How Far Will the SCOTUS Go On Behalf of Muslims ?

[JakeStarkey]

]Nope, only by the grace of the board mods. Now what did SCOTUS say about it.

You were asked first. Your time to answer.

Nope. Your question was set up as a fallacy.

scotusblog can answer it for you.

You clearly do not know Islam or Christianity, certainly not their histories or their various cultures.

SCOTUS is neutral about Islam, as it should be.

SCOTUS is trying to support the victim and islam always plays the victim card. SCOTUS is not neutral. They are trying to shape the world to their image of right and wrong, even if they do not have all the facts.

SCOTUS is doing its job, and you are trying to undermine its cred for partisan and religious reasons to shape their world to your image of right and wrong.

 

[pinqy]

]Nope, only by the grace of the board mods. Now what did SCOTUS say about it.

You were asked first. Your time to answer.

Nope. Your question was set up as a fallacy.

scotusblog can answer it for you.

You clearly do not know Islam or Christianity, certainly not their histories or their various cultures.

SCOTUS is neutral about Islam, as it should be.

SCOTUS is trying to support the victim and islam always plays the victim card. SCOTUS is not neutral. They are trying to shape the world to their image of right and wrong, even if they do not have all the facts.

Well, let's boil the case down to its essentials.
1. Is it violation of disparate treatment if the accused only suspects accommodation will be necessary or does the person have to ask for it?
2. Is Title VII neutral on treatment of religious practice, or does religion get favored treatment?

 

[RandomVariable]

]Nope, only by the grace of the board mods. Now what did SCOTUS say about it.

You were asked first. Your time to answer.

Nope. Your question was set up as a fallacy.

scotusblog can answer it for you.

You clearly do not know Islam or Christianity, certainly not their histories or their various cultures.

SCOTUS is neutral about Islam, as it should be.

SCOTUS is trying to support the victim and islam always plays the victim card. SCOTUS is not neutral. They are trying to shape the world to their image of right and wrong, even if they do not have all the facts.

Well, let's boil the case down to its essentials.
1. Is it violation of disparate treatment if the accused only suspects accommodation will be necessary or does the person have to ask for it?
2. Is Title VII neutral on treatment of religious practice, or does religion get favored treatment?

Give me a little bit to get back to you on the question as asked. In the mean time I have a question for you:

If A & F, or any company, was interviewing for a person who was going to be the sole person in a 30 second commercial could the company decline the individual based on the fact that the interviewee insisted they would be allowed to wear a head scarf for the commercial. Why or why not?

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, are you Muslim? Because you are working really, really hard to make this not about islam.

From your post #393, "The same thing applies in more liberal societies like ours. Men can go topless. Women can not." WTF kind of stupid shit is that??? Are you really that desperate for rationales? Why do you feel the need to deflect from islam to the point of absurdity?

It's not about Islam. It's a decision that is supported by Christians and Jews who also submitted briefs on the case. It's about religious freedom and reasonable accommodation. It's not rocket science dude.

As far as "stupid shit" - why did you bring up equality between men and women? Sounds like you just don't like the answers you are getting so you're going to fling monkey poo to see if it sticks.

 

[RandomVariable]

Coyote, are you Muslim? Because you are working really, really hard to make this not about islam.

From your post #393, "The same thing applies in more liberal societies like ours. Men can go topless. Women can not." WTF kind of stupid shit is that??? Are you really that desperate for rationales? Why do you feel the need to deflect from islam to the point of absurdity?

It's not about Islam. It's a decision that is supported by Christians and Jews who also submitted briefs on the case. It's about religious freedom and reasonable accommodation. It's not rocket science dude.

As far as "stupid shit" - why did you bring up equality between men and women? Sounds like you just don't like the answers you are getting so you're going to fling monkey poo to see if it sticks.

Example of my "monkey poo" please. And this might surprise you but there is a biological difference between a man's chest and a woman's chest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RV has been handled roughly here, Coyote, and it makes him unhappy his arguments fail and that he can't take what he dishes out.

"Monky poo" is the right description of his deflections.

 

[pinqy]

]Nope, only by the grace of the board mods. Now what did SCOTUS say about it.

You were asked first. Your time to answer.

Nope. Your question was set up as a fallacy.

scotusblog can answer it for you.

You clearly do not know Islam or Christianity, certainly not their histories or their various cultures.

