Support NeoGAF

[Diablos]

Hollister is a subsidiary of Abercrombie & Fitch, so this doesn't surprise me at all. Between what I and so many others have read, and conversations I've had personally with a former A&F supervisor, this kind of bullshit is par for the course. They are a morally and ethically flawed company, and I wouldn't feel bad for a second if they went out of business tomorrow.

 

[Shanadeus]

It hasn't been banned. Again this is a very particular case, and Scientology has criminal activities. Fraud and whatnot.



"Portions" would be pretty wide. It's ONE specific aspect of the religion, which as I said previously is in complete disagreement with the constitution. Simply because it's a slap in the face of the value that men and women are equal (and thus is itself a discrimination) for a start. I'm pretty sure the percentage of women chosing to wear a niqab is not 100%. Etc.

So if both men and women were to wear a similar piece of clothing covering body and face, motivated by a religion or not, it wouldn't have been banned?

 

[Gaborn]

Why should I? In your anything goes libertarian paradise, I'm really mad at your disrespect for the people that worked hard before you that I'll just say FUCK YOU.

Hey, calm down there, I'm not attacking you.

Duh.

Shall I take that as a "no"?

Are the laws harming you somehow? Is there a black man you are hoping to lynch?

What the FUCK is wrong with you?

Are you saying we should repeal such laws?

Once they've served their intended purpose? Yes.

And yes . . . I do have a very low opinion of humanity. Not that I'm surprised . . . we are just apes that had a brain which evolved into a great thinking machine since it helped us survive.

But we are still just those slightly smart apes. The only substantive difference between us and our ancestors of the last 50,000 years or so is the society we have built. The educational institutions. The economic system. The science and technology that have evolved over thousands of years. And to a large extent, our governments and laws that made those possible. Take those away and we are little more than our close relative apes that we visit at the zoo.

And that's the difference between you and me. I have a moderately high opinion of humanity. There are good people and bad people to be sure, just as there good and bad in almost every species. But I believe that by and large there is decency in at least 95% of people no matter who they are.

Durrr.

Yes, today. We're living in today, we aren't living in the 60s during the height of the civil rights movement.

Yeah, it is sad that they are necessary. But that Iraq example . . .

Iraq was more than what I'm suggesting. As I previously noted I'm a libertarian, not an anarchist. even Baghdad for MONTHS had a series of power outages basically daily, much of the country for a couple YEARS had intermittent access to water, regular access to food wasn't guaranteed, there was extremely high unemployment, etc. In those conditions people can revert to some of their basic instincts sure, but I can't think of any feasible situation where someone in our culture who isn't already a white supremacist but rather is a typical every day american would EVER just go "ok, let's go lynch some blacks" and is only restrained from doing so by force of law.

Would you be fine with all the domestic airlines getting together and agreeing not to fly Muslims or middle-eastern-looking people?

If you honestly think they'd be willing to give up a customer base "just because" you're frankly crazy. I live about half an hour outside of Detroit, and when I go to the airport and board a plane there's usually a substantial number of Arabs (since we're right near Dearborn which has a huge middle eastern community), they wouldn't have to completely shut down DTW if they did as your hypothetical suggested but they'd lose substantial business if they tried it. But yes, if they got together and tried to do it I wouldn't have a LEGAL problem with it, I would be personally disgusted with it though. (and amused since it wouldn't work particularly well)

 

[Zaptruder]

If you get to wear a niqab, I get to wear my atheist codpiece.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

It may, but the application of the law suggests this is allowable.

I'd bet money there's no way they get off here. Probably settle out of court.

 

[Rentahamster]

Is there a black man you are hoping to lynch?

You make some good points, but that was necessary.

I may be wrong, but I believe that you "durring" at the fact that contemporary American society is for the most part not in favor of segregation, banning interracial marriage, and preventing blacks from voting kinda proves the point Gaborn is trying to make.

As for the Iraq example, that is a bit of an imperfect analogy since their societal norms, culture, legal infrastructure, etc. are much different than our own.

 

[Diablos]

If you get to wear a niqab, I get to wear my atheist codpiece.

Yep.

The fact that this is A&F though makes me that much more pissed. It's par for the course for them to discriminate against anyone who basically isn't white and not a perfect 10, so I'm inclined to believe their motives for firing went well beyond the simple fact that a hijab was being worn.

 

[Kinitari]

Sweden dying? I have to quote Andrew "Dice" Clay in saying: "Where do you get your fucking information?"

Never said Sweden was dying, said the labour force was dying - as in - not enough people were being born to fill the requirement - I figured that was pretty clear, in fact you agree with me later in your post.

Sweden had an massimmigration from neighbouring country Finland(which historically has belonged to Sweden) and also a little from Jugoslavia and parts of southern Europe.
Because of the cultural similarities it went pretty smooth, especially with the majority that was the Finns since Swedish is the official language there etc.
Sweden, who was neutral in WWII, had a booming industry post WWII and needed working force for their industry.
What separated this from the massimmigration that we have today is 2 things:

1. They came here because there was work for them
2. We had an assimilation process which means they had to adapt to our society

While I concede that I don't quite know the workforce situation in Sweden now, compared to 10, 20 or even 50 years ago - I am pretty sure immigration is still needed to maintain a healthy population in Sweden, as the birth rate - as far as I can tell, is far too low to keep it up itself.

But what is this assimilation process you speak of? Was this a legal thing you guys had going for a while, where you would... I don't know, forcefully change the interior decorating of their houses or something?

And also worth mentioning is the fact that the numbers werent near the numbers that we have had the last 30 years.

Well call me silly but I believe you should adapt to the country that you come to.
I dont want to "clear" anything up. We have the people we have, lets deal with the real situation and not with fantasies of repatriation.

Why do you have to hide your religion and, for all intents and purposes, 'white wash' yourself to adapt? And I sort of thought understanding your stance on the current population of immigrants, and what your ideal solution would be is important, at least to better understand your mindset. For example, I am curious to know if you think that kicking out all people who have immigrated from a certain background would be a good idea? It's a little vague with what you previously said.

