Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

question everything

(47,537 posts)
Thu Jun 4, 2015, 12:32 PM Jun 2015

An interesting take on the recent SCOTUS vote about Abercrombie & Fitch

It is the latest in a line of Supreme Court cases that have elevated religious rights over secular interests, whether exercised by powerful corporations, government agencies or prison inmates.

and

There is broad agreement among the justices to protect an individual’s rights to religious expression. In January, the court unanimously sided with a Muslim inmate serving a life term after slitting his girlfriend’s throat who had challenged a prison ban on growing a short beard he said his religion required.

No such consensus exists when it comes to firms and government entities claiming similar rights. Last year, the court split 5-4 along its conservative-liberal divide to affirm a town council’s authority to begin meetings nearly exclusively with Christian invocations and to exempt corporations from employee-benefits regulations that violate their owners’ religious beliefs.

In the latter case, the court held that a 1993 federal religious-freedom law entitled Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. to drop contraceptives from its employee health plan even though they are required by Affordable Care Act regulations.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-sides-with-muslim-abercrombie-job-applicant-over-head-scarf-1433170999

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
An interesting take on the recent SCOTUS vote about Abercrombie & Fitch (Original Post) question everything Jun 2015 OP
W/o paying its hard to read the article... Historic NY Jun 2015 #1
afaik, islam doesn't require non-muslims to wear headscarves...? unblock Jun 2015 #3
Note see A&F models... Historic NY Jun 2015 #4
still. if i feel judaism requires me to wear a yarmulke, what do i care if others parade half nude? unblock Jun 2015 #5
Most Muslims in the US exist quite comfortably within the secular population Cal Carpenter Jun 2015 #6
Wait, those filthy disgusting criminal FUCKS on the SC upheld an official govt entity randys1 Jun 2015 #2

Historic NY

(37,453 posts)
1. W/o paying its hard to read the article...
Thu Jun 4, 2015, 12:36 PM
Jun 2015

but I say it elsewhere. I'm just wondering how the plaintiff squares herself with the product placement and targeted advertising A&F does its clothing models certainly aren't in keeping with her religious practices.

Historic NY

(37,453 posts)
4. Note see A&F models...
Thu Jun 4, 2015, 02:23 PM
Jun 2015

perhaps I should have been clearer, the suggestive posing and sometime the lack of the other pieces of clothing...

unblock

(52,331 posts)
5. still. if i feel judaism requires me to wear a yarmulke, what do i care if others parade half nude?
Thu Jun 4, 2015, 06:16 PM
Jun 2015

yes, some people, including some people from all religions, certainly including some christians, muslims, and jews, like to place restrictions on the behavior of others, even in some cases on people who aren't even of the same religion. but it's certainly not all of them and probably a minority. perhaps a vocal minority, and a minority that gets a lot of media coverage, but a minority nonetheless.

Cal Carpenter

(4,959 posts)
6. Most Muslims in the US exist quite comfortably within the secular population
Thu Jun 4, 2015, 06:48 PM
Jun 2015

Working, going to school, having friendships with people who may not dress the way they do or observe Muslim customs like the head scarf. Those who don't probably avoid applying for jobs at the mall.

It doesn't have anything to do with this court case, which is about hiring policies.

I really don't understand what you are trying to get at.

randys1

(16,286 posts)
2. Wait, those filthy disgusting criminal FUCKS on the SC upheld an official govt entity
Thu Jun 4, 2015, 12:54 PM
Jun 2015

right to EXCLUDE other religions other than Xtianity?

WHAT THE FUCK

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»An interesting take on th...