We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Disneyland lawsuit poll: (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
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?




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.

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.


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.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
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
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On 2010-08-24 23:12, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Just a barometer check...forget the legal arguments.

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/......109377/1
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
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.

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/......109377/1


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.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
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.

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.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3465 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2010-08-25 10:19, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
. . . Baltej Singh Dhillon is on the left in the photo . . . .

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 should prevail, but I suspect that they'll pay her a bunch of money to go away.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
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 . . . .

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 should prevail, but I suspect that they'll pay her a bunch of money to go away.


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/f......-hijab/) who think this lawsuit is nonsense threatening to boycott Disney if they give her even a penny.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Josh Chaikin
View Profile
Inner circle
Kansas City
1430 Posts

Profile of Josh Chaikin
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.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
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
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
Josh Chaikin
View Profile
Inner circle
Kansas City
1430 Posts

Profile of Josh Chaikin
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.
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
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-dres......bers.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:

Image
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
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.


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.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Josh Chaikin
View Profile
Inner circle
Kansas City
1430 Posts

Profile of Josh Chaikin
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:


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-ca......ningPage

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.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5044 Posts

Profile of landmark
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?
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
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?


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.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2010-08-25 13:00, landmark wrote:
If guests wouldn't be offended then what is the problem?


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.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Ray Tupper.
View Profile
Special user
NG16.
749 Posts

Profile of Ray Tupper.
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.
What do we want?
A cure for tourettes!
When do we want it?
C*nt!
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
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
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
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


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.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
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.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Disneyland lawsuit poll: (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.24 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL