Devastating blow to right-wing hatred.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/01/justices-rule-for-muslim-denied-job-over-headscarf/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/01/justices-rule-for-muslim-denied-job-over-headscarf/
Whoa! SCOTUS hands conservatism its butt
- Thread starter jscott78
- Start date
Where does that headline come from?
I am extremely Right wing and I happen to agree with the opinion.
.................................................
A young Muslim woman wants to work in a retail store where she will be exposed to capitalism and free enterprise in its most primitive form? Why would you think a conservative/right wing voter would oppose her desire to do so?
What counts here is her desire and ambition ... not the position that the Muslim community puts her in. We conservatives WANT her to be exposed to life outside of the religious realm.
I am extremely Right wing and I happen to agree with the opinion.
.................................................
A young Muslim woman wants to work in a retail store where she will be exposed to capitalism and free enterprise in its most primitive form? Why would you think a conservative/right wing voter would oppose her desire to do so?
What counts here is her desire and ambition ... not the position that the Muslim community puts her in. We conservatives WANT her to be exposed to life outside of the religious realm.
Last edited:
If I was writing the headline I would have put: Antonin Scalia Approves Sharia Law!
Here is the NPR link for those of you that appreciate Nina Totenburg, and I don't know who wouldn't.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...urt-rules-on-two-key-individual-freedom-cases
Here is the NPR link for those of you that appreciate Nina Totenburg, and I don't know who wouldn't.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...urt-rules-on-two-key-individual-freedom-cases
Here's what the Koran says about women viewing non-muslim men in virtually any state of undress:
C) Women Looking at Non-Mahram Men (source: al-islam.org)
45 – Rule: It is haram for women to look at the bodies of non-Mahram men with the exception of the face, hands, and that amount which men normally do not cover. AGKMST
Therefore: It is not a problem for women to look at the hair on the head, the face, the hands up to the wrist, the feet up to the ankle, and the neck of a non-Mahram man with the condition that it is not associated with lust. Thus, women are not allowed to attend sporting tournaments [such as swimming, wrestling, weight lifting, soccer (also known as football in some countries) etc… in which men do not have proper covering.
According to Ihtiyat Wajib it is haram for a woman to look at the body of a non-Mahram man. However, the permissibility for a woman to look at the parts of the body of a non-Mahram man that are normally kept open, such as his head, is not free from difficulty, except if that looking helps and leads one to evil and sin (in which case, it is not allowed). B
It is haram for a woman to look at the body of a non-Mahram man, with the exception of his face and hands. L
46 – Rule: It is haram to look at the arms, chest, or any other part of the body of a non-Mahram man who is wearing inappropriate clothing, such as a short sleeve shirt, or has kept the collar of his shirt open, or is wearing see-through clothing, etc… even if it is without the intention of lust. AGKLMS
According to Ihtiyat Wajib, it is not allowed. B
And here is what a typical Abercrombie and Fitch looks like.
See, the thing is.....if you're going to claim devoutness as your main argument in requiring special accommodation (and Doodle's not even saying it wasn't correct for her to be allowed to wear it), it might help if you weren't violating any number of other tenets of the religion you supposedly are so devoted to (i.e. the one noted above) at the place you so desperately want to work.
But then, that's sort of par for the course with ALL of the religious arguments of this nature.
She is saying "I need special accommodation because I simply MUST comply with Islam" while at the same time, every day at her store, she will be failing to comply with Islam. At best that colors her as disingenuous, and at worst, a hypocritical opportunist..
And rest assured, Doodle's not making this argument only because she's Muslim. The Hobby Lobby "victory" re: birth control was egregious as well.
It's the cherry-picking of what is or is not worth following within a given religion that is so difficult to swallow. The "I'm religious when it's convenient" approach is an epidemic that shows no signs of abating and will only serve to incite more public discord as it snowballs.
C) Women Looking at Non-Mahram Men (source: al-islam.org)
45 – Rule: It is haram for women to look at the bodies of non-Mahram men with the exception of the face, hands, and that amount which men normally do not cover. AGKMST
Therefore: It is not a problem for women to look at the hair on the head, the face, the hands up to the wrist, the feet up to the ankle, and the neck of a non-Mahram man with the condition that it is not associated with lust. Thus, women are not allowed to attend sporting tournaments [such as swimming, wrestling, weight lifting, soccer (also known as football in some countries) etc… in which men do not have proper covering.
According to Ihtiyat Wajib it is haram for a woman to look at the body of a non-Mahram man. However, the permissibility for a woman to look at the parts of the body of a non-Mahram man that are normally kept open, such as his head, is not free from difficulty, except if that looking helps and leads one to evil and sin (in which case, it is not allowed). B
It is haram for a woman to look at the body of a non-Mahram man, with the exception of his face and hands. L
46 – Rule: It is haram to look at the arms, chest, or any other part of the body of a non-Mahram man who is wearing inappropriate clothing, such as a short sleeve shirt, or has kept the collar of his shirt open, or is wearing see-through clothing, etc… even if it is without the intention of lust. AGKLMS
According to Ihtiyat Wajib, it is not allowed. B
And here is what a typical Abercrombie and Fitch looks like.
See, the thing is.....if you're going to claim devoutness as your main argument in requiring special accommodation (and Doodle's not even saying it wasn't correct for her to be allowed to wear it), it might help if you weren't violating any number of other tenets of the religion you supposedly are so devoted to (i.e. the one noted above) at the place you so desperately want to work.
But then, that's sort of par for the course with ALL of the religious arguments of this nature.
She is saying "I need special accommodation because I simply MUST comply with Islam" while at the same time, every day at her store, she will be failing to comply with Islam. At best that colors her as disingenuous, and at worst, a hypocritical opportunist..
And rest assured, Doodle's not making this argument only because she's Muslim. The Hobby Lobby "victory" re: birth control was egregious as well.
It's the cherry-picking of what is or is not worth following within a given religion that is so difficult to swallow. The "I'm religious when it's convenient" approach is an epidemic that shows no signs of abating and will only serve to incite more public discord as it snowballs.
But Doodle, you can't simply push all tenets on her........right? Otherwise that would/could/should apply to all Christians as well. We get to pick and choose what our "religious beliefs" are now, don't we?
You largely point that out, but if we have to follow "all" of the religious beliefs, who gets to choose? Can their only be a few main religions? i.e. Islam, Christian, Judaism, Hinduism, etc?
You largely point that out, but if we have to follow "all" of the religious beliefs, who gets to choose? Can their only be a few main religions? i.e. Islam, Christian, Judaism, Hinduism, etc?
Held:
To prevail in a disparate-treatment claim, an applicant need show only that his need for anaccommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, not that the employer had knowledge of his need.
So . . . if you are fired for masturbating but your religion requires you to masturbate when you feel the need, then you can sue.
OK, maybe you can't find a "real" religion that requires you to masturbate, but I bet you can find plenty of objectionable things required by some "real" religion.
To prevail in a disparate-treatment claim, an applicant need show only that his need for anaccommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, not that the employer had knowledge of his need.
So . . . if you are fired for masturbating but your religion requires you to masturbate when you feel the need, then you can sue.
OK, maybe you can't find a "real" religion that requires you to masturbate, but I bet you can find plenty of objectionable things required by some "real" religion.
It's a victory of religion over property rights. I happen to believe that property rights need a serious haircut, but not by giving religion even more power.
This post deserves more attention than a simple like. Great point.Here's what the Koran says about women viewing non-muslim men in virtually any state of undress:
C) Women Looking at Non-Mahram Men (source: al-islam.org)
45 – Rule: It is haram for women to look at the bodies of non-Mahram men with the exception of the face, hands, and that amount which men normally do not cover. AGKMST
Therefore: It is not a problem for women to look at the hair on the head, the face, the hands up to the wrist, the feet up to the ankle, and the neck of a non-Mahram man with the condition that it is not associated with lust. Thus, women are not allowed to attend sporting tournaments [such as swimming, wrestling, weight lifting, soccer (also known as football in some countries) etc… in which men do not have proper covering.
According to Ihtiyat Wajib it is haram for a woman to look at the body of a non-Mahram man. However, the permissibility for a woman to look at the parts of the body of a non-Mahram man that are normally kept open, such as his head, is not free from difficulty, except if that looking helps and leads one to evil and sin (in which case, it is not allowed). B
It is haram for a woman to look at the body of a non-Mahram man, with the exception of his face and hands. L
46 – Rule: It is haram to look at the arms, chest, or any other part of the body of a non-Mahram man who is wearing inappropriate clothing, such as a short sleeve shirt, or has kept the collar of his shirt open, or is wearing see-through clothing, etc… even if it is without the intention of lust. AGKLMS
According to Ihtiyat Wajib, it is not allowed. B
And here is what a typical Abercrombie and Fitch looks like.
