Althouse: "This is really easy," said Justice Scalia from the bench before announcing the Court's decision in the Abercrombie & Fitch headscarf case.

June 1, 2015

"This is really easy," said Justice Scalia from the bench before announcing the Court's decision in the Abercrombie & Fitch headscarf case.

The NYT reports.

63 comments:

Todd said...: The company declined to hire her, saying her scarf clashed with the company’s dress code, which called for a “classic East Coast collegiate style.” After the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued on Ms. Elauf’s behalf, the company said it had no reason to know that Ms. Elauf’s head scarf, a hijab, was required by her faith.

So, the answer is to always say "thank you for applying and we will contact you if we can utilize your services. Have a nice day." and leave it at that. Don't ever NEVER say why you did not hire someone...; 6/1/15, 1:50 PM
Ann Althouse said...: Read all the facts, Todd. The interviewer suspected the scarf was worn for a religious reason and the rejection was motivated by an assumption that there would need to be an accommodation. The applicant wasn't talked to about it and it was almost flukey that she did get any evidence that she could use.

Obviously, employers try to avoid saying anything that would be evidence of discrimination, and that was done here too.

I guess your point is that we should be concerned that there is lots of discrimination flying under the radar and there's little that can be done about it. But are you okay with that?; 6/1/15, 1:55 PM
Jason said...: The more anti-discrimination laws we have, the more discrimination will 'happen under the table.'; 6/1/15, 1:56 PM
Skipper said...: More law yields more law breaking yields more disputes yields more lawsuits yields more lawyers yields more law...; 6/1/15, 2:02 PM
damikesc said...: Hijabs AREN'T required by Islam. That is a cultural thing in Islamic communities, but it isn't a religious requirement.; 6/1/15, 2:03 PM
Gabriel said...: College admissions are the ultimate "under the table" violation of the law.

In states where affirmative action in college admissions is illegal, they simply have the applicants submit essays about how they will contribute to diversity, and the admissions office keeps no statistics about who was chosen or why.; 6/1/15, 2:04 PM
Brando said...: The concept of "reasonable accommodation" (in both religious discrimination contexts and ADA contexts) sounds so nice in theory--hey, we're just asking you to be reasonable!--but in practice it often creates a burden on employers when handling protected classes of people. It's not just "hey let Steve do his job sitting down" or "tell Isaac he can wear the yarmulke even though we generally don't allow hats in the office" but often means spending more money or burdening other employees to meet the ever increasing accommodations that courts have determined are now "reasonable."

The problem with this is obvious--at a time when we should want employers to give protected classes a fair shake, we have now given them clear disincentives from hiring them in the first place, and every reason to hide their decisions behind pretext. How this is ultimately serving protected classes is beyond me.; 6/1/15, 2:06 PM
Jason said...: @damikesc... I'd be careful about telling people of other faiths what is and what isn't a 'religious requirement' in their own faiths.

I recognize that wearing hijab is not universal among Muslims. But keeping kosher is not universal among Jews, and I would still respect and make all reasonable accommodation for an employee who wanted to keep kosher.; 6/1/15, 2:06 PM
jr565 said...: RFRA's are for this exact purpose. Thanks to all the gays who tried to hijack such laws so this woman could be denied rights.; 6/1/15, 2:09 PM
Brando said...: "In states where affirmative action in college admissions is illegal, they simply have the applicants submit essays about how they will contribute to diversity, and the admissions office keeps no statistics about who was chosen or why."

I suspect only some modicum of self respect (or fear of getting exposed) is all that keeps a lot of applicants from lying to pretend they belong to certain racial groups. It's not as though they can prove anything either way--who's to say you're not part Spanish? They don't give you genetic tests when you apply, and usually don't have a photo of you or an in-person interview.

I'd sort of like to see this happen on a large scale so that say Harvard touts how they had an amazing influx of Hispanic and black students, and then they notice their campus is 100% Asian.; 6/1/15, 2:10 PM
readering said...: Kind of a dis against Thomas by Scalia.

Scalia wants Catholic employees to be able to go to work with ashes on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday--although it's not a Holy Day of Obligation.; 6/1/15, 2:14 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "Hijabs AREN'T required by Islam. That is a cultural thing in Islamic communities, but it isn't a religious requirement."

