Muslim worker demands to wear head scarf with costume

[Darnell 8,478]

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?

Sure - but to 'be legal' - you'd have to convert to Islam, and then move to a country where polygamist marriages are legal, such as Indonesia, Malaysia or (pick yer fav Middle Eastern Spot)

Personally, if I ever was gonna 'take that road' - I'd move to Malaysia.

But maybe I'm confused, as well? One can 'have' 4, in these countries - did you have plans for more than 4? I've no idea where to suggest to you, to do that in a legal fashion.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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?

If there are issues with consent and transparency in a closed society (such as a Mormon commune), then you can't say with any certainty that noone is harmed. Especially in light of precedent that says otherwise.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with wearing a headscarf at a place of work.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Sure - but to 'be legal' - you'd have to convert to Islam, and then move to a country where polygamist marriages are legal, such as Indonesia, Malaysia or (pick yer fav Middle Eastern Spot)

Personally, if I ever was gonna 'take that road' - I'd move to Malaysia.

But maybe I'm confused, as well? One can 'have' 4, in these countries - did you have plans for more than 4? I've no idea where to suggest to you, to do that in a legal fashion.

ah, but the argument that some are using, is 'constitutionally' due to their religious beliefs, they should be able to wear headscarves. If my religion practices polgamy, then by all means 'constitutionally' you cannot deny that. No 'law' can stop that. I mean, unless you want to be a hypocrite here.

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

In your peculiar examples the religious freedoms are trumped by other constitutional freedoms.

I am not sure when a particular religious requirement becomes an integral part of the religion but if one understands the precedent of head covering (it does not start with muslims) then it is clear that this has been an integral part of religions for thousands of years so yes, Disney is out of line with what is constitutional whether I like that or not.

[Darnell 8,478]

Paul - ah - got it. Basically - is some line in the sand, yes? 'Religious requirement' vs 'Freedom of Religion' vs 'Freedom of Speech' vs Federal Law vs State Law vs Corporate dress code.

WHEW !

I guess an opposite view, opposite approach could be made for a Hasid male wearing the 'head gear', but that's usually reserved for prayer time, yes?

or a Sikh (sp?) male not uncovering his head whilst working as a server at Disney resturant.

Doesn't it boil down to personal choice, really? If a dress code cannot be changed, then perhaps that person's choice to work 'there' was the 'incorrect choice' at the beginning? Surely this 'dress code' was covered on intake, and the employee signed something that showed she was familar with the dress code.

IMO, would be a clear case for dismissal or re-assignment, if she had signed such a document.

[Sgt. McGee 27]

Regardless, this has nothing to do with wearing a headscarf at a place of work.

You don't think so?

If we've established that (aside from the POSSIBILITY that in "closed circles" there may be wrongdoing) polygamy doesn't hurt anyone, and that it's much closer to a headscarf than to ritual sacrifice, then why isn't it protected here?

ah, but the argument that some are using, is 'constitutionally' due to their religious beliefs, they should be able to wear headscarves. If my religion practices polgamy, then by all means 'constitutionally' you cannot deny that. No 'law' can stop that. I mean, unless you want to be a hypocrite here.

Exactly. I say, she either gives up that job, or gives up a headscarf.

As someone else suggested upthread a bit, what if a Muslim wants to work in the kitchen? Can they refuse to prepare pork products?

What if she's expected to serve alcohol?

GET A DIFFERENT JOB.

[BobandXiaomei 14]

Companies have dresscodes. If you don't like the dresscode, then don't work there. You have no "right" to the job/to dress however you wish, no matter what your belief is.

It'd be like some idiot wanted to work on stage at a strip club and not strip because it's against her religion.

Agreed. And the companies can change them too. You either comply or decide that is not the workplace for you.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Polygamy has unique issues attached to it. It isn't the same or even similar by a long shot.

[Sgt. McGee 27]

Polygamy has unique issues attached to it. It isn't the same or even similar by a long shot.

Name 2. No credit for "in some circumstances, it can cause problems" or anything similar. Specific problems, due exclusively to polygamy.

(no credit for jealousy, either!)

[Peikko 1,575]

Polygamy is against the law, the wearing of headscarves is not.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

they have a constitutional right to. whether disney likes it or not. i hope they have to pay through the nose for this, they should know better.

If a company has a uniform or dress code your Constitutional rights end when you accept the job. She should have known better.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Name 2. No credit for "in some circumstances, it can cause problems" or anything similar. Specific problems, due exclusively to polygamy.

(no credit for jealousy, either!)

Had the conversation before, many times. Look it up in the archive.

[sandinista! 1,816]

If a company has a uniform or dress code your Constitutional rights end when you accept the job. She should have known better.

not according to the equal opportunity employment commission. and an employer as large as disney should be familiar with eoec standards.

Susan is an experienced clerical worker who wears a hijab (head scarf) in conformance with her Muslim beliefs. XYZ Temps places Susan in a long-term assignment with one of its clients. The client contacts XYZ and requests that it notify Susan that she must remove her hijab while working at the front desk, or that XYZ assign another person to Susan's position. According to the client, Susan's religious attire violates its dress code and presents the "wrong image." Should XYZ comply with its client's request?

XYZ Temps may not comply with this client request without violating Title VII. The client would also violate Title VII if it made Susan remove her hijab or changed her duties to keep her out of public view. Therefore, XYZ should strongly advise against this course of action. Notions about customer preference real or perceived do not establish undue hardship, so the client should make an exception to its dress code to let Susan wear her hijab during front desk duty as a religious accommodation.

If a turban is religiously-mandated, you should ask your employer for a religious accommodation to wear it at work. Your employer has a legal obligation to grant your request if it does not impose a burden, or an “undue hardship,” under Title VII. Claiming that your coworkers might be “upset” or “uncomfortable” when they see your turban is not an undue hardship.

Source: http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/backlash-employee.html

[Peikko 1,575]

If a company has a uniform or dress code your Constitutional rights end when you accept the job. She should have known better.

Rubbish. Constitutional rights remain valid regardless of what you might sign in a contract. The contract can be deemed unconstitutional or non binding if it violates constitutional rights.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Rubbish. Constitutional rights remain valid regardless of what you might sign in a contract. The contract can be deemed unconstitutional or non binding if it violates constitutional rights.

Amendments 1 and 2 are automatically given up in the work place. Try carrying a gun into work and watch what happens.