Muslim worker demands to wear head scarf with costume

[Obama 2012 1,714]

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.

as the employer, Disney can set whatever dress code they deem necessary for that position. You have no religious rights while "at work" as you are choosing to be employed at a company in which you agreed to their dress code as per terms of your employment. You don't just get to "change" things in the middle because you feel like it and expect them to adhere to your wishes. It's a request and that request can be denied, because ultimately they are the employer and you are employed 'at will' more times than not.

The ultimate point is Disney said no, offered her options, and she chose to ignore those options and go home. She felt that 'all of a sudden' her faith was more important. She'd entitled to that, but she's not entitled to keep working there if the employer does not wish to adhere to those ideas.

[Peikko 1,575]

Here is another nice one.

--------

Daily Mail UK story that has no relevance even if it was substantively true, which I highly doubt knowing the Mail's track record.

[Heracles 417]

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.

I am not the least surprised you do not get it. I guess when you are on these sanctimonious trips, you ignore logic.

Is it okay for someone to sue a private business for apparently violating one amendment but not for others? Yes or no.

[Peikko 1,575]

I am not the least surprised you do not get it. I guess when you are on these sanctimonious trips, you ignore logic.

Is it okay for someone to sue a private business for apparently violating one amendment but not for others? Yes or no.

I'm the one ignoring logic? As I said, you have a grievance, you go ahead and sue or take it to someone who cares. I don't.

[Heracles 417]

Daily Mail UK story that has no relevance even if it was substantively true, which I highly doubt knowing the Mail's track record.

Pleeeeease, there are many such cases in western countries. It's basically a case of, enter a country you perfectly well know has a different culture, attitude, lifestyle to that of your own, then litigate frivolously to ram though your way of life onto others. However, this approach is quite common for a closet lib like yourself, so I am not surprised you endorse it.

I'm the one ignoring logic? As I said, you have a grievance, you go ahead and sue or take it to someone who cares. I don't.

It was an example genius. As was my code of conduct example.

Once again, if it is okay for someone to sue a private business for apparently violating one amendment, then surely this is the case for everything else.

[Peikko 1,575]

Pleeeeease, there are many such cases in western countries. It's basically a case of, enter a country you perfectly well know has a different culture, attitude, lifestyle to that of your own, then litigate frivolously to ram though your way of life onto others. However, this approach is quite common for a closet lib like yourself, so I am not surprised you endorse it.

I'm not a closet anything, nor do I believe that muslims are running around using litigation to ram their way of life onto me. They do as they see fit, and they should be afforded basic human rights and courtesies end of.

Pleeeeease, there are many such cases in western countries. It's basically a case of, enter a country you perfectly well know has a different culture, attitude, lifestyle to that of your own, then litigate frivolously to ram though your way of life onto others. However, this approach is quite common for a closet lib like yourself, so I am not surprised you endorse it.

It was an example genius. As was my code of conduct example.

Once again, if it is okay for someone to sue a private business for apparently violating one amendment, then surely this is the case for everything else.

It's not relevant and I don't care.

[HAL 9000 96]

This is the way I look at it-

She can sue if she likes, but perhaps a better method would be to use the legal system to push for a legal solution- such as using the constitution to actually protect religious garb instead of being conflicting against what could be an unnecessary conformity to a uniform dress code.

Like I said before, Disney is notorious for enforcing a very strict dress code and all employees are made aware of this. Each employee agreed in following it, regardless of the legality of said uniform code.

That said- constitutional protection can be interpreted legally to allow for equal protection under the law. And that is were things could change in the future. The US is becoming more multicultural and multireligious, and as a plural society, Disney should likely move on and change its policies so that its representatives, being crossrepresentative of the US population, can represent the American image of Disney in a more accurate format and in keeping with a modern representation of constitutionality.

Of course, disagreeable bigotry will present a challenge to that argument, because that is what it does. Some will try to merely use the logical employer-employee relationship and try to leave it at that.