That's not how religious accommodations are treated in the law. The courts don't try to figure out the official doctrine of some organized religion but what the individual believes. The individual's beliefs can be idiosyncratic. The key question is sincerity. And accommodations are not limited to what you are absolutely forced to do, but can include things the individual feels burdened about.

Think about how bad it would be for the courts to conduct some kind of hearing to determine what Islam (or any other religion) requires. What, would there be expert witnesses, resolving doctrinal puzzles?! You should see that the concern is the protection of the individual. That's the perspective that matters in terms of rights and that the courts have a better chance of being able to handle.; 6/1/15, 2:14 PM
Cleve said...: What this says is that in order to participate in the economy - that is, in order to obtain a means of living other than welfare - we are slaves to government mandates about who we can, or cannot, hire.

This is not the America I thought I grew up in.; 6/1/15, 2:18 PM
Oh Yea said...: "I suspect only some modicum of self respect (or fear of getting exposed) is all that keeps a lot of applicants from lying to pretend they belong to certain racial groups. It's not as though they can prove anything either way--who's to say you're not part Spanish?"

Does it count that I self identify as Mexican when I drink tequila even though I was born German/Irish?; 6/1/15, 2:21 PM
Brando said...: "Does it count that I self identify as Mexican when I drink tequila even though I was born German/Irish?"

Hey, if I can be Irish when I drink Guinness then all's fair...

As I always say though, life is a lot easier when we stop classifying everyone by race. It avoids all that crap!; 6/1/15, 2:30 PM
damikesc said...: I recognize that wearing hijab is not universal among Muslims. But keeping kosher is not universal among Jews, and I would still respect and make all reasonable accommodation for an employee who wanted to keep kosher.

1) If you're an orthodox Jew and wish to wear your hair in the prescribed manner of that faith, rest assured --- they won't hire you and no court will side with you. Period.

2) "Reasonable" is still a brutally vague concept. Is giving her time to pray to Mecca repeatedly during the day "reasonable"? I'd say no since the other employers who have to carry her slack during those times won't get the same treatment.

Employers will simply give more and more vague answers why an applicant failed to get a job, doing that applicant zero favors in order to fix up possible issues.

Think about how bad it would be for the courts to conduct some kind of hearing to determine what Islam (or any other religion) requires. What, would there be expert witnesses, resolving doctrinal puzzles?! You should see that the concern is the protection of the individual. That's the perspective that matters in terms of rights and that the courts have a better chance of being able to handle.

But this case is a fairly silly (IMO) one.

A & F violates key Muslim tenets on a regular basis. Female modesty? Yeah, that happens. Even their "kids" store is pretty bad.

Simply APPLYING to work there already makes one have to wonder how sincere a belief is.; 6/1/15, 2:36 PM
Hagar said...: The key question is sincerity.

So, if you can fake sincerity, you've got it made?; 6/1/15, 2:37 PM
Todd said...: Sorry Ann but the article read The company at least suspected that the woman, Samantha Elauf, wore the head scarf for religious reasons, Justice Scalia said, and its decision not to hire her was motivated by a desire to avoid accommodating her religious practice.

Scalia says they had to have known. I do not see where the company actually admits to that [knowing].

But the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, in Denver, ruled for the company. “Ms. Elauf never informed Abercrombie prior to its hiring decision that she wore her head scarf, or ‘hijab,’ for religious reasons,” Judge Jerome A. Holmes wrote for the court.

I might have missed it but I don't see anywhere where the company says that they knew it would be a religious accommodation and so did not hire her. All that I have seen says it was strictly a dress code issue. That MAY be a lie but if that is all that was said how can you (or the court) be sure it was more?

The company’s position is that it should not have been made to guess that Ms. Elauf wore a head scarf for religious reasons.

What I am not OK with is people having to play mind-reader and having businesses pay the price for people mis-reading the situation.

The company has maintained that it had no reason to know that Ms. Elauf’s head scarf was required by her faith. In its brief in the case, E.E.O.C. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, No. 14-86, it said job applicants should not be allowed “to remain silent and to assume that the employer recognizes the religious motivations behind their fashion decisions.”

As an aside, I think society should be color/religious blind but it is not. Making issues out of misunderstandings does not improve things. It results in my original post above. Someone just doesn't get hired and they don't know if it is because they gave a bad interview, their references didn't check out, their tie was the wrong color, or something else. It could be something they could "correct" for next time but due to the litigious nature of society, you will not be told. The business loses out on a possible great employee and the applicant loses out on constructive feedback that could improve their odd going forward. All the while [it seems] if you are in a "protected" class you can run to the EEOC and file suite for not getting hired. Even if the company wins in the end, they still have the time and expense of proving they did nothing wrong. Sounds like a lose/lose situation.; 6/1/15, 2:38 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: The problem, to me, is that this reasonable accommodation probably would have cost sales. Her head covering didn't go with their dress code. Their preppy type look just doesn't come with Muslim head scarves.

I should also think that a lot of Americans are really somewhat uncomfortable with female Muslim head (and worse, full body) coverings. Which means lost sales. Likely worse than any other racial or ethnic thing that they could do. It comes from being attacked on 9/11/01, etc. And, what appears to be a refusal to assimilate.; 6/1/15, 2:45 PM
Hagar said...: At the trial, Ms. Elauf said she loved movies, shopping, sushi and the mall.

All of which, not to mention a den of iniquity like Abercrombie & Fitch, are absolutely haram to the branches of Islam that Ms. Elauf claim requires her to wear a Hijab.

This is the Supreme Court participating in a legal farce.; 6/1/15, 2:46 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "Sorry Ann... I do not see where the company actually admits to that [knowing]."

It's like you're disagreeing with something I said. I was addressing something you said, and your "sorry" implies that I hadn't made a good point to you. I'm not seeing that.

"I might have missed it but I don't see anywhere where the company says that they knew it would be a religious accommodation and so did not hire her."

They suspected it, talked about it, and decided not to hire her, and so never found out if she would have asked for an accommodation. They tried to win based on the fact that she never asked. But she was never in a position where she would have asked. That's why the case was so easy Scalia came right out and called it easy.

"All that I have seen says it was strictly a dress code issue. That MAY be a lie but if that is all that was said how can you (or the court) be sure it was more?"

Look at the procedural level of the case. These things have to do with the burden of proof, not whether anyone is completely sure.

As for the dress code, the requirement to accommodate is in statutes that supersede the dress code, of course. And, by the way, she wasn't even given the chance to answer the question whether she could follow the dress code. They just didn't hire her. She might have said, oh, I don't need to wear this at work, I just choose to wear it when I can. They didn't want to have to deal with it, the evidence was good enough to show.; 6/1/15, 2:46 PM
Hagar said...: ....claims require .... (I think. I still have trouble with English verbs depending on singular or plural.); 6/1/15, 2:48 PM
Ann Althouse said...: "What I am not OK with is people having to play mind-reader and having businesses pay the price for people mis-reading the situation."

Yeah, well, that didn't work and it shouldn't have worked, because she was never put in the position where she would have come forward to say I'd like an accommodation because they didn't hire her. They proactively kept her out in a way that seemed that they didn't want to have to deal with a request. The fact that she didn't know she'd make one doesn't give them free rein to not hire her based on their suspicion.; 6/1/15, 2:49 PM
Hagar said...: and apparently gleefully at that. Not appropriate for the dignity of the Court.; 6/1/15, 2:51 PM
Jason said...: dermikesc: 1) If you're an orthodox Jew and wish to wear your hair in the prescribed manner of that faith, rest assured --- they won't hire you and no court will side with you. Period.

Well, this didn't take long to find.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new-york-news/judge-reinstates-bearded-chasid-nyc-police-academy

"Period."

Heh.; 6/1/15, 3:00 PM
Todd said...: OK, so Ann, if that is the case, let us assume the conversation goes this way:

A&F: So, I see you are wearing a head-scarf. That does not really fit in with our dress code and the atmosphere we are trying to put forward. Would that be a problem?

Elauf: Why yes it would. I wear it for religious reasons.

If hired, store income (maybe) affected. If not hired, store sued.

Lose / Lose.

It is hard to plan when the practical results of words is completely dependent on how some judges view it. What is "reasonable"?

If they had hired her, best case, no affect on that store's business.

If the store was affected, could they then have fired her for having a detrimental affect on store receipts? Not likely unless they could show she was doing a subpar job. So the business has to accommodate the possibility of a business affecting change with limited recourse if it doesn't work out that could affect the livelihood of other store employees that had nothing to do with the thing affecting the store. Worst case, the store closes and those employees lose their jobs.

Why would any business take the risk? It is (will be) easier to not say anything, not hire the individual and move on. The result as others have noted is lip service to accommodating "others" but less actual hiring of "others". Businesses are there to make money, not correct every perceived social ill. All of these rules and regulations make that harder and harder every day.; 6/1/15, 3:05 PM
Beach Brutus said...: So what happens when Ms. Elauf decides to apply for a cook's position with Ollie's BBQ and request that it take pork off the menu? .... or applies as a server and request that it take beer off the menu? What if she testifies that she and other Muslims cannot shop where alcohol is sold and claims that the presence of beer and wine at the neighborhood Winn-Dixie is just a pretext to exclude Muslims from the store?

Laugh not -- back in the 1980's, a group claimed that my favorite country and western bar was racially discriminating by its selection of music.; 6/1/15, 3:06 PM
Oh Yea said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/1/15, 3:08 PM
Oh Yea said...: I'm waiting for her to apply to Hooter's.; 6/1/15, 3:10 PM
Jason said...: @Beach Brutus: Taking pork off of the menu at a BBQ restaurant would not be a 'reasonable' accommodation. Same thing for a server at a bar. Scalia is right... this stuff isn't difficult.

Don't try to pretend it is because you don't like teh Muzzies.; 6/1/15, 3:25 PM
Jason said...: As another reader pointed out, these laws also protect practicing Catholics who show up to work on Ash Wednesday with ashes on their foreheads. There's already been a case about just that, at a hotel where some supervisor came up to a couple of bellhops and told them to "wash that shit off your foreheads."

These laws also protect American Guardsmen and Reservists from discrimination too. There's a ton of that. Or they don't want to give one weekend a month off. Employers don't want to hire someone and then lose them deployments, for example. I've lost jobs and been declined at interviews because of that.

If instead of wearing a headscarf, suppose the interviewer found some pics of her on Facebook in a military uniform and her Facebook page mentioned she was in the Guard or Reserves. I suspect some of these people arguing for the employer in this case would be singing a very different tune in that event.; 6/1/15, 3:29 PM
Sebastian said...: "and it shouldn't have worked, because she was never put in the position where she would have come forward to say I'd like an accommodation"

At what point does the cost of providing a reasonable accommodation itself become unreasonable? If there is a public interest in forcing private employers to incur any costs in accommodations they would not otherwise assume, why should they not receive public compensation?

I understand, of course, that politicians and lawyers have every reason to keep "reasonable" suitably vague, so they can score "easy" points and big bucks at other people's expense.; 6/1/15, 3:38 PM
paminwi said...: I had a Muslim nurse while in the hospital after surgery. So I was on a general surgery floor which had both male and female patients. I asked the nurse if she took care of make patients and she said no. So, imagine how this affects her relationship with co-workers and the assignment of patients on a daily basis. Also, imagine that you had emergency surgery and were added quickly to a patient census on a floor. If she was to be assigned the next patient and would not take care of a male, then existing patients have to be reassigned and report, as they call it, has to be done because when you hand off a patient to a new nurse you need to fill the new nurse in on patient progress, meds, etc. What a fucked up mess this creates for both the staff and the patient.; 6/1/15, 3:42 PM
damikesc said...: Jason, there is A&F with a looks policy.

Nice try, though.; 6/1/15, 3:43 PM
Todd said...: Jason said...

If instead of wearing a headscarf, suppose the interviewer found some pics of her on Facebook in a military uniform and her Facebook page mentioned she was in the Guard or Reserves. I suspect some of these people arguing for the employer in this case would be singing a very different tune in that event.

