loosus said:To be fair, you didn't qualify it by modern standards.
Its only in the Americas that liberalism has another meaning than intended...much like soccer and football
loosus said:To be fair, you didn't qualify it by modern standards.
Gaborn said:Just what I said, pretty much if they pay the bills they should make the rules. And of course, face negative public reaction if their decision is controversial/racist/sexist/choose your "ist"
Giga - I don't think the GOVERNMENT should ever discriminate. I also don't think people should be told how to run their business by the government if they're paying the bills (within reason for health codes, building safety, things like that)
giga said:Sadly, stigmas and boycotts rarely making an impact on a firm's policies. Many firms regularly discriminate (wage, hiring) or allow gross human rights violations (mostly multinational corporations) and yet are still standing today because consumers are too dependent on them or it's just a minority consumers who really care. Wal-Mart is a great example.
San Francisco
A Muslim woman, apparently fired from teen clothier Hollister Co. for wearing the hijab, a religious headscarf, filed a federal complaint this week charging that she was wrongfully fired due to religious discrimination.
Hani Khan, a Bay Area college student, was let go from the clothing chain, which is owned by Abercrombie & Fitch, because her hijab violated the companys look policy, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which filed the complaint along with Ms. Khan.
joey_z 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?
Gaborn said: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.
speculawyer said: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.
Gaborn said:1. As a private company I think they should have the right to discriminate in pretty much any way they want.
Gaborn 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.
Gaborn 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.
Gaborn said: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.
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: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.
speculawyer 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.
Gaborn 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.
Gaborn 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.
slit said:You may feel that way but that's not how the law works, it's discrimination and therefore illegal. Just because they are a private company doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. You shouldn't feel sorry for her though, she'll be getting a pretty penny out of this suit.
joey_z 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.
Seth C 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.
Gaborn 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.
Gaborn 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.
Kaeru 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.
Atrus 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.
JGS said:As much as I hate France doing this because it is a government, I have little problem with a company doing the same.
In this post, a person who is not familiar with BFOQ .numble said:ITT... people who are not familiar with Title VII.
Then again, you could turn that around and say "was it worth losing your job to keep a piece of cloth on your head?".Elan tedronai said:headscarves eh? who would have thought a piece of cloth on someone's head can cause so much problems for a company
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.
KAL2006 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.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...Gaborn said:1. As a private company I think they should have the right to discriminate in pretty much any way they want.
Raist said:Does not compute.
JGS said:Why?
Are you equating a government with a business. That doesn't compute more.
Kaeru said: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!
Could be.WedgeX said:Those bona fides are among the most narrowly interpreted pieces of law that I doubt that Hollister's arguments will hold up in court.
Seth C 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.
Kaeru 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!
Raist 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 said:fuck you.
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
JGS 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.
slit 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.
Kaeru said: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.
You can't opt-out of interacting with the government. You MUST pay your taxes regardless of if you use government services or not. Therefore, they should not be allowed to discriminate against serving you.Raist 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.
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: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".
devilhawk said:A private company can set a dress code. If someone's religion mandated they appear in nothing but a tree leaf, I wouldn't have a problem with them being unable to work at Hollister either.
Is someone going to sue because they can't wear a a niqab at Hooter's?