View Full Version : Muslim woman sues US Disney World...
SteamWake
08-19-10, 08:49 AM
A Muslim woman is suing Disneyland, accusing the company's California theme park of discrimination for telling her she could not serve customers if she chose to wear a headscarf.
I sure hope this one goes absolutly nowhere. Next thing you know they will refuse to wear the Micky Mouse ears !!!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.5e4d052d8a65c3e244b3cae1bab6a2b b.291&show_article=1
and it has nothing to do with the viewer's eyes,more to it according to some is "controversial"
Platapus
08-19-10, 09:12 AM
I hope she wins. It is stupid to forbid someone from wearing a scarf.
It is not like she wanted to wear a burka, in which I would not want her to win.
What exactly is the Disney Look?
This was a poor decision on the part of the Disney person and will probably end up costing Disney a lot, not only money but in image.
Disney probably has no problems taking money from Muslim customers I bet.
This was a poor decision on the part of the Disney person and will probably end up costing Disney a lot, not only money but in image.
Maybe it will hurt their image with Muslims but somehow I don't see that as something that will affect Disney's bottom line very much.
Herr-Berbunch
08-19-10, 09:15 AM
I think it's quite cute...
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKfiHmRswmNly-YSOtXMfRSFHkmJHEW-L2RAHpdVMWwzjSVuk&t=1&usg=__VqdHIDDo0c_9HKUkfZMfl-0_S2k=
Sailor Steve
08-19-10, 09:18 AM
On the one hand, workers in a position to greet customers usually have to adhere to some kind of dress code, but on the other she did ask and recieved no reply. And one has to ask whether Disney actually has a 'No Scarves' clause in their dress code.
Personally I would think they'd welcome a multinational look to their workers.
Task Force
08-19-10, 09:19 AM
I think it's quite cute...
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRKfiHmRswmNly-YSOtXMfRSFHkmJHEW-L2RAHpdVMWwzjSVuk&t=1&usg=__VqdHIDDo0c_9HKUkfZMfl-0_S2k=
God, it looks like something from a ancient torture rituial!
Ive never been to disney world, but couldnt they just put her in a place for... I dont know, the mummy, or that other middle eastern show.
krashkart
08-19-10, 09:26 AM
She was out of compliance with the dress code. I see no reason for a lawsuit, but it is her choice to file one.
Platapus
08-19-10, 09:39 AM
Do we know what the dress code is?
Weiss Pinguin
08-19-10, 09:58 AM
I dunno. I don't think 'did not go with the Disney look' will hold up very well. :hmmm: If there was a real issue here say health-related or some such) then I could understand.
Maybe hire her to wear the mascot suit? ;)
SteamWake
08-19-10, 10:01 AM
Its simple, Disney world is a private enterprise. They can dictate what their employees can and cannot wear. Dont agree with the 'dress code' well there are plenty of other jobs out there right?
What is so freakin hard to understand about that?
Besides you would think the woman would be greatfull to have a job these days.
Sailor Steve
08-19-10, 10:11 AM
Its simple, Disney world is a private enterprise. They can dictate what their employees can and cannot wear. Dont agree with the 'dress code' well there are plenty of other jobs out there right?
What is so freakin hard to understand about that?
We still haven't found out whether scarves are mentioned in the dress code.
Platapus
08-19-10, 10:12 AM
We still haven't found out whether scarves are mentioned in the dress code.
Don't let the facts interrupt a thread flow. :|\\
mookiemookie
08-19-10, 10:17 AM
Its simple, Disney world is a private enterprise. They can dictate what their employees can and cannot wear. Dont agree with the 'dress code' well there are plenty of other jobs out there right?
What is so freakin hard to understand about that?
Besides you would think the woman would be greatfull to have a job these days.
Businesses have to by law make a "reasonable accommodation" for their employee's religious beliefs so long as doing so doesn't present a safety hazard, the exemptions are equally applied and so long as the exemption doesn't go against a "business necessity".
Its simple, Disney world is a private enterprise. They can dictate what their employees can and cannot wear. Dont agree with the 'dress code' well there are plenty of other jobs out there right?
