he Supreme Court ruled 8-1 today that the retail chain Abercrombie & Fitch violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when an assistant manager denied Samantha Elauf, an observant Muslim woman, a job because her headscarf violated Abercrombie’s “Look Policy,” that prohibits “caps” from being worn on the sale floor.

Abercrombie acknowledged that was why Elauf was not hired.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Abercrombie on Elauf’s behalf, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals contended that Abercrombie was not liable because Elauf did not provide actual notice of the need for a religious accommodation during her job interview.

The Supreme Court reversed that decision. In a majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “Here the employer at least suspected that the practice was a religious one; its refusal to hire was motivated by the desire to avoid accommodating that practice, and that is enough."


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-rules-abercrombie-fitch-headscarf-case/story?id=31445187

If the mosque, or the attendees, wanted to claim their 14th Amendment rights were violated they would stand a better chance. No guarantees; they would have to show an actual harm or damage other than "I felt uncomfortable".

Employment discrimination on religious grounds.

Hhhhhh-heh-heh-heh. You said Scalia.

This was an original case of religious discrimination.

Tit, meet tat.

between the 1st Amendment and the 14th. The 2nd Amendment does not protect criminal misuse of firearms.

Should the mosque, or the attendees, prevail it will not be a repudiation of the 2nd Amendment. If a person successfully sues for libel or slander it does not repudiate the 1st Amendment.

You are not a very polite person, I hope you realize that.

Did you post this?

ended up being a colossal failure and made those idiots look even worse.