Here's A Dilemma

[Mudhammam]

I was just discussing this case with my girlfriend and she agrees with you, Dystopia, that it's religious discrimination. In fact, she told me an anecdote that at an apartment complex she used to work at, a couple of prospective tenants demanded that their goat be allowed to live in the building with them. This was against the apartment's policy so they denied the application, the couple sued claiming the goat was for religious purposes, and won. I find that crazy.

Because freedom of religion is a fundamental right and shouldn't be threatened - It isn't just the choice to pick a religion, but to change faith or to not believe. If we agree with the overall idea of freedom to worship (or not) we need to accept the fact some people will embrace religious traditions we disagree with. In your case religious symbols of Islam or Christianity are like Nazism but not everyone thinks alike, you are picking according to religions you dislike the most - The principle is to treat all religions equally, regardless of what others think of them. The case of Nazi ideologies is different because it's a political ideology, and believe me, constitutionally politics is treated different from religion all over the western world. It's not that I don't agree with you, but religion and political ideologies are different fields. I think religious symbols should be hidden if possible - The Christian cross can be hidden. The problem with the hijab is that it can't.

I wouldn't deny a person the right to practice whatever religion they choose, but I don't think that triumphs all other considerations, meaning that they shouldn't be allowed to do so wherever, however, and whenever they please. I see this as religious advertising on the part of the plaintiff, and as far as I know, nobody can walk into a grocery store and start advertising their faith to other customers without getting asked to leave. Why should an employee be able to advertise on the clock, whether its as subtle as a cross, a Jesus bracelet, or something that is both as ridiculous and conspicuous as a hijab in an Abercrombie and Fitch?

But even if you find that unpersuasive, how is this a religious issue anyways? As you correctly pointed out, Muslims do not own a monopoly on headscarves. It's no more related to Islam as the opportunists would like to portray that it is, as it is to Christianity, since the Bible does strongly advise that women should wear headscarves. So I'm confused. Is it discriminatory on religious grounds so long as enough people demand that their preferred article of clothing is necessary for their "spiritual well-being" and should be given absolute right over every other person's feelings or favorite choice of dress?

And finally, two things on the political side of it: I think it's debatable that Islam is not a political system. Do not both history and the present state of affairs bear this out? Even if you disagree with that, we both know the swastika is much older than Nazism and is a sacred symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. Would you allow someone to wear that if they cited their personal religious convictions as justification? You may argue that it too easily brings to mind the deaths of millions of innocent people, but then, why can't that be said about any religious, national, or political symbol?

I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument either. I'm simply saying that the justification, as far as I can tell, is not there for giving special privilege to "mainstream" religions, which is a very different thing in my mind than banning them or depriving anyone of their "religious freedom."

I know people might compare this to homosexuals having wedding cakes made by Christian bakers who want the right to refuse doing so, but to me the biggest difference is this: there's a rational case for government's recognition of marriage and equality and no rational case for depriving homosexuals of equal rights, whereas on this issue there's no rational case for religion at all, let alone granting people extra rights because the whim of their priest or imam recommended a new practice this week or has decided that last week's ban is now expired.

I overall agree with the modern look of Abercrombie and Fitch and I accept that she may not be hired, but lets not make it a habit to not hire people because of headscarfs (otherwise we risk creating a new category of unemployed)

As for your mimic of Jesus, I think moderation when applying individual rights is the key. A cross is fine, a headscarf may be fine, but no exaggeration. It's one thing to bring my personal crucifix, it's another to bring a giant painting of Jesus with me everyday. I believe I had a debate about this as well and we concluded that as long as there's moderation in allowing religious symbols (personal ones I mean) it's not a problem. It becomes a problem when it bothers other people significantly. In the case of the giant painting of Jesus, it can be an intimidating and embarrassing image for those who don't believe or believe differently - Not that a crucifix cannot bother people, but it can be hidden, and even if it can't the magnitude and size of the object is usually not enough to bother most folks

I think everyone knows that the headscarf does offend A LOT of people, and for much a better reason than we simply think it looks stupid: it too is associated with the barbaric, medieval past of patriarchy.

[dyresand]

Meh I'm neutral to this, I wouldn't deny someone a job because of a headscarf but it depends on the job. I'm surprised christians are siding with their primary enemies. It's ironic how conservative side with everyone when it's convenient

Only because its a religious matter otherwise they wouldn't care.