Sure thing cultures change all the time. I have my idea of what our culture should represent and im trying to make sure that happens, even if it means to go against the flow on certain issues.

Mmm, you are completely entitled to attempt to shape your country any way you want, if a culture of intolerance is what you want, strive for it... I guess. My point wasn't that you can't feel the way you feel, but that it is illogical and probably pointless to. A homogeneous culture in an ethnically diverse society is just... well not happening.

Multiculturalism is one of those things I dont like so im fighting against it. We have a political party that represents my views and who probably will be elected to parliament this coming election, so im not alone. Its a movement, just like many countries in Europe have nationalistic movement right now, many of them most likely as a response to the terrible consequences that massimmigration has brought forward.

I am not big on Euro politics, but from what I hear that political party is just... openly discriminatory - but whatevs.

Also, can you clarify these terrible consequences plaguing the EU because of mass immigration? I understand that Muslims are making themselves quite known in a lot of EU countries, and some of them are not becoming productive members of society, but firstly - I think it might be blown a bit out of proportion, and secondly - banning cultural representation in your country is not going to solve shit.

In Denmark the nationalistic party has been very successful in fighting multiculturalism, massimmigration and the islamification. So theyre in a way dictating the future of Denmark and has made a huge impact. Thats what im striving for here in Sweden and im sure that it will happen here too

Have they been very successful? I mean, Denmark is still very multicultural, there is still a large group of immigrants and as far as I know, a LARGE portion of the Muslims - all I've seen that party do is stir up a lot of shit. If that's success... well huzzah.

And striving for a dictatorship? Maybe I misunderstand, but you want one political party to control the entirety of the country? Or are you just turning a phrase?

 

[Rentahamster]

Yep.

The fact that this is A&F though makes me that much more pissed. It's par for the course for them to discriminate against anyone who basically isn't white and not a perfect 10, so I'm inclined to believe their motives for firing went well beyond the simple fact that a hijab was being worn.

Your suspicion doesn't make sense since they actually hired her in the beginnning. An organization that is willing to "discriminate against anyone who basically isn't white and not a perfect 10" wouldn't have hired her in the first place.

 

[Kinitari]

You make some good points, but that was necessary.

I may be wrong, but I believe that you "durring" at the fact that contemporary American society is for the most part not in favor of segregation, banning interracial marriage, and preventing blacks from voting kinda proves the point Gaborn is trying to make.

As for the Iraq example, that is a bit of an imperfect analogy since their societal norms, culture, legal infrastructure, etc. are much different than our own.

I haven't been paying too much attention, but I am under the impression that Spec is trying to say that the very reason society is the way it is, is because of the civil rights movement - that the reason why we might not need government intervention now is because we had government intervention before and basically forced everyone to play nice for a generation or two.

 

[numble]

I'm curious if people actually read the OP and saw this:

This is not the first complaint against Abercrombie & Fitch that involves the hijab. In 2008, the Oklahoma chapter of CAIR filed a complaint against the company with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) after a Tulsa teenager was apparently refused employment because of her hijab.

In that case, the EEOC has filed a discrimination suit against Abercrombie & Fitch. In 2004, the EEOC charged the clothing chain with putting into place discriminatory hiring practices. The company, which operates more than 1,000 stores worldwide, settled the case for $50 million and agreed to change its policies.

 

[nib95]

She should just do the common American thing and sue. They hired her on the proviso she could wear the hijab, but only if she did so in occurrence with store colours. She did exactly that. Only trouble was, the area manager did not share the same views and the store manager and as such for refusing to remove her hijab she was fired.

There's got to be a solid case in there somewhere. Just on the embarrassment and distress caused alone. I mean they're common grounds to squeeze extra pennies out of these kinds of cases right? Lol.

 

[Gaborn]

I haven't been paying too much attention, but I am under the impression that Spec is trying to say that the very reason society is the way it is, is because of the civil rights movement - that the reason why we might not need government intervention now is because we had government intervention before and basically forced everyone to play nice for a generation or two.

and I acknowledged that. What I'm suggesting is that a post-racial society, which I think almost everyone agrees is a goal shouldn't need some of those laws on the books anymore. I acknowledge there was a purpose to them when they were created, I no longer think they serve any significant purpose. Well, except for one. For the most part it allows racists to hide their true feelings. I'd much rather know that a business is anti-gay, anti-black, anti- whatever than NOT know, but with these laws on the books it's underground. Oh, it's THERE, but it's going to be a lot more subtle than that - since I think it's probably impossible to truly eliminate all racism as idyllic as that would be.

 

[Raist]

So if both men and women were to wear a similar piece of clothing covering body and face, motivated by a religion or not, it wouldn't have been banned?

It's obviously much more complicated than that because it involves more issues (valid or not, this is another debate). But still, I think there would be two issues. First, it still would be a cause of discrimination in a sense. And that wouldn't even necessarily prevent a ban. Any visible religious symbol is completely forbidden in schools, for instance.

 

[speculawyer]

What the FUCK is wrong with you?

Once they've served their intended purpose? Yes.

You think we should get rid of laws because by and large, people are already following them. I'm not sure why you'd want to repeal such laws unless there is some hideous act you want to do such that you'd like to get away with legally.

If you are going follow the law anyway, what difference does it make if it is there are not? So, by deduction, the only reason to get rid of it would be if you want to break it. So did this guy rob you are something?

Or perhaps you want it done as some grand experiment just to see if it would work? That certainly would not be ethical to those harmed if it failed.

And that's the difference between you and me. I have a moderately high opinion of humanity. There are good people and bad people to be sure, just as there good and bad in almost every species. But I believe that by and large there is decency in at least 95% of people no matter who they are.

Yes. People are decent. But the only reason that they are decent is because they have grown up in a society that was guided by just laws.

Do this thought lord-of-the-flys thought experiment. Imagine taking 100,000 babies and putting them on an island. No predators and lots of food for them to survive childhood. What do you think the society they would create would be like? A nice liberal democracy where everyone gets to vote and no race, sex, sexual orientation is discriminated against. If you think so, you are naive.

I can't think of any feasible situation where someone in our culture who isn't already a white supremacist but rather is a typical every day american would EVER just go "ok, let's go lynch some blacks" and is only restrained from doing so by force of law.

And that is only true because of centuries of slow progress where just things put into the law.

If you honestly think they'd be willing to give up a customer base "just because" you're frankly crazy.

Well businesses DID give up a customer base in the past 'just because'. I'm not crazy, that is exactly what happened. Sure, it doesn't seem logical NOW. But that is EXACTLY what happened.

I think it all boils down to this:
1) Passing just laws DID push society in the right direction.
2) Nothing useful is gained by eliminating such laws.


Again, you can go ahead and argue that libertarian market economics would make everyone act nice. But the hard fact is that in the 1930's, that was not happening. And the fact that people are nice today is because society was pushed that way by laws. Again . . . would this have happened without such laws? Maybe. Would it have happened as fast? No. Firmly, No. And this can be see today if you travel around to other countries where such laws do not exist and people ARE discriminated against. Those countries would benefit from such laws and the enforcement of the laws. And over time, they would all act nice even without the law and they could look back and think "Why were we so stupid back then."

 

[numble]

Post-racial society: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8J9laUNgL4

 

[Gaborn]

You think we should get rid of laws because by and large, people are already following them. I'm not sure why you'd want to repeal such laws unless there is some hideous act you want to do such that you'd like to get away with legally.

If you are going follow the law anyway, what difference does it make if it is there are not? So, by deduction, the only reason to get rid of it would be if you want to break it. So did this guy rob you are something?

Or perhaps you want it done as some grand experiment just to see if it would work? That certainly would not be ethical to those harmed if it failed.

Not me. I want to know who the racists are, who the anti-gays are. Who the anti-Semites are, etc. Let's see them out loud and proud... and see society reject them.

As I said earlier - I don't believe you for example would give your business to a car wash if you knew for a fact the owner was a racist, but I don't see a scenario under the current laws where it can legally be that obvious. So let's let the idiots crawl out of the woodwork and face the light of day.

Yes. People are decent. But the only reason that they are decent is because they have grown up in a society that was guided by just laws.

Do this thought lord-of-the-flys thought experiment. Imagine taking 100,000 babies and putting them on an island. No predators and lots of food for them to survive childhood. What do you think the society they would create would be like? A nice liberal democracy where everyone gets to vote and no race, sex, sexual orientation is discriminated against. If you think so, you are naive.

Nope, I agree it would be a crude society probably similar to early nomadic/agrarian cultures with simple harsh laws and swift punishments for breaking them. Thing is short of a nuclear holocaust or other major natural disaster (when all bets are off anyway) that will never be necessary to prove since we ARE in our current society.

And that is only true because of centuries of slow progress where just things put into the law.

Do you think I'm arguing that?

Well businesses DID give up a customer base in the past 'just because'. I'm not crazy, that is exactly what happened. Sure, it doesn't seem logical NOW. But that is EXACTLY what happened.

In the past people accepted concentration camps for Japanese Americans during WW2, I don't think that would fly very well today either. Just because something was accepted at one time in human history does not mean it would be acceptable today. Just because at one time slavery was a major practice in the US does not mean I fear the return of slavery (and no, I don't support repealing the 16th amendment either)

I think it all boils down to this:
1) Passing just laws DID push society in the right direction.
2) Nothing useful is gained by eliminating such laws.

agree with 1, not with 2.

Again, you can go ahead and argue that libertarian market economics would make everyone act nice. But the hard fact is that in the 1930's, that was not happening. And the fact that people are nice today is because society was pushed that way by laws. Again . . . would this have happened without such laws? Maybe. Would it have happened as fast? No. Firmly, No. And this can be see today if you travel around to other countries where such laws do not exist and people ARE discriminated against. Those countries would benefit from such laws and the enforcement of the laws. And over time, they would all act nice even without the law and they could look back and think "Why were we so stupid back then."

You're going backwards in time. the 30s? REALLY?

Numble - in almost any society you can find ignorant and racist people. That does not mean society at large needs to be protected from a tiny percentage of people.

 

[speculawyer]

aI no longer think they serve any significant purpose. Well, except for one. For the most part it allows racists to hide their true feelings. I'd much rather know that a business is anti-gay, anti-black, anti- whatever than NOT know, but with these laws on the books it's underground. Oh, it's THERE, but it's going to be a lot more subtle than that - since I think it's probably impossible to truly eliminate all racism as idyllic as that would be.

Ah . . . now I see your 'reason' why to get rid of the laws.

Well if the law went away, do you really think they'd put up a sign saying "No Jews allowed"? No, as society is right now, of course they would not! The only way you'd get to do the boycott you seem to want is to require them to put up signs explaining the racial/sexual/etc. views of the proprietor. And I know you would be against that.

So if you took the laws away, things would remain the same as they are now. And maybe forever. But maybe not . Maybe over time a bunch of these people would let their discrimination grow. And maybe eventually they would create their own little enclave of open discrimination. And over years and years . . . maybe it would get worse and worse. Would happen? I have no idea. I really don't think it would happen . . . but I'd really rather not find out.

But society is not necessarily an ever-improving thing. For a while, Jews did fine in Europe. Definitely some discrimination. But then there were really tough economic times. And then a really charismatic guy took over and promised lots of great stuff. And within a few years, it was just fine by society to pop Jews into ovens.


Godwin's law! I win!

I really hate to bring up the old standard bad guys . . . but it did fit perfectly as an example of societal morals going backwards.


Edit: I do appreciate your desire to shine the spotlight on the cockroaches. But I don't think allowing economic discrimination is the way to go since that would allow real painful discrimination at times. However, we already have a very good spotlight . . . the first amendment. Racists, homophobes, sexists, etc. all can go ahead and say whatever dumb fucking thing they want. And society wields the ban-stick with power. Pretty much every week there is some politician, celebrity, radio jockey, etc. that says something offensive and they get beat down. Thrown out of office. Their music fails to sell. The network fires them.