[Heracles 417]

I'm not a closet anything, nor do I believe that muslims are running around using litigation to ram their way of life onto me. They do as they see fit, and they should be afforded basic human rights and courtesies end of.

It's not relevant and I don't care.

Right, still in denial.

I never said or implied every Muslim. That said, there is a barrage of cases of Muslims migrating to western countries and having a huge problem with the lifestyle and culture of the country. Instead of suing Disney or Tesco, it's time for them to move back to the promised land. You seem to disagree and feel we should bend over backwards.

It's very relevant actually.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

This is the way I look at it-

She can sue if she likes, but perhaps a better method would be to use the legal system to push for a legal solution- such as using the constitution to actually protect religious garb instead of being conflicting against what could be an unnecessary conformity to a uniform dress code.

Like I said before, Disney is notorious for enforcing a very strict dress code and all employees are made aware of this. Each employee agreed in following it, regardless of the legality of said uniform code.

That said- constitutional protection can be interpreted legally to allow for equal protection under the law. And that is were things could change in the future. The US is becoming more multicultural and multireligious, and as a plural society, Disney should likely move on and change its policies so that its representatives, being crossrepresentative of the US population, can represent the American image of Disney in a more accurate format and in keeping with a modern representation of constitutionality.

Of course, disagreeable bigotry will present a challenge to that argument, because that is what it does. Some will try to merely use the logical employer-employee relationship and try to leave it at that.

You can't conform to everyone, nor can you force a private company to make room for all ways of life.

Government has a role to allow people freedom to practice whatever religion they choose. However, that barrier of freedom ends when the walls of your home/church/public area are passed beyond. Another person's home, business, etc. does not have to adhere to your religious standards. After all, just as you have a choice to work and/or patron there, they have a right to set dress code standard/conditions of employment for you to accept or not accept.

[HAL 9000 96]

And the law can make it clear what Constitutional protections are relevant to each situation. That's why the Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary is so busy all the time.

The company's vision of conformity may be outdated and if they refuse to update to be inclusive of a plural society where one's customs only affect others when those others are bigots, then perhaps that's where the legislative or judiciary can step in.

[Heracles 417]

Of course, disagreeable bigotry will present a challenge to that argument, because that is what it does. Some will try to merely use the logical employer-employee relationship and try to leave it at that.

Nice try but any opinion contrary to that of your own does not equate to bigotry.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Obama 2012 1,714]

And the law can make it clear what Constitutional protections are relevant to each situation. That's why the Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary is so busy all the time.

The company's vision of conformity may be outdated and if they refuse to update to be inclusive of a plural society where one's customs only affect others when those others are bigots, then perhaps that's where the legislative or judiciary can step in.

It doesn't matter what their vision is. Religion in the work place is not a right. Just as you can't force a company to have a Christmas tree, you can't force a company to allow you to wear a burqa.

[HAL 9000 96]

It doesn't matter what their vision is. Religion in the work place is not a right. Just as you can't force a company to have a Christmas tree, you can't force a company to allow you to wear a burqa.

That's what laws and court interpretations are for, not what you think in your infallible constitutional wisdom.

And yes- if their vision was representative of the US population, they wouldn't be restrictive of religious garb.

Two separate arguments as you may be trying to make.

Furthermore, a burqa, afaik, is not a headscarf.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

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?

He deduced she is a stubborn witch from the same vat all of the claims Disney has a dress code solely for the enjoyment of bigots. You are a broken record...

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That's what laws and court interpretations are for, not what you think in your infallible constitutional wisdom.

And yes- if their vision was representative of the US population, they wouldn't be restrictive of religious garb.

Two separate arguments as you may be trying to make.

Furthermore, a burqa, afaik, is not a headscarf.

If Disney portrays itself as a 'Christian' company with 'Christian' values, what then? How far do you take making people bend to the will of the other religions of the world.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa