Latest Breaking News

bluestateguy

(44,173 posts)

27. Ruling would be applicable to a Jewish man wearing a kippa too

Mon Jun 1, 2015, 01:19 PM

Jun 2015

And Clarence Thomas, as usual, is just not worth taking seriously. He's qualified to maybe be doing small claims court cases, but that's about it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

93 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

U.S. top court rules for Muslim woman denied job over head scarf [View all] YoungDemCA Jun 2015 OP

Once in awhile they do something right. The Velveteen Ocelot Jun 2015 #1

Scalia and Thomas agree with each other 81% of the time. former9thward Jun 2015 #16

In the 5-4 votes, there certainly is a difference... Princess Turandot Jun 2015 #22

I'm not SwankyXomb Jun 2015 #24

You hear that, sodbusters? Freedom of religion! For everyone! Aristus Jun 2015 #2

How did I know Uncle Tom(mas) was the no vote before reading article? Va Lefty Jun 2015 #3

he's a "No" nothing type of guy? ChairmanAgnostic Jun 2015 #10

lol Va Lefty Jun 2015 #14

And the jury says . . . .Leave It! Divernan Jun 2015 #30

Wow. I guess racism's fine as long as you're insulting the "right" black guy! 7962 Jun 2015 #34

Thomas fits in with Quisling & Vichy France-Petain. Divernan Jun 2015 #55

Whatever he is, it's still racist to call him Uncle Tom. bravenak Jun 2015 #74

Such a disgusting post. Makes me very uncomfortable seeing people use racist terms on DU. bravenak Jun 2015 #75

At least there's a few here that think it's not okay. tammywammy Jun 2015 #79

Thank you. At least I'm not alone. bravenak Jun 2015 #80

Shows how out of touch Clarence Thomas is cosmicone Jun 2015 #4

Didn't he agree in part? Zight Jun 2015 #5

the ruling melm00se Jun 2015 #7

He basically did not agree at all Zight Jun 2015 #18

Careful what you wish for HassleCat Jun 2015 #6

Anything that hides one's identity will not be allowed cosmicone Jun 2015 #9

~o^o~ antiquie Jun 2015 #13

Do you know what religion that was? NT Zight Jun 2015 #19

I wonder whether private employers can get away with establishing a dress code question everything Jun 2015 #21

actualy isn't this completely against the freedom of religion bills being passed samsingh Jun 2015 #25

And what if the next demand is to be allowed to pray 6 times a day? 7962 Jun 2015 #28

You have to let Muslims pray when they religion says they pray Zight Jun 2015 #33

What if the waffle restaurant only has 2 waitresses? 1 has to do all the work? 7962 Jun 2015 #36

If a biz makes policy NOT to hire muslims, laws broken closeupready Jun 2015 #42

True enough, but it'd be tough to prove it. Most jobs get lots of applicants 7962 Jun 2015 #43

Not that tough for civil lawsuits, when it's discrimination. closeupready Jun 2015 #44

As someone who actually hires people, I've been using WhoWoodaKnew Jun 2015 #76

If your employee stats reflected a bias simply on the surface, closeupready Jun 2015 #78

Sure they are. I hire the people that I think are best for my company. WhoWoodaKnew Jun 2015 #89

"Sure they are" is fine for discussion here. However, closeupready Jun 2015 #90

Which will never happen because I never give anyone a reason to go after me WhoWoodaKnew Jun 2015 #91

Peace. closeupready Jun 2015 #92

Dell (or their contract firm Spherion) lost on such a case catrose Jun 2015 #54

Smokers hated me because of what you mention! 7962 Jun 2015 #67

really! catrose Jun 2015 #68

No such religion exists, and that would be undue hardship Zight Jun 2015 #61

"We'll cross that bridge when we get to it." closeupready Jun 2015 #35

Excellent! 7962 Jun 2015 #37

Reasonable Accommodations. LanternWaste Jun 2015 #40

Mr. Colander, here I come! ChairmanAgnostic Jun 2015 #8

It's pretty bad when even Scalia doesn't dissent. malthaussen Jun 2015 #11

Terrible decision reinforcing religious privilege... MellowDem Jun 2015 #12

The law says you can't be neutral. The law gives preference to the religious item Zight Jun 2015 #32