I guess you could argue that the little guy can still get away with intolerance since the media does not get them. One because those in the spotlight set the example for others. And Two, because even lower down there are often consequences. Getting fired from your job, boycotts as you'd like, etc.

 

[Gaborn]

Ah . . . now I see your 'reason' why to get rid of the laws.

Well if the law went away, do you really think they'd put up a sign saying "No Jews allowed"? No, as society is right now, of course they would not! The only way you'd get to do the boycott you seem to want is to require them to put up signs explaining the racial/sexual/etc. views of the proprietor. And I know you would be against that.

So if you took the laws away, things would remain the same as they are now. And maybe forever. But maybe not . Maybe over time a bunch of these people would let their discrimination grow. And maybe eventually they would create their own little enclave of open discrimination. And over years and years . . . maybe it would get worse and worse. Would happen? I have no idea. I really don't think it would happen . . . but I'd really rather not find out.

But society is not necessarily an ever-improving thing. For a while, Jews did fine in Europe. Definitely some discrimination. But then there were really tough economic times. And then a really charismatic guy took over and promised lots of great stuff. And within a few years, it was just fine by society to pop Jews into ovens.


Godwin's law! I win!

I really hate to bring up the old standard bad guys . . . but it did fit perfectly as an example of societal morals going backwards.

Sooooo out of curiousity why are you then opposed to the PATRIOT Act? I mean, I have nothing to hide but I still think it's a bad and unnecessary law. as you said earlier

If you are going follow the law anyway, what difference does it make if it is there are not?

I mean, you're a LAWYER, and you're actually trying to argue that a law is "good" because people generally obey it? That's not even a ARGUMENT all it is is... Bush speak.

 

[Shanadeus]

It's obviously much more complicated than that because it involves more issues (valid or not, this is another debate). But still, I think there would be two issues. First, it still would be a cause of discrimination in a sense. And that wouldn't even necessarily prevent a ban. Any visible religious symbol is completely forbidden in schools, for instance.

I totally get behind the banning of religious symbols in schools where youths can be easily influenced and in governmental buildings, where there should be neutrality. But to ban religious symbols in public spaces?
That's going a little bit too far.
And this hypothetical non-burqa that would still cover your entire body, could be worn for reasons that aren't sexist is or discriminatory and actually pretty reasonable.

Let's imagine a religion where strangers in the public shouldn't be allowed to take pleasure from your appearance or personality, and would thus lead to members of said religion being utterly boring people covering every inch of their body when not in the public. And only in company of people which they trust and are close they reveal themselves and fully enjoy each others company. This doesn't sound too bad to me, and I could see people doing this for non-religious reasons, could you really then justifiably ban wearing such an item in the public?

 

[jamesinclair]

Regardless of the arguing in this thread, the case will be decided on the following points:

They must prove that a certain looks is REQUIRED to provide the business. That is, like the hooters case. In the case of hooters, hooters argues that they only hire attractive, busty women as servers because without this criteria, their entire business would fail.

-If Hollister hired women wearing a Hijab, would their business be excessively hurt?

Second point is the kind of employee. She worked in the stock room. Hooters is required to hire men (and ugly women) to work in the kitchen and as hosts.

-Can Hollister argue that their stockroom employees must also meet the image, or else their business will fail?


And finally, company precedent.

-Has Hollister hired employees that wear a yamaka? How about sikhs with a turban? How about employees that wear a cross around their neck?

I think Hollister will lose the case. They might be able to prove the first point, but they will lose on the 2nd. I don't know about the third point, but there probably is an employee somewhere wearing a yamaka.

Mind you, anyone who knows anything about the A+F company knows that they thrive on controversy. It's entirely possible that they entered the case, knowing they'd lose, just to be controversial.


BTW: Disney has one of the strictest dress codes in the world, which spells out hair cuts, facial hair, piercings etc. How do they handle the hijab?

Edit: Looks like Disney has multiple lawsuits pending because of their dress code
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/18/mickey-has-the-look-donald-has-the-look-even-jafar/

 

[JGS]

It hasn't been banned. Again this is a very particular case, and Scientology has criminal activities. Fraud and whatnot.

Again, I didn't say it was banned but may be close. Besides, rumor has it the Catholic church has been involved in a scandal or two as well but that doesn't mean a banning from a country.

"Portions" would be pretty wide. It's ONE specific aspect of the religion, which as I said previously is in complete disagreement with the constitution. Simply because it's a slap in the face of the value that men and women are equal (and thus is itself a discrimination) for a start. I'm pretty sure the percentage of women chosing to wear a niqab is not 100%. Etc.

I said portions because if they choose to pick on the burqua with no true underlying reason, then it could allow them to dissect other portions as well. Ironically, their dislike of it has led to banning of other things in order to give the appearance of equality. Further they have done it with other minority religions which could be any of them that aren't Catholic.

This is all pointless since I went ahead and went to the EEOC site based on what numble had said and found this:

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

Religious Accommodation/Dress & Grooming Policies
Unless it would be an undue hardship on the employer's operation of its business, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices. This applies not only to schedule changes or leave for religious observances, but also to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons. These might include, for example, wearing particular head coverings or other religious dress (such as a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim headscarf), or wearing certain hairstyles or facial hair (such as Rastafarian dreadlocks or Sikh uncut hair and beard). It also includes an employee's observance of a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (such as pants or miniskirts).

When an employee or applicant needs a dress or grooming accommodation for religious reasons, he should notify the employer that he needs such an accommodation for religious reasons. If the employer reasonably needs more information, the employer and the employee should engage in an interactive process to discuss the request. If it would not pose an undue hardship, the employer must grant the accommodation.

So Hollister would be in the wrong if that was the reason they got rid of her.

Another point I was wrong about:

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, and others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.

This means that a religion made up of one person can indeed dictate the policies of a corporation.

I guess none of the Muslim women at work like wearing the things!

 

[speculawyer]

Sooooo out of curiousity why are you then opposed to the PATRIOT Act? I mean, I have nothing to hide but I still think it's a bad and unnecessary law. as you said earlier

1) Because people can do things that are perfectly legal but they would rather not have other people know. Phone sex, internet porn, drinking too much alcohol, etc. I think privacy should be respected. Some rogue government employee could tape something and blackmail that person.
2) And people (including me) do commit minor private criminal acts that they do want to hide and that does not bother me. I would absolutely not want everyone's minor private criminal acts prosecuted. First of all, nearly EVERYONE would be in jail! :lol That would make society fall apart. And if government officials had access to surveillance that would be able to catch everyone's minor little criminal violations, they would be able to selectively prosecute people that they don't like. And that could be done for political, racial, religious, or any other bad reason some authoritarian jerk could think of.

However, if there was some magic surveillance machine that would automatically listen to phone conversations and catch terrorists and child rapists but didn't bother other people at all and no human would be involved, I'd be fine with such a Big Brother machine.

I mean, you're a LAWYER, and you're actually trying to argue that a law is "good" because people generally obey it? That's not even a ARGUMENT all it is is... Bush speak.

Of course not. I break laws that I think are bad. A just law is a good law. And a law that makes it illegal to economically discriminate against people based on race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. is just.

And I'm not being totally PC. I would not want a law that would force people to allow people of any race into their private homes.

And I believe the Federal civil rights laws might not even as strict as you think they are. If I remember correctly, they prevent discrimination for 'public accommodations'. (Hotels, restaurants, etc.) People actually might be able to run the 'No Gays allowed video game store'. (However, there might be state laws that don't allow it.) Black people couldn't travel easily since they were unable to eat at restaurants and stay at hotels.

 

[slit]

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?

No, because there is no way Hollister is going to prove that a backroom clerk is ruining their business by showing a religious affiliation. The image argument doesn't fly since a lot of these apparel companies settled out of court with women over that issue and it never got to the courts. Which means they probably thought they couldn't win in court or were too scared to risk it.

 

[Schwowsers]

No one would doubt that the laws were necessary in the 60s. I think it's insulting you think so little of us as a Country that you think they're necessary today.

Oh, ok. So, we need the laws at first to help tolerance grow, but once the world blossoms into perfect harmony we will no longer need them. That sounds great and all, but I don't think we're there yet.

I'd rather the world keep progressing.

 

[Freshmaker]

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.

Judging by the mannequins, that means company dress policy is no shoes, no shirt. :lol

 

[speculawyer]

Nope, I agree it would be a crude society probably similar to early nomadic/agrarian cultures with simple harsh laws and swift punishments for breaking them. Thing is short of a nuclear holocaust or other major natural disaster (when all bets are off anyway) that will never be necessary to prove since we ARE in our current society.

I think that those simple harsh laws would include very arbitrary & discriminatory laws. That has been the norm for virtually every early human culture.

In the past people accepted concentration camps for Japanese Americans during WW2, I don't think that would fly very well today either. Just because something was accepted at one time in human history does not mean it would be acceptable today.

I think you'd be sadly disappointed. We did have a lot of arabs, muslims, iranians, and others rounded up after 9/11. And the law was there to protect them. But the broader American society? They really couldn't give a fuck.

 

[Atrus]

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm


This means that a religion made up of one person can indeed dictate the policies of a corporation.

Here's the Ontario Human Rights Commission equivalent for added shits and giggles (since I can't access the Alberta one):

"Under the Ontario Human Rights Code, discrimination because of religion (creed) is against the law. Everyone should have access to the same opportunities and benefits, and be treated with equal dignity and respect, regardless of their religion.

Religion includes the practices, beliefs and observances that are part of a faith or religion. It does not include personal moral, ethical or political views. Nor does it include religions that promote violence or hate towards others, or that violate criminal law."

What this sort of language really translates to is that it's all unsustainable preaching, and nobody challnege these because the whole house of cards will fall down. I doubt there is any organization in Canada, including the government, which does not violate the respective federal or provincial charters.

 

[Raist]

Again, I didn't say it was banned but may be close. Besides, rumor has it the Catholic church has been involved in a scandal or two as well but that doesn't mean a banning from a country.

Well as far as I know it's not being considered anymore, since it's been ruled out by the court last year. Still, the Catholic church (or any other religion) wasn't exactly designed to increase the personal income of a couple of members in the first place, AFAIK.

I said portions because if they choose to pick on the burqua with no true underlying reason, then it could allow them to dissect other portions as well. Ironically, their dislike of it has led to banning of other things in order to give the appearance of equality. Further they have done it with other minority religions which could be any of them that aren't Catholic.

Well, the hijab wasn't banned. Except in particular cases where all religious symbols were banned altogether anyway. It's not just Islam, and it is in agreement with the fact that public (as in, owned by the government) places shouldn't display any religious symbols.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought wearing the burqua wasn't even a requirement of Islam anyway. So I'm not sure the "freedom of religion" argument even applies in that case.

 

[JGS]

Well as far as I know it's not being considered anymore, since it's been ruled out by the court last year. Still, the Catholic church (or any other religion) wasn't exactly designed to increase the personal income of a couple of members in the first place, AFAIK.

Show me any representative of Scientology telling the public that their goal as a religious group is increasing the personal income of a couple of members & I'll buy that. Otherwise, I don't think it's a government's business. People don't like Scientology because of what it is, not what it does with it's money.

Again, other larger religions would be guilty of the accusations too. Religious people seeking enrichment from the followers is not a new concept. I know nothing of Scientiology (& don't want to) but am glad a country does not ban them, because it opens up the risk that they'll do the same with other religions that are not harming anyone.

Well, the hijab wasn't banned. Except in particular cases where all religious symbols were banned altogether anyway. It's not just Islam, and it is in agreement with the fact that public (as in, owned by the government) places shouldn't display any religious symbols.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong but I thought wearing the burqua wasn't even a requirement of Islam anyway. So I'm not sure the "freedom of religion" argument even applies in that case.

You're kind of arguing my point. This is why I didn't think that Hollister was in the wrong for getting rid of someone wearing them. I agree that wearing a head covering is not a requirement for practicing Islamic women. It's more of a cultural requirement considering that the women who wear them come from countries that require them.

From what I can tell from news stories, the two biggest reasons France gave were:

1. A danger to France's culture. This one is silly because no one was clamoring to wear the things beyond the ones already wearing them. They allow mingling of other cultures anyway that have potentially more harmful effect than a select few burqa wearers.

2. A security threat. The problem with this one is there was never a security threat from these women except for the fact that they were Muslim.

There was a law that banned religious items but, like in other countries, I thought it was limited to schools &/or government places.

The law that was to be put in place banned all head coverings that covered the face, religious or not, but just to capture the select few that wore the head coverings which was yet another reason the law was silly. There were more than enough quotes from officials to suggest the reasons were for the head covering and not for people who walked the street with ski masks.

 

[Raist]

Show me any representative of Scientology telling the public that their goal as a religious group is increasing the personal income of a couple of members & I'll buy that. Otherwise, I don't think it's a government's business. People don't like Scientology because of what it is, not what it does with it's money.

Again, other larger religions would be guilty of the accusations too. Religious people seeking enrichment from the followers is not a new concept. I know nothing of Scientiology (& don't want to) but am glad a country does not ban them, because it opens up the risk that they'll do the same with other religions that are not harming anyone.

Well of course they're not going to say that openly :lol
But when they sell to their members supposedly "magic" items (which have as much power as a toaster) for completely insane prices, I'd say that it's pretty clear what their intentions are. Yes, these kind of things happened with other religions, but it was the doing of some of their representatives, not the "philosophy" behind the whole religion.
I mean you have to draw a line somewhere. Would you not ban sects that promote suicide simply because they tag themselves as a religion and they're free to do whatever they want?

You're kind of arguing my point. This is why I didn't think that Hollister was in the wrong for getting rid of someone wearing them. I agree that wearing a head covering is not a requirement for practicing Islamic women. It's more of a cultural requirement considering that the women who wear them come from countries that require them.

From what I can tell from news stories, the two biggest reasons France gave were:

1. A danger to France's culture. This one is silly because no one was clamoring to wear the things beyond the ones already wearing them. They allow mingling of other cultures anyway that have potentially more harmful effect than a select few burqa wearers.

2. A security threat. The problem with this one is there was never a security threat from these women except for the fact that they were Muslim.

There was a law that banned religious items but, like in other countries, I thought it was limited to schools &/or government places.

The law that was to be put in place banned all head coverings that covered the face, religious or not, but just to capture the select few that wore the head coverings which was yet another reason the law was silly. There were more than enough quotes from officials to suggest the reasons were for the head covering and not for people who walked the street with ski masks.

Well the Hijab is a requirement (then again some islamic scholars would say that every woman has the choice to not wear it) but the niqab is clearly not mentioned anywhere in the Quran. And yes, most of the reasons invoked by the representatives were debatable. But to me this kind of crap shouldn't exist.

 

[avaya]

I don't understand why people debate with the free market taliban.

 

[Shanadeus]

Well the Hijab is a requirement (then again some islamic scholars would say that every woman has the choice to not wear it) but the niqab is clearly not mentioned anywhere in the Quran. And yes, most of the reasons invoked by the representatives were debatable. But to me this kind of crap shouldn't exist.

So your problem with it is just that it is only worn by women, and sometimes forced to do so?
If that is the case for why it shouldn't exist then I ask you to take a look at my example from earlier:

Let's imagine a religion where strangers in the public shouldn't be allowed to take pleasure from your appearance or personality, and would thus lead to members of said religion being utterly boring people covering every inch of their body when not in the public. And only in company of people which they trust and are close they reveal themselves and fully enjoy each others company. This doesn't sound too bad to me, and I could see people doing this for non-religious reasons, could you really then justifiably ban wearing such an item in the public?

Would this also be crap that shouldn't exist? Even though it doesn't hurt anyone and isn't discriminating leaving what reason for banning it?

 

[Dascu]

I mean you have to draw a line somewhere. Would you not ban sects that promote suicide simply because they tag themselves as a religion and they're free to do whatever they want?

Suicide isn't illegal (anymore). Now, it'd be awfully strange for a government to officially recognise a belief like that as a state religion, but I don't see the legal problems with it.

 

[KAL2006]

I don't understand why people debate with the free market taliban.

I don't understand what are you trying to imply?

 

[Raist]

So your problem with it is just that it is only worn by women, and sometimes forced to do so?
If that is the case for why it shouldn't exist then I ask you to take a look at my example from earlier:

Yes, in that particular case it is the main problem for me.

Would this also be crap that shouldn't exist? Even though it doesn't hurt anyone and isn't discriminating leaving what reason for banning it?

Yep it would. I don't think a religion should ask you to do this kind of things. Especially since religion is not always simply a choice. I agree that it wouldn't necessarily hurt anyone, however that is certainly a form of discrimination as well.

Suicide isn't illegal (anymore). Now, it'd be awfully strange for a government to officially recognise a belief like that as a state religion, but I don't see the legal problems with it.

Suicide isn't. I'm pretty sure endoctrinating people into doing it is.

 

[ruxtpin]

Alright, so I get the general feeling that everyone here can agree that the world would be better off without Hollister. That's really neither here nor there though. I just don't get how this girl can have support for her argument. Granted, religious discrimination is one thing, but I don't see how that applies in this case.

This reminds of a case I heard on the radio. A guy was suing Hooters because they wouldn't allow him to be a waiter. Hollister, A&F, Hooters, Victoria's Secret... ALL kinds of businesses sell an image. That's how they make their money. If you don't like the image, store, or whatever "lifestyle" they're hocking, then don't shop there. It seems so inane that people can actually win court cases over this.

