SCOTUS Rulings All Week…

The Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) will be delivering rulings, on previously argued cases, all week. Today, two rulings announced.

r-SUPREME-COURT-JUSTICES-large570

♦  8-1 EEOC wins suit filed against Abercrombie and Fitch on behalf of Muslim woman who sought discrimination protection -based on religion as the qualifying protected category- claiming disqualification from employment because she wore a headscarf.

Ridiculously Abercrombie argued their side of the case based on the applicant never “requesting a religious accommodation“. Justice Scalia informed the business the applicant did not need to be specifically denied a requested accommodation in order to be discriminated; the applicant merely needed to prove their employment disqualification was due to their religious belief.

…”An applicant need only show that his need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision”…  ~ Scalia

This was really a no-brainer win for religious freedom and employment eligibility.

♦  In a second ruling SCOTUS ruled in favor of a man who was arrested and convicted for making threats on Facebook. The basic reasoning for the court overturning the conviction was a lack of “standard” in the government’s position of “threat”.

SCOTUS ruled you cannot merely apply the ‘common man’ or ‘reasonable person’ threshold to the removal of liberty through speech. The government definition of “threat” is not defined well enough.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Pennsylvania man who posted several violent messages on Facebook and was convicted under a federal threat statute. The Court held that the standard used to convict him was too low.

The Court said that it wasn’t enough to convict him based solely on how a reasonable person would regard his communications as a threat. The Court left open what standard should be used.

“Our holding makes clear that negligence is not sufficient to support a conviction,” wrote Chief Justice John Roberts.

The ruling marks the first time the Court addressed the implications of free speech on social media. It is a narrow ruling and the Court did not address the larger constitutional issue. (more)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to SCOTUS Rulings All Week…

    • I’m rather disappointed with all of this deceptive “maneuvering” in regards to abortion. IMO, the issue is not (and never was) about “reproductive rights” but is, rather, about fetal rights.

      I can’t think of a single person (including these champions of “Reproductive Rights) who didn’t start life as a fetus, or who can honestly say “Yeah, I think it would have been OK for my Mom to abort me so that she could finish college and get her degree in ‘Gender Studies’. ”

      The reality is, they would fight for their own “Right to Life” if that were the case. They know it, too, but continue with their disingenuous arguments to the contrary. Totally selfish, IMO.

      Like

      • czarowniczy says:

        Sorry, SCOTUS has constantly ruled that the only fetal rights are fatal rights – or last rights

        Like

      • stella says:

        I think you have to make gains any way you can. This will, if successful, prevent the abortion of at least some babies, just as it has in Texas. If the clinic survives, the bar for safety of abortion has been raised.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Yeah, I know you’re right about this. Every life saved is a victory worth celebrating. I guess that I am just saddened because we live in a world that seems to have become totally surreal just during my own lifespan. I’m a “Let’s call a spade, a spade” kinda guy.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Be Ge says:

            hey, I guess I wanted to ask this question for a while…so I’ll do. Is there a good non-religious reason for a person to unconditionally be pro-life/pro-reproduction?

            Like

            • Dixie says:

              Religious or not, would you support murder?

              Liked by 1 person

              • Be Ge says:

                Would you call (again, from a non-religious standpoint) barrier contraception a murder? A drug-induced abortion a single-cell zygote or 2-cell (after first division) zygote a murder? 16-cell? 32-cell? Where’s the borderline? Most “background discussions” of legal abortion regulation I’ve heard of — basically repeat Roman/Byzantine ruling of 5th or 6th century AD, it is all the same all the way up to Roe v. Wade. Yes, the “balance” paradigm of Roe v. Wade is really THAT old. In the late antiquity/early middle ages they have stated that very early stage abortion was a morals-violating misdemeanor-type of thing punishable by a fine (and these days it is not even morals violation, merely a use of XIV-A), while later stage abortion was ruled a murder worthy heavy fines and long jail times and death penalties for the involved parties. The borderline (this is where the definitions differ) back then was proclaimed to be the 40th day of pregnancy, whereby the Divine force bestows a soul upon the embryo. Roe v. Wade talks about “foetal survivability” outside of the uterus. I know of an effort to make a different system into the law books whereby the borderline is drawn upon development of neural system capable of sensing pain/destruction (10-12 weeks after conception or so).

                I do not quite understand non-religious (yeah, popes and prophets have infallibly taught X — we remember those teachings of X have resulted in crusades, burning of witches and many more marvels, including today’s suicide bombers of allakhuakbar kind) reasons to draw the line at conception and calling a Postinor pill a murder weapon. I really don’t. Despite the fact I am fine with the belief of “life since conception” — I do not feel I can push it onto others — as with any religious beliefs.

