Muslim worker demands to wear head scarf with costume

[Obama 2012 1,714]

She was willing to wear the dress code, but she wanted to add a scarf for religious reasons, and?

she worked on a stage in costume.

They tried to accommodate her by letting her work backstage during Ramadan so she could wear the scarf. They were more than fair, but she's being a stubborn little entitled witch.

[sandinista! 1,816]

Are people going to finally wake up and realize the 1787 Constitution is silly in 2010. AUS and the UK have pandered to this idiocy themselves and I now cannot get pork at certain restaurants or even fast-food chains located in predominately Muslim areas in Aus. So while we bend over backward to cater for these select idiots, as not all are this unreasonable, I have to watch my ever step in many Muslim countries.

There is a reason why the rest of Europe is waking up and demanding they play by their rules. Time people here realize that in 1787, no one had a crystal ball into the future, therefore, could not possibly fathom today's challenges.

lmao. the us constitution is trash because you can't get a bacon sammich in some areas of australia? wth does this have to do with americans, and our rule of law? as for certain areas of australia, if you don't like what a place serves, frequent another restaurant. i don't start railing about australia's constitution when i can't get fish and chips in a vegan restaurant here in the us. i just go to a fishhouse.

she worked on a stage in costume.

They tried to accommodate her by letting her work backstage during Ramadan so she could wear the scarf. They were more than fair, but she's being a stubborn little entitled witch.

nooooo. she's a restaurant hostess. and asking an employee to work backstage, out of view of customers because yr afraid some bigot will have a problem with her scarf is retarded, ignorant bigotry. it's gross, and it's unamerican, and it will more than likely be ruled illegal.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

nooooo. she's a restaurant hostess. and asking an employee to work backstage, out of view of customers because yr afraid some bigot will have a problem with her scarf is retarded, ignorant bigotry. it's gross, and it's unamerican, and it will more than likely be ruled illegal.

you cannot be this ignorant?

[sandinista! 1,816]

you cannot be this ignorant?

ignorant about what? you don't even know the facts of the case, or what her actual job even is. and i'm supposed to be the ignorant one?

[Peikko 1,575]

she worked on a stage in costume.

They tried to accommodate her by letting her work backstage during Ramadan so she could wear the scarf. They were more than fair, but she's being a stubborn little entitled witch.

She didn't feel they were being 'more than fair' hence the lawsuit. Whether or not they were 'more than fair' will be determined in court, if it gets that far. It's interesting that you can deduce from media articles that her religious principals are merely the result of stubborn entitlement and not a genuine grievance. Not sure why you conclude she is also a witch, care to elaborate on that?

[Heracles 417]

Whether or not protecting religious practices is reasonable is kind of moot, the fact is that's how things stand and if Disney did flout that then they will fall foul of the law. If you want to change the constitution and disallow religious practice considerations, then by all means agitate to get your way. Bear in mind however that your own religion would likely be affected by any such changes. It would have no effect on me either way.

Actually, I strongly believe in factoring the context of the constitution. For example, analyzing the percentage of people that were agnostic or believed otherwise at the time it was founded. That goes with any amendment or law really. Call it the common-sense test. If something was not an issue or far from common back then, for obvious reasons, there was no need to legislate against it.

Building on your earlier post, regardless of the TOS, surely one can sue VJ to be able to say whatever they want and not be banned or restricted.

[Peikko 1,575]

Actually, I strongly believe in factoring the context of the constitution. For example, analyzing the percentage of people that were agnostic or believed otherwise at the time it was founded. That goes with any amendment or law really. Call it the common-sense test. If something was not an issue or far from common back then, for obvious reasons, there was no need to legislate against it.

Building on your earlier post, regardless of the TOS, surely one can sue VJ to be able to say whatever they want and not be banned or restricted.

Clearly this bothers you immensely, perhaps you should go ahead and sue?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

ignorant about what? you don't even know the facts of the case, or what her actual job even is. and i'm supposed to be the ignorant one?

