Religious Descrimination at Abercrombie & Fitch?

[telkanuru]

And if a canny business-owner who doesn't like muslims or sikhs, for example, puts in a no-hats, no-beards policy to keep them out--but doesn't tell anyone that's why he's doing it--no problem?

--Philistine

You can't, but as long as he doesn't allow anyone who works for him to wear hats or have a beard, then I can't find a reason to object.

[I_luv_saber]

Uh, I know this isn't the point, but Hanukkah isn't a terribly big holiday for religious Jews. Culturally it's become somewhat significant because of Christmas, but there are no specific requirements like being in Temple for most of the day.

Not being Jewish, I wouldn't know . But, I'll certainly take your word for it...

In the future, your example would work better with the high holy days (Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur), which are SeriousBusiness.

Meh... you got the point, right?

[dcmdale]

You can't, but as long as he doesn't allow anyone who works for him to wear hats or have a beard, then I can't find a reason to object.

Would you be similarly unconcerned if an employer required head coverings and forbade haircuts that rounded the corners of the head? And assumed that anyone who showed up without a hat or with a non-conforming haircut would be unwilling to get one?

[telkanuru]

Would you be similarly unconcerned if an employer required head coverings and forbade haircuts that rounded the corners of the head?

I'd like to think so.

And assumed that anyone who showed up without a hat or with a non-conforming haircut would be unwilling to get one?

I've already said that this is the part of this that stinks.

[keith]

Would you be similarly unconcerned if an employer required head coverings and forbade haircuts that rounded the corners of the head? And assumed that anyone who showed up without a hat or with a non-conforming haircut would be unwilling to get one?

The trouble is that A&F are in the haberdashery equivalent of the pork sausage business.

Don't think anyone is supporting either their marketing strategy or their hiring practices.

[dcmdale]

I'd like to think so.

The trouble is that A&F are in the haberdashery equivalent of the pork sausage business.

Don't think anyone is supporting either their marketing strategy or their hiring practices.

I am content with consistency. While I personally support the Civil Rights Act, especially with respect to race, it is something upon which reasonable minds can differ. Establishing rights for one group invariably comes at the expense of freedom for someone else. The question is where to draw the line.

To push a little farther (and not arguing that this is comparable to A&F), would you allow an employment ad that specifically said: "Atheists and Christians need not apply?" Repealing the Civil Rights Act would presumably allow that.

[keith]

To push a little farther (and not arguing that this is comparable to A&F), would you allow an employment ad that specifically said: "Atheists and Christians need not apply?" Repealing the Civil Rights Act would presumably allow that.

.... if the opening was for a muezzin then I wouldn't see much of a problem .

What if the ad said no short arses? A group not currently covered and frequently discriminated against for their many personality failings.

If a belief, habit or idiosyncrasy makes an individual unable to perform a given job it is not discrimination. If we were talking about A&F refusing to hire a headscarf wearing muslim for their new hijab emporium I suspect that this would run differently.

Does A&F market a certain look and style, yep they do. I would imagine all the dumpy, spotty guys with big ears who don't get hired do not get this much internet time.

[keith]

To push a little farther (and not arguing that this is comparable to A&F), would you allow an employment ad that specifically said: "Atheists and Christians need not apply?" Repealing the Civil Rights Act would presumably allow that.

More seriously.

I suspect you are deliberately ignoring the difference between an employer excluding a group based on the assumption that one of those people is not able to do the job (to put it politely) vs the situation where an applicant does not meet a requirement for the job.

So for your specific example. I recall from many years ago a case in the UK where a business (a butcher as I recall) placed an ad in Urdu. This was(is) illegal, although it is not illegal to require the ability to speak Urdu if that is what your clientele speak. The individual who complained was not qualified, since he could not read the ad, but his complaint was upheld on the basis that the ad was discriminatory. There is a subtle difference here that you are probably well aware of .

[keith]

Just catching up.

And if a canny business-owner who doesn't like muslims or sikhs, for example, puts in a no-hats, no-beards policy to keep them out--but doesn't tell anyone that's why he's doing it--no problem?

--Philistine

There is I think an assumption here that the law catches the canny ones - it doesn't. It catches the stupid ones who don't understand the way around things.

Unless, you are a large multinational with sufficient employees that it becomes bleedingly obvious what you are up to.

Which is not to say that anti-discrimination law is bad, just that specifying classes with exceptions seems an awfully long way around. This opinion of course ignores some of the details of american history.

[dcmdale]

.... if the opening was for a muezzin then I wouldn't see much of a problem .

What if the ad said no short arses? A group not currently covered and frequently discriminated against for their many personality failings.

If a belief, habit or idiosyncrasy makes an individual unable to perform a given job it is not discrimination. If we were talking about A&F refusing to hire a headscarf wearing muslim for their new hijab emporium I suspect that this would run differently.

I guess I was pushing beyond the A&F example to discrimination less closely tied to marketing concepts. For instance, if Hewlett/Packard restricted top management positions to Christians "to restore the ethical heritage of the company," or Steve Jobs wanted to restrict development positions to Buddhists because he felt that people of that philosophy developed better code, or Cisco demanded that all Salespeople be Atheists because "religious people are stupid."

