In the post by BBC it discusses the court case between abercrombie and fitch and Samantha Elouf. It is about her not getting a job at abercrombie and fitch because her muslim headscarf would break the rules at abercrombie that your work attire has to represent what abercrombie sells. Ms. Elouf took this case to the supreme cour and abercrombie defended by saying that in the interview she didnt ask for a religious exemption.
I think that abercrombie is in the right. In some states there is a right to work policy which means that you can be fired for anything that the owner thinks is reason to fire you. I also feel like even though this discriminates against a religion it is fine because she doesnt have to work at abercrombie and fitch. Ms. Elouf should be able to find another job because abercrombie is obviosly not the only job.
This relates to AP gov because it shows freedom of religion and freedom of expression. This woman is exercising her freedom of religion even though the court would most likely favor abercrombie instead of Ms. Elouf.
I think this is an interesting article. I would have to say that Abercrombie is just barely right, solely because Ms. Elouf did not ask for a religious exemption. However, I can see how this would be very controversial.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I respect your opinion and how well you stated it, I have to disagree with you. Even though workers are supposed to represent the store, not every employee does so with everything they wear to work. If a woman wore earrings to work that weren't from the store, she would have to be fired, since the store did that to Elouf. I don't believe Abercrombie is in the right, because they aren't being denied a job solely because of religious reasons. If another employee is allowed to wear earrings from somewhere else, Elouf should have been allowed to wear her head covering.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with Cearra. Like jack said, it is up to the store to decide the policy its workers must deal with. If she doesn't like the work code, then she simply doesn't have to work there. There should be no reason for this to be brought to the supreme court. Now if they had flat out said "You can't work here because you're Muslim" or barred her from entry for the same reason, then it should be brought to the courts. But this is a simple matter of wether she can wear something in a store with a previously stated dress code, and shouldn't be as controversial as it is. I stand with Jack, the store is in the right. Also, a few spelling errors, but otherwise, good job.
ReplyDelete