Muslim Company Forcing Christian Employees to Wear Headscarfs

[TGregg]

In one case, Hobby Lobby opted not to do something. In this case, ragheads are forcing employees to do something. Big difference.

Employers can't force employees to do whatever the fuck they want.

Sure they can. Look at uniforms, for instance. I realize it is a fake story, but if some bakery someplace wants their workers to wear hair scarves, then fine. The employee can wear it or not, and the employer can decide if they want to fire them or not. Employment is just like any other trade, a voluntary agreement between two parties, either of which can avoid any arrangement they wish, whenever they wish, for whatever reasons they wish. Unfortunately, we've placed some limits on that freedom, such as compensation and reasons for avoiding agreements. But (so far) we have not made clothing part of that.

Eventually we will have massive tomes of rules, laws and regulations about what can and cannot be decided by whom and when to the point that only a super human AI will be able to parse the thing and decide if any given action is legal.

 

[jem]

There is the theory... that in the marketplace .. businesses that discriminate will lose business and have higher costs. How about that? How about the govt stays out of this. If someone does not wish to bake a cake... that is business for someone else.

Most of this stuff is just contrived bullshit by both sides. although the side trying to force the otherside is more at fault in my opinion.

I don't support gay marriage... I do believe in God, I would be friends with the gay guys... wish them good luck if they really wish to be married- seriously... really? Bake a cake, charge them money, and hand them whatever sets of people I have and tell them to be creative and figure it out. Surely they have artsy friend who can help them finish decorating?

 

[Frederick Foresight]

There is the theory... that in the marketplace .. businesses that discriminate will lose business and have higher costs. How about that?

So, mercantile interests above human dignity? And in the meantime, we'll wait for Adam Smith's invisible hand to shake its fist at the errant shopkeeper? And of course you're willing to wait because it doesn't negatively affect you. Was it the invisible hand that did away with, say, segregation? If not, how much longer do you think blacks might have waited to be treated at least that much more equally? Another generation or so, perhaps? And you would have been okay with that generation being lost? Ever hear the term "Justice delayed is justice denied?"

The provocative fictitious article got some of you going because the shoe was put on the other foot and you didn't like the fit. That was the purpose of the "article."

 

[murray t turtle]

A Muslim-owned arts-and-crafts store in Dearborn, Michigan is forcing its female Christian employees to wear traditional Islamic headscarves while on the job.

According to local reports, Khilāf Krafts began requiring its eight female employees to wear hijabs last week, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, which gave religious rights to family-owned businesses.

Although five women working for the company are Muslims, the remaining three are practicing Christians. The company has threatened to fire any Christian woman who does not comply.

“My boss came in last Tuesday with a Koran in his hand and told us we were dressed like harlots,” says Karen Anderson, 28, a five year veteran of the company. “He gave us each a hijab and said if we didn’t wear it we’d be unemployed.

“I’m a strong believer in Jesus Christ. But my husband passed a few years ago and I need this job to support my kids. I don’t really have a choice. I have to wear it.”

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion in the Hobby Lobby case allowed the Christian-owned retail chain to opt out of a federal law requiring employers to give female employees contraceptive coverage.

Although praised by conservative Christians, liberals fret that the decision will allow companies with devout owners of any faith to opt out of American laws they simply don’t like.

In her dissent Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed similar fears: “Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' … The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.” she wrote.

Khilāf Krafts’ new policy has attracted outrage from women’s rights groups and Christian churches around the country. However, owner Khaleed El-Helani says he’s just a business owner practicing his faith.

“If Hobby Lobby can impose its religious beliefs on its employees, why can’t we?” he demands. “Are Christian business owners somehow more important than Muslim business owners?

“I read through the entire Supreme Court decision. I don’t really see what the problem is here. I’m a small, closely held business. I have devout religious beliefs. Why should I be forced to employ people if it violates my religion?”

El-Helani also says he plans on cutting off his employees' hands if he catches them stealing, in accordance with Islamic law.

"This is what religious freedom looks like," he explains. "Thanks John Roberts!"

http://dailycurrant.com/2014/07/22/muslim-company-forcing-christian-employees-to-wear-headscarfs/

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
''Are Christians more important??[article asks.]

Well from a historical[,USA Judeo-Christian history perspective, Christians are surely more important.Of course Christianity is based on Old testament + all ,or almost all the bible is written by Jews.

PUT another way a general , on FOX news asked sarcastically ''where are all the Baptist bombers??''LOL Answer; there are NO Baptist bombers............................................

 

[jem]

You are going to have to dig a lot deeper than to mix a match of few names or periods of economic history to help your point be something more than specious. If you wish to understand the other side, I suggest you start with some of Judge Posner's writings.

I could just as easily ask you if you are putting Central Govt control over human dignity.
Powerful central govt has destroyed human dignity. Stalin, Mao, USSR, Cuba, how is venezuela working out for human dignity... they have water and toilet paper shortages.

And the other reason I see you point as being specious... is that being gay and being black are not equivalent in many ways.


And to apply it to me... lets say they refused to serve people who were like me or believed what I believed.

I would still not want the govt involved. I would probably just facebook it, yelp it.. and explain to people why they might want to go somewhere else. I have found social media is far more effective than the threat of a lawsuit with most every vendor. And, I explain that to clients. Information is now more easily disseminated... we do not need govt officials to be policing these things. Do we really need Eric Holder's team, investigating anything? Our govt has lost most of its credibility here and abroad.

So, mercantile interests above human dignity? And in the meantime, we'll wait for Adam Smith's invisible hand to shake its fist at the errant shopkeeper? And of course you're willing to wait because it doesn't negatively affect you. Was it the invisible hand that did away with, say, segregation? If not, how much longer do you think blacks might have waited to be treated at least that much more equally? Another generation or so, perhaps? And you would have been okay with that generation being lost? Ever hear the term "Justice delayed is justice denied?"

The provocative fictitious article got some of you going because the shoe was put on the other foot and you didn't like the fit. That was the purpose of the "article."

 

[achilles28]

Sure they can. Look at uniforms, for instance. I realize it is a fake story, but if some bakery someplace wants their workers to wear hair scarves, then fine. The employee can wear it or not, and the employer can decide if they want to fire them or not. Employment is just like any other trade, a voluntary agreement between two parties, either of which can avoid any arrangement they wish, whenever they wish, for whatever reasons they wish. Unfortunately, we've placed some limits on that freedom, such as compensation and reasons for avoiding agreements. But (so far) we have not made clothing part of that.

Eventually we will have massive tomes of rules, laws and regulations about what can and cannot be decided by whom and when to the point that only a super human AI will be able to parse the thing and decide if any given action is legal.

Good points. I think its debatable. Uniforms serve a business function. Hajibs or whatever serve a religious one. It would be like forcing employees to wear a crucifix or a yamaka. Thats more freedom of expression then legitimate business purpose. Probably for the courts to decide.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Forcing someone to wear a symbol that identifies them as a member of a religion would clearly run afoul of anti-discrimination laws, although it's hard to imagine the idiots that run these commissions protecting Christians. In the OP however, you could argue that a headscarf is religiously ambiguous. It is performing a modesty function, no different than an employee prohibiting employees from going topless.