See, the thing is.....if you're going to claim devoutness as your main argument in requiring special accommodation (and Doodle's not even saying it wasn't correct for her to be allowed to wear it), it might help if you weren't violating any number of other tenets of the religion you supposedly are so devoted to (i.e. the one noted above) at the place you so desperately want to work.
But then, that's sort of par for the course with ALL of the religious arguments of this nature.
She is saying "I need special accommodation because I simply MUST comply with Islam" while at the same time, every day at her store, she will be failing to comply with Islam. At best that colors her as disingenuous, and at worst, a hypocritical opportunist..
And rest assured, Doodle's not making this argument only because she's Muslim. The Hobby Lobby "victory" re: birth control was egregious as well.
It's the cherry-picking of what is or is not worth following within a given religion that is so difficult to swallow. The "I'm religious when it's convenient" approach is an epidemic that shows no signs of abating and will only serve to incite more public discord as it snowballs.
W/o property rights, you're not free at all. The camel's nose is not just under the tent, but, up your...
I object to masturbation being labeled objectionable.
If your asking my opinion, I'm all for it. I say bring back the codpiece. I don't know what the Islamic POV is, but I suspect like most things, it runs counter to my own thoughts.
You've hit the nail on the head TIH old buddy. This is the problem with religious accommodation laws. The courts apparently get to choose which religions get special consideration. And then, anyone who self-identifies, whether they actually practice the faith or not, can argue for their rights. No vetting of their relative devotion to the faith.....only penalizing and criminalizing those who don't accommodate it.
In this case we don't just have someone who, like most religious folks, picks and chooses what part of their faith they will adhere to in everyday life. Instead we have someone who is demanding religious accommodation in the workplace. Fine. Maybe that needs to be a thing. But why is it that her devotion compels her to comply with Islam's rule about wearing the hijab, but somehow does not compel her to follow the whole "don't stare at naked dudes" rule?
If you're going to use religion as the foundation of your argument, whatever the argument is, it almost has to be an all-or-nothing proposition....otherwise the slippery slope could become an all-out avalanche. If the cherry-pickers can start to require reasonable accommodation based on one or two things within a vast network of rules and regs in their chosen religion, certainly it doesn't take great imagination to imagine the chaos that may ensue, especially if followers of "competing" faiths find that the courts are routinely denying their religious accommodation entreaties.
At the end of the day, the sooner we completely eradicate stuff based on mythological storybooks from our legal system and business settings, the better off we will be as a species. Unfortunately, it's more likely that humanity will either cease to exist, or at least cease being the dominant animated life force on this planet, well before religious dogma finally falls by the wayside.
In this case we don't just have someone who, like most religious folks, picks and chooses what part of their faith they will adhere to in everyday life. Instead we have someone who is demanding religious accommodation in the workplace. Fine. Maybe that needs to be a thing. But why is it that her devotion compels her to comply with Islam's rule about wearing the hijab, but somehow does not compel her to follow the whole "don't stare at naked dudes" rule?
If you're going to use religion as the foundation of your argument, whatever the argument is, it almost has to be an all-or-nothing proposition....otherwise the slippery slope could become an all-out avalanche. If the cherry-pickers can start to require reasonable accommodation based on one or two things within a vast network of rules and regs in their chosen religion, certainly it doesn't take great imagination to imagine the chaos that may ensue, especially if followers of "competing" faiths find that the courts are routinely denying their religious accommodation entreaties.
At the end of the day, the sooner we completely eradicate stuff based on mythological storybooks from our legal system and business settings, the better off we will be as a species. Unfortunately, it's more likely that humanity will either cease to exist, or at least cease being the dominant animated life force on this planet, well before religious dogma finally falls by the wayside.
Why is it that Congress can't pass a law respecting an establishment of religion but SCOTUS can rule that it is the law to respect an establishment of religion?
Why isn't this sort of ruling transparently unconstitutional?
OK, OK, the decision is weasel-worded so it doesn't look like that's what's happening. But that IS what's happening.
You won't get any argument from Doodle on this old buddy. The whole religion thing is an albatross around the neck of our great republic. It (obviously 90something percent Christian) served a nice purpose in the beginning as a force for change and motivating factor in establishing our nation. Religion is a rancorous, complex, time-, money-, and resource-consuming monkey on our collective backs.
It's like the 800-pound gorilla.
It's like a bull in a china shop.
It's like a lion waiting the grass.
It's like......c'mon, we can think of more animal metaphors....can't we? Afterall, if we don't rid ourselves of religion soon, they'll be running the show anyway.