6/1/15, 3:29 PM

Why? Is it because if we have any opposition to this we must be bigots? Why can it not be for "reasonable" accommodations of the needs of businesses to do their best to earn profits? That is the point of business, to earn profit. If I risk a key employee being out of the office for extended periods of time regardless of the reason, that is a fact I need to take into account when hiring. For a small business, it can be hard enough planning for known vacation scheduling, holidays, sick time, etc. If I risk losing a key resource for months due to getting called up, it could cripple operations. The person interviewing for the opening wants to know exactly what they are in for, is not the business entitled to that information as well and to make hiring decisions based on the risks?

Again, what is the definition of "reasonable"?; 6/1/15, 3:44 PM
CWJ said...: Brando and I often repectfully disagree, but s/he's in line with my feelings in this thread.; 6/1/15, 3:51 PM
Browndog said...: "reasonable" is when American Law is Sharia compliant.; 6/1/15, 3:54 PM
Beach Brutus said...: Re Jason @ 3:25 --

Please don't ascribe attitudes to me. This is a legal blog as my reference to Ollie's BBQ would signal to those who study or practice law. My point is that the law cannot "expand" one person's right vis a vis another -- only reshuffle the deck. For centuries at common law, it was recognized that a business owner could serve or hire whom ever he chose to, and deny service or employment likewise. Intervention by the law to require you to hire me when you otherwise wouldn't, does not expand rights, it just takes some of your liberty away from you and shuffles it in my direction -- and empowers the State to intercede where it previously couldn't.; 6/1/15, 4:00 PM
CWJ said...: Althouse wrote -

"She might have said, oh, I don't need to wear this at work, I just choose to wear it when I can. They didn't want to have to deal with it, the evidence was good enough to show."

If she wore it to a job interview, it would be naive to believe that she didn't think that this was appropriate work attire. As to "I don't need to wear this at work," then if so why would you wear it to the interview.

I assume this became apparent during a job interview. If I'm wrong then nevermind.; 6/1/15, 4:16 PM
David said...: Scalia is evil. It's a trick. There is a plot lurking somewhere.; 6/1/15, 4:44 PM
William said...: I would think that.A&F would have a right to turn down a woman wearing a burqa or a full hijab. Or do they? Reasonable accommodation for religious practices seems a somewhat elastic standard......Muslims and the left have determined that it's permissible behavior to kill Mohammed cartoonists but that it is wrong to shoot up gay weddings (in western countries).; 6/1/15, 4:46 PM
David said...: One of the ironies of this case is that Abercrombie, supposedly a savvy fashion company, denied her employment on this basis just as the Muslim head scarf was becoming a very chic fashion statement, even among non-Muslims.; 6/1/15, 4:51 PM
Scott said...: So if a woman is wearing a head scarf and has a Middle Eastern sounding name, she has to be accommodated, regardless of whether she is a Muslim or not.

That's like the trick question on the state driver's license test. "You are required to stop when a blind man with a white cane is crossing the street." Wrong. You are required to stop if the man is carrying a white cane. You don't have to know if he is blind.; 6/1/15, 5:08 PM
Goju said...: As a simple reference about what does or does not constitute a religion,please see the case of the Church of the New Song. It is from the mid 70s era and involved inmates at Leavenworth establishing their own religion. Funny as hell.; 6/1/15, 5:37 PM
Michael K said...: "Think about how bad it would be for the courts to conduct some kind of hearing to determine what Islam (or any other religion) requires."

She's just lucky she isn't a baker or a florist.

This decision means that no employer is safe. Thomas is the better opinion.; 6/1/15, 6:09 PM
Michael K said...: "I asked the nurse if she took care of make patients and she said no."

British hospitals are having an outbreak of nosocomial diseases at the same time Muslim nurses and even doctors are refusing to scrub their arms in surgery.

A friend of mine who is a professor of surgery told me he is quite concerned at the number of female medical students who are becoming Muslim and who are not of ethnic origin.; 6/1/15, 6:19 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Not scrubbing? Wait, what?

Can those persons be asked to treat only Muslims? But then why waste a precious medical school seat on them? Maybe there could be special Islamic medical schools for those who want that standard of care.