Maybe I should go apply at Victoria's Secret. Then I can yell "no fair" when Victoria fires me because my hairy ass doesn't fit their image. Win monies in court afterward.

 

[Mecha_Infantry]

Alright, so I get the general feeling that everyone here can agree that the world would be better off without Hollister. That's really neither here nor there though. I just don't get how this girl can have support for her argument. Granted, religious discrimination is one thing, but I don't see how that applies in this case.

This reminds of a case I heard on the radio. A guy was suing Hooters because they wouldn't allow him to be a waiter. Hollister, A&F, Hooters, Victoria's Secret... ALL kinds of businesses sell an image. That's how they make their money. If you don't like the image, store, or whatever "lifestyle" they're hocking, then don't shop there. It seems so inane that people can actually win court cases over this.

Maybe I should go apply at Victoria's Secret. Then I can yell "no fair" when Victoria fires me because my hairy ass doesn't fit their image. Win monies in court afterward.

I agree, I know one company doesn't want black people working there; this is fair because it doesn't suit their company image

 

[Freezer Rat]

Maybe I should go apply at Victoria's Secret. Then I can yell "no fair" when Victoria fires me because my hairy ass doesn't fit their image. Win monies in court afterward.

That's actually the saddest part about this whole situation. Hollister will probably lose, and have to give this girl wads of cash she did nothing to earn aside from being offended.

As for Hollister themselves, what they did was boneheaded. But store policy is store policy is store policy. And in the end, her religious scarf violated it. Tough luck on her part, suck it up and find a new job elsewhere.

 

[Shanadeus]

Yes, in that particular case it is the main problem for me.



Yep it would. I don't think a religion should ask you to do this kind of things. Especially since religion is not always simply a choice. I agree that it wouldn't necessarily hurt anyone, however that is certainly a form of discrimination as well.

So if we take the religious factor out of it, is it still not simply a choice? People might wanna wear such items out of their personal reasons, heck I do to some degree, yet just the act of wearing such an item would be a form of discrimination?
The same way banning that item is also a form of discrimination?

 

[JGS]

Well of course they're not going to say that openly :lol
But when they sell to their members supposedly "magic" items (which have as much power as a toaster) for completely insane prices, I'd say that it's pretty clear what their intentions are. Yes, these kind of things happened with other religions, but it was the doing of some of their representatives, not the "philosophy" behind the whole religion.
I mean you have to draw a line somewhere. Would you not ban sects that promote suicide simply because they tag themselves as a religion and they're free to do whatever they want?

If they don't say it openly, then a government shouldn't assume it anymore than you should. This is not the same thing as punishing a couple of people who are frauding their followers. My argument is that they should not punish an entire religion on the basis of the actions of a few people. If the entire religion is based on "milking" people of their money and their followers accept it, then what harm is caused exactly? It sounds like a tithe requirement to me.

The reasons you give could be the same thing for any mainstream religion that promises supposedly mystical results from an action of faith. If you can find fault with one religion, you can find it with all of them which goes back to my argument that a government should leave religious belief alone.

I have repeatedly prefaced any argument in favor of leaving religion alone with the requirement that it can't harm it's followers or others. So I think a country would be within it's rights to hinder worship when it is a physical danger to humanity (Beyond the accusation that some non-believers have that all religion is harmful by design which is silly).

FAKE EDIT- I guess I should clarify a little and say that I do not think being willing to die for your faith is the same thing as suicide.

 

[Zenith]

My friend wears a hijab and works in H&M. The idea that she could ever be fired over it is disgusting.

 

[ruxtpin]

I agree, I know one company doesn't want black people working there; this is fair because it doesn't suit their company image

I don't want to sound like I'm saying that's right. If I had my own business, I'd definitely try to be as open as possible with my hiring policies/practice as long as the individual was suited to the job they were being hired for.

I guess it's a sticky area to get in to an argument over, but I live in Georgia. I'm not going to go down to the local Nubian bookstore and flip out because they won't hire a young white guy, nor am I going to flip when they don't carry books that I want to buy. I don't expect them to do those things. They're stores that hire people based on their sex/race/look/religion/etc. - I don't see it as discrimination, just the way things are and I don't get worked up over it.

 

[Raist]

If they don't say it openly, then a government shouldn't assume it anymore than you should. This is not the same thing as punishing a couple of people who are frauding their followers. My argument is that they should not punish an entire religion on the basis of the actions of a few people. If the entire religion is based on "milking" people of their money and their followers accept it, then what harm is caused exactly? It sounds like a tithe requirement to me.

I have repeatedly prefaced any argument in favor of leaving religion alone with the requirement that it can't harm it's followers or others. So I think a country would be within it's rights to hinder worship when it is a physical danger to humanity (Beyond the accusation that some non-believers have that all religion is harmful by design which is silly).

FAKE EDIT- I guess I should clarify a little and say that I do not think being willing to die for your faith is the same thing as suicide.

[/quote]

What? So because they're hiding it, it doesn't exist?
I really don't understand that line of thinking, and it is opening the door for a shitload of abuses. It's not just "a few people" it's the whole idea being their "religion" for fuck's sake.
If tomorrow the pope and all other catholic leaders say "ok guys, if you don't buy this magical artifact for the very reasonable price of $30k, you certainly won't go to heaven and spend eternity in a world of pain" or "hey, heaven is so much better than this place, if you commit suicide you'll be so much better, we promise". You don't see how this is in any way harmful, and a plain and simple abuse of authority and a very dangerous thing for people who are easily influenced?

In some way, it looks like you're completely rejecting a government's authority, while accepting that on a smaller scale some people can do whatever they want.

Shanadeus: If it is 100% a choice and not dictated by any kind of authority, then yes it's a different thing. But if you really want to absolutely not interact with strangers, well you might as well not do it at all. Like the completely closed and isolated monasteries.

 

[Shanadeus]

Shanadeus: If it is 100% a choice and not dictated by any kind of authority, then yes it's a different thing. But if you really want to absolutely not interact with strangers, well you might as well not do it at all. Like the completely closed and isolated monasteries.