You have a unique perspective, I guess I did not realize that Abercrombie was the right wing
I'm curious why you think a religious accommodation law is establishing religion? I'm not following.
It would be interesting if Abercrombie's CEO, say like HobbyLobby, believed it was against his religion to be subservient, rule-wise, to other religions and refused to hire her. That would be a religion v religion case is enjoy hearing from Scalia. I've made my thoughts on public accommodation clear, and the same basics apply here, but I would have ruled the same.
If someone has a religious belief a business (see non-religious/"church") should be required to accommodate unless it specifically interferes somehow. I don't see how that establishes a specific religion, or just religion in general.
If the complaint is fairness in regards to non-religious, I don't think that complaint has merit. That is childish, I'd expect my 4 year old to say, "dad, I don't actually care about this, but if THAT kid gets to do it, so should I!"
As to Doodle: I get it, we agree on a lot of it, but religion is here and is extremely important, and it deserves to be respected. It keeps the majority of people in line, something we still desperately need.
No question about that. Doodle has always contended that the religious books were not at all divinely inspired, but in fact nothing more than thinly-veiled crowd control devices.
Two ways to answer this. Here's the first....
The Founders did us no favor using the phrase "respecting an establishment of religion." Lots of confusion about exactly what that means.
They couldn't have merely meant they shouldn't set up a national religion. The wording for that would be so much simpler: "Congress shall pass no law establishing a religion" or something like that. So they didn't just mean that.
Take an easier example. In the other thread on the NC law to give Christian officials the right to disobey laws that others have to obey, I would argue (and have argued) that that's a really clear violation. 1A says "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." If making a law that says "you Christians don't have to obey the same laws that others do" isn't a violation of that, I don't know how much more obvious it has to get.
Nor does the ability of people of other religious faiths to opt out under this law save it, if it still leaves others with strongly-held beliefs who can't opt out. If only religious people, for religious people qualify under that law, then that law is respecting an establishment of religion pretty much whatever definitions you want to use of "respecting" or "establishment."
Here, I want to challenge why you think "If someone has a religious belief a business ... should be required to accommodate unless it specifically interferes somehow."
Why do you think that? Yes, we have law that says something like that. But why do you think that makes sense? I think a good argument could be made that businesses should accommodate reasonable adjustment requests whenever possible. But why should religious demands be automatically accommodated? I mean even if you don't believe all religion is delusional, as I do, surely you don't believe all religious demands are reasonable.
Nor do I understand why you think fairness is childish in the paragraph where you say that. Why do religious people get to demand special rights that others don't get but those who object to that are the childish ones? Why aren't those who are stamping their feet, turning red in the face and demanding more than others the childish ones?
I'd be grateful for your explanation on those 2 points.
I like this point. I too think the FF were pretty poor wordsmiths trying to be too cute by using half the words needed to describe what they really meant. On the other hand, most of us probably disagree with half of what they really meant and are thus grateful for their poor writing skills.
no, conservatism won in this case. freedom of religion. methinks they will be consistent when it comes to other religious items in the future as well. religion and conservativism won here
Parser believes people should have less rights and the government should have more? Color me shocked.
You seem to be having even more problem with comprehension than usual.
I didn't even mention government in my post. What I said was "It's a victory of religion over property rights. I happen to believe that property rights need a serious haircut, but not by giving religion even more power."
Please try harder to emulate intelligence. You weren't even close to passing a Turing Test on that one.
I think that is exactly what they did there. I don't see any significant difference in what you suggest. However, I do think it incorporates any veiled attempts at "establishment", so obviously in your suggestion Congress couldn't say "Catholicism is the national religion," but they could, perhaps, say, "Jesus is the son of God, died for our sins, now speaks through the Pope, and we all must drink the blood/eat the body." I think their wording is what you suggest, but also takes care of those less-than-full-establishment issues.
Is it confusing? I think it has to be, in its own way, we humans are extremely adept at finding loopholes.
I guess I still don't see that as establishment, certainly not obviously so. I'm not sure which NC law, or thread you are talking about, maybe I'm just having a brainfart. I agree that a "Christian's only" law could violate this section, but a religious exemption law would not. Certainly exempting only one religion would be a violation. Really I'm just confused on your point of this one.
1.
It makes sense because religion is, whether some like it or not, fundamental to many people's existence and was an extremely important factor in the rise of this nation. If you are stuck on thinking religion is made up/not important, than you will never get to the point of debating whether religious exemptions are good. I don't think that is what you mean, and I won't presume it for this discussion.