I would imagine all the dumpy, spotty guys with big ears who don't get hired do not get this much internet time.

You haven't been looking at my personnel file, have you?

[MyrddinsPrecint]

Not being Jewish, I wouldn't know . But, I'll certainly take your word for it...

Meh... you got the point, right?

I'm not Jewish either-- I was just born on a day that often coincides (or comes very close) to the High Holidays, and as a kid, I had to be careful when birthday festivities were scheduled to make sure some of my closer friends could attend. I ended up fairly well versed in Jewish culture. The whole Hannukah=Christmas thing is a fairly common misconception.

I did, in fact, totally get the point. : )

[dcmdale]

I suspect you are deliberately ignoring the difference between an employer excluding a group based on the assumption that one of those people is not able to do the job (to put it politely) vs the situation where an applicant does not meet a requirement for the job.

I got delayed writing the last post so this was unintentionally cross-posted.

I think that it is less that I am deliberately ignoring this difference as recognizing (as you also point out) that motivation based on actual job requirements vs. motivation based on bias or prejudice can be challenging to disintertwingle--particularly in the context of a court case.

[telkanuru]

To push a little farther (and not arguing that this is comparable to A&F), would you allow an employment ad that specifically said: "Atheists and Christians need not apply?" Repealing the Civil Rights Act would presumably allow that.

No, of course not. That's discrimination explicitly based on religion.

The point I continue to make is that the A&F case does not seem unreasonable to me because it's not the type of hat they find objectionable, it's that the hat is on the head.

[thereom4]

Establishing rights for one group invariably comes at the expense of freedom for someone else. The question is where to draw the line.

To preface I don't know you. I found this interesting and thus chose to comment.

I'm reading a book now called Silent Racism by Barbara Trepagnier. I was watching Inner Compass on PBS one day and she was being interviewed. I thought the topic very interesting and I wanted to learn more. In her book Trepagnier refers to symbolic racism.

She says specifically that symbolic racists "do not see themselves as racist; they see themselves as victims of unfair government policies regulating race matters. For them, racial discrimination ended with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Conservative values such as self-reliance and individual responsibility are used to illustrate that people (namely blacks and other minorities who need government support are lazy and expect a government handout."

I read dcmdale's quote and I was reminded of what I had just read in Trepaginer's book. It also took me back to the discussion of AA (in another thread) being racially discriminatory.

I've been reading this thread but chose not to comment. But I would like to say that a hijab is a head covering and not a hat. Although a hat is also a head covering. A hat is a hat. A hijab is a hijab. They are not the same thing thus not interchangeable.

As per my opinion on this case: I'm with the liberals on this one.

[Philistine]

{snip}
I read dcmdale's quote and I was reminded of what I had just read in Trepaginer's book. It also took me back to the discussion of AA (in another thread) being racially discriminatory.
{snip}

FWIW, I think you are misconstruing dcmdale's post. I took it to be merely expressing the truism that when you mandate one person "accommodate" another, by definition you are limiting the first person's freedom in some way.

That, in and of itself, doesn't seem too controversial.

--Philistine

[thereom4]

FWIW, I think you are misconstruing dcmdale's post. I took it to be merely expressing the truism that when you mandate one person "accommodate" another, by definition you are limiting the first person's freedom in some way.

That, in and of itself, doesn't seem too controversial.

--Philistine

I don't know dcmdale, I don't think I've ever even had any type of dialogue with him/her. My response to dcmdale's post was geared towards the idea that giving "rights", "advantages" or "privileges" to one group would disadvantage members of another group, specificially in the context of civil rights. My post was not meant to be a criticism of dcmdale. It was a criticism of the above belief.

I do agree that mandating one person to accomodate another, limits the first person's freedom. But sometimes this is necessary.

[dcmdale]

I don't know dcmdale, I don't think I've ever even had any type of dialogue with him/her. My response to dcmdale's post was geared towards the idea that giving "rights", "advantages" or "privileges" to one group would disadvantage members of another group, specificially in the context of civil rights. My post was not meant to be a criticism of dcmdale. It was a criticism of the above belief.

I do agree that mandating one person to accomodate another, limits the first person's freedom. But sometimes this is necessary.

Philistine correctly caught my meaning.

[dcmdale]

Welcome to this discussion. I was rather hoping that you would join because I think you offer some unique perspectives both on unintended discriminatory consequences and plausibly deniable forms of discrimination.

As per my opinion on this case: I'm with the liberals on this one.

I am not sure which side that puts you on here. By my count, there is a conservative'ish attorney and a liberal'ish attorney arguing that this potentially violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a coalition of liberal and conservatives who think that A&F's actions are justifiable because they support the marketing direction of A&F.

[prototoast]

Protecting people based on religion is bull****. If I have some retarded principles that I live my life by, they shouldn't be more valid just because a bunch of other assholes believe it too, and somehow associate it with an imaginary god.

I'm not religious. What if I just think for my own stupid reasons that it's indecent to be seen in public without a hat? Why shouldn't I be protected and allowed to wear a hat in a no-hat-policy workplace too? Why is her belief more valid just because a bunch of dickwads agree with her and call it religion?

[I_luv_saber]

This whole thread seems like a pretty odd role-reversal, actually...