[Ravenshire]

Nestor I agree with you but how much freedom do business owners have? What if I thought beards were inappropriate? Or red ties? See where I'm going? I think if a business is going to forbid wearing certain pieces of clothing there needs to be a justification of why it's necessary and impacts profit.

Yep. That's why no-one in any professional environments would ever dream of banning blue-jeans.

Er... Wait...

Oops.

[Losty]

Hmmm....if the Supreme Court sides with the Muslim woman...will hooters also be required to hire women in hijab?

[rexbeccarox]

Businesses have dress codes, and they also have uniforms. I had a job once where I had to wear a specific brand and cut of black pants, a specific brand and cut of oxford shirt, specific shoes, stud-diamond earrings, and my hair had to be worn a specific way. I've also had jobs where I've had guidelines, which included no headwear. Businesses in most societies, IMO, absolutely should have the right to tell their employees how to dress, as employees absolutely have the right not to take a job there.

[Surgenator]

Businesses have dress codes, and they also have uniforms. I had a job once where I had to wear a specific brand and cut of black pants, a specific brand and cut of oxford shirt, specific shoes, stud-diamond earrings, and my hair had to be worn a specific way. I've also had jobs where I've had guidelines, which included no headwear. Businesses in most societies, IMO, absolutely should have the right to tell their employees how to dress, as employees absolutely have the right not to take a job there.

Were you part of the men in black?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Discrimination my arse. All jobs have certain requirements regarding the attire you can or cannot wear. If they don't think a head scarf is appropriate for the job, don't wear it, or they have every right to find someone else who will comply with the rules.

The problem is that she asked in advance, was told yes, based on the fact that a couple of Jewish employees were permitted to wear yarmulkes working in the same district.

If religious wear is acceptable for one sect, so long as it doesn't interfere with the employee's duties, should it not be available to all?

[Mudhammam]

The problem is that she asked in advance, was told yes, based on the fact that a couple of Jewish employees were permitted to wear yarmulkes working in the same district.

If religious wear is acceptable for one sect, so long as it doesn't interfere with the employee's duties, should it not be available to all?

To me the fact that it's religious has very little to do with it. I look at it as the person who makes the rules for the work place should be able to determine how they want their employees to dress. Do I think some religious symbols should be allowed and others not? Well not personally---my position is essentially that work and religion shouldn't mix, but in terms of policy I think that should be entirely left up to the owner. I should be clear that I don't think any employer should be allowed to discriminate against a person's religious beliefs when hiring, nor their gender or their sexual orientation---I just can't see how enforcing a dress code is remotely the same thing.

---

Hmmm....if the Supreme Court sides with the Muslim woman...will hooters also be required to hire women in hijab?

Stop turning me on!!!!

[Pizza]

Hooters' girls in hijabs sounds kinky. I like it.

[pocaracas]

If the dress code requirement is directly related to job-related hazards or would endanger the health or safety of the employee, I am all on the side of the business. For example, requiring men to be clean-shaven (or at most a mustache) in a workplace that requires respirators, either as regular use or in cases of emergency; forbidding robes or flowing fabric in workplaces with machinery where such apparel could get caught and endanger the employee; headgear that interferes with the proper fit and function of safety helmets, etc.

If the dress code requirement is entirely aesthetic, then I would side with the employee and require the business to demonstrate that allowing the employee to violate the dress code would be a substantial burden on the company.

In the case of the Abercrombie employee, there doesn't appear to be any health and safety related reasons that she cannot wear a hijab, it seems to be an aesthetic thing, so I would side with the employee until such time as A&F demonstrates that allowing her to wear a head covering would harm the business.

CM, Let's say I'm straight out of law school, top of the class, super memory for all the law's caveats and so on.
I apply for a position at a law firm, they like my CV and set up an interview.
I show up wearing jeans and a t-shirt. Will they hire me? (NO)
Is there any health and safety hazard? (NO)
Is it an aesthetic thing? (YES)
Would it harm the business if I wore jeans and t-shirt to work? (Depends on the customer)

That said, what is the target audience for this Abercrombie? Is it conservative, or, as someone said, raunchy?
If it is conservative, then I agree that the woman should be hired as she would be upholding conservative values by wearing that thing on her head and showing her respect for her cultural heritage (note I didn't say religion the hijab is not a religious item, as far as I'm concerned)
If the store caters to young liberal slutty women, then the staff must act and dress accordingly.
It seems the store has a dress code and that code disallows the covering of the hair. Knowing this, why would that woman go to the job interview wearing something in defiance of the established dress code?