That's fucked up... MellowDem Jun 2015 #39

I imagine a lot of under-educated people believe it's fucked up we allow for accommodations via the LanternWaste Jun 2015 #41

This is like none of those... MellowDem Jun 2015 #46

So you argue that the law is terrible, not the decision Zight Jun 2015 #49

The decision is terrible... MellowDem Jun 2015 #53

It protects the man's turban or yarmulke or the woman's headscarf. Not the boy's sports team hat uppityperson Jun 2015 #62

The 1st amendment gives special status to religion goldent Jun 2015 #64

No, this law does... MellowDem Jun 2015 #77

American political discourse is dominated by religious people Taitertots Jun 2015 #81

So what if a religion said its adherents had to go sans shoes and shirt? No service? WinkyDink Jun 2015 #15

My religion doesnt believe in bras!! 7962 Jun 2015 #29

How does that prevent you from being a sale's person???? happyslug Jun 2015 #70

I disagree with this decision. The reason is because it's a sales position. They expect their sales BlueJazz Jun 2015 #17

If there is "undue hardship", Abercrombie can reject the applicant Zight Jun 2015 #31

It's not about hurting their sales. It's about letting one's internal beliefs dictate what they can BlueJazz Jun 2015 #45

How about a 2" cross? Or a not-so-large Star of David? Zight Jun 2015 #47

Sure, no big deal. I said "You may have different thoughts about the subject" ..or something .. BlueJazz Jun 2015 #50

So you would allow a medium-size Star, a medium-size Yarmulke and a mediium-size headscarf Zight Jun 2015 #57

Actually the Jewish people could wear what they want. They're the only ones that don't freak... BlueJazz Jun 2015 #58

Except if they want a 10 inch Star of David? Zight Jun 2015 #59

I changed my mind. It's the cross thing that bothers me. I feel like they're all scared of vampires. BlueJazz Jun 2015 #60

A head scarf is not analogous to an extremely large religious icon closeupready Jun 2015 #48

I agree. The girl wasn't wearing a gigantic headscarf Zight Jun 2015 #51

True but that's my opinion on it. Would I go into the store if she wore a full burka ? BlueJazz Jun 2015 #52

Understood. I'm not muslim, but I am GLBT, closeupready Jun 2015 #56

It's analogous to an atheist choosing to wear a baseball cap Taitertots Jun 2015 #82

Because baseball caps are symbolic of atheism? closeupready Jun 2015 #83

If I decide my hat is symbolic, why isn't that as valid as religious people's opinions Taitertots Jun 2015 #84

The US government doesn't just let you make up stuff closeupready Jun 2015 #85

Religious opinions are just as "made up" as non-religious opinions Taitertots Jun 2015 #86

The issue of legitimacy here pertains to the US government. closeupready Jun 2015 #87

Legitimacy? Not legitimacy, acceptance by the priviledged Taitertots Jun 2015 #88

No, they're more like god in that they don't exist. LeftyMom Jun 2015 #93

Excellent ruling. A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, closeupready Jun 2015 #20

WTF? Orsino Jun 2015 #23

You can NOT call a Sales Jobs a Model Job and get away with it. happyslug Jun 2015 #66

I wonder how this will affect places like Disney who classify employees similarly riderinthestorm Jun 2015 #26

In many ways that was addressed in PGA vs Martin in 2001 happyslug Jun 2015 #65

I'd stipulate then you've clearly never been in a Disney sales shop riderinthestorm Jun 2015 #69

And A&F's LOST because they could NOT convince a Judge Modeling was THE important part of the Job happyslug Jun 2015 #71

Cinderella "sales staff" in headscarves is the collision of this ruling riderinthestorm Jun 2015 #72

Even among right wingers, attempts to work around the ADA and Civil Rights Acts have been disfavored happyslug Jun 2015 #73

Ruling would be applicable to a Jewish man wearing a kippa too bluestateguy Jun 2015 #27

I dont know, have you BEEN to a small claims court lately? 7962 Jun 2015 #38

kippa have been subject to litigation, in the MIlitary and Religion cases happyslug Jun 2015 #63