U.S. Supreme Court rules for Muslim woman denied job at clothing store

Via anon, the Supreme Court rules in a Scalia opinion that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not require actual notice of an accommodation.

But in this case it's a hijanb. So it's not a statutory interpretation case, it's Sharia Law!!! So ignorant speculation is given free range.

Mmmike with the old standby:

A victory for religious freedom. Let’s hope there’s another one forthcoming.

Islam is not a religion.

Steve_Seattle compares this to the Constitutionally based Hobby Lobby case.

"Why did some of the same judges vote FOR this woman who voted AGAINST Hobby Lobby on THEIR religious rights controversy?"

Answer:

1. Because the plaintiff was a Muslim.

2. Because the complaint was filed against a private corporation, not the federal government.

3. Because the issue did not involve birth control, one of the sacred cows of liberalism.

fwdude is one of many Freepers to assume a double standard that does not exist:

But, try wearing a crucifix...

Sacajaweau explains Islam:

The problem is....the head scarf is not really part of their religion. It’s a custom....and no more.

Texas Eagle's first sentence is a doozy:

If the Founding Fathers were still alive they'd be rolling over in their graves.

The government isn't supposed to tell private citizens what they can and cannot do, the citizens are supposed to tell the government what it can or cannot do.

We better learn this quick, people.

EagleUSA senses conspiracy:

I wonder WHO paid her legal fees all the way to the SCOTUS over a head scarf??? What is that fishy odor in the air???

Pollster1 at least knows enough to be refighting the Civil Rights era.

The Court was shockingly wrong. FedGov may not discriminate based on religion, but private employers should have no obligation to accommodate religion. Even if a law says otherwise, that law is outside the scope of FedGov’s Enumerated Powers and should be overturned.