                Like

            • Yes. Religion aside, common sense tells me at least two things.

              First, it’s in the best interest of our species to reproduce (the alternative is extinction) and,second, the decay of social structure that (IMO) accompanies infanticide renders all other attempts at peace, order, and justice moot. That leaves nothing that is worthwhile.

              Liked by 1 person

              • Be Ge says:

                You don’t really want to reproduce something like this:

                15 babies by 6 different papas of whom 4 are in jail. From a plain statistical point, you are looking at future criminals and/or parents of criminals. Equal “desirability” of children regardless of origin and “not their fault” no-question-asked welfare are commie constructs for which we pay dearly and will be paying more in the near future.

                Like

            • Is there a good non-religious reason for a person to unconditionally be pro-life/pro-reproduction?

              Is that a joke question? I don’t oppose murder on religious grounds.

              Like

            • EnterTheDragon says:

              Abortion can lead to infertility. At one point, the average Soviet woman had had 7 abortions.

              Like

      • angie says:

        I always thought it weird that women who want the right to choose don’t bother applying it to female fetuses. Guess their rights don’t matter.
        Of course, I don’t think this only applies to female babies just displaying their convoluted logic. IMO, abortion is wrong.

        Liked by 1 person

        • I have always been amazed by the number of people who advocate for PETA but are also “Pro-Choice”. They are quick to scream “OUTRAGE!” when shown pictures of baby seals that were clubbed to death by hunters, but can’t share that same outrage over the extermination of millions of humans. Hypocrisy at its best.

          Like

    • czarowniczy says:

      If the SCOTUS doesn’t there’s a lot of Mississippians who have their way to do so

      Like

  1. czarowniczy says:

    As for the rights of Moslem women to wear the hajib the DoD has rather quietly released a directive that soldiers who are of religions that require certain items to be worn may apply to do so as long as the wearing doesn’t hinder “mission accomplishment, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline.” So Jews can ask to grow beards and wear the kippah, Moslems can ask to grow beards,Moslem women can ask to wear the hajib, Sikhs can ask to grow beards and sport religious items and G-d knows what the Satanists and Wiccans can ask to sport. It sure is going to make parades more visually interesting.

    Liked by 2 people

    • archer52 says:

      and if Bruce Jenner shows up?

      Like

    • Daniel says:

      Actually, that’s not true. Unless the US Navy changes its firefighting equipment (and on ship, EVERYONE is a firefighter) you still cannot wear beards. Only temporary exceptions are allowed and if those temporary exceptions come too frequently and/or too often, they will release you from naval service.

      That could all change under Obama, of course, but when I was in, that’s how it worked.

      Like

      • czarowniczy says:

        Operant words are: ‘“mission accomplishment, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline.” Anyone required to wear any sort of breathing apparatus that requires a tight seal (including ‘gas’ masks) will play hob trying to get an exemption. Navy’s been weird on-and-off on dress standards – remember when ADM Zumwalt decided to loosen standards. Won’t stop ’em from applying for an exception though, and COs in all services will have yet more paperwork tsunamis to deal with. The headgear’s more of a bother to me than a beard, I wanna see what the Satanists will ask to sport.

        Like

    • Dixie says:

      or some people obviously can wear next to nothing…..which is not visually interesting.

      Like

    • EnterTheDragon says:

      So.

      Cross necklaces and yarmulkes are OK, too? Stars of David?

      Like

      • czarowniczy says:

        That will depend upon display restrictions for medallions – you can wear ’em but I’m betting not openly. A kippah is a yarmulke and wearing one shouldn’t interfere with wearing traditional military headgear. The Sikh Dastaar is going to be the interesting one, a bit more intrusive when it comes to integrating into the uniform than the hijab is going to be a bit easier to deal with.

        Like

  2. nivico says:

    I have to defend Abercrombie a bit here…

    When you have minority owned and operated “urban streetwear” clothing lines that blatantly promote themselves as such, think “For Us By Us” (FUBU), we shouldn’t be seeing Abercrombie constantly drug through the courts and having to pay out tens of millions of dollars because it admittedly caters to consumers who prefer a “preppy look of the Ivy League.”

    Abercrombie’s brand and image is just as distinctive as Hooters, and few would argue that Hooters should be forced to abandon it’s business model and employee dress code to accommodate Quaker waitresses who would object to wearing halter tops and short shorts for religious reasons.

