Muslim worker demands to wear head scarf with costume

[Heracles 417]

Bigots tend to hide their bigotry in broader arguments because they know they'd get spanked in a New York minute if they stood on their own bigotry. I doubt Chick-Fil-A would even sell that kind of cowardice, chickens, or just sneaky bigots. There is a difference between making logical arguments and having a pattern of hateful expressions not-so-subtly encased behind other arguments.

Please, this I am an intellectual scientist who has nothing to add apart from witty insults is getting old. One would think a person of your intellect, would spend your valuable time focusing on your city's mother country-esque homicide rate, than than trying act like you are smarter than anyone who disagrees with your idiotic and baseless views.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Heracles

[HAL 9000 96]

The difference is 'your time' vs. 'their time.'

If an employer has a dress code, then an employer has a dress code.

I even said it earlier, it's like someone wanting to work in a strip club and then not taking off her clothes because of 'religious' beliefs. If everyone working in that part of the theme park has to dress the same way, act the same way, etc. for the character of the are, then that's how things are. It's not like she's working in an office somewhere, or a cashier at a grocery store, etc. Disney obviously had an expectation in that are and the girl knew this. It seems more like she was trying to stir the pot. They were willing to 'work with her' but she was not willing to work with them. They weren't going to fire her and the move was temporary. They could have just as easily fired her if they wanted to, as in an 'at will' situation you can be fired at any time with or without reason. It's part of the agreement you sign when you're hired. Granted, this depends on the state..

Believe me, as I said before- she signed on to be a cast member, she should know the rules.

Florida is an at-will state.

How that relates to the way things should be is entirely a different matter.

[Peikko 1,575]

She is still not refusing to comply with the dress code, she merely wishes to cover her hair with a scarf because she believes that is required of her by her religious faith. If Disney has no material reason not to grant compliance with that belief they are in trouble - they have no right to deny her wish to adhere to her religious principals unless such adherence materially affects her performance or places others in jeopardy that's the principal of granting freedom of religious practice in the USA. Merely saying that her desire to wear a headscarf ruins the overall effect of wearing costumes is not much of an argument judicially.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[ready4ONE 5,400]

IF it is a necessary part of ones religion to wear a headscarf, the religion demands it of its adherents and failure to do so causes distress then I would say it is a denial of the practice of that religion. I have no idea if the wearing of headscarves falls into this, quit frankly I do not really care, but if it does, and it seems quite likely because it is a very ancient tradition, then that would be an integral part of the practice of the religion and a protected right.

In other parts of the world adherents to the same religion demand the right to stone adulterers so will you argue this strongly to support their religious freedom should they move to the USA? Get a grip this gal had the job for 2.5 years without demanding her right to wear a headscarf and Allah does not appear to have smite her for blasphemy.

[Darnell 8,478]

I dunno, this is all strange, from the standpoint of her being there 2.5 years prior to her 'need' to wear a burkha.

I think she's been coached by some group with 'currently hidden' motives, at this point.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Darnell

[sandinista! 1,816]

In other parts of the world adherents to the same religion demand the right to stone adulterers so will you argue this strongly to support their religious freedom should they move to the USA? Get a grip this gal had the job for 2.5 years without demanding her right to wear a headscarf and Allah does not appear to have smite her for blasphemy.

your red herring stinks.

I dunno, this is all strange, from the standpoint of her being there 2.5 years prior to her 'need' to wear a burkha.

I think she's been coached by some group, at this point.

she's not wearing a burkha, she's wearing a plain white scarf. and chooses to do so at ramadan, but doesn't at other times of the year. it's not uncommon.

[HAL 9000 96]

She is still not refusing to comply with the dress code, she merely wishes to cover her hair with a scarf because she believes that is required of her by her religious faith. If Disney has no material reason not to grant compliance with that belief they are in trouble - they have no right to deny her wish to adhere to her religious principals unless such adherence materially affects her performance or places others in jeopardy that's the principal of granting freedom of religious practice in the USA. Merely saying that her desire to wear a headscarf ruins the overall effect of wearing costumes is not much of an argument judicially.

Disney is pretty darn strict. Down to facial hair, sideburns, etc. Obviously, there is a difference between grooming (image) and religious garb.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

She is still not refusing to comply with the dress code, she merely wishes to cover her hair with a scarf because she believes that is required of her by her religious faith. If Disney has no material reason not to grant compliance with that belief they are in trouble - they have no right to deny her wish to adhere to her religious principals unless such adherence materially affects her performance or places others in jeopardy that's the principal of granting freedom of religious practice in the USA. Merely saying that her desire to wear a headscarf ruins the overall effect of wearing costumes is not much of an argument judicially.

of course it is. If it's part of the job and everyone is exactly the same in the position, the standing is fine.

It's not as if they purposefully discriminated against her. It doesn't fit the costume/dress code, so it's disallowed. It's really that simple. They have EVERY right to deny her wish on 'company time.' - She can wear whatever she wishes off of work. She can do whatever she wishes off of work. She chooses to be there and therefore chooses to adhere to their rules. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

[sandinista! 1,816]

Disney is pretty darn strict. Down to facial hair, sideburns, etc. Obviously, there is a difference between grooming (image) and religious garb.

the newark police dept. lost their case to deny disallowing muslim men to wear beards. the woman who sued alamo rent a car also won her case to wear a scarf during ramadan specifically. there is precedent for this already.

i can't type tonight...bleh. anyways, newark police dept has to allow muslim men on their police force to wear beards, even though they have a strict police disallowing beards for other reasons

Edited August 20, 2010 by sandinista!

[HAL 9000 96]

I dunno, this is all strange, from the standpoint of her being there 2.5 years prior to her 'need' to wear a burkha.

I think she's been coached by some group with 'currently hidden' motives, at this point.

Or she's jumping on the bandwagon. Maybe this is all an Obama Administration ploy to divert attention from their oh-so-scary Socialist Agenda.

Just laying it out there cause you know... with so many nutters saying crazy things now, its only a matter of time before we see this in a new thread tomorrow or next week.

[Heracles 417]

The difference is 'your time' vs. 'their time.'

If an employer has a dress code, then an employer has a dress code.

I even said it earlier, it's like someone wanting to work in a strip club and then not taking off her clothes because of 'religious' beliefs. If everyone working in that part of the theme park has to dress the same way, act the same way, etc. for the character of the are, then that's how things are. It's not like she's working in an office somewhere, or a cashier at a grocery store, etc. Disney obviously had an expectation in that are and the girl knew this. It seems more like she was trying to stir the pot. They were willing to 'work with her' but she was not willing to work with them. They weren't going to fire her and the move was temporary. They could have just as easily fired her if they wanted to, as in an 'at will' situation you can be fired at any time with or without reason. It's part of the agreement you sign when you're hired. Granted, this depends on the state..

Brief run down about this guy:

Don't bother trying to reason with him, as his forte is using big-words in posts and petty labels. Evidently, assumes using them makes his post sound more intellectual. He had me on his ignore list of years and demanded I leave, because I called out his bullcrap.

He mistook me for a tourist in Chicago, who could be sidetracked and conned. Unfortunately for him, had he spent a few minutes studying world history, he'd have realized that the real sharp and cunning Irish, were exiled to Australia during the convict years. So those left in Chicago, who assume they are sharp and have street-smarts, are really a joke.

He's also has a tough time accepting that Melbourne and Sydney ###### all over that crime ridden cesspool of a city.

Edited August 20, 2010 by Heracles

[Obama 2012 1,714]

nevermind...

Edited August 20, 2010 by Paul and Vanessa

[ready4ONE 5,400]

your red herring stinks.

she's not wearing a burkha, she's wearing a plain white scarf. and chooses to do so at ramadan, but doesn't at other times of the year. it's not uncommon.

I didn't say Butkus but if the next employee claims a right to wear one on religious freedom grounds I will again support Disney's right to say "Not while working here."

What is the theme of this particular restaurant? If it was Return to Jafar your rancid red herring might smell better too.

[sandinista! 1,816]

so Muslims are becoming the American annoyance is what you're saying?

no, they've become the new person being discriminated against, and therefore are having to fight for their due rights. rights that exist despite vicious bigots like yourself getting all pissy about it.

[HAL 9000 96]

the newark police dept. lost their case to deny disallowing muslim men to wear beards. the woman who sued alamo rent a car also won her case to wear a scarf during ramadan specifically. there is precedent for this already.

Indeed there is.

As I said... I do not see as an imposition, that which does not affect the viewers as they are not obligated to wear anything in those cases. I do find it fishy how some deny their patterned bigotry behind arguments that are actually quite logical due to their having been in place for decades. What changes is the society we live in, and that really irks many bigots into being irritable beyond your wildest dreams. Unless they are not really bigots and are merely traumatized... and that I can understand... yet I do not think there would be that many victims around and even if there were- not all would use hate as their mechanism of expressing their disagreement with an entire religion.