Seriously MK, WTF?; 6/1/15, 6:41 PM
Big Mike said...: The other eight justices should get over their racism long enough to pay close attention to what Clarence Thomas is writing. His dissent is clear and right on the facts.; 6/1/15, 6:56 PM
Rob said...: Note this interesting language in the opinion, apropos of the pending Obamacare subsidy case: "Abercrombie urges this Court to adopt the Tenth Circuit’s rule “allocat[ing] the burden of raising a religious conflict.” This would require the employer to have actual knowledge of a conflict between an applicant’s religious practice and a work rule. The problem with this approach is the one that inheres in most incorrect interpretations of statutes: It asks us to add words to the law to produce what is thought to be a desirable result. That is Congress’s province."

But it's hard to know whether that's a predictor of the Court's outcome in King v. Burwell or Scalia's tweaking of his colleagues for abandoning that principle in King. I'm guessing the former.; 6/1/15, 6:56 PM
Anonymous said...: This was really stupid on their part.

Don't they know they only have to pay her 75 cents for every dollar they would have to pay a man?; 6/1/15, 7:56 PM
Anonymous said...: I guess your point is that we should be concerned that there is lots of discrimination flying under the radar and there's little that can be done about it. But are you okay with that?

Yes, absolutely.

Businesses ought to be able to discriminate on whatever basis they prefer. Race, religion, sex, you name it. It's their business.

If you don't like it, start your own business.; 6/1/15, 7:58 PM
Jason said...: Why? Is it because if we have any opposition to this we must be bigots?

I'm suspecting hypocrisy. But there's more than a whiff of bigotry, as well. Not that I'm necessarily ascribing that motive to you personally, but to the pushback I'm seeing in general. I think the Zeitgeist of today is pretty tired of accommodating anybody, especially the Muzzies, and is willing to abandon a lot of principles of law that have not been big problems until now. Especially if it's an 'outsider,' such as a Muslim, who is claiming the discrimination.

I don't recall much public outrage against enforcing USERRA anti-discrimination measures a few years back, even though the burden on operations for a small business could be much greater than simply allowing a teenage shirt-folder/cashier to wear a head scarf.

I don't buy the 'lost sales' argument. That's entirely speculative. If you can raise that argument against a head scarf you can raise it against hiring blacks.; 6/1/15, 8:43 PM
Jason said...: Todd:

I risk a key employee being out of the office for extended periods of time regardless of the reason, that is a fact I need to take into account when hiring. For a small business, it can be hard enough planning for known vacation scheduling, holidays, sick time, etc. If I risk losing a key resource for months due to getting called up, it could cripple operations.

USERRA. It's. The. Law.; 6/1/15, 8:45 PM
Sammy Finkelman said...: Ms. Elauf never informed Abercrombie before its hiring decision that she wore her head scarf, or ‘hijab,’ for religious reasons,”

Of course, Abercrombie never informed Samantha Elauf, or anyone else, that they had a dress code, and in fact, they didn't have one.

They wanted to select women who, all by themselves, would wear a certain type of clothing (and not feel imposed upon to do so, and anyway they wouldn't know what they were supposed to wear.)

And Samantha Elauf tried to hide the fact that she was dressed the way she was for religious reasons.

The real discrimination was against any woman who didn't know what kind of clothing they wanted.

So this court case didn't really hit what was going on.; 6/1/15, 9:39 PM
Patrick Henry said...: A woman applies for a job where she knows that there is a certain "look" presented by the employees. Then complains when she doesn't get hired because she doesn't look like that business (never mind the business is, as Hagar said, full of things that are haram and a culture that is clearly out of step with her religion?

I'm all for religions freedom and non-discrimination but I think Scalia (and the majority) missed the big picture here. He saw the whole tree, but not the forest.

If I have read my legal history correctly, the courts have mixed bag on this. First, they have ruled that we have freedom of association, then they turn around and put limits on it, meaning we're not allowed to discriminate in certain circumstances but can in others. And, just because they've ruled on a case, and just because there is precedent, doesn't mean the first and subsequent rulings were correct. The judges are just people, too. People with biases and fallibility and who make mistakes.