If the type of clothing you wear should be completely choice then would also mandatory school uniforms be banned as well? You might just be referring to the public space here but it do rise an intersting question, could a school have mandatory pieces of burqas that both male and female students have to wear?

Since the Burqa isn't even a religious piece of clothing (it is never specifically mentioned in the Quran, and predate islam itself) then your grounds for banning it would just be because it is discriminatory as only women wear it?
So if both men and women were to wear a similar piece of clothing for cultural or personal reasons then you couldn't call it discriminatory and there'd remain no reason to ban it.

You could compare it to people not wanting to go to a nudist beach and get naked, except in this case the nudist beach is the public space which they must traverse in order to get to their destination, and instead of not wanting to be naked, they take it another step further and don't want to reveal any skin at all.

I'm just not getting the way you think

 

[JGS]

What? So because they're hiding it, it doesn't exist?
I really don't understand that line of thinking, and it is opening the door for a shitload of abuses. It's not just "a few people" it's the whole idea being their "religion" for fuck's sake.
If tomorrow the pope and all other catholic leaders say "ok guys, if you don't buy this magical artifact for the very reasonable price of $30k, you certainly won't go to heaven and spend eternity in a world of pain" or "hey, heaven is so much better than this place, if you commit suicide you'll be so much better, we promise". You don't see how this is in any way harmful, and a plain and simple abuse of authority and a very dangerous thing for people who are easily influenced?

In some way, it looks like you're completely rejecting a government's authority, while accepting that on a smaller scale some people can do whatever they want.

Shanadeus: If it is 100% a choice and not dictated by any kind of authority, then yes it's a different thing. But if you really want to absolutely not interact with strangers, well you might as well not do it at all. Like the completely closed and isolated monasteries.[/QUOTE]

Completely rejecting? Not sure where yo got that. Could be an exageration to prove a misguided point because I never said anything regarding that. I said that France has no proof that the purpose of Scietology is to milk people out of money for the enrichment of a couple of people. If they had proof of that, they have proof of it for other religions. Not sure what is difficult to get about that.

A Democratic government never has the authority to dictate the beliefs of another, even if it involvers 30K fake artifacts. Who are you or the government to question it?

Because a person has the choice of leaving a religion, I think it is a greater abuse to have a government enforce things that limit non-harmful freedoms. Financial ruin does not equal physical harm and no religion has been based on the financial ruin of it's followers. Scientologist would be shooting themselvesin the foot unless you think the purose of all their recruiting is to end it all once the hit a magic number, which appears unlikely.

 

[Monocle]

If you get to wear a niqab, I get to wear my atheist codpiece.

Does this mean people are going to have to stare at your noodly appendage all day?

 

[Raist]

Since the type of clothing you wear should be completely choice then would also mandatory school uniforms be banned as well? Or does it only count if the mandatory uniforms are religious as well?

Not a fan of uniform schools either (although in some way they actually prevent discrimination. Well at least, one type of discrimination).
As I said earlier, I think the whole problem should be considered on a case-by-case basis, not "you have the right to impose any rule you want if you're a company, but not a government" because to me it's really a case of double standard.
So for me neither a government nor a company should be free to impose any rules they want. There are things that are acceptable, others not. What is and what isn't doesn't depend on the level of authority.

Since the Burqa isn't even a religious piece of clothing (it is never specifically mentioned in the Quran, and predate islam itself) then your grounds for banning it would just be because it is discriminatory as only women wear it?
So if both men and women were to wear a similar piece of clothing for cultural or personal reasons then how can you call it discriminatory?

You could compare it to people not wanting to go to a nudist beach and get naked, except in this case the nudist beach is the public space which they must traverse in order to get to their destination, and instead of not wanting to be naked, they take it another step further and don't want to reveal any skin at all.

I'm just not getting the way you think

It's more complicated than that. I mean you can't summarize it to the most simplistic explanation or take completely unrelated and irrelevant examples (a nudist beach isn't exactly a "public space" but whatever, I'd say well then just go around it. If there is no way to go around it, then there is definitely a problem as this shouldn't be allowed). That completely changes the source of the problem and I don't see how arguing against the burqa ban is validated by saying "but what if it's completely different".

I mean that was the whole point which started this debate. The fact that JGS was ok with a company banning the hijab but not ok with the French government banning the niqab. Which as you mention is NOT required by the Quran so the whole "Hey wtf France, freedom of religion!" line of defense doesn't even apply.

 

[Mecha_Infantry]

That's actually the saddest part about this whole situation. Hollister will probably lose, and have to give this girl wads of cash she did nothing to earn aside from being offended.

As for Hollister themselves, what they did was boneheaded. But store policy is store policy is store policy. And in the end, her religious scarf violated it. Tough luck on her part, suck it up and find a new job elsewhere.

Not at all. You do know companies are bound by discrimination laws which are based on faith, race, sex and disability. A store's laws don't precede the country's law, so why shouldn't the same be in process here?

 

[Raist]

I said that France has no proof that the purpose of Scietology is to milk people out of money for the enrichment of a couple of people. If they had proof of that, they have proof of it for other religions. Not sure what is difficult to get about that.

Urgh. Well if you really want to believe that, fair enough, carry on.

Because a person has the choice of leaving a religion, I think it is a greater abuse to have a government enforce things that limit non-harmful freedoms. Financial ruin does not equal physical harm and no religion has been based on the financial ruin of it's followers. Scientologist would be shooting themselvesin the foot unless you think the purose of all their recruiting is to end it all once the hit a magic number, which appears unlikely.

The problem I think is that you fail to see how these are not non-harmful freedoms at all.
Anyway, looks like just because it's called "government" they can't do this, but anything else involving an authority is rightfully free to do so, which I don't understand at all.

I think we have deep cultural differences on these issues so that's kind of pointless.

Not at all. You do know companies are bound by discrimination laws which are based on faith, race, sex and disability. A store's laws don't precede the country's law, so why shouldn't the same be in process here?

Because apparently laws are evil but store policies are a-ok.