    All else aside, I just don’t think it’s the court’s place to dictate what sort of demographic a business must cater to or what sort of dress code to which its employees must adhere…

    Liked by 1 person

    • sundance says:

      Abercrombie could have won their case if they chose that approach. (Much like Hooters restaurants defend themselves against EEOC complaints based on gender discrimination).

      Alas, they did not. Their argument was very specific; they claimed the applicant never asked for a religious exemption, therefore they did no wrong (very narrow position).

      The SCOTUS correctly ruled the EEOC only had to show the headscarf was a mitigating factor in the employment decision, and wearing the headscarf is a religious tenet.

      The applicant did not need to formerly request an accommodation in order for the employer to consider it. The employer, in this case Abercrombie, therefore used religion as part of the disqualification of employment. You can’t do that.

      Like

      • joanfoster says:

        I’m hoping that if an applicant wearing a large gold cross applies for work at A&F, SCOTUS will be just a generous in their ruling. Somehow, I doubt it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • archer52 says:

        agreed. bad angle.

        Like

      • Mr. Right says:

        Yet, people should not be allowed to promote a political agenda via the cover of religion.

        And especially with Islam, its not like this religion warrant blind acceptance.
        I understand they follow the law as written, but the end result in this case is deplorable.

        Its like forcing Christian business to promote gay marriage by organizing and helping them make gay wedding happen.

        If a business doesn’t want to promote Islam oppression of woman, it should be their right to refuse employment to people wearing what they see has oppressive to woman, EVEN if the person does this under the cover of religion.

        Like

      • Daniel says:

        Court rulings of this type are a bit frightening in the sense that while “the wrong argument” may have been used, the reality of the situation remains — that they are an image based company and their distinct image is compromised by having people wearing clothing which isn’t consistent with their image.

        Can Abercrombie now offer a new argument or a new defense? It doesn’t make sense that a defendant can only offer one argument. I know I have seen cases where multiple arguments are offered so in their case, they could have offered the first argument in addition to the business need to maintain their image argument. Will they be able to offer the correct argument to a lower court as the supreme court has only ruled on the one argument?

        Like

      • nivico says:

        Hopefully this pic shows up, lol…

        Like

      • nivico says:

        I know I’m oversimplifying the issues, but…

        In Hobby Lobby the court ruled in favor of the employer’s religious beliefs, and in Abercrombie they ruled in favor of the employee’s religious beliefs…

        So what happens when Hobby Lobby meets Hijab…???

        Like

    • Abercrombie’s brand and image is just as distinctive as Hooters

      If Abercrombie had said she could have the job but she had to comply with the dress code they would have been fine. Unfortunately, they said they didn’t hire her because she was a Muslim who wears a head scarf.

      Ironically, wearing a head scarf isn’t even mandatory in the Muslim religion.

      Like

  3. Mr. Right says:

    Whats next? KKK members will be demand to work in Kentucky friend chicken in full attires ?

    A woman wearing Hijab in America is no different then a KKK members parading in full attire, its equality oppressive. And an employer should have the right to decide if this represent their business identity.

    If you are against Sharia law and oppression of gay and woman, hijab and burka should be banned in your business. Not forced on you by the government.

    Private employer should have the right to impose any dress code they want on employee and costumers, even if it might affect some religious code of some kind.

    No burka, no face tattoo, no attired with religious or political messages should be forced on any employer. Your freedom is to find another job to align with your personal decisions and beliefs.

    No shirt, no service… Burka, no employment

    Can you image a man covered with Nazi tattoo, and wearing a t shirt with a swastika wanting to work in Jewish deli ? will the supreme court force the owner to allow this ?

    What a sad day….

    Liked by 1 person

  4. archer52 says:

    Islam is a religion of domination and conquest. We don’t get that. It also allows for its followers to use the other culture’s weakness against them. This will end when the world divides and we all realize we are in another Crusade- this time worldwide and probably involving nukes, bio and chemical weapons.

    This is going to be “sporty”

    Like

    • Mr. Right says:

      Muslim are the most religious intolerant people on earth. Try to bring a bibles to a muslim country…

      So they demand full acceptance of mohamaed by infidel, and you are right, and they will use any mean to get it. Even terrorism.

      Look at what happen in France when they banned wearing the burka in public places,
      or when they demanded that muslim kid to do like Christian , leave they religion at home before going to school? (you wear crosses under your t-shirt, not over it)

      Or look at the slaughter house industry and halal practices… Muslim are perverting western society using our own laws for fairness.

      “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”

      muslim are openly manipulating the western culture using our laws for freedom against us.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Piggs says:

    BareNakedIslam has multiple stories of this legal jihad. It’ll usually come under the banner along the lines of : Another Reason to Never Hire a muslim.

