Latest Breaking News

Zight

(45 posts)

57. So you would allow a medium-size Star, a medium-size Yarmulke and a mediium-size headscarf

Reply to BlueJazz (Reply #50)

Mon Jun 1, 2015, 04:09 PM

Jun 2015

Correct? Or would you only allow the reasonably-sized Jewish stuff?

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

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