(Close Window)
Topic: Disneyland lawsuit poll:
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 24, 2010 10:12PM)
First, the issue (from two pieces with decidedly different slants):

http://www.styleite.com/media/disneyland-lawsuit/

http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2010/08/19/disneyland-being-sued-by-muslim-female-employee-wants-to-wear-her-islamic-headscarf-while-working-as-hostess-video/


Just a barometer check...forget the legal arguments. I don't really care what people think the outcome [b]will[/b] be; I'm wondering about what people think the outcome [b]should[/b] be. For Disneyland on this one, or for Ms. Boudlal?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 24, 2010 10:39PM)
Good grief. What in the world could be wrong with a hostess wearing a head scarf?

John
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 24, 2010 10:43PM)
Disney should win and will if they don't get scared.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 24, 2010 10:47PM)
John, I realize you are anti anything corporate and pro contrary to corporate but Disney makes their policies very clear and exactly what is expected for the employees in the public view. They did not fire her, they did not send her home, they offered her a temporary relocation should she not be able to meet the standard which [b]she[/b] agreed to upon taking employment there.

I put in to get a job in the 70s at an amusement park and they made their policy very clear as well and I felt I could not abide with it and turned down the job. That is the beauty of this country, we are not forced into jobs.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Aug 24, 2010 10:50PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-24 23:39, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Good grief. What in the world could be wrong with a hostess wearing a head scarf?

John
[/quote]

It's against their dress code. They don't allow any form of religious or political statements or symbols to be made by any of their employees who interface with the public. It's a complete across the board decree.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 24, 2010 10:52PM)
Hell has froze over!
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 24, 2010 11:05PM)
The deeper question is whether the dress code is defensible. Not all dress codes are equal.

And Santa, where did you get the idea that I'm anti-corporate. A couple of posters seem to want to call me a socialist, etc. but I've never been anti-corporate.



John
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 24, 2010 11:12PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 00:05, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
The deeper question is whether the dress code is defensible.
[/quote]

You mean legally?
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Aug 24, 2010 11:13PM)
Should be: I briefly worked at a Disney store, and even there they make it clear that they expect certain things, including a specific dress code.

I find it hard to believe that she pulled this unaware of Disney's dress code. Disney should prevail, and most likely will, since their history about such matters is fairly clear.

There's no right to work at Disney. If you want to work with them, you agree to their terms. If you violate their terms, you've given them an excuse to terminate you.

In this case, I see the islamic headscarf as no different than a mohawk, tattoos, or a T-shirt with swear words on it. Of course, that's the only reason this story is being given attention.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 24, 2010 11:14PM)
You are constantly taking the side that is against the company and I would certainly call you a socialist if not further left than that. Defensible or not that [b]is[/b] the image they want to put across and they have as much right to do so as the woman has the right not to work there. I've never called a press conference over a dress code problem myself.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 24, 2010 11:14PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 00:12, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 00:05, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
The deeper question is whether the dress code is defensible.
[/quote]
You mean legally?
[/quote]
That's a great question, too. But in the OP you were asking about the ethical question.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out.

John



[quote]
On 2010-08-25 00:13, Scott Cram wrote:
Should be: I briefly worked at a Disney store, and even there they make it clear that they expect certain things, including a specific dress code.[/quote]

But can they expect [b]any[/b] old dress code, or are there legitimate moral and legal limits to what they can demand.

[quote]
I find it hard to believe that she pulled this unaware of Disney's dress code. Disney should prevail, and most likely will, since their history about such matters is fairly clear.

There's no right to work at Disney. If you want to work with them, you agree to their terms. If you violate their terms, you've given them an excuse to terminate you.[/quote]

Again, what terms are legitimate? The boss can't make you sleep with him. But he can make you smile politely to customers.

[quote]In this case, I see the Islamic headscarf as no different than a Mohawk, tattoos, or a T-shirt with swear words on it. Of course, that's the only reason this story is being given attention.
[/quote]
That is an unusual position. Religious freedom is generally regarded as morally different from hairstyles and t-shirts.

We faced a similar situation in Canada a number of years ago. Can Sikh men wear turbans and fulfill their duties as RCMP officers? Many people didn't like it, but the courts ruled that they could. And they do.

[img]http://vladtepesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/RCMP-sikh.jpg[/img]

John
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Aug 24, 2010 11:22PM)
From what I heard, Disney apparently has a head covering that meets Islamic dress standards, and said she could wear it. But she wanted to wear her headscarf instead.

Makes about as much sense as a truck driver for a sausage company refusing to haul pork products, or a pharmacist refusing to dispense prescribed medications on religious grounds. You knew the rules when you took the job- why'd you take it if you don't intend on following them?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 24, 2010 11:24PM)
Oh lord, please put Disney out of business, they are an evil company and it is better to release its 150,000 employees and give all the money to this poor woman who should have been exempt to the policies the other 149,999 live with, until they are fired. Amen.....
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 24, 2010 11:26PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 00:22, EsnRedshirt wrote:
From what I heard, Disney apparently has a head covering that meets Islamic dress standards, and said she could wear it. But she wanted to wear her headscarf instead.

Makes about as much sense as a truck driver for a sausage company refusing to haul pork products, or a pharmacist refusing to dispense prescribed medications on religious grounds. You knew the rules when you took the job- why'd you take it if you don't intend on following them?
[/quote]

One of the articles implied that the Disney-supplied scarf had not yet been delivered and she chose to wear her own during Ramadan.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 24, 2010 11:27PM)
I think Disney needs to make accommodations for religious dress, and also for popular styles of modern dress. The second link says:

"Boudlal didn’t hear anything for two months and was then told she could wear a head scarf, but it had to be designed by Disneyland’s costume department to comply with the Disney look"

So what on earth is taking Disney so long to design its own head scarf? Why didn't they do this years ago?

But this is Disney after all, so I am not surprised:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1uI24zE-3g

(Be sure to watch to the end.)
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (Aug 24, 2010 11:34PM)
I imagine there is more to the story than what we have access to.

I imagine this will not make any difference in the arguments offered here.

I imagine it will get all religious/moral/political/racial in this here thread.


It will be more of the same. At least the scintillating Internet discussions are predictable, otherwise they would get really boring after a few years and/or a few hundred reads.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 24, 2010 11:35PM)
John...the Hajib is NOT (<---see that word?) required by the Islamic religion. A Turban is not required by the Sikn men either but being Canada I'm sure if a Morman mountie wanted to hand out the Book of Morman and tracts and witness to the people they encounter about his religion he should be allowed to because that is required of them correct? So how many actual Turban wearing mounties are there? I lived in an area with lots of Indians, in fact in the shadow of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Gurdwara_-_San_Jose

and they don't run around in turbans all the time, sure some of the ones that are older and new to the country do but those guys are also not running around joining the police either. I'd wager that dude in the photo was a model they came up with because of a 'just in case' scenerio. Geeeezus
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 24, 2010 11:40PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 00:34, Josh Riel wrote:
I imagine it will get all religious/moral/political/racial in this here thread.

[/quote]


Uhhhhh yeah...cuz without us transforming it like that, what in the story is remotely religious, or political? I guess that Council for American Islamic Relations (the political/religious group that got involved on the plaintiff's behalf) must have predicted the Café posters' discussion would somehow create a political or religious issue out of this. Who knew they had staff mentalists?!
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 24, 2010 11:45PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 00:35, MagicSanta wrote:

John...the Hajib is NOT (<---see that word?) required by the Islamic religion.
[/quote]
Well, I suspect that is quite open to debate. I'm in no mood for taking part in that, on either side, at the moment.

But note the very last sentence below, in what I quoted from here:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1124199913217

"Hijab is a religious obligation for Muslim women. It is a religious ordinance that is supported by both the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Thus, hijab is a duty that Allah Almighty prescribes for the Muslim woman, and she has to carry out that duty in compliance with the Command of Allah by showing her sincere faith in Allah through wearing the hijab.

The Islamic dress code for women is not only covering the head or wearing a long dress. Hijab is the proper Islamic dress code, which is primarily intended to safeguard the modesty, dignity, and honor of men and women.

It is incorrect to use the word hijab to refer only to the headscarf."

So hijab (proper dress) IS required. The head covering may not be.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 24, 2010 11:45PM)
Turkey and France even decided Hajibs couldn't be worn everywhere! FRANCE! The sacred homeland of lefties! Turkey, a nation where 99% of the population is registered Muslim! THEY do it but Disney must be brought to their knees by a personal choice...
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 24, 2010 11:57PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 00:45, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 00:35, MagicSanta wrote:

John...the Hajib is NOT (<---see that word?) required by the Islamic religion.
[/quote]
Well, I suspect that is quite open to debate. I'm in no mood for taking part in that, on either side, at the moment.

But note the very last sentence below, in what I quoted from here:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1124199913217

"Hijab is a religious obligation for Muslim women. It is a religious ordinance that is supported by both the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Thus, hijab is a duty that Allah Almighty prescribes for the Muslim woman, and she has to carry out that duty in compliance with the Command of Allah by showing her sincere faith in Allah through wearing the hijab.