I think your signature says enough really about your position.

This was the first time she had ever requested this after working there for a couple of seasons. Now all of a sudden it's an issue? Please. She obviously didn't need to wear it every day. She knew her dress code from day one. She asked and they said the change wouldn't be appropriate out front in character/costume, so they offered her to work behind the scenes (which is fair) for a couple of days.

This is just another entitled person who feels that just because they have a religious belief, that the rest of the world needs to bend to their will.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Clearly this bothers you immensely, perhaps you should go ahead and sue?

Not needed. Maybe you should just put on the scarf and see what happens.

[Heracles 417]

lmao. the us constitution is trash because you can't get a bacon sammich in some areas of australia? wth does this have to do with americans, and our rule of law? as for certain areas of australia, if you don't like what a place serves, frequent another restaurant. i don't start railing about australia's constitution when i can't get fish and chips in a vegan restaurant here in the us. i just go to a fishhouse.

You blurred the two points, not me. Nevertheless, I cannot sue the Vegan restaurant in Portland, because they don't serve fish and chips now can I. At the time the Constitution was written, no one would ever have fathomed that any group will come to the country and make demands of everyone else, because of their beliefs. Most other groups here have their own traditions, but they certainly do not go to private businesses and demand they change their practices for them.

You stepped in it though, so I should have to go elsewhere to pander for a Muslim but they can walk into whatever country and make demands. Yet in a majority of Muslim countries, I have to meet their demands, or face harsh punishment.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Heracles 417]

Clearly this bothers you immensely, perhaps you should go ahead and sue?

Don't beat around the bush. If she can sue for one right being violated, then surely I should be able to sue too for others being restricted.

My employer has a code of conduct, can I sue them too and claim the Constitution protects my freedom to do as I please?

[sandinista! 1,816]

I think your signature says enough really about your position.

This was the first time she had ever requested this after working there for a couple of seasons. Now all of a sudden it's an issue? Please. She obviously didn't need to wear it every day. She knew her dress code from day one. She asked and they said the change wouldn't be appropriate out front in character/costume, so they offered her to work behind the scenes (which is fair) for a couple of days.

This is just another entitled person who feels that just because they have a religious belief, that the rest of the world needs to bend to their will.

the law clearly says that disney's feeling that a headscarf "wouldn't be appropriate out front in character/costume" is not a valid reason to fire someone nor is it a valid reason for them to work behind the scenes, out of public view when she had previously worked in public view and the headscarf is the only reason they want her back there. and like i mentioned before "the legal standard dictates that the time of examination of the sincerity of an employee's religious belief is at the time the conflict with the employer arose" not any sooner, whether you like it or not.

they have to provide a very compelling reason why it's inappropriate. why a scarf inhibits her from seating someone at a table and handing them a menu. and there isnt one.

[Peikko 1,575]

Don't beat around the bush. If she can sue for one right being violated, then surely I should be able to sue too for others being restricted.

My employer has a code of conduct, can I sue them too and claim the Constitution protects my freedom to do as I please?

I'm not beating around any bushes, you are asking silly questions which I don't have any inclination to answer as they bear no relation to the topic under discussion.

[Heracles 417]

Here is another nice one.

--------

Devout Muslim sues Tesco for making him carry alcohol

A Muslim who claims he did not know Tesco sold alcohol is suing the store for religious discrimination after having to carry crates of drink as part of his job.

Forklift truck driver Mohammed Ahmed, 32, worked in a distribution depot for eight months before quitting 'in protest', an employment tribunal heard.

He claims he was forced to leave because handling beer, spirits and wine is against his strict Islamic beliefs and that he was victimised when he asked the company to give him another role.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1063590/Devout-Muslim-sues-Tesco-making-carry-alcohol.html

[Darnell 8,478]

wow - with 'more facts revealed' in this particular case, with Disney smelling like they were TRYING to be accomodating -

I think she doesn't have any case...