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]
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
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.

So long as it is a Disney approved cross, with Mickey in the crucifixion position, it is A-Okay.
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.
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
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.


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
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 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.


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


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.
"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 17:06, MagicSanta wrote:

If it says no head gear, that means no caps, hajib, bonnet, skull cap, war bonnet, helmet, NOTHING.

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.
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.
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
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?
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
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?


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?


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
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 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


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.
"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, 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.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
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


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.
"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."
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5044 Posts

Profile of landmark
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.


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


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.


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 must 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).
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
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


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.



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
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 18:42, landmark wrote:
In the US, unlike Godless, Socialistic France, freedom of religion means something.


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.
"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 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


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.
"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."
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
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.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
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.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5044 Posts

Profile of landmark
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


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.

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 notsomething 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.
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
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.
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5044 Posts

Profile of landmark
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.


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.

But it is also the basis for religion being a protected class, which does apply to Disney.
MagicSanta
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Nevada
5845 Posts

Profile of MagicSanta
It isn't required by religion it is cultural....
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
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 notsomething we are to be compelled to put aside--not even for employment.


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.
"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."
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 0.2 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