-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Fired from Hollister for wearing the hijab?
- Thread starter Zapages
- Start date
- Status
Gaborn said:
Do you believe that a store has the right to refuse service to a person because of his or her race? What if the store receives little negative public reaction and other stores in the area begin to implement such policies? Do you still believe the government should not intervene?
These companies go for a certain look so no matter what she does there she has to dress a certain way. I wonder if she wore a hijab at the interview?
lol at people saying they are discriminating because of race. They would have never hired her if race was an issue. They fired her because of something she wore (which doesn't fall in line with their shitty style).
lol at people saying they are discriminating because of race. They would have never hired her if race was an issue. They fired her because of something she wore (which doesn't fall in line with their shitty style).
red shoe paul
Banned
I have a friend who is a manager at a Hollister and he fires all the ugly girls and hires hot girls that give him head for the job, which is hilarious.
Somebody else I know went for an interview and Hollister told him he needed to wear Hollister everyday, and be Hollister. He's like uh, no thanks.
Somebody else I know went for an interview and Hollister told him he needed to wear Hollister everyday, and be Hollister. He's like uh, no thanks.
speculawyer
Member
It is just an allegation at this point . . . if she only worked in the back room and that was the reason they fired her, she'll probably win. But if she stocked store shelves or they fired her for another reason . . . this is just bluster.
joey_z said:
Legally? Currently it doesn't have the legal right. I think it SHOULD have that right though, whether a store in china town that doesn't like white customers or some mom and pop shop in the deep south that doesn't like blacks. It's counter productive in the long run to a business's interests to refuse customers like that since it will turn a lot of your target group off, but yes, I think they should have the right to be idiots and assholes.
As much as I hate France doing this because it is a government, I have little problem with a company doing the same.
Nearly every place I've worked at has had a uniform dress code. My current job requires us to wear logo wear or suits. This is regardless of where you work or what you do. However, we do not have janitorial staff.
Our dress codes do not allow head coverings. We have a few Muslim woman working for us and they don't seem to have a problem which may hinder the religious rights argument if that's the same case at Hollister.
EDIT - I am going to correct myself. This is over a headscarf which is a little different than the France thing, but still.
Nearly every place I've worked at has had a uniform dress code. My current job requires us to wear logo wear or suits. This is regardless of where you work or what you do. However, we do not have janitorial staff.
Our dress codes do not allow head coverings. We have a few Muslim woman working for us and they don't seem to have a problem which may hinder the religious rights argument if that's the same case at Hollister.
EDIT - I am going to correct myself. This is over a headscarf which is a little different than the France thing, but still.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Gaborn said:
It's a simple mind - not grounded in reality - that believes that the Free Market is a perfect system and always works flawlessly.
dinazimmerman
Incurious Bastard
speculawyer said:
This.
Devil Theory
Member
Gaborn said:
My god am I glad people like you have zero authority in the world.
Schwowsers
Member
Gaborn said:
It's nice to think that people would just boycott discriminatory businesses and the world would just balance itself, but I think it is incredibly naive to think that would ever work. I think it would lead the way to a lot more hostility and violence.
speculawyer
Member
Gaborn said:
How about a lot of stores in a conservative/religious area that all refuse to serve gay people. I mean really . . . they are only 2% or so of the population, so fuck 'em.
And the gay people just driving through the area who have their car break down? Well fuck em, let them walk to the next state.
Mods, that is sarcasm. BTW, that is the way it was for black people in the south years ago. It might still be that way today if it were not for civil rights legislation.
A hijab would fall under the dress code and could be subject to employer restrictions and expectations on dress code. In this case, these douchbag stores (Hollister, Abercrombie & Fitch) tend to have 'a look' and then aim not to hire people that don't show that look off the best.
On the other hand, I don't believe employers should be discriminatory so as to make exclusions that violate a countries charter of rights. ie. Whites Only, Aborigines Not Welcome, We don't Serve Coloureds.
So the problem here, as was stated, is when a persons identity is closely affiliated with what they wear, such as Sikhs. In some cases this is easy, since safety trumps religious appeal all of the time.