I completely agree, and I think the law concurs that not all "religious demands" are reasonable, nor should they be treated as such. As always, the question is where the line gets drawn. I think this comes down to the word should. Sure a company should probably try to accommodate all reasonable adjustments in the workplace, but we shouldn't require them to. If we did, literally every grievance in employment, standard fare for internal HRs, would become EEOC/state/federal agency issues, it simply wouldn't be feasible.
It obviously still comes down to reasonableness. Does a non-kosher slaughterhouse have to hire a kosher butcher who will only perform kosher butching? Surely not. Does Abercrombie have to hire a Westboro baptist, who instead of a hijab, requires the wearing a shirt claiming "God hates ******s"? Surely not. The EEOC and the Courts have routinely inserted their own opinions into what is and isn't reasonable, even when they don't state as much on the record.
Nothing I have said, imo, leads to the establishment of religion, which really means two things: Establishing a specific religion, say Catholicism, and Establishing religion in general. I don't think this "establishes" religion, it just acknowledges that people with religion feel compelled to follow certain beliefs, whereas those without, likely, do not. Maybe the more important aspect is determining what "religion" means. Batman refuses to kill people (although clearly has, if indirectly), is that a belief structure worthy of the term "religion"? Should he be exempt, religiously, from killing people? Sure, absolutely. Religion goes far beyond, imo, the bounds of popularly-defined sects. The dangerous part of all of this is having people determine whether someone else's religion is, in fact, devout. Precisely my concern with what Doodle discusses above.
2.
Fairness is childish, because fairness is not a Constitutional, human, animal, or whatever you want to label it, right. Human existence has never and will never be "fair", nor does it need to be. Fairness is for children who want to get their way. In theory, and as a concept we should strive for equality and fairness, yes, but not all things can/should be treated as such. Especially when trying to consider passing a law that affects hundreds of millions of people, it isn't going to be completely "fair." But, specifically what I meant is that the following isn't a fairness issue:
Person A believes, based in their religious observance, that they must wear a headscarf at all times.
Person B has no belief relating to this, but he would like to wear a hat.
Granting A an exemption isn't "unfair" to B, at least not in a way that society should care about. He doesn't "care", it isn't fundamental to his everyday existence, it isn't something that keeps him up late at night concerned about his well-being and future, or whatever you want to call it. We, as society, believe religion is important, deserving of more respect than simple wants/desires, therefore we protect it, and in protecting it we grant reasonable exemptions. I have no problem with this.
Looking at it in maybe a more simplistic way: Tell every RELIGION A person that can't follow RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE Z is going to create significant issues. Tell people with no real affiliation or cohesive beliefs (hat wearers?) that they can't wear hats is simply not going to create those same issues.
I think of it like this: "Why do you want to wear a hat?" "It looks cool yo!" or "I'm going bald and it makes me insecure." - So what, why should society specifically protect that?
As opposed to: "Why do you want to wear a hijab?" "My intrinsic belief system and structure is based off of the teachings of ____________ and due to this I must observe the wearing of a hijab or face eternal damnation/ridicule/heartache/whatever, and I will not be able to function in my job/life due to these ongoing, nagging concerns." Well, this, along with our long and storied history with religious observance/freedom, is a good and easy thing to accommodate.
You term the latter as stamping feet and acting childish, but I see it as much more, it is fundamental, it is something they can't simply change. It is a good reason. Could someone have a better reason than one I posted above for the hat-wearers? Sure, and a company should accommodate that, but I wouldn't be willing to have a state/federal agency oversee that decision-making process, it simply isn't worth it.
That was nearly incoherent rambling. Let me know if you want me to answer anything more specifically. I can say this: I am not religious, I do not believe in the occurrences of the Bible, or the Koran, or any similar work, I do not believe Jesus, or any other human, was a super-human being. I do attend a church with my family. I do think religion, broadly defined as inherent belief structures, (and those with the lack of) is vital to the survival of our nation and the rest of the world.
I feel like you are deliberately missing the point. I hope that isn't the case because I usually like your thoughts.
No one is telling "every RELIGION A person that can't follow RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE...." What we are saying is that if your religion has rules that are inconsistent with the otherwise-reasonable requirements for employment with a particular business, looking for a different job (or a different employer in that field) is almost always going to be the more correct resolution of the conflict than government telling an employer he has to make exceptions.
Moreover, if government does force an employer to make an exception, that exception should be available for all workers.
On the other hand your assertion that making exceptions for the religious isn't a fairness matter because the religious person wouldn't be interested in having that exception made for them - which seems to be one of your points - depends entirely on the exception, doesn't it? It's true that I probably wouldn't want to wear a hijab. But not all exceptions for religion are of that sort.