The Islamic dress code for women is not only covering the head or wearing a long dress. Hijab is the proper Islamic dress code, which is primarily intended to safeguard the modesty, dignity, and honor of men and women.

It is incorrect to use the word hijab to refer only to the headscarf."

So hijab (proper dress) IS required. The head covering may not be.
[/quote]

Apparently before her citizenship classes, she didn't realize that potentially she might be permitted to wear the proper attire, so last year, she didn't. That raises the question, "Why did she take a job where she wouldn't be able to practice her religion in a way that is required by it?" I can't remember his name, but I'm reminded of the college football player who would have been a certain first-round NFL draft pick, but became a school teacher because his religious beliefs would not permit him to work (play) on Sundays.

The "backstage" accommodation presented by Disney seems eminently reasonable - she would be able to meet the "requirements" of her religion, and they would be able to present the image they choose to the public.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 24, 2010 11:57PM)
Here we go with the link BS:

The Qur'an instructs both Muslim men and women to dress in a modest way.

The clearest verse on the requirement of the hijab is surah 24:30-31, asking women to draw their khimar over their bosoms.[5][6]

And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their khimar over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to [...] (Qur'an 24:31)
In the following verse, Muslim women are asked to draw their jilbab over them (when they go out), as a measure to distinguish themselves from others, so that they are not harassed. Sura 33:59 reads:[6]

Those who harass believing men and believing women undeservedly, bear (on themselves) a calumny and a grievous sin. O Prophet! Enjoin your wives, your daughters, and the wives of true believers that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad) That is most convenient, that they may be distinguished and not be harassed. [...] (Qur'an 33:58–59)

annnnnd:

Other verses do mention separation of men and women but they refer specifically to the wives of the prophet:

Abide still in your homes and make not a dazzling display like that of the former times of ignorance:(Qur'an 33:32–33)
And when ye ask of them [the wives of the Prophet] anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain.(Qur'an 33:53)
According to Leila Ahmed, nowhere in the whole of the Qur'an is the term hijab applied to any woman other than the wives of Muhammad..[8][10]

According to at least two authors, (Reza Aslam and Leila Ahmed) the stipulations of the hijab were originally meant only for Muhammad's wives, and were intended to maintain their inviolability. This was because Muhammad conducted all religious and civic affairs in the mosque adjacent to his home:

People were constantly coming in and out of this compound at all hours of the day. When delegations from other tribes come to speak with Prophet Muhammad, they would set up their tents for days at a time inside the open courtyard, just a few feet away from the apartments in which Prophet Muhammad's wives slept. And new emigrants who arrived in Yatrib would often stay within the mosque's walls until they could find suitable homes.[8]
According to Ahmed:

By instituting seclusion Prophet Muhammad was creating a distance between his wives and this thronging community on their doorstep.[11]
They argue that the term darabat al-hijab ("taking the veil"), was used synonymously and interchangeably with "becoming Prophet Muhammad's wife", and that during Muhammad's life, no other Muslim woman wore the hijab. Aslam suggests that Muslim women started to wear the hijab to emulate Muhammad's wives, who are revered as "Mothers of the Believers" in Islam,[8] and states "there was no tradition of veiling until around 627 C.E." in the Muslim community.[8][11]

Since the usual suspects will be digging up the links and clippies that are extreme here is a good one for you to remember:

Since Balducci and John seem to be gung ho keepin' it real for the Muslims:

Qur’an 2:191 “And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter.”

Qur’an 33:60 “Truly, if the Hypocrites stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. Then they will not be able to stay as your neighbors for any length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy—a fierce slaughter—murdered, a horrible murdering.”

oh oh.....not more....

Tabari VII:97
Ishaq:368 “We carried Ka’b’s head and brought it to Muhammad during the night. We saluted him as he stood praying and told him that we had slain Allah’s enemy. When he came out to us we cast Ashraf’s head before his feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been assassinated and complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack upon Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.’”

not more!

Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Why Muslims Behead "Infidels?"

Do you remember that guy in the picture? It is Nicholas Berg, the first American beheaded by Islamic terrorists in Iraq. Have you ever wondered why Muslims are so dedicated to cutting people’s heads? I have the answer: The Quran told them that. Check this satanic Islamic verses and judge for yourself:

Qur’an 2:191 “And kill them wherever you find and catch them. Drive them out from where they have turned you out; for Al-Fitnah (polytheism, disbelief, oppression) is worse than slaughter.”

Qur’an 33:60 “Truly, if the Hypocrites stir up sedition, if the agitators in the City do not desist, We shall urge you to go against them and set you over them. Then they will not be able to stay as your neighbors for any length of time. They shall have a curse on them. Whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain without mercy—a fierce slaughter—murdered, a horrible murdering.”

Here is Islamic Hadeeth (oral tradition) that shows the vile and the vindictive nature of Muhammad. It also shows how he sought pleasure by beheading people, especially Jews

Tabari VII:97
Ishaq:368 “We carried Ka’b’s head and brought it to Muhammad during the night. We saluted him as he stood praying and told him that we had slain Allah’s enemy. When he came out to us we cast Ashraf’s head before his feet. The Prophet praised Allah that the poet had been assassinated and complimented us on the good work we had done in Allah’s Cause. Our attack upon Allah’s enemy cast terror among the Jews, and there was no Jew in Medina who did not fear for his life.’”


Ishaq:368 “Ka’b’s body was left prostrate [humbled in submission]. After his fall, all of the Nadir Jews were brought low. Sword in hand we cut him down. By Muhammad’s order we were sent secretly by night. Brother killing brother. We lured him to his death with guile [cunning or deviousness]. Traveling by night, bold as lions, we went into his home. We made him taste death with our deadly swords. We sought victory for the religion of the Prophet.”
Tabari VII:97 “The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, ‘Kill any Jew who falls under your power.’”


So I'm guessing had she wanted to kill a few infidels and a couple Jews it would have been okay cuz she was just following her religion, I mean, since the Hajib isn't required then the murderin' that is must be okay right?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 25, 2010 12:00AM)
Lobo, the Oakland A's lost a top pick to the priesthood because he felt his 'calling' didn't mean after a few years in the majors. That was just this season.
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (Aug 25, 2010 12:03AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 00:40, LobowolfXXX wrote:



Uhhhhh yeah...cuz without us transforming it like that, what in the story is remotely religious, or political? I guess that Council for American Islamic Relations (the political/religious group that got involved on the plaintiff's behalf) must have predicted the Café posters' discussion would somehow create a political or religious issue out of this. Who knew they had staff mentalists?!
[/quote]

Hit a nerve? neat. But you must be new here, so I'll give you a tip: This sort of discussion gets blindly political, etc., blah, blah, blah, and no one will have anything new or interesting to say.
But it will at least be heated. Your bitterness feeds me.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Aug 25, 2010 12:06AM)
It boils down to one question: Who is forcing this woman to work at Disneyland? No one? If dressing that way at work is so important to her, there are more than enough places in and around Anaheim that will accommodate her preferred style of dress at work. There are employers with less strict dress codes than Disney.

Seeing as she's no longer being scheduled for work at Disney, that approach could also help bring in some money. A new employer could also easily be cast as her hero in press releases.

Of course, if this is more about making Disney and western culture look bad and/or give in more to Islam, she'll spend more time fighting this than she will looking for an accommodating employer.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 25, 2010 12:06AM)
What does that have to do with the A's losing a good pitcher?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 25, 2010 12:08AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 00:57, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 00:45, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 00:35, MagicSanta wrote:

John...the Hajib is NOT (<---see that word?) required by the Islamic religion.
[/quote]
Well, I suspect that is quite open to debate. I'm in no mood for taking part in that, on either side, at the moment.

But note the very last sentence below, in what I quoted from here:

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1124199913217

"Hijab is a religious obligation for Muslim women. It is a religious ordinance that is supported by both the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Thus, hijab is a duty that Allah Almighty prescribes for the Muslim woman, and she has to carry out that duty in compliance with the Command of Allah by showing her sincere faith in Allah through wearing the hijab.

The Islamic dress code for women is not only covering the head or wearing a long dress. Hijab is the proper Islamic dress code, which is primarily intended to safeguard the modesty, dignity, and honor of men and women.

It is incorrect to use the word hijab to refer only to the headscarf."

So hijab (proper dress) IS required. The head covering may not be.
[/quote]

Apparently before her citizenship classes, she didn't realize that potentially she might be permitted to wear the proper attire, so last year, she didn't. That raises the question, "Why did she take a job where she wouldn't be able to practice her religion in a way that is required by it?" I can't remember his name, but I'm reminded of the college football player who would have been a certain first-round NFL draft pick, but became a school teacher because his religious beliefs would not permit him to work (play) on Sundays.

The "backstage" accommodation presented by Disney seems eminently reasonable - she would be able to meet the "requirements" of her religion, and they would be able to present the image they choose to the public.
[/quote]
Is it so obvious that a head covering is NOT permitted? What is the actual dress code for women? From the links you posted, it seems the main thing is that the female dress be modest, i.e., no long fingernails, no odd tattoos, no bare legs, etc. It seems like a modest head covering is totally in keeping with that policy. So I don't think it is at all obvious that a head scarf was not permitted.

Indeed, as it turns out, a head scarf IS permitted and Disney said she COULD wear a head scarf designed by Disney. Disney is just taking its sweet time designing one.

So again, what is taking Disney so long, and couldn't they have predicted that something like this would come along sooner or later? Why did they not have a head scarf already approved?

I think Disney plain dropped the ball on this one.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 25, 2010 12:10AM)
Cuz they are a huge corporation and they had to have dozens of meetings, design sessions, budgets, in California they had to file an enviromental impact statement, then bid it out, find a manufacturer in China, do the tooling, and then get it made, imported, and delivered. Does Disney have any Amish workers? If not why not?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 25, 2010 12:12AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 01:03, Josh Riel wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 00:40, LobowolfXXX wrote:



Uhhhhh yeah...cuz without us transforming it like that, what in the story is remotely religious, or political? I guess that Council for American Islamic Relations (the political/religious group that got involved on the plaintiff's behalf) must have predicted the Café posters' discussion would somehow create a political or religious issue out of this. Who knew they had staff mentalists?!
[/quote]

Hit a nerve? neat. But you must be new here, so I'll give you a tip: This sort of discussion gets blindly political, etc., blah, blah, blah, and no one will have anything new or interesting to say.
But it will at least be heated. Your bitterness feeds me.
[/quote]

Yeah, these "I'm too cool to participate in the thread, yet here I am anyway" posts always hit a nerve...the ulnar nerve, to be exact. For the irony- and/or subtlety-impaired, that's the funny bone. That is to say, they crack me up.
Message: Posted by: Scott Cram (Aug 25, 2010 12:41AM)
Food for thought:

What happens if a Muslim man applies for a job as a bartender? Do you not give him the job because he can't handle alcohol? Do you think such a person should be fined or jailed for refusing employment due to religious reasons?

What will you do if you walk into your bank, and all the tellers are wearing a hijab? How do you know they actually work there? How do you identify one when you have a legitimate service complaint?

Is it legal to refuse a job as a butcher to a Muslim because they can't handle pork?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 25, 2010 12:49AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 01:41, Scott Cram wrote:
Food for thought:

What happens if a Muslim man applies for a job as a bartender? Do you not give him the job because he can't handle alcohol? Do you think such a person should be fined or jailed for refusing employment due to religious reasons?

[/quote]

Clearly, you hire him, then you hire a second bartender that you wouldn't otherwise need, and have him serve the booze so that you can let the first bartender serve only non-alcoholic beverages.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 25, 2010 12:49AM)
If they won't do the job you don't give it to them....

I did ask a Muslim guy who owned a liquer store why he sold booze if he was against it. He said some Muslims actually hade issues with him owning the place but he didn't care what others did with booze, he just didn't drink it.
Message: Posted by: Doug Higley (Aug 25, 2010 03:16AM)
Disney does not HIRE cast members...they are CAST in the role they are to play (ie: job to perform). This was traditionally the way Diz has gotten around such things. Sorry, you don't fit the role, or are out of Costume. She knew that.
A trouble maker.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 25, 2010 04:40AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 01:41, Scott Cram wrote:
Food for thought:


What will you do if you walk into your bank, and all the tellers are wearing a hijab? How do you know they actually work there? How do you identify one when you have a legitimate service complaint?

[/quote]

What is your argument here? I really don't get this.

But the original question I think was really interesting. The notion of a hostess (or any employee who has contact with the public) as a cast member is seductive and needs to be looked at more closely.

Were she hired at Hooter's, I assume she would have to show flesh. Not a good place for her. The costume is a necessary condition of the job.

OTOH, I would have a problem with a bank saying she could not wear the hijab as a teller. Perhaps the test is, [i]will the public display of her religious dress impair the performance of her duties. [/i] At Hooter's yes, at the bank, no. Same as growing a mustache, though religious dress should be even more protected than mustaches. So at Hooter's, no mustaches, at the bank, yes.

I don't think an employer should be allowed to make a blanket claim to being allowed to control an employee's appearance based [i]solely[/i] on how that appearance might impact customers. That would leave the door wide open to defend positions such as "I don't want [Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Blacks, Gays, etc.] to work for me because my customers don't like them."

Back to Disney---let's please reframe this discussion to eliminate any possible anti-Muslim bias affecting it. So, is it okay for a Christian hostess at Disney to be wearing a visible cross? How would I feel if Disney responded, you can wear a cross but only of our design. Or, is it okay for an Orthodox Jew to wear a Yamulke (skull cap) as a host? Again, Disney says you can only wear one of our design. I'm not a religious man, but in thinking this through (and that's all I'm really doing now, is trying to work this out for myself) I think it would not seem right to me to deny that religious freedom.

OTOH, should Disney have the right to say that Mickey Mouse cannot be wearing a cross or Skullcap? Probably. But maybe religious freedom is so important that it should trump even that. Maybe it's okay to have Christian MM's, Jewish MMs, Muslim MMs. Maybe we would be a more tolerant society if MM didn't come in one flavor. What a concept!

So, in conclusion, I'm not sure. But there is something about a diversity of MMs that makes me smile, and brings me to a happy place. Very American. Not French at all.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 25, 2010 04:48AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 01:49, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 01:41, Scott Cram wrote:
Food for thought:

What happens if a Muslim man applies for a job as a bartender? Do you not give him the job because he can't handle alcohol? Do you think such a person should be fined or jailed for refusing employment due to religious reasons?

[/quote]


Clearly, you hire him, then you hire a second bartender that you wouldn't otherwise need, and have him serve the booze so that you can let the first bartender serve only non-alcoholic beverages.
[/quote]
Fair enough, but does a hospital have to hire two doctors because one won't perform abortions or dispense birth control drugs? I think that argument cuts two ways.
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Aug 25, 2010 05:40AM)
I think and hope that Disney will prevail here. As others have said If she didn't like the dress code she shouldn't have continued on with taking the job.

If she doesn't want to follow the rules she knows where the door is, and there will be someone right in front of her walking in to take her place.

As with any job. You follow the rules or you leave pure and simple. There really isn't any gray area there. Follow the rules or get out.

To those that keep saying that since Disney hasn't provided her with the acceptable scarf that she should be allowed to wear what she wants. She should not be able to wear what she wants. She was told that if she wanted to wear a head scarf one an approved one would be supplied to her. That means just what it says. Wear the approved one when and if it is supplied or forget about it. How hard is that to figure out?

Disney is in the right. If you don't like it then I suggest you don't visit any of their parks, buy any of there products at all. Don't watch any television shows that maybe produced by them either. If you're not willing to do that then shut up.
Message: Posted by: Olympic Adam (Aug 25, 2010 06:27AM)
"complain complain complain, give me money, I am so discriminated against."

People should grow up.

if it were a (place where the lady is from) theme park and I got a job, I would expect to have to wear the (thing lady is wearing) on my head!

can't make laws and rules based on religion, fascist theocracy!
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 25, 2010 06:37AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 06:40, RS1963 wrote:

I think and hope that Disney will prevail here. As others have said If she didn't like the dress code she shouldn't have continued on with taking the job.

As with any job. You follow the rules or you leave pure and simple. There really isn't any gray area there. Follow the rules or get out.

To those that keep saying that since Disney hasn't provided her with the acceptable scarf that she should be allowed to wear what she wants.
[/quote]
It seems that Disney's dress code has been controversial for a long time, and Disney has already modified its dress code a number of times in the past in order to make at least a token effort of bringing it into the modern world. As I said before, Disney dropped the ball insomuch as it should have seen this coming and had a policy in place long before this news story.

[quote]
On 2010-08-25 06:40, RS1963 wrote:

If you don't like it then I suggest you don't visit any of their parks, buy any of there products at all. Don't watch any television shows that maybe produced by them either. If you're not willing to do that then shut up.
[/quote]
Indeed. And more than any other reason, I suppose that this is why head scarves will be acceptable attire for most employees at Disney sooner rather than later.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Aug 25, 2010 06:43AM)
I'm Muslim and I hope Disney wins.

If she doesn't want to follow their dress code, don't work there. Work somewhere else. She doesn't HAVE to work there.

What next? A Hooters waitress sueing for wanting to wear the hijab?

Really...

:online:
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 25, 2010 09:10AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 00:35, MagicSanta wrote:
John...the Hajib is NOT (<---see that word?) required by the Islamic religion.[/quote]

There is no single monolithic Islam. Of the many Muslim women I know, some wear the hijab and some do not. It's rather like differences between one Christian sect and another. Many believe it to be their duty to cover their hair; many do not.

