Fired for being Too Sexy For Her Shirt
The worlds of gender discrimination and religious liberty intersect in an unusual place- a New York Lingerie company where a woman was fired for being so attractive they couldn't stand it. Why religious liberty? Because the Lingerie company is owned by orthodox jews who have strict dress codes for preserving modest women which doesn't include flashy make up, false lashes, popping bleach blonde hair and Jessica Rabbit figures apparently. HERE They have to go home and look at their wives and this is a 'distraction' harming productivity. Distraction. That's another word for men who are seduced just by looking at a woman working wearing something attractive because their personal lives might be such a lonely mess they fantasize about doing things in closets and over copy machines with the staff.
In the most recent annals of 'Don't Hate Me Because I am Beautiful' a Citibank employee who even when wearing blazers makes Pamela Anderson look flat brought a similar lawsuit for her firing for looking too much like she should be making ten grand at each photo shoot for Saks and I hope she does.
Will the lawyers from Jones Day be calling Gloria Alred and cooperating their religious liberty strategies?
Is clothing now religious expression? Apparently yes sometimes because of all the precedent now regarding Muslim head scarves. But what religion says its part of religious garb or attire to dress too sexy for your shirt? Which religion says one must wear see through shirts or bust hugging sweaters two sizes too small? What religion says stick out like a sore thumb. Is Marshalls now a religious outlet? Is 'TACKY' a religion?
This might be taking religious liberty to an extreme. Does it impinge on her worshipping experience if she has to wear properly tailored suits?
Should it have some bearing to the religious tenets? If that's the standard then the Archdiocese lawsuit has to show how not providing contraception is central to the religious tenet- and the complaint seems to spell it out well enough but it will require more briefing (and what do you have against Tim Geitner?)
Stay tuned- constitutional law never got more interesting!
No comments:
Post a Comment