How about this? The government does not get to decide with whom we associate or disassociate. I get to pick who I work for and you get to pick who works for you. If we agree on terms, then we associate with each other. I get to pick who I bake a cake for, you get pick who will bake you a cake and if we agree on terms we associate with each other.

You can not have freedom of speech, religion, or assembly without freedom of association and freedom to disassociate. My rights are not violated if you refuse to hire me or sell something to me, or perform whatever service you do for me. Both of us have to associate with each other voluntarily.

We got into this whole mess because of hurt feelings. Every time a ruling is for the "discriminated against" we get a bit more of the camel into the tent. There will come a day when the government will mandate who you must hire and accommodate and how you hire and accommodate them. Who becomes the slave at that point?

Having said that: I think racial discrimination is morally abhorrent. Religious discrimination is also a bad idea. And, anything that shrinks your potential customer base is not particularly wise. There are all sorts of reasons why you shouldn't discriminate. But all of those reasons are based on voluntary actions of goodwill towards your fellow man.

Either we are free or we are not.

We are not free.; 6/1/15, 9:51 PM
Jason said...: 8 to 1, bitchez.

And the dissent was only partial.

This isn't fecking difficult, people. Stop dwelling on the butthurt. You don't get to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion.

This wasn't much of a controversy. Until it came to the Muzzies.; 6/1/15, 11:48 PM
Annie said...: Thing is, the hijab is not required. It is a personal choice unless you live in SA or Iran. And have you seen the clothes A and F sell? The girl wears a hijab for modest religious reasons, while she would have to wear tight, curve exposing clothing? Riiight.; 6/2/15, 1:08 AM
Bill said...: Ann, you write of the plaintiff, "They proactively kept her out in a way that seemed that they didn't want to have to deal with a request."
You are correct that in this case, A&F may have been burying its head, but a completely innocent employer might still get ensnared by the majority's interpretation.
Imagine an Orthodox Jew, in a telephone interview (and he was raised in Nebraska so he sounds like Tom Brokaw), says to his potential boss, "Oh, Saturdays aren't good for me." The employer fails to ask why because there are 1000 reasons why, but doesn't hire because she wants flexibility.
Does Nebraska applicant have a case? Well, he wasn't hired because of his religious practice thanks to that unwitting bigot. To avoid that absurd result, the court tosses some new words into the statute in its decision: the employer has to have no more than "an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed," but they don't explain where they get that language.; 6/2/15, 6:35 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: A&F is beneath her. She should go to American Apparel where she could wear headscarves with her belly shirts while she tricks for Dov Charney. Who's kidding whom?; 6/2/15, 6:41 AM
sinz52 said...: Way back in the 1960s, America (in the form of our elected Congressmen and the President) made a decision to force private businesses to treat all minority groups fairly. That was the basis of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. No longer could a white businessman refuse service to a black customer just because he didn't want blacks in his place.

Everything else, including this decision on Muslim headcovering, follows from that sea-change.

Anyone who doesn't like that concept and who wishes it were otherwise should put the blame where it belongs: On the widespread racism that existed prior to 1964, especially in the Deep South, whose social backwardness and pigheadedness was the prime motivation for the Civil Rights Act.; 6/2/15, 7:09 AM
Mark said...: Annie, which sect are you speaking for?

Certainly not the ones that wear a burka.
Certainly not most Wahabis.

I have lived in the Islamic world for a few years. If you think only SA and Iran have heads covered you clearly need to get out more.; 6/2/15, 7:25 AM
Bad Lieutenant said...: What are you saying sinz? This is why we can't have nice things?; 6/2/15, 7:46 PM
Aussie Pundit said...: Anyone who doesn't like that concept and who wishes it were otherwise should put the blame where it belongs: On the widespread racism that existed prior to 1964, especially in the Deep South, whose social backwardness and pigheadedness was the prime motivation for the Civil Rights Act.

That's a stupid place to lay blame.
More accurately it is the unintended consequence of laws passed to combat racism.

I'm surprised at the comment "this is really easy."

If I'm an employer, I can't dictate how my employees dress when they come to work? That doesn't seem right.; 6/3/15, 7:49 AM