[quote] A Turban is not required by the Sikn men either... [/quote]

While some Sikh men do not wear turbans, the majority do. According to the Canadian chapter of the World Sikh Organization, Kesh is one of the 5 articles of faith

[quote]WSO:

Kesh refers to the keeping of unshorn hair. The keeping of unshorn hair serves as a sign of respect for God’s creation and God’s will. The unshorn hair is to be covered at all times by a dastar (turban) for men and either a scarf or a dastar for women. The dastar is an integral part of Sikh identity, and serves as an outward form of recognition of Sikh men and women. It signifies a sign of humility and belief in equality between men and women.[/quote]

[quote]MagicSanta:
but being Canada I'm sure if a Morman mountie wanted to hand out the Book of Morman and tracts and witness to the people they encounter about his religion he should be allowed to because that is required of them correct? So how many actual Turban wearing mounties are there? [/quote]

Proselytizing is obviously different from being faithful in one's appearance. As for numbers, I have no idea. But the fight was over in 1990 when the courts allowed Baltej Singh Dhillon to wear his turban while on duty.

[quote]

I lived in an area with lots of Indians, in fact in the shadow of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_Gurdwara_-_San_Jose

and they don't run around in turbans all the time, sure some of the ones that are older and new to the country do but those guys are also not running around joining the police either. I'd wager that dude in the photo was a model they came up with because of a 'just in case' scenerio. Geeeezus
[/quote]

John
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 25, 2010 09:14AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 05:48, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 01:49, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 01:41, Scott Cram wrote:
Food for thought:

What happens if a Muslim man applies for a job as a bartender? Do you not give him the job because he can't handle alcohol? Do you think such a person should be fined or jailed for refusing employment due to religious reasons?

[/quote]


Clearly, you hire him, then you hire a second bartender that you wouldn't otherwise need, and have him serve the booze so that you can let the first bartender serve only non-alcoholic beverages.
[/quote]
Fair enough, but does a hospital have to hire two doctors because one won't perform abortions or dispense birth control drugs? I think that argument cuts two ways.
[/quote]

Sorry, I was actually being ironic...less obliquely, I think you tell the guy the job is the job, and he should try to find a different one, one that won't conflict with his religious sensibilities.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 25, 2010 09:19AM)
Oh and Santa, Baltej Singh Dhillon is on the left in the photo, standing next to a representative of another group who also used to be denied employment opportunities.

John
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 25, 2010 09:26AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-24 23:12, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Just a barometer check...forget the legal arguments.
[/quote]
Out of curiosity, what is your legal opinion on this? Does she have the right to wear what she likes in this case, or not?

Whatever your opinion or her rights, I observe that this is not the first time Disney was sued by a Muslim employee who wanted to wear a head scarf.

"In 2004, Disney World in Florida was sued by a female Muslim employee who wanted to wear a headscarf to work. The case was settled out of court and the terms were confidential."

So I have to repeat what I said before, I find it astonishing that Disney did not see this coming and set some agreeable head scarf policy long before now.

http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/dispatches/post/2010/08/disneyland-disney-muslim-headscarf-suspended/109377/1
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 25, 2010 09:38AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 10:26, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-24 23:12, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Just a barometer check...forget the legal arguments.
[/quote]
Out of curiosity, what is your legal opinion on this? Does she have the right to wear what she likes in this case, or not?

Whatever your opinion or her rights, I observe that this is not the first time Disney was sued by a Muslim employee who wanted to wear a head scarf.

"In 2004, Disney World in Florida was sued by a female Muslim employee who wanted to wear a headscarf to work. The case was settled out of court and the terms were confidential."

So I have to repeat what I said before, I find it astonishing that Disney did not see this coming and set some agreeable head scarf policy long before now.

http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/dispatches/post/2010/08/disneyland-disney-muslim-headscarf-suspended/109377/1
[/quote]

This is well outside my area(s) of expertise. My guess is that Disney wins if it goes to the mat, but usually these cases don't go that far.

As far as an "agreeable head scarf policy," I don't think there's such a thing as a universally acceptable one, other than permitting whatever the employee wants. If they allow X, no doubt someone will sue over the right to have X+1.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 25, 2010 09:53AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 10:38, LobowolfXXX wrote:

As far as an "agreeable head scarf policy," I don't think there's such a thing as a universally acceptable one, other than permitting whatever the employee wants. If they allow X, no doubt someone will sue over the right to have X+1.
[/quote]
True enough, but it sounds as though Disney did nothing about this head scarf issue since 2004. Having settled out of court once already in the context of such a case, I would have thought they would have taken SOME action. I mean, it seems to me the idea that no matter what a company does to get to X someone will find a reason to sue over X+1 can apply to most everything, yet businesses address these other issues.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 25, 2010 10:12AM)
[quote]On 2010-08-25 10:19, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
. . . Baltej Singh Dhillon is on the left in the photo . . . .[/quote]
For what it's worth, he wouldn't be allowed to work at Disneyland unless he shaved his beard and moustache.

As for the original question, I believe that Disney [i]should[/i] prevail, but I suspect that they'll pay her a bunch of money to go away.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 25, 2010 10:29AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 11:12, S2000magician wrote:
[quote]On 2010-08-25 10:19, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
. . . Baltej Singh Dhillon is on the left in the photo . . . .[/quote]
For what it's worth, he wouldn't be allowed to work at Disneyland unless he shaved his beard and moustache.

As for the original question, I believe that Disney [i]should[/i] prevail, but I suspect that they'll pay her a bunch of money to go away.
[/quote]

I think this is probably right, and if so, I think it's unfortunate. I think what would be great would be an organized group representing the overwhelming majority (apparently. See, e.g., http://www.frugal-cafe.com/public_html/frugal-blog/frugal-cafe-blogzone/2010/08/20/la-times-readers-weigh-in-on-muslim-employees-lawsuit-against-disneyland-hijab-or-no-hijab/) who think this lawsuit is nonsense threatening to boycott Disney if they give her even a penny.
Message: Posted by: Josh Chaikin (Aug 25, 2010 10:36AM)
I worked for Disney back in 2003, on their College Program. As has been stated many, many times, their dress code is very clearly stated. I remember going through Traditions (one of the three four-hour orientation seminars I went through), and was given a booklet that explained the dress code policy, showing pictures of acceptable haircuts for men and women, acceptable facial hair for me, make-up for women, jewelery and...you guessed it, extraneous items. It was very clear then that items that were not part of the costume were not acceptable to be worn, period.

If things were this clear and pointed out in 2003, I would imagine that things would be the same, if not clearer, in 2010. I was almost sent home one day because I missed a spot shaving (and I was in a "back of house" role).

I suspect that, if this went to court, Disney would prevail but I have no doubt that Disney, again, will settle out of court, paying an undisclosed sum (only to have effigies of Mickey later burned on Al Jazeer).

The thing that the article doesn't state is where in the park she works...at the Disney World Resort in Orlando, in EPCOT, there's the Moroccan pavilion and inside of Adventure Land, there's a Middle East-themed area, that houses Aladdin attractions.

I know that Disneyland has an Aladdin show, so I would assume that they do have the same section in Adventure Land - if she's in a restaurant there, it would not be too out-of-line for her to be wearing one (or if she were working in any attraction in that zone).

The best solution would be for Disney to relocate here there (but that'd be another lawsuit, I'm sure.

I'm with Disney on this one, but given the politically correct climate we live in today, I'm sure the cast member will prevail.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 25, 2010 10:42AM)
Josh C, the 2nd article says that she was a hostess at the Storyteller Restaurant. I assume that means that she greets people and seats them.

John
Message: Posted by: Josh Chaikin (Aug 25, 2010 10:52AM)
I just now read that article. I was going off of what I had read in the article that was on CNN's website. I still stand behind everything that I wrote above, however.

As for the article mentioning cast members playing multiple roles...no joke. Some days I would work in three locations and have to change in and out of three costumes.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 25, 2010 11:05AM)
I guess I find the Disney dress code very anachronistic, and I am surprised that so many people appear to be siding with it in this particular case.

If the Disney dress code is so all important, why are people not calling for it to be enforced as it was in days past? E.g., and this is just one example, it used to be the case that even male visitors to the park were denied entry if they had long hair. If the policy was out of date previously and only changed when people protested and sued, how is that different than now?

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-dress-code-for-disneyland-cast-members.htm

I find this even more puzzling as modern day Disney's portfolio of characters includes a number of Muslims, one of whom is a devout Sunni Muslim who observes Islamic hijab by wearing an Abaya:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/6f/DustProfile.jpg/250px-DustProfile.jpg[/img]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 25, 2010 11:35AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 12:05, balducci wrote:
I guess I find the Disney dress code very anachronistic, and I am surprised that so many people appear to be siding with it in this particular case.
[/quote]

You may be right, but to me, that's well behind the real point. It's their business, it's their BRAND, and it's their right to be anachronistic and change their dress code if, when, and how they see fit. (Of course, dressing in the 21st century in accordance with the teachings of a centuries-old religion is another issue...)