    Seems like A&F should have payed attention.

    Like

  6. mikayla825 says:

    As a former hiring manager I will ask this, who told this woman why she wasn’t hired? Who said it had to do with her head wear? I have a splitting headache maybe I missed it in the article (?)

    Like

    • sundance says:

      Not sure but my hunch would be a young, immature, inexperienced, millennial manager working for Abercrombie.

      An experienced HR trained mgr would not usually make such a rookie mistake.

      Liked by 2 people

      • mikayla825 says:

        Thank you, my thought’s exactly.

        Like

        • Dixie says:

          then the lawyers must have been rookies too.

          Liked by 1 person

        • sundance says:

          Sort of off topic but have you ever noticed that not a single EEO case based on “Disparate Impact” has ever reached SCOTUS?

          DOJ and EEOC avoid bringing disparate impact to the SCOTUS at all costs. It would destroy about 1/2 of their leverage (ie. extortion) against businesses.

          Like

          • mikayla825 says:

            I just think it’s a matter of time really. Once one is successful, it will just snowball. This case may start that ball rolling.

            Like

          • nivico says:

            Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.

            We should be getting the SCOTUS decision in this ‘disparate impact’ case shortly 🙂

            http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-department-of-housing-and-community-affairs-v-the-inclusive-communities-project-inc/

            Like

            • mikayla825 says:

              Okay trying to read that
              did NOT help with the headache. I may try again later.

              Like

              • nivico says:

                Long story short, the little old lady who lived in a shoe with so many children she didn’t know what to do feels that the state’s taxpayers should pay for her family to live in a Manolo Blahnik.

                Seriously, though, the Inclusive Communities Project sued the state of Texas because they feel that there isn’t enough subsidized housing available in nice neighborhoods. Short of exercising imminent domain, the state has little control over which property owners / landlords will accept housing vouchers or not. But that’s the beauty of disparate impact… fault is irrelevant.

                Interestingly, I’m guessing that minority property owners disproportionately benefit from the housing voucher program. So if Texas had implemented the program differently, it would be the minority property owners claiming disparate impact.

                Anyhoo, fingers crossed that SCOTUS finally kicks ‘disparate impact’ to the curb 🙂

                Like

    • who told this woman why she wasn’t hired? Who said it had to do with her head wear?

      Per an article at Hotair:

      When Elauf asked a friend who worked at the store why she wasn’t hired, her friend told her that the higher-ups said that her headscarf violated the chain’s Look Policy.

      Like I said earlier, if they had hired her but required compliance with the dress code, she couldn’t say she was refused employment based on her religion.

      Like

  7. nivico says:

    I’ve just finished reading Abercrombie’s “BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO
    PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI” and there is another interesting aspect of the case:

    Abercrombie was in complete compliance with case law and the EEOC’s regulations at the time. The EEOC prohibited employers from inquiring about an applicant’s religion or making any presumptions about the applicant’s religion based on their manner of dress; the burden was on the applicant herself to explicitly inform the employer of any religious accommodations she may need if she were to be hired.

    The EEOC, however, has since changed its regulations specifically because of this case and is now trying to apply those regulations ex post facto.

    http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/14-86-bio.pdf

    Significantly, the EEOC issued new official
    guidance on March 6, 2014, after the court of appeals
    ruled in favor of Abercrombie, changing its prior
    positions on these issues. Instead of requiring notice
    from the employee, as its prior guidance had done,
    the EEOC announced that “[i]n some instances, even
    absent a request [by the employee], it will be obvious
    that the practice is religious and conflicts with a work
    policy, and therefore that accommodation is needed.”

    Like

  8. doodahdaze says:

    I can’t believe something this stupid went all the way to the SCOTUS. Wow.

    Like

    • nivico says:

      Agreed, the case itself is stupid…

      Reading up on the situation a bit more, though, apparently there was a significant discrepancy among the federal circuit courts as to when an employer is sufficiently notified and/or aware of an applicant’s need for a religious accommodation. SCOTUS has now remedied the discrepancy.

      And Elauf didn’t actually ‘win’ her case against Abercrombie as many news reports are claiming… she has only won the right to have her case heard in court (SCOTUS overturned the summary judgment in favor of Abercrombie and remanded the case back to the appellate court). She still has to sufficiently prove that she wears the head scarf for devoutly religious reasons rather than cultural reasons and that Abercrombie had no valid reason to not accommodate her dressing differently than the other ‘models.’

      At face value, the very notion that a model can refuse to comply with the ‘look’ the client/employer wants to portray is a losing proposition.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s