In situations where this doesn't apply, you are in a sense discriminating against a group by discriminating clothing. However, I don't necessarily see an issue with discriminating against clothing (and thereby discriminating against the individual) on the basis that employment is an inherently discriminatory system.
You discriminate based on education, which has overall racial implications in some countries. You discriminate against age, since experience is a measured by time. You discriminate against language, since fluent speakers of a language will outperform those that do not. The list goes on.
Under this mesh of two throughts it then becomes okay to state that you have a particular dress code and indirectly discriminate against people who hold certain cultural or religious traditions, but it is not okay to directly discriminate against that religion or tradition themselves.
On the other hand, I don't believe employers should be discriminatory so as to make exclusions that violate a countries charter of rights. ie. Whites Only, Aborigines Not Welcome, We don't Serve Coloureds.
So the problem here, as was stated, is when a persons identity is closely affiliated with what they wear, such as Sikhs. In some cases this is easy, since safety trumps religious appeal all of the time.
In situations where this doesn't apply, you are in a sense discriminating against a group by discriminating clothing. However, I don't necessarily see an issue with discriminating against clothing (and thereby discriminating against the individual) on the basis that employment is an inherently discriminatory system.
You discriminate based on education, which has overall racial implications in some countries. You discriminate against age, since experience is a measured by time. You discriminate against language, since fluent speakers of a language will outperform those that do not. The list goes on.
Under this mesh of two throughts it then becomes okay to state that you have a particular dress code and indirectly discriminate against people who hold certain cultural or religious traditions, but it is not okay to directly discriminate against that religion or tradition themselves.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
If you change stores to churches then that's pretty much already the case. But that's an issue for a whole other thread.speculawyer said:
I think the dress code trumps religious expression in this case. To my knowledge, no religious headware of any kind is allowed at Hollister, so there isn't any favoritism.
Elan tedronai
Banned
headscarves eh? who would have thought a piece of cloth on someone's head can cause so much problems for a company
speculawyer said:
There are always going to be hateful areas and hateful groups against certain people. But we need to get over the idea that if not for government intervention blacks wouldn't be able to vote (I'm not ignoring jim crow or segregation or literacy tests or the like, they served their purpose and I think in today's world we've changed more than enough), women would be considered property, and gays would still be subject to electro shock therapy. Yes, there are still some people with outdated views and bigoted opinions, but the world has changed in the last 40-50 years, we don't have the same attitudes and prejudices, I think most anyone would be SHOCKED if they saw a (serious) sign in the window with "no irish need apply" and the same for gays, even if someone didn't "agree" with homosexuality.
EDIT: To clarify, I meant the civil rights act of 1964, Brown v Board, etc all served their purposes and the horrible instances of Jim Crow, literacy tests and such are really relegated to the fringe view point. Not that those should return.
Gaborn said:
There are certain people in certain places that hold their discriminatory practices above profit. This is a certain truth that history attests to. So if one area begins to refuse basic service to a person that (for e.g.) is black, and such services are basic necessities to run business and to nourish children, then not only is such a society infringing on the basic rights of the black person, but it also disables black people as a whole from helping themselves.
What will a black family do if it can not buy water and food from a super store? What if a black person wants to set up a farm and relies on tractors and harvestors to which he can not gain access to because no one will sell him such vehicles? And what if delivery companies care not enough to deliver essential products to and from his farm? Why should the right of one person to sell something be more important than the right of another person to survive?
Your view is philosophically naive and realistically stupid. If clothing stores decide that they can sell to whom they want, then it is not their right to do so anymore because their right infringes on someone else's right to clothe themself, to stay warm; the pursuit of happiness - such a right seizes to exist.