I don't care at all about (or for) their choice; I do care a great deal about their right to make it. People whose contemporary sensibilities are at odds with their work environment are perfectly free to seek employment elsewhere.
Message: Posted by: Josh Chaikin (Aug 25, 2010 11:45AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 12:05, balducci wrote:
I find this even more puzzling as modern day Disney's portfolio of characters includes a number of Muslims, one of whom is a devout Sunni Muslim who observes Islamic hijab by wearing an Abaya:
[/quote]

It hearkens back to what I said about locations and themes. Yes, Disney has Muslim characters, but Disney also has themed areas. What if she worked in Frontier Land? That wouldn't be consistent with their theme.

I do believe in equality, 1st amendment rights, etc...but I also think that a company has a right to run itself as it sees fit (within the constraints of the law).

The woman in question was not terminated because of her beliefs, she was not sent home - she chose to go home. The ADA and EEOC requires that "reasonable accommodation" be given. Was offering to send her someplace else reasonable? Sure.

http://disneyland.disney.go.com/grand-californian-hotel/storytellers-cafe/?name=StorytellersCafeDiningPage

That's the restaurant she works at. Would guests be offended by her wearing her religious head scarf? Likely not. Seems to me she's looking to make a Federal case out of this.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 25, 2010 12:00PM)
If guests wouldn't be offended then what is the problem?

Again, I'll ask, because no one has answered, if it were the case of a Christian woman suing to wear a visible cross would you feel the same way. It think it's important for people to honestly answer that for themselves (or us), so that we understand why you feel the way you do.

The frugal blog poster seems to indicate his main concern is creeping Sharia law, and expressing his anti-Muslim feeling. Quoting from the discredited Andrew Breitbart blog makes that clear.

I am much more interested in the general case: where is the line drawn between religious freedom and employer discretion?

If this thread is really about Sharia Law, then I'm out of here. So where do you stand? Could I be fired for displaying a Christmas tree at work?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 25, 2010 12:09PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 13:00, landmark wrote:
If guests wouldn't be offended then what is the problem?

Again, I'll ask, because no one has answered, if it were the case of a Christian woman suing to wear a visible cross would you feel the same way. It think it's important for people to honestly answer that for themselves (or us), so that we understand why you feel the way you do.

The frugal blog poster seems to indicate his main concern is creeping Sharia law, and expressing his anti-Muslim feeling. Quoting from the discredited Andrew Breitbart blog makes that clear.

I am much more interested in the general case: where is the line drawn between religious freedom and employer discretion?

If this thread is really about Sharia Law, then I'm out of here. So where do you stand? Could I be fired for displaying a Christmas tree at work?
[/quote]

I'd feel entirely the same if it were a Christian and the issue was about his/her wearing a visible cross.

If "What's the problem" means why does Disney care, I have no idea. My guess would be that one or more of a few things is going on:
1. They suspect that some guests WOULD be offended.
2. They want to maintain a consistent, uniform (no pun intended) set of guidelines and avoid making exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
3. They want to maintain a consistent look for certain staff regardless of whether anyone is offended.

But the reason for their decision doesn't particularly concern me. It's their business decision. It's not for outsiders to decide that people wouldn't be offended and therefore deem their choice actionable. Disney has lots of high paid executives and managers to make those decisions. Even if we disagree with it, it's not our decision. I think all restaurants should have vegan options, but that's life.

As far as the general case, I think reasonable accommodations are one issue, and I think that Disney made those by offering the back-of-stage option. I also think that the distinction between workplaces that are primarily "functional" vs. workplaces that are "theatrical" is another reasonable distinction.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 25, 2010 12:37PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 13:00, landmark wrote:
If guests wouldn't be offended then what is the problem?
[/quote]

This question is actually very much reminiscent of the mosque protest thread in that I think it reflects a conflation of two very distinct questions:
1. What should Disney do?
2. What should Disney have a right to do?

There's a big difference from taking the position that letting the plaintiff do what she wants wouldn't hurt anyone, or wouldn't offend anyone, or is the right thing to do, or is what they should do... vs. the position that they should be forced via the power of the legal system to do it.
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Aug 25, 2010 12:47PM)
There was a case over here in England last year,regarding a female airline desk worker,who was told she could not openly wear her small crucifix necklace,while at work.
She took the case as far as she could,but lost due to the companys existing regulations on displaying religious symbols.
Crazy if you ask me.
Is a facial covering/headscarf a religious symbol?
It would appear not,as the same firm allows the wearing of such items.
Double standards?
Ray.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 25, 2010 12:54PM)
Lobo, you are glossing over a crucial consideration: how far can a dress code legitimately go?

For example, no visible tattoos vs. you must sport the company tattoo.

Would no visible tattoos apply to someone who was tattooed against their will (e.g. in a concentration camp)?

Can a dress code legitimately cover height? weight? skin colour?

What are the relevant considerations?

John
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 25, 2010 12:59PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 13:54, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Lobo, you are glossing over a crucial consideration: how far can a dress code legitimately go?

For example, no visible tattoos vs. you must sport the company tattoo.

Would no visible tattoos apply to someone who was tattooed against their will (e.g. in a concentration camp)?

Can a dress code legitimately cover height? weight? skin colour?

What are the relevant considerations?

John
[/quote]

I agree that these and other issues are very much relevant to the general discussion; however, I don't perceive any consideration that would swing me to the other side of this particular issue.

I do think the Hunter Tylo case came out wrong.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 25, 2010 04:06PM)
John, I saw the video interview with Dhillon (interesting note, the temple in San Jose's spokesperson is a nice old dude named....Bob Dhillon). He was aware of the requirements of the job and decided to go after them. If a Rhastafarian wanted to be a mountie I'm sure he'd be walking around with dreads down to his arse because of the fact he threatens those wussies.

As for weight South West airlines has a policy about that and thus I could never work there as I am now. They word it, I believe, something like "Employees must be able to wear uniforms as issued" meaning if you are too big, too bad.

Again, Disney has a clear policy and by accepting the job you accept the policy. Disney policies include many things that the general public wouldn't be offended by but they make their policies. If it says no religious symbols exposed then the cross or Star of David or head of an infidel shrunk down needs to be worn under the costume or uniform. If it says no head gear, that means no caps, hajib, bonnet, skull cap, war bonnet, helmet, NOTHING. If cross dressing is prohibited you don't cross dress at work. If it says hair on men must be above the collar it means you don't work there if you want your hair down to your arse and claim it is your religion. You are free to practice your religion, elsewhere.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 25, 2010 04:23PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 13:00, landmark wrote:

Again, I'll ask, because no one has answered, if it were the case of a Christian woman suing to wear a visible cross would you feel the same way.
[/quote]
So long as it is a Disney approved cross, with Mickey in the crucifixion position, it is A-Okay.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 25, 2010 04:24PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 17:06, MagicSanta wrote:
John, I saw the video interview with Dhillon (interesting note, the temple in San Jose's spokesperson is a nice old dude named....Bob Dhillon). He was aware of the requirements of the job and decided to go after them.
[/quote]

I think this is crucial. The best way to make change in the world is to get involved and make a bit of noise. Dhillon changed the RCMP (for the better, in my opinion) by being brave enough to raise the challenge. Imane Boudal is doing the same. If she is successful, the face of Disney will change. I hope she wins the right to wear her headscarf and recovers legal expenses.

John
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 25, 2010 04:29PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 17:24, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 17:06, MagicSanta wrote:
John, I saw the video interview with Dhillon (interesting note, the temple in San Jose's spokesperson is a nice old dude named....Bob Dhillon). He was aware of the requirements of the job and decided to go after them.
[/quote]

I think this is crucial. The best way to make change in the world is to get involved and make a bit of noise. Dhillon changed the RCMP (for the better, in my opinion) by being brave enough to raise the challenge. Imane Boudal is doing the same. If she is successful, the face of Disney will change. I hope she wins the right to wear her headscarf and recovers legal expenses.

John
[/quote]

Funny that you should mention it...I actually wish there were a provision by which she and/or CAIR would be required to pay Disney's legal expenses.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 25, 2010 04:30PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 17:06, MagicSanta wrote:

If it says no head gear, that means no caps, hajib, bonnet, skull cap, war bonnet, helmet, NOTHING.
[/quote]
Apparently it doesn't. I base that statement on the fact that some bows are apparently allowed. And apparently so are other head coverings, so long as Disney approves them.

I'd love to see a print out / scan of an actual official Disney employee dress code (the most general one). You'd think one would be posted somewhere on the interwebs, but I can't find it.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 25, 2010 04:30PM)
Yes, now he an wear his turban which the Sihk (a religious belief I respect by the way, they have guts) is worn to show others they are a sihk and that is that.

John, do you think people should be able to dress how ever they want, look how ever they want, regardless of employers conditions?

I knew a girl in Santa Clara who worked as a receptionist, a job she enjoyed because per her she didn't have to do anything but sit there. She was a lovely woman and one day she showed up with a crew cut and dressed in mens clothing, she had come out of the closet, dumped her fiance, and went the hard line butch route. She was told she could not be the receptionist but could work in accounting, which she refused. The reason was the company did not want clients to be met by a woman in drag. Should she have been allowed to do as she wished and still kept the job regardless of the effect ont he companies image?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 25, 2010 04:35PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 17:30, MagicSanta wrote:


John, do you think people should be able to dress how ever they want, look how ever they want, regardless of employers conditions?[/quote]

No. But I think that there should be very strong reasons for any organization to force individuals to cover up essential portions of their identities.

[quote]
I knew a girl in Santa Clara who worked as a receptionist, a job she enjoyed because per her she didn't have to do anything but sit there. She was a lovely woman and one day she showed up with a crew cut and dressed in mens clothing, she had come out of the closet, dumped her fiance, and went the hard line butch route. She was told she could not be the receptionist but could work in accounting, which she refused. The reason was the company did not want clients to be met by a woman in drag. Should she have been allowed to do as she wished and still kept the job regardless of the effect ont he companies image?
[/quote]

I'd need more details, but these are the sort of cases that will give us much pause for thought over the next while.

I'm happy to live in a world full of people very unlike me. I hope we continue to make space for each other.

John
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 25, 2010 04:48PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 17:35, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I think that there should be very strong reasons for any organization to force individuals to cover up essential portions of their identities.

John
[/quote]

With respect to the Disneyland case, the fact that she took the job in the first place, and showed up to work through the previous Ramadan sans garb, to me, strongly suggests that it's not an essential portion of her identity. Moreover, they offered a solution that fit their vision for their image and her desire to choose non-standard attire - a temporary assignment in another area. So they didn't "force" her to cover up.

The more press this case gets, the less I'd like to be a borderline female Muslim job applicant. Lots of luck.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 25, 2010 04:53PM)
John, that is pretty much the whole story. The girl showed up Friday with long black hair, on Monday she had a crew cut and mens clothing on. She was and is a doll still.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 25, 2010 04:57PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 17:35, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I'm happy to live in a world full of people very unlike me. I hope we continue to make space for each other.
John
[/quote]

This is interesting, too. I realize that you're speaking for yourself here, but this statement in connection with the Disneyland case is curious. If the two camps are "those who respect her right to dress as she wants" and "those who respect Disneyland's right to (to a large extent) control the image of its brand," then they "make space for each other" if Disneyland wins - on the one hand, Disneyland's space it its own environment which, upon reflection and despite her taking the job a couple of years ago, she has decided does not fit her sensibilities. On the other hand, her space it well met by anyone who shares her sensibilities and chooses to hire her to work in any number of occupations and permit her to dress in accordance with her religion as she now sees it.

A win for the plaintiff, however, doesn't have the camps "making space for each other." It sets a precedent to impose her vision on virtually any employer. I like the metaphor of making "space" for each other, as it suggests a physical presence. For instance, neighbors; I may decorate my home one way, while my neighbor decorates his home another way, and we share the neighborhood. That makes perfect sense to me. But she chose to go into Disneyland's "space," knowing their terms, conditions, and desires. That sounds a lot more like my getting to decorate my neighbor's house, too. Doesn't seem right.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 25, 2010 05:42PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 17:29, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 17:24, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 17:06, MagicSanta wrote:
John, I saw the video interview with Dhillon (interesting note, the temple in San Jose's spokesperson is a nice old dude named....Bob Dhillon). He was aware of the requirements of the job and decided to go after them.
[/quote]

I think this is crucial. The best way to make change in the world is to get involved and make a bit of noise. Dhillon changed the RCMP (for the better, in my opinion) by being brave enough to raise the challenge. Imane Boudal is doing the same. If she is successful, the face of Disney will change. I hope she wins the right to wear her headscarf and recovers legal expenses.

John
[/quote]

Funny that you should mention it...I actually wish there were a provision by which she and/or CAIR would be required to pay Disney's legal expenses.
[/quote]

I don't think anyone should have to pay anyone else's legal expenses. Whether you agree with one side or not, it is a legitimate question, not frivolous with good arguments on both sides. People should not be discouraged from reasonably asserting what they believe to be their rights in court.

Thanks Lobo with giving your opinion about Christians and a visible cross. It allows me to breathe a little. So, what about that Christmas tree? Allowable or not? And then I have to say the case that I think is particularly relevant is the Orthodox Jew who [i]must[/i] keep his head covered.

MagicSanta, the all encompassing power that you give to the employer is way too sweeping IMO. Does an employer have a right to not employ someone because s/he is not a favorite color of hers? Or not serve someone because of color? Race is a protected class as is religion--that is exactly what this case is about.

I think Disney will settle too. I think they know that the theatrical context is airtight for Pluto and Goofy, but not so clear for a hostess. They don't want to take the chance of a ruling that could affect them adversely. They'd rather placate one employee and deal with any other problems on a case by case basis.

I think John has got it exactly right (except for the paying damages part). In the US, unlike Godless, Socialistic France, freedom of religion means something. (Kidding about France, but their tradition of secularity in the public arena comes from a very different set of experiences than that of the US).
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 25, 2010 05:46PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 17:48, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 17:35, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I think that there should be very strong reasons for any organization to force individuals to cover up essential portions of their identities.

John
[/quote]

With respect to the Disneyland case, the fact that she took the job in the first place, and showed up to work through the previous Ramadan sans garb, to me, strongly suggests that it's not an essential portion of her identity. Moreover, they offered a solution that fit their vision for their image and her desire to choose non-standard attire - a temporary assignment in another area. So they didn't "force" her to cover up.

[/quote]

Her story is that she submitted to removing her headscarf because she believed that she had no alternative to compliance. When she studied for her citizenship exam, she says, it became apparent to her that she had the right to not submit. I think that this is an important part of her claim.

John
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 25, 2010 05:51PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 18:42, landmark wrote:
In the US, unlike Godless, Socialistic France, freedom of religion means something.
[/quote]

It means that Congress won't pass a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It doesn't mean that Disneyland has to host her exercise.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 25, 2010 05:53PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 18:46, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Her story is that she submitted to removing her headscarf because she believed that she had no alternative to compliance.
John
[/quote]

Her obvious alternative was not taking a job that conflicted with what she felt her religious duty to be. Not everyone can live the dream of Disneyland hostess.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Aug 25, 2010 05:59PM)
Santa- your example, if there was no additional mitigating circumstances such as a dress code, is a clear cut case of sexual discrimination. It has nothing to do with sexual preference (though that may be the real reason, and, in some states, she could have been fired simply for being gay.) Would they have fired a cancer patient undergoing chemo?

As long as she was wearing business appropriate attire that did not violate company dress code, she should have been allowed to keep her position. (And I'm betting that a pant suit was appropriate, since companies can't force women to wear a dress or skirt (with exceptions such as actors.) You know, I bet if you checked company dress codes, you wouldn't find gender restrictions on skirt suits. Meaning, if so inclined, a guy could wear one to work and not be violating dress code.

Silly, probably, but seems it would be the case.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 25, 2010 05:59PM)
I agree with Lobo.

Landmark, you know I respect your opinion, always insightful. I think a company can make rules and if those rules restrict their ability to hire then that is a sign maybe they need to change their ways. For example I wouldn't work for a company that had certain requirements. That doesn't mean the company cannot make those requirements as long as it is legal. There are plenty of companies that are nationality based, just look at their requirements. There was one in Sacramento the other day that required the person be a 'native Korean speaker', followed by the statment they don't discriminate. Now doesn't being a 'native Korean speaker' limit the field a bit? I do admit I was giving them too much power by the way, realistic requirements for reason should be acceptable. Public image an one.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 25, 2010 06:00PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 17:57, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 17:35, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I'm happy to live in a world full of people very unlike me. I hope we continue to make space for each other.
John
[/quote]

This is interesting, too. I realize that you're speaking for yourself here, but this statement in connection with the Disneyland case is curious. If the two camps are "those who respect her right to dress as she wants" and "those who respect Disneyland's right to (to a large extent) control the image of its brand," then they "make space for each other" if Disneyland wins - on the one hand, Disneyland's space it its own environment which, upon reflection and despite her taking the job a couple of years ago, she has decided does not fit her sensibilities. On the other hand, her space it well met by anyone who shares her sensibilities and chooses to hire her to work in any number of occupations and permit her to dress in accordance with her religion as she now sees it.

A win for the plaintiff, however, doesn't have the camps "making space for each other." It sets a precedent to impose her vision on virtually any employer. I like the metaphor of making "space" for each other, as it suggests a physical presence. For instance, neighbors; I may decorate my home one way, while my neighbor decorates his home another way, and we share the neighborhood. That makes perfect sense to me. But she chose to go into Disneyland's "space," knowing their terms, conditions, and desires. That sounds a lot more like my getting to decorate my neighbor's house, too. Doesn't seem right.
[/quote]
But race and religion are protected classes. Using your analogy, a person carries the space of their race and religion wherever they go. That space is [i]not[/i]something we are to be compelled to put aside--not even for employment.