Take an historical example. A religious person with a strong religious objection to violence may be able to qualify as a conscientious objector. It's more difficult for an atheist to qualify. It's no longer impossible for a nonbeliever, as it was some decades ago, but the person who has a religious basis for his claim follows an easier path.
"No one is telling "every RELIGION A person that can't follow RELIGIOUS OBSERVANCE...." What we are saying is that if your religion has rules that are inconsistent with the otherwise-reasonable requirements for employment with a particular business, looking for a different job (or a different employer in that field) is almost always going to be the more correct resolution of the conflict than government telling an employer he has to make exceptions."
This is, basically, the law, and the law that I would support. Reasonableness. Reasonable requirements from an employer. Reasonable accommodation request for religious observance from employee. Wearing a hijab is reasonable. Abercrombie would have to really impress upon me why a hijab doesn't meet "east coast preppy", or that said style would interfere with their business model.
"Moreover, if government does force an employer to make an exception, that exception should be available for all workers."
I don't agree with this, nor get a rationale. At least not one that should be required by law. Certainly if Abercrombie now allows hijabs you would think they should do so for all, even non-hijab-observers, but I wouldn't require them to. That is why I discussed fairness. I don't care about the "fairness" to someone who it really doesn't matter to, at least not in a specifically-articulated and deeply-held belief. The hijab in that context makes for a weak example. How about Sabbath, in most businesses not working on the Sabbath is a reasonable accommodation, but it clearly can't be available to everybody. Is it "fair" to the guy working that day? I don't care, especially if his reason for not wanting to work that day is "because they get to!"
"'On the other hand your assertion that making exceptions for the religious isn't a fairness matter because the religious person wouldn't be interested in having that exception made for them - which seems to be one of your points - depends entirely on the exception, doesn't it? "
Yes, of course.
It's true that I probably wouldn't want to wear a hijab. But not all exceptions for religion are of that sort. Take an historical example. A religious person with a strong religious objection to violence may be able to qualify as a conscientious objector. It's more difficult for an atheist to qualify. It's no longer impossible for a nonbeliever, as it was some decades ago, but the person who has a religious basis for his claim follows an easier path.
Yes, I agree with this, and even used it as an example previously. If I got to make the rules, "religion" would expand well beyond Catholic vs. Jew vs. Muslim, it would be about a central system of articulable belief, an example of which would be nonviolence. That is why I used Batman, he, allegedly, refuses to kill people. I would exempt him from the draft. But I wouldn't institute a draft, but I digress.
This is, basically, the law, and the law that I would support. Reasonableness. Reasonable requirements from an employer. Reasonable accommodation request for religious observance from employee. Wearing a hijab is reasonable. Abercrombie would have to really impress upon me why a hijab doesn't meet "east coast preppy", or that said style would interfere with their business model.
"Moreover, if government does force an employer to make an exception, that exception should be available for all workers."
I don't agree with this, nor get a rationale. At least not one that should be required by law. Certainly if Abercrombie now allows hijabs you would think they should do so for all, even non-hijab-observers, but I wouldn't require them to. That is why I discussed fairness. I don't care about the "fairness" to someone who it really doesn't matter to, at least not in a specifically-articulated and deeply-held belief. The hijab in that context makes for a weak example. How about Sabbath, in most businesses not working on the Sabbath is a reasonable accommodation, but it clearly can't be available to everybody. Is it "fair" to the guy working that day? I don't care, especially if his reason for not wanting to work that day is "because they get to!"
"'On the other hand your assertion that making exceptions for the religious isn't a fairness matter because the religious person wouldn't be interested in having that exception made for them - which seems to be one of your points - depends entirely on the exception, doesn't it? "
Yes, of course.
It's true that I probably wouldn't want to wear a hijab. But not all exceptions for religion are of that sort. Take an historical example. A religious person with a strong religious objection to violence may be able to qualify as a conscientious objector. It's more difficult for an atheist to qualify. It's no longer impossible for a nonbeliever, as it was some decades ago, but the person who has a religious basis for his claim follows an easier path.
Yes, I agree with this, and even used it as an example previously. If I got to make the rules, "religion" would expand well beyond Catholic vs. Jew vs. Muslim, it would be about a central system of articulable belief, an example of which would be nonviolence. That is why I used Batman, he, allegedly, refuses to kill people. I would exempt him from the draft. But I wouldn't institute a draft, but I digress.
