Muslim worker demands to wear head scarf with costume

[HAL 9000 96]

The problem is that Disney will start to discriminate against all Muslims (wearing headscarves or not) because they'll want to avoid the issue. So you'll have someone with a "Muslim-sounding" name who doesn't even intend to wear a headscarf denied a job (in a stealthy way, of course).

I don't think they'd be that crazy... every time I've been to one of their parks its been full o' Muslims. All that money will make the most bigoted business person think twice about being so obvious.

[Peikko 1,575]

The problem is that Disney will start to discriminate against all Muslims (wearing headscarves or not) because they'll want to avoid the issue. So you'll have someone with a "Muslim-sounding" name who doesn't even intend to wear a headscarf denied a job (in a stealthy way, of course).

Slippery slopes in both directions are pretty silly so I doubt that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The problem is that Disney will start to discriminate against all Muslims (wearing headscarves or not) because they'll want to avoid the issue. So you'll have someone with a "Muslim-sounding" name who doesn't even intend to wear a headscarf denied a job (in a stealthy way, of course).

Of course, which makes this whole issue ridiculous to begin with. Disney should have the vision to forsee potential issues like that.

[HAL 9000 96]

Not it's not. She is merely saying that she must keep her hair covered for religious reasons (by adding a headscarf where no scarf exists in the Disney uniform) - she does not want to change the dress code per se. I don't agree with the idea of modesty being contained in the wearing or non wearing of particular clothing, that's just silly but if the constitution protects the right of the religious to cover their hair then I would imagine that it is against the constitution to deny her the right to do so, no matter if it does make her stand out.

That's where the HR process will become even more tricky.

If this silly topic continues we can expect the real constitutional scholars here to show, right by right, how civil and religious rights end upon an employment agreement.

[Deputy Purple 1,294]

Not it's not. She is merely saying that she must keep her hair covered for religious reasons (by adding a headscarf where no scarf exists in the Disney uniform) - she does not want to change the dress code per se. I don't agree with the idea of modesty being contained in the wearing or non wearing of particular clothing, that's just silly but if the constitution protects the right of the religious to cover their hair then I would imagine that it is against the constitution to deny her the right to do so, no matter if it does make her stand out.

Well the constitution also protects your right to free speech but I doubt it would protect a Christian's job if they were "Spreading the word of God" while on company time in a manner that the employer felt was inappropriate.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Not it's not. She is merely saying that she must keep her hair covered for religious reasons (by adding a headscarf where no scarf exists in the Disney uniform) - she does not want to change the dress code per se. I don't agree with the idea of modesty being contained in the wearing or non wearing of particular clothing, that's just silly but if the constitution protects the right of the religious to cover their hair then I would imagine that it is against the constitution to deny her the right to do so, no matter if it does make her stand out.

she has a constitutional right to practice her relgion. She has a "right" in many states to take a day off from work for religious reasons. She has a right to use her break at work to go "pray" if need be.

She doesn't have a "right" though to practice said religion on the job. Just as she doesn't have a right to said job to begin with.

The constitution allows you to have freedom of religion. It does not allow you to force others to bend to your religious beliefs.

[Peikko 1,575]

That's where the HR process will become even more tricky.

If this silly topic continues we can expect the real constitutional scholars here to show, right by right, how civil and religious rights end upon an employment agreement.

Well, only if that religious right isn't Calvinistic. The right to prayer for christians is sacrosanct and spaghetti monster forbid that any company denies them that right!

she has a constitutional right to practice her relgion. She has a "right" in many states to take a day off from work for religious reasons. She has a right to use her break at work to go "pray" if need be.

She doesn't have a "right" though to practice said religion on the job. Just as she doesn't have a right to said job to begin with.

The constitution allows you to have freedom of religion. It does not allow you to force others to bend to your religious beliefs.

You are not a constitutional scholar, so I'll not hold huge store with anything you say. Beyond that, religion is not simply the right to worship, it's the right to practice all aspects of that religion, and if that includes covering of hair at all times in public places for religious reasons, then that's covered in the right to practice one's religion.

The difficulty for me is, where exactly in any of the good books (and yes the jews and the christians believe in hair covering) is this demanded? Actually, I don't really care, it's all ridiculous.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[HAL 9000 96]

Well, only if that religious right isn't Calvinistic. The right to prayer for christians is sacrosanct and spaghetti monster forbid that any company denies them that right!

TBO I think Disney employees are forced by company policy to pray to Walt Disney's ghost that inhabits Cinderella's castle.

[Peikko 1,575]

TBO I think Disney employees are forced by company policy to pray to Walt Disney's ghost that inhabits Cinderella's castle.

Very worthy indeed and as just as it should be.

Edited August 19, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Sgt. McGee 27]

You are not a constitutional scholar, so I'll not hold huge store with anything you say. Beyond that, religion is not simply the right to worship, it's the right to practice all aspects of that religion, and if that includes covering of hair at all times in public places for religious reasons, then that's covered in the right to practice one's religion.

Not entirely true, as I understand it. For instance, if ritual sacrifice of humans is part of my religion, I don't have a right to practice that. If theft were a part of my religion, I wouldn't have a right to practice that. Or, for that matter, if bigamy is part of my religion, I'm not allowd to practice that.

Of course, you're going to defend this because you like to be contrary, but I don't think Disney's too far out of line here. There are probably other, behind-the-scenes jobs that she can take and wear her head covering, but if she wants to wait tables, she'll follow the dress code.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not entirely true, as I understand it. For instance, if ritual sacrifice of humans is part of my religion, I don't have a right to practice that. If theft were a part of my religion, I wouldn't have a right to practice that. Or, for that matter, if bigamy is part of my religion, I'm not allowd to practice that.

Of course, you're going to defend this because you like to be contrary, but I don't think Disney's too far out of line here. There are probably other, behind-the-scenes jobs that she can take and wear her head covering, but if she wants to wait tables, she'll follow the dress code.

Your examples are things which bring harm to other people and which contravene laws against that.

Wearing a headscarf affects noone.

[Sgt. McGee 27]

Your examples are things which bring harm to other people and which contravene laws against that.

Wearing a headscarf affects noone.

Bigamy?

(I threw that in there to be safe)

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Bigamy?

(I threw that in there to be safe)

What about bigamy? You mean polygamy surely...

That is frowned upon, at least in the mormon tradition because Mormonism is a cult and there are question marks based on historical precedent over the level of consent and of the odious nature of some of these marriages (i.e. old men marrying barely legal teens).

[Darnell 8,478]

the wearing of head-covering usually is either

--personal choice or

--local fatwah issued by imam

so, realistically, if she needed to be 'certain' on what to do, she could seek guidance with the imam that she or her parents follow.

[Sgt. McGee 27]

What about bigamy? You mean polygamy surely...

That is frowned upon, at least in the mormon tradition because Mormonism is a cult and there are question marks based on historical precedent over the level of consent and of the odious nature of some of these marriages (i.e. old men marrying barely legal teens).

I meant bigamy, but polygamy will be fine, too, if you have to have more than 2 wives...

Polygamy doesn't hurt anyone, so it's a fair comparison. If people have been hurt while in polygamous relationships, that's not the fault of the polygamy, but the polygamists, no?

Just because something CAN be bad, doesn't make it universally bad.

So, back to that, I should be able to marry as many wives as I care to, as long as I treat them well, right?