Gaborn said:
Your logic is flawed. You are assuming that the world is good enough now to not need anti discriminatory law, but at the same time you think it's alright for a store to refuse service to a person based on their race. Your rationale of confronting problems is to attend to it when it happens instead of setting up solid perventative measures before it can take place. I think the stronger assumption to make is that race relations are better now because of anti discriminatory laws than because of some mass sudden change in heart.
slit said:
Is it discrimination? Did they say she can't be Muslim and work there, or that she can't show off her religion at work, in violation of a dress code? There is a difference. I understand that IS part of what she believes she should do, religiously, but what if I believed I had to grow a beard and their code said no facial hair? They can't fire her for having any specific religion, but once she bring religion to work with her...I dunno.
joey_z said:
Let me ask you, would YOU go to a business that refused customers based on their race? Or would you look for an alternative? In a market based society ideas ultimately win out, and if there is a demand for a business that doesn't discriminate (and I think virtually everywhere, including the deep south and any neighborhood in the US that would apply) they will exist. Personally I'd rather know who the racist sonovabitches are so I can refuse to give them my money.
Seth C said:
of course its not acceptable behavior.
Freedom of religion is your freedom to have a religion and exercise it in your privacy.
It does NOT mean that you can bring your religious attributes every where you go, demanding certain special treatment like wearing hijabs, praying 5 times a day, demanding that they serve special food, etc etc. Its ridiculous. Not only do we have to accept your superstition but we also have to adapt to it and in the end like it? Hell no
Sure wear your hijabs or niqabs or whatever, but dont expect us to like it or adapt to it.
Gaborn said:
I respectfully disagree. Without the codification of rights and a form to protect them, human opportunism will always resort to what is most advantageous. All it would take is a brief period of anarchy for these 'rights' to disappear.
The 'world' has not changed. Your brain is the same brain that barbarians possessed thousands of years ago. What has changed however is the intellectual force behind political movement that has called for logical and rational consistency to our actions.
All it would take to get people to return to that ancient state of mind is to erode education and enlightnment and lower people back down to a nature of base survival. This is not that difficult to do on a planet with finite resources and an ever increasing population of human beings.
Kaeru said:
When do Muslims demand halal food, if they can't eat halal they go somewhere else or eat vegetarian food. What special treatment are you talking about, how is wearing a hijab in anyway a problem. And a proper muslim will always bring their religious attributes with them after all they are muslim (not a part time muslim) but I don't see how any of these attributes affect YOU. It seems you are the one with a problem and they are not the problem.
Atrus said:
I think we might disagree about "rights" but certainly society would disappear in a period of anarchy, that's one aspect of most total dissolutions of government (and why I'm a libertarian, NOT an anarchist)
No, first of all "intellectual force" the way you're using the term seems to mean societal prejudices. Throughout history human societies have had a shifting variety of taboos and things that weren't taboo. For example, in ancient Sparta male soldiers often took on young boys as "squires" for sexual relationships creating strong almost familial bonds... and then after the latest war or battle went home to their wives and children. in Rome the taste for young men was also common, now pedophilia is (I'd say) rightly condemned by modern society.
You can also look at modern society in terms of slavery - for thousands of years in different forms slavery persisted in our society until the last century and a half. Look at prostitution, the world's oldest profession exists in many modern societies, in others it's seen as moral degradation... yet it persists.
Or drug use, the same thing, for much of human history drug use was universally legal, they wouldn't even understand what forbidding the use of some drugs would MEAN in some cultures, yet we think nothing of doing so and attaching a stigma to drug use.
"That ancient state of mind" saw some people (people not of your society essentially) as inherently inferior. I can't speak for everyone but I see blacks as equal with whites and part of US society, it's NOT the same thing, though I agree if anything with "finite resources" nationalism might intensify later on down the road.
Chichikov said:In this post, a person who is not familiar with BFOQ.
It may or may not hold in court, but it's going to boil down to establishing how integral is this dress code is to Hollister's business.
Those bona fides are among the most narrowly interpreted pieces of law that I doubt that Hollister's arguments will hold up in court.
KAL2006 said:
Well in many schools in Sweden they serve halalfood.
In others they stopped serving pork because of demands from muslims.
They demand to wear their hijabs in schools, officebuildings, hell even in public swimminghalls( No I shit you not it has happened).
Theres 100ds of examples but yes, Swedes are feeling that they have to cave in to demands of muslims, all under the flag of freedom of religion, which is something they themselves could care less about when it comes to other religions.
For me its a problem since I dont like people shoving their ideology/religion in my face.
It can also be extra sensitive in certain situations(especially when dealing with public offices etc). Its certainly not only me who has a problem with the ideology that is Islam. Just like people have problems with communism, nazism, and any other type of destructive ideology and would not accept them wearing symbols of this, I dont accept symbols of Islam being wore in public.
Lets ban the hijab!
JGS said:
I'm not equating them. But I do not see why one would have the right to ban hijabs and the other would not. It's either both or none. The fact that it's private (which is not completely the case anyway as it's a clothes store) or public has nothing to do with the problem.
I don't understand why you would hate one and be a-ok with the other.
crazy monkey
Banned
Kaeru said:
fuck you.
Seth C said:
Yes, because the law states that they have to accommodate her unless the practice creates undue hardship on the business. Hollister is gonna have a hell of a time proving that her wearing a headscarf creates that hardship regardless of what the dress code says. In this case It's going to be especially hard since she's in the back stockroom most of the time.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Historically oppressed groups of people in this day and age are only able to be sold goods and services because it would be illegal not to sell it to them?
Gaborn has a point. We are living in 2010, afterall. Does anyone really think a major corporation would publicly discriminate against someone in these times?
Gaborn has a point. We are living in 2010, afterall. Does anyone really think a major corporation would publicly discriminate against someone in these times?
Kaeru said:
Again how does someone wearing a hijab affect YOU. And about the halal food in the canteen, halal food tastes exactly the same it changes nothing, yes I agree that NOT serving pork is unfair however no one is stopping this, if they served pork, muslims would just avoid it. And about the ideology thing it's a poor argument, and you making comparisons to nazism is a joke. With your way of thinking I should get pissed off if I see a african wearing traditional african clothing in american, oh noes what are you doing you should be wearing fucking K Swiss trainers and a baseball cap fuck off wear that shit at home its somehow affecting me wahhh wahhh
Raist said:
Well, one has the right to set any number of protocols that should not be enforced by the government. For a wild example, a person's right to drink whatever legal substance they want does not translate to a Coca Cola employee being allowed to drink Pepsi.
Employers limit freedoms all the time that are allowed by society. I know I wish I didn't have to wear logo wear or a suit all day, but those are the terms of employment. If this is a religious issue that is covered under the law, then of course, I have no problems with Hollister getting in trouble for it. I was just thinking that it was not a religious issue.
crazy monkey said:
What? I just wanna do what Turkey has done.
Communsm, Nazism, Islamism.
For me they repressent a threat to our free society and democracy and I will fight them equally.
With that said I can perfectly well be friends with people who exercise them, I have communist friends and I have muslim friends. But I will never accept their ideologies.
Any swastika, hammerandscythe, or hijab or other islamic artefacts does disturb me for what they represent. Its not the clothing per se but the underlying value it represent.
I understand that you dont agree with me but im sure you can understand the logic behind my reasoning.
JGS said:
I completely understand your view. What I do not understand is why your first sentence should not apply to a government. And vice versa. If a government says "you can do whatever you want" then why would a company based in that country would have the right to say "well not in my shop dude".
slit said:
And if they feel her displaying publicly her religion in such a way negatively impacts the "Hollister image" and therefore hurts sales? Let's be realistic here. These companies have fired people for gaining weight on that argument. You really think they can't win this one on the same basis?
crazy monkey
Banned
Kaeru said:
fuck we grew up in Muslim countries. Not everybody wore hijab and who ever wanted to wear it could. It is something cold sharam and haya. If they want to wear it let them. If some one is forcing some one to wear it than it is different story. do you know anyone that was forced to wear it ? if yes go and fight. But if woman is wearing as her choice and you say anything to her FUCK YOU. One of my sister wears it.
and for you nazi , and muslim is same nice.
Liquid Helium
Member
I can't speak for him, but I think the logic goes that there are other companies, so you can shop at another company. But there is only one government.Raist said:
crazy monkey
Banned
devilhawk said:
but why do they hire them than? Just so that they can fire? It should be explained fro beginning that if they want to work this is dress code.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked