal right to ban employees from wearing headscarves for non-religious reasons then they have the right to do so in this case.

I also like to analyse these situations with what I call ‘the pentacle test’. Would A&F be within their rights to prevent their employees from prominently wearing a pentacle? If the answer is yes (and I believe it is) then A&F have the right to require the non-wearing of headscarves.

A&F may have handled the situation terribly, but I think they are in the right in this suit. I find it funny that people seem intent on screaming bigotry when, in reality, it is bigotry to use religion as a means of laying claim to superior rights to others.

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by Smoke

Well, I don't think that's at all clear. I disagree with A&F's decision, but I don't think we can countenance a blanket rule that anybody has the right to practice his religion in any way and at any time and place he sees fit.

What I object to is not the wearing of hijab at work, but this notion that religion trumps all other considerations. I would not, personally, hire a person who wears the niqab for a position dealing with the public; though I recognize her right to wear the niqab, I don't think it is appropriate in that kind of situation. I don't challenge your right to sacrifice a chicken in a graveyard at midnight, but I would also not challenge the right of a cemetery association to say You can't do it here.

I also don't understand this peculiar regard for religious convictions over other convictions that are equally protected under the First Amendment. If a Quaker may be allowed to wear his hat in a courtroom, then why should anybody else be prohibited from wearing a hat in a courtroom?

Further, the argument on religious grounds is plainly faulty. If you force an employer to allow an employee to wear hijab on religious grounds, then you must also force an employer to allow the burqa or complete nudity on religious grounds. Everybody recognizes that at some point -- at least in matters of employment -- religious conviction gives way to business considerations.

That is to say, I think your argument is way over the top. I would not argue an absolute right to practice one's religion in all circumstances and to be employed with that understanding. I would argue that A&F's decision is not reasonable -- that allowing an employee to wear a headscarf does not pose any safety hazard or otherwise negatively impact the employer, and thus should be permitted.

My argument is simply based on the law and the outcome of previous, similar religious discrimination cases brought before the court. A&F will certainly lose or settle. Whether the law as it currently stands is a stupid and "over the top" one that singles out religion for special consideration is a whole different question.

Trust me, I have no particular regard for freedom of religion - it's freedom in general I believe in. It just so happens religious practice is one of the handful of legally protected freedoms we (those of us who happen to be religious, that is) enjoy, so it should be fought for on principle.

I'd happily go to bat for expanding the legal protection religion enjoys to any exercise of personal expression that doesn't directly interfere with job performance, as I said earlier. I'd even go as far as to argue that a "no tattoos" policy, for example, was discriminatory, or a "no facial piercings" policy, but - unlike in the case of religious discrimination - my argument would have no legal basis.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by themadhair

Some people really need to learn what freedom of religion really means. It grants you the right to choose the beliefs of your choice and, within reason, the practice thereof. It doesn’t grant your religious practice any rights above non-religious practices. If A&F have the legal right to ban employees from wearing headscarves for non-religious reasons then they have the right to do so in this case.

I also like to analyse these situations with what I call ‘the pentacle test’. Would A&F be within their rights to prevent their employees from prominently wearing a pentacle? If the answer is yes (and I believe it is) then A&F have the right to require the non-wearing of headscarves.

A&F may have handled the situation terribly, but I think they are in the right in this suit. I find it funny that people seem intent on screaming bigotry when, in reality, it is bigotry to use religion as a means of laying claim to superior rights to others.

The answer is no. They may be able to control the size or tastefulness of jewelry, but they could not ban the pentacle.

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by themadhair

Some people really need to learn what freedom of religion really means.

For the purposes of the law, it means an employer must make reasonable accommodation for religious practice. You can disagree with that all you like, but A&F will still lose. They would also lose, btw, if a wiccan decided to sue over a "no pentacles" policy, provided there was no legitimate business reason to ban the wearing of one.

It doesn’t grant your religious practice any rights above non-religious practices. If A&F have the legal right to ban employees from wearing headscarves for non-religious reasons then they have the right to do so in this case.

Legally, in the US (1st amendment) and Canada (charter of rights and freedoms), they don't. I don't know how things are in Ireland.

A&F may have handled the situation terribly, but I think they are in the right in this suit. I find it funny that people seem intent on screaming bigotry when, in reality, it is bigotry to use religion as a means of laying claim to superior rights to others.

"Bigoted" as it may be (against the non-religious), that's how the law currently stands.

[Smoke]

Originally Posted by themadhair

Some people really need to learn what freedom of religion really means. It grants you the right to choose the beliefs of your choice and, within reason, the practice thereof. It doesn’t grant your religious practice any rights above non-religious practices. If A&F have the legal right to ban employees from wearing headscarves for non-religious reasons then they have the right to do so in this case.

I think I agree with that. That is, I think if Muslim employees are allowed to wear headscarves then it would only be fair for all employees to be allowed to wear headscarves.

I also think that if your religious convictions are genuinely that important to you, you yourself have the primary obligation to accommodate those convictions. There was a time in my life when I wore a beard for religious reasons. I would not have accepted a job where I was required to be clean-shaven, but neither would I have sued over it. I also required certain days off to better observe the feasts and fasts of the Church. I would not have kept a job where I was required to work on the Eve of Pascha, for instance, but again, I wouldn't have sued over it, either.

I think if your convictions set you apart from others and they are genuine, it is appropriate to assume the majority of the burden of those convictions yourself. You do not have the right to impose the burden of your convictions on other people.

So while I think this girl probably will -- and probably should -- prevail in her lawsuit, I still have a certain distaste for it.

[freethinker44]

Doesn't the store have a right to express their views in a way they see fit? (regardless of how shallow they are?) And wouldn't someone trying to force them to allow their views above the store policy be violating the stores freedom of expression?

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by freethinker44

Doesn't the store have a right to express their views in a way they see fit? (regardless of how shallow they are?) And wouldn't someone trying to force them to allow their views above the store policy be violating the stores freedom of expression?

No. Not legally. The "freedom of expression" amendment would not give you the right to impose your personal opinion about comportment and behavior on another person with differing opinions.

[freethinker44]

Originally Posted by Alceste

No. Not legally. The "freedom of expression" amendment would not give you the right to impose your personal opinion about comportment and behavior on another person with differing opinions.

As this person is doing with abercrombie and fitch?