SCOTUS is neutral about Islam, as it should be.

SCOTUS is trying to support the victim and islam always plays the victim card. SCOTUS is not neutral. They are trying to shape the world to their image of right and wrong, even if they do not have all the facts.

Well, let's boil the case down to its essentials.
1. Is it violation of disparate treatment if the accused only suspects accommodation will be necessary or does the person have to ask for it?
2. Is Title VII neutral on treatment of religious practice, or does religion get favored treatment?

Give me a little bit to get back to you on the question as asked. In the mean time I have a question for you:

If A & F, or any company, was interviewing for a person who was going to be the sole person in a 30 second commercial could the company decline the individual based on the fact that the interviewee insisted they would be allowed to wear a head scarf for the commercial. Why or why not?

Well, they could certainly decline if it was not for religious reasons.
If it was, then things become trickier...the MAIN reason for not hiring the person cannot be for religion, but is s/he just didn't look as good for the commercial, then no harm.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, are you Muslim? Because you are working really, really hard to make this not about islam.

From your post #393, "The same thing applies in more liberal societies like ours. Men can go topless. Women can not." WTF kind of stupid shit is that??? Are you really that desperate for rationales? Why do you feel the need to deflect from islam to the point of absurdity?

It's not about Islam. It's a decision that is supported by Christians and Jews who also submitted briefs on the case. It's about religious freedom and reasonable accommodation. It's not rocket science dude.

As far as "stupid shit" - why did you bring up equality between men and women? Sounds like you just don't like the answers you are getting so you're going to fling monkey poo to see if it sticks.

Example of my "monkey poo" please. And this might surprise you but there is a biological difference between a man's chest and a woman's chest.

Post 398.

As for "biological differences" - so what? It comes down to cultural standards of modesty in the end which is the same reason there are differences in religious gear for men and for women. There are cultures where women go topless you know.

 

[A Perez]

The question is immaterial to this OP, RV. Your types of comment demonstrate how little you understand about religion and our Constitution.

Your comment is immaterial to this OP. Islam is not a religion. And history will show that these 8 justices are bungling idiots, who understand neither the Constitution (Article 6, Section 2) or Islam.

Clarence Thomas didn't argue that Islam is not a religion; therefore the number of justices that you call idiots is 9, not 8.

 

[protectionist]

PROTECTIONIST SAID:

“I am the teacher.”

No, you're a ridiculous, delusional rightwing loon.

You are in DENIAL, and you don't know how IGNORANT you are. You are a delusional leftwing loon.

 

[protectionist]

Keep chasing the lazer dot, kitten.

You are a ZERO on my Islamization Quiz. I am the teacher. You are the FLUNK.

1. Who is Barbara Cook ?

2. Who is Nijab al-Ghosh ?

3. What is Al-Amal ?

4. What is tad-ru-bu-hu-nna ?

5. Who's David Harris ?

Off topic

Yes. In response to the post # 382, which was off topic. Ho hum.

 

[protectionist]

You have failed from the first page. Those examples are from Christian communities, which was supported by the Church. You simply keep failing, believing foolsihly (like Sun Devil 92 and Where_r_my_Keys) that your opinions are evidence and authority.

You couldn't be posting more stupidly. The word Christian is not mentioned once in your half-ass links, and please have the courage to speak you mind, instead of hiding behind links. In this exchange, I posted Koran 4:34, and you posted nothing. You got caught red handed, trying to BS the forum, and I kicked your ass for it. .

 

[JakeStarkey]

Protectionist is a delusional whatever-loon himself.

SCOTUS is neutral on religion, huggy bear.

 

[protectionist]

Kitten is simply chasing the laser point.

I answered that before with your semi-Islamizaton Quiz, which as usual, you are clueless on. Ignorant liberals don't know how much they don't know.

1. Who is Barbara Cook ?

2. Who is Nijab al-Ghosh ?

3. What is Al-Amal ?

4. What is tad-ru-bu-hu-nna ?

5. Who's David Harris ?

 

[rcfieldz]

Coyote, are you Muslim? Because you are working really, really hard to make this not about islam.

From your post #393, "The same thing applies in more liberal societies like ours. Men can go topless. Women can not." WTF kind of stupid shit is that??? Are you really that desperate for rationales? Why do you feel the need to deflect from islam to the point of absurdity?

It's not about Islam. It's a decision that is supported by Christians and Jews who also submitted briefs on the case. It's about religious freedom and reasonable accommodation. It's not rocket science dude.

As far as "stupid shit" - why did you bring up equality between men and women? Sounds like you just don't like the answers you are getting so you're going to fling monkey poo to see if it sticks.

So if this store is in a mall and my religion declares that I should wear a flak jacket to work to protect me from mall shooters...
patiently awaiting your reply.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kitten is simply chasing the laser point.

I answered that before with your semi-Islamizaton Quiz, which as usual, you are clueless on. Ignorant liberals don't know how much they don't know.

1. Who is Barbara Cook ?

2. Who is Nijab al-Ghosh ?

3. What is Al-Amal ?

4. What is tad-ru-bu-hu-nna ?

5. Who's David Harris ?

6. Is SCOTUS neutral on religion?

 

[rcfieldz]

So if this store is in a mall and my religion declares that I should wear a flak jacket to work to protect me from mall shooters...
patiently awaiting your reply.

non sequitur

Sorry that you cannot wrap your mind around my concept. Shows you what you know about fashion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your comparison is a fallacy. Does this help?

Description: Comparing one thing to another that is really not related, in order to make one thing look more or less desirable than it really is.

(also known as: bad comparison, false comparison, incomplete comparison, inconsistent comparison)

Faulty Comparison

 

[protectionist]

This means any person wearing anything can sue the employer of their choice for wearing whatever they want even if it is not conforming to that employers rules. Sorry that's not gonna fly. People get sent home from school and asked to turn their shirts inside out at schools and other events. So why can this woman wear her headdress or other? So will A&F hire nuns next. I think not... just wait for the business to go under when that store is not having the foot traffic it once had. Where is this store Dubai?

No it does not.

It only - ONLY - means that the employer must make an allowance for "reasonable accommodation" for religion. Period. Religion and reasonable being the key terms. For example, this case:

Tattoos Facial Piercings and Employment Discrimination Law Office of Matthew Stoloff

In early 2001, Costco implemented a “no facial jewelry” policy to improve its professional image.


When Costco began enforcing its policy in mid-2001, Ms. Cloutier explained for the first time that she was a member of the Church of Body Modification and that her religion prohibited her from removing her eyebrow piercing.


Ms. Cloutier subsequently filed a complaint, alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state law. For whatever reason, Ms. Cloutier made a decision not to return to work until the complaint was resolved. Approximately two weeks after the complaint was filed, however, Costco terminated Ms. Cloutier for unexcused absences and for failing to follow the dress code.


At a mediation session, Costco offered Ms. Cloutier her job back, provided that Ms. Cloutier agreed to do one of two things: replace the eyebrow piercing with a clear plastic retainer (to prevent the hole from closing) or cover the eyebrow piercing with a bandage. (pp. 6-7) Ms. Cloutier refused either accommodation because she believed that removing or covering the eyebrow piercing violated the tenets of the Church of Body Modification.


The case went to federal court and Costco won.


On appeal in 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit noted that there was nothing in the tenets of the Church of Body Modification that required that “body modifications had to be visible at all times or that removing body modifications would violate a religious tenet.” (p. 5) As such, the accommodations Costco proposed would not “violate any of the established tenets” of the Church of Body Modification. (p. 9)


Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower court’s opinion, holding that Costco offered a reasonable accommodation, and that creating an exception in the no facial jewelry policy would create an undue hardship for Costco. In other words, Costco must maintain a neat, clean and professional appearance to attract and retain customers; and creating an exception for Ms. Coultier would adversely affect that image. (p. 22)
​

I would guess that if a Muslim women insisted on a full burka, that would be regarded as an undue hardship for A&F, but a scarf is a reasonable accommodation.

Why would the full burka be any more of a hardship for A & F than the hijab ? Both are violation of the "look policy"

PS - I'm starting a new religion/church (Church of Protectionism). I will make up the rules as I go along. NO ONE can discriminate against my religion. I can do anything I want, and if anybody doesn't like it, TOUGH!

If they give me any trouble I'll sic the Supreme Court on them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

What a bunch of nonsense, Protectionist, that you keep posting

Description: Comparing one thing to another that is really not related, in order to make one thing look more or less desirable than it really is.

(also known as: bad comparison, false comparison, incomplete comparison, inconsistent comparison)

Faulty Comparison