I would argue that a person's sexual orientation is also something that should be a federally protected class, but that's another discussion.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 25, 2010 06:04PM)
I just realized I've not given my personal opinion. I have no issue with people wearing the Hajib or stuff like that. I am basing my response pro Disney on that being the known policy and understandable since it can go to extremes, this is America and we are full of nuts.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 25, 2010 06:05PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 18:51, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 18:42, landmark wrote:
In the US, unlike Godless, Socialistic France, freedom of religion means something.
[/quote]

It means that Congress won't pass a law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It doesn't mean that Disneyland has to host her exercise.
[/quote]
But it is also the basis for religion being a protected class, which does apply to Disney.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 25, 2010 06:17PM)
It isn't required by religion it is cultural....
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 25, 2010 06:22PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 19:00, landmark wrote:

But race and religion are protected classes. Using your analogy, a person carries the space of their race and religion wherever they go. That space is [i]not[/i]something we are to be compelled to put aside--not even for employment.
[/quote]

Not having a religion, I'll analogize to my being a vegan. So, say it's not like decorating your house, say it's like choosing what kind of food to serve. If my neighbor is having a steak dinner and chooses to invite me, I can't dictate that he not serve animal products. I can simply choose to attend, or not to attend.

In the context of employment, let's say I took a job at Outback, and they had a free dinner at the end of the shift for employees. I'm not in any sort of position to demand that they make a particular meal to cater to my sensibilities. They might very well do so, but if they didn't, I wouldn't sue them; I'd eat somewhere else.

For those who think that veganism is a poor analogy, I'd suggest that if anything, I'm more serious about my veganism than she is about her Islam. She's basically been eating the steak, then saying that she learned they have to provide a vegan meal for her, because it's an essential part of her religion. Say what?! I know some hardcore vegan activists, and they'd laugh their...uhhhhh...tails off at someone who claimed to be a vegan and worked at a steakhouse but wanted to be accommodated. I have a hard time imagining a serious follower of any religion foregoing one of the mandate of his or her religion because the manager at his or her minimum wage job said to.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 25, 2010 06:34PM)
[quote]On 2010-08-25 17:57, LobowolfXXX wrote:
For instance, neighbors; I may decorate my home one way, while my neighbor decorates his home another way, and we share the neighborhood. That makes perfect sense to me. But she chose to go into Disneyland's "space," knowing their terms, conditions, and desires. That sounds a lot more like my getting to decorate my neighbor's house, too. Doesn't seem right.[/quote]
Although it doesn't seem right, this sort of thing happens (too frequently).

We keep our horses in Orange Park Acres, the East end of the city of Orange, CA. At nearly every entrance to Orange Park Acres there is a large (3' x 4' or so), black, metal sign with the silhouette of a horse, and the words "Orange Park Acres, an equestrian community established in 1928." You would think that someone purchasing a home in OPA would realize that it's likely that their neighbors would own . . . are you ready for this? . . . horses, with all the attendant equine sights, sounds, and aromas. I know of one person who purchased a home, discovered (?) that the view out their patio or master bedroom or whatever included their neighbor's stalls, sued to have those stalls moved, [i]and won[/i]! It's asinine, and tantamount to redecorating the neighbor's house.

When I was a warhead designer we used to test warheads at the Green Farm test site across the freeway from Miramar AFB, near San Diego. Rumor has it that when warheads are tested, they make a bit of noise: shock waves and vibration of air molecules and so on. When there is cloud cover, these shock waves and vibrations and so on reflect off the clouds back to the ground. Green Farm was shut down because some home builder decided to build homes on one of the hills adjacent to the test site and sell those homes to homeowners, and those homeowners sued because the shock waves and vibrations and so on rattled their windows. I certainly wouldn't want my windows rattled whenever someone exploded a warhead (as I didn't want them rattled when I lived across the street from a train track), but it seems that that's my problem as a homeowner, not the test site's problem.

Sigh.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 25, 2010 06:40PM)
Again, veganism (perhaps unfortunately, as I now belong to that class) is not a protected class; religion is. Unless you are arguing that there should not be protected classes, I don't think the analogy holds.

As for the second part of your post, it's not at all uncommon for even religious people to forsake outward shows of their religion [i]if they feel they will be persecuted or punished for it[/i]. Now it's true there are saints who have defied even this, and perhaps you may be a Saint of Veganism, but what if your present job said you may not be a practicing vegan within the confines of the court? Even as a member of a non-protected class, I think that this would be an unreasonable, and I would hope, an illegal employer mandate. The point being that lawyering, unlike, say, being a Spam Quality Control Taster, does not require meat-eating to accomplish the job.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 25, 2010 06:44PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 19:22, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 19:00, landmark wrote:

But race and religion are protected classes. Using your analogy, a person carries the space of their race and religion wherever they go. That space is [i]not[/i]something we are to be compelled to put aside--not even for employment.
[/quote]

Not having a religion, I'll analogize to my being a vegan. So, say it's not like decorating your house, say it's like choosing what kind of food to serve. If my neighbor is having a steak dinner and chooses to invite me, I can't dictate that he not serve animal products. I can simply choose to attend, or not to attend.

In the context of employment, let's say I took a job at Outback, and they had a free dinner at the end of the shift for employees. I'm not in any sort of position to demand that they make a particular meal to cater to my sensibilities. They might very well do so, but if they didn't, I wouldn't sue them; I'd eat somewhere else.

For those who think that veganism is a poor analogy, I'd suggest that if anything, I'm more serious about my veganism than she is about her Islam.
[/quote]
I wouldn't say it is a poor analogy, but I think it needs a better context to go along with it. Eating a steak because you decided not to decline an invitation to a fancy dinner is different from eating a steak when you are near death from starvation and steak is the only thing on offer.

Did the woman at Disney take the job when it was the only job she had on offer, after months of unemployment? Or did she pick and choose to become a Disney hostess, when she had multiple other job offers in hand?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 25, 2010 06:54PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 19:40, landmark wrote:
Again, veganism (perhaps unfortunately, as I now belong to that class) is not a protected class; religion is. Unless you are arguing that there should not be protected classes, I don't think the analogy holds.

As for the second part of your post, it's not at all uncommon for even religious people to forsake outward shows of their religion [i]if they feel they will be persecuted or punished for it[/i]. Now it's true there are saints who have defied even this, and perhaps you may be a Saint of Veganism, but what if your present job said you may not be a practicing vegan within the confines of the court? Even as a member of a non-protected class, I think that this would be an unreasonable, and I would hope, an illegal employer mandate. The point being that lawyering, unlike, say, being a Spam Quality Control Taster, does not require meat-eating to accomplish the job.
[/quote]

Ultimately, I suppose, I don't think she was discriminated against. On the contrary, I think they did a nice job of offering accommodation that she turned down. It may be that a non-Muslim who wanted a job transfer within the company wouldn't have even been permitted to get one.

I also think Disneyland's long-standing tradition of treating visible employees as "cast members" is relevant. First and foremost, they're putting on a show, and it's a show of Disney's choosing. I'd like to think that even you and John would allow a film production company to prohibit her wearing the attire if she were the lead role in "Martha Washington: The Early Years."
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 25, 2010 07:01PM)
S2000 made an excellent point I think and one I can relate to.

(move into my county you are notified that horses are part of the deal and if you don't want them eating your garden then build a fence)
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Aug 25, 2010 10:09PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-25 19:54, LobowolfXXX wrote:
I'd like to think that even you and John would allow a film production company to prohibit her wearing the attire if she were the lead role in "Martha Washington: The Early Years."
[/quote]

Of course. That's also why the butcher who wouldn't handle meat, etc. were such disingenuous examples.

John
Message: Posted by: balducci (Aug 25, 2010 10:33PM)
It seems to me that many people have strong opinions in this thread, and are reinforcing them with the assumptions they elect to make about the circumstances underlying this story.

Myself, and perhaps I am doing the same, but I have no doubt that Disney will eventually (within 10 years or so) allow people wearing modest hijab style head coverings to serve as front line waitresses, much as Disney studios eventually got over its denial of even minimal opportunities to people of certain skin colors and ethnic backgrounds. And a generation or two from now, people will be bemused and / or incredulous at the current situation.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Aug 26, 2010 10:22AM)
S2000, not the warhead maker's, or the homeowner's problem, really. It sounds like the problem is with the county zoning board. Who there thought it would be a good idea to put a residential zone near a weapons test site?

(Maybe there was some bribery involved, but still...)
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 26, 2010 10:34AM)
All I can say is that I'm planning to take my son to Disneyland in October, regardless of what Mickey or Minney are wearing. What *I* care about is whether they allow you to take your own food into the park. I've heard horror stories about the prices of food there.

When I was a little child we went to Disneyland probably twenty times a year. I have fond memories of the place. And I still find Tinkerbell HOT! You know, the way her skirt kind of lifts up and you get to see her panties when she bends forward and taps her wand into the air and the stars start flying? Turns me on.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 26, 2010 11:31AM)
[quote]On 2010-08-26 11:22, EsnRedshirt wrote:
(Maybe there was some bribery involved, but still...)[/quote]
That's awfully cynical . . . .

;)
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 26, 2010 11:35AM)
When our kids were young and we lived in Fullerton one of their babysitters worked at Disneyland. She was almost 6 feet tall, and was one of the rare girls who portrayed the Queen of Hearts; usually they had boys in the Queen of Hearts costume because it needs someone quite tall.

There's gotta be enough material for a sex discrimination lawsuit there.
Message: Posted by: Josh Chaikin (Aug 26, 2010 11:53AM)
First, a point that seems to be getting swept under the rug, though it's being brought up multiple times, is that she was offered a temporary solution to the problem - she was allowed to work in a back-of-house position while wearing the headscarf. Yes, religion is protected and Disney is allowed to control its image. While she likely discovered that she can freely exercise her religion while studying for the test, the thing that she likely did NOT encounter was the EEOC's statement about performing the duties of her job with "reasonable accommodation." They were not forbidding her from wearing it on the job.

Should someone who works at Walmart, whose religion forbids them to wear blue, sue?

And Jeff, as far as Tinkerbell goes...well...due to the way that the harness is designed, she's invariably played by a male during all those park shows. Suddenly all those up-skirt memories of yours are a bit more disturbing, eh? ;)
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 26, 2010 01:19PM)
One thing I've always wondered about--in McDonalds, the females are always in the front on the registers, and the males are in the back doing the "cooking." How is that legal?
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 26, 2010 02:41PM)
I think the answer is the people who speak the best English are in front while the others are cooking.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 27, 2010 04:10AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-26 12:53, Josh Chaikin wrote:
And Jeff, as far as Tinkerbell goes...well...due to the way that the harness is designed, she's invariably played by a male during all those park shows. Suddenly all those up-skirt memories of yours are a bit more disturbing, eh? ;)
[/quote]

You're right. Now I have to fundamentally re-think my sexuality. Just because of Disneyland. Kind makes you wonder what Walt was [i]really[/i] up to.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Aug 27, 2010 04:18AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-27 05:10, stoneunhinged wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-26 12:53, Josh Chaikin wrote:
And Jeff, as far as Tinkerbell goes...well...due to the way that the harness is designed, she's invariably played by a male during all those park shows. Suddenly all those up-skirt memories of yours are a bit more disturbing, eh? ;)
[/quote]

You're right. Now I have to fundamentally re-think my sexuality. Just because of Disneyland. Kind makes you wonder what Walt was [i]really[/i] up to.
[/quote]

SUE THEM. :P
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Aug 27, 2010 04:41AM)
HA! But it would have to be a class action suit. MILLIONS of people have surely been affected.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Aug 27, 2010 05:26AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-27 05:41, stoneunhinged wrote:
HA! But it would have to be a class action suit. MILLIONS of people have surely been affected.
[/quote]

Even better! Mo' Money! Mo' Money! :P
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Aug 27, 2010 06:41AM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-26 14:19, landmark wrote:
One thing I've always wondered about--in McDonalds, the females are always in the front on the registers, and the males are in the back doing the "cooking." How is that legal?
[/quote]


That is not true at all.

Yes you are most often to see the females on the counter and the males in the back but. All fast food places use both genders in all areas of the business. How do I know this? I worked in fast food off and on up till ten years ago. I've worked at the counter. In the kitchen, The only reason why you have only seen females working at the counter is again more often than not they are the ones on the counter but you also haven't noticed when men have been there too.

It doesn't depend on what part of the country you live in on who you see working what areas either. It's the same all over.

Also more often times then not the males don't want to work the counter. They want to work in the kitchen.

Back to the topic at hand. Disney is still very correct and the stupid twit that is trying to pass herself off as proper Muslim female is an idiot. I would bet that she couldn't even recite a verse from the Koran correctly if her life depended on it.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 27, 2010 04:55PM)
Of subject. Here in the Reno area a couple years ago they raided the McDonalds and the illegal workers ran off and about eight of them, including the one in the next town, actually shut down because they didn't have enough workers to run them! There were the traditional "mean to illegal" protest until it was discovered the raids were for records because the owner was up to shenanigans and when the law showed up the employees just split and there was no intention to hassle 'em.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 27, 2010 05:59PM)
I haven't been in a McD's in a couple of decades so I'm going on memory and impressions and peeks in the window. Glad to hear it's not so.

Not sure where all the anger at the woman is coming from, even if you don't agree with her suit.
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Aug 27, 2010 07:55PM)
If it were a male and was being as stupid I would say the exact same thing. So there isn't any anger issues. O.k. sure I get upset when people are so bleeping stupid but still it doesn't matter if it's man woman or child. I would say the same thing not matter what. But me angry over this no. Now where's my baseball bat so I can knock the heads off of some statues or something? :P j.k.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Aug 27, 2010 08:20PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-27 18:59, landmark wrote:
Not sure where all the anger at the woman is coming from, even if you don't agree with her suit.
[/quote]

I realize that this was directed at RS, specifically, but while I don't really have what I would call "anger" directed at her, I have at the very least a great deal of annoyance, so I'll take a shot at exploring it.

Since I was very young, one of the things that most offended my sense of justice was people's changing the rules in the middle of the game. The deal is the deal; if you don't like it, you try to make a deal you like. If you don't agree to it, then the resolution is "no deal." So there's really a parlay of annoyances here. First, she agrees to terms, then she goes back on the agreement, then she refuses reasonable accommodations, then she files a suit which will necessitate their spending a lot of money defending their position, or just handing her a lot of money, and I think it's crap. It wouldn't be right if she were doing it to a sole proprietor scraping buy, and it's not any more right just because Disney is a corporation with deep pockets. Getting paid to renege on your deal is crap. Which is one reason I personally had no compunction about answer your hypothetical about if she had been a Christian with a cross. I don't care if it's a Muslim, a Christian, a vegan, or a Martian.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Aug 27, 2010 08:27PM)
Come on....if she was a martian it would interest you a bit more.
Message: Posted by: S2000magician (Aug 27, 2010 08:39PM)
[quote]On 2010-08-27 21:27, MagicSanta wrote:
. . . if she was a martian it would interest you a bit more.[/quote]
In that case, Disney would have to design a Hijab with holes for her antennae.
Message: Posted by: Josh Chaikin (Aug 27, 2010 08:57PM)
If she were a martian, she'd probably be cast to work at Alien Encounter, then the lawsuit would be about racial insensitivity.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Aug 27, 2010 11:59PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-27 21:20, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2010-08-27 18:59, landmark wrote:
Not sure where all the anger at the woman is coming from, even if you don't agree with her suit.
[/quote]

I realize that this was directed at RS, specifically, but while I don't really have what I would call "anger" directed at her, I have at the very least a great deal of annoyance, so I'll take a shot at exploring it.

Since I was very young, one of the things that most offended my sense of justice was people's changing the rules in the middle of the game. The deal is the deal; if you don't like it, you try to make a deal you like. If you don't agree to it, then the resolution is "no deal." So there's really a parlay of annoyances here. First, she agrees to terms, then she goes back on the agreement, then she refuses reasonable accommodations, then she files a suit which will necessitate their spending a lot of money defending their position, or just handing her a lot of money, and I think it's crap. It wouldn't be right if she were doing it to a sole proprietor scraping buy, and it's not any more right just because Disney is a corporation with deep pockets. Getting paid to renege on your deal is crap. Which is one reason I personally had no compunction about answer your hypothetical about if she had been a Christian with a cross. I don't care if it's a Muslim, a Christian, a vegan, or a Martian.
[/quote]
Okay, thanks for explaining your annoyance. That's brave of you, though I don't agree. Not saying I agree with the woman (wasn't trying to distinguish her case from that of a man btw) but I just didn't understand what I perceive to be a level of anger unwarranted by the case. Employers, for example, reneg on the rules all the time--pensions unpaid, contractual raises waived, overtime abuses; very few of these rule violations come to court. And when they do come to court, often the court rules that the rules say the employers can change the rules whenever they want. I rarely hear such anger from conservatives over the changing of the rules of the game in those instances.

If this case does come to court, I think it may force the larger society to examine more closely what exactly religious freedom entails, and what a theatrical context means. And that I think is a good thing, whether the woman wins her case or not.
Message: Posted by: mikenewman (Aug 28, 2010 02:48PM)
What would happen if she tried to work at a stripclub and wore really big bloomers w/ the head scarf? Or at hooters?

And I think they should have micky mouse dress up in various religeous "themes" to ensure we don't offend anyone.


I can't belive I replied to this...
Message: Posted by: RS1963 (Aug 28, 2010 03:24PM)
[quote]
On 2010-08-28 15:48, mikenewman wrote:


And I think they should have micky mouse dress up in various religeous "themes" to ensure we don't offend anyone.


I can't belive I replied to this...
[/quote]

That would then offend the atheists, and one of them would sue. The world has become full of sue happy morons. Actually the sue happy are WORSE than morons.

I wonder if I just torqued off the morons and those worse than morons?
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Aug 31, 2010 10:02AM)
Don't worry, most of the morons are over at usenet.