What is so freakin hard to understand about that?
Besides you would think the woman would be greatfull to have a job these days.
The article says the woman asked Disney if it would be ok to wear a scarf, from that it's quite safe to assume that not in dress code nor in the contract it is stated that scarf cannot be worn.
What is so freakin hard to understand about that?
Tribesman
08-19-10, 10:27 AM
What is so freakin hard to understand about that?
Whats so hard to understand is the article had the two magic words. Union and Muslim.
Those magic words can set off a trance like state where facts are just blurred abstract concepts.
Skybird
08-19-10, 10:29 AM
I imagine a Playboy bunny appearing on the set for a photo shooting and insisting to wear her burkha.
But it would have practical value, too, when I think of it. If you have no model available, you just put the wireboy into a Burkha and start the shooting nevertheless. :yeah:
So what do we have here? We have once again just another person thinking the world stops revolving around the sun because a precious Muslim superhuman is offended for not being accepted to define the standard all others have to adapt to, and we have a known Muslim power group in the background pulling the strings, the infamous Council on American-Muslim relations with close ties to a whole handful of ultra-radical groups running stealth djihad in and against the West.
Well, i have an itching sensation at my left feet, and a pimple on the left side of my nose. I press it and white grease appears - that'S what I give for the whole story. consider it my precious contribution to the cause, given in honest good will and coming from my heart. Really.
Several years ago, in Berlin a mother from Afghanistan went to a children doctor with her small kid. She wore a burkha. Another kid in the waiting room saw her, wass cared of the Darthn Vader look of her and started to cry. The women then tried to sue the mother of the crying child for the kid and it's family discriminating her. That much I had from the news. what I was told by people I know in Berlin is, how it went along. the Afghan women claimed that it is discrimination that could have been prevented if the kid would not be scared of her look, and it would not be scared of her look if it would be used to it, and it would be used to it if it's mother also would wear a burkha, and women in general woudl wear burkhas. I either forgot or I never learned at all how it all ended, but the logic of this insane argument says it all what it really is about, eh!? the same is true for this case in Disneyland, and it is the same about the mosque at GZ. It is not about the apparent issue (headscarf, mosque, discirjmination), but it is aboiut preparing a cultural climate in which Westerners are willing and are stupid enough to accept to behave according to Muslim rules themselves, and consider that to be so natural and reasonable that nobody would question islam when raiisng such demands that we should adapt to Islamic demands. That is the way in which jihad is being run today - and many islamophile wteserners simply do not understand this. That in almost every case when such cases are made public, you have a muslim power group with close ties to radical ultra-orthodox organisations and fanatical ideologists operating in the background and financing and pushing the idea, if only you look carefully enough and do not deny what you do not want to see, should tell people something. Unfortunately, it often does not.
"Disney further advised Boudlal that if she refused to remove her hijab, she could either work a back-of-the-house position where any customers would not see her, or else go home."
They tried to work with her, and she wouldn't have it.
Without knowing the actual dress code, it looks like Disney tried to do what they could.
Skybird
08-19-10, 10:53 AM
Businesses have to by law make a "reasonable accommodation" for their employee's religious beliefs so long as doing so doesn't present a safety hazard, the exemptions are equally applied and so long as the exemption doesn't go against a "business necessity".
A British airline recently allowed Muslim stewardesses to wear headscarf and other expressions of the politico-relgious ideology of peace and freedom. Some time later, a christian stewardess was commanded to no longer wear a cross around her neck - it would be offensive to Muslims and represents an illegal expression of her religious attitude even if she wears it under her visible cloathings, hidden from everybody.
I also recommend to research and read a bit on western female crew members of western airlines landing in Saudi Arabia and how they get discriminated when going to, staying and and returning from their hotel. ;)
In that country you are not even allowed to have a bible in your own suitcase for your own use, even when you are a christian Westerner and get it out only when you are all alone.
Now compare that to that hostess in Disneyland that insists on messing up the visual appearance of the Disneyland theme. It's not that she is being asked to do something spectacular or outstanding, or to make a joke of herself. she is just being told that she please should exactly not doing this: not to stand out from the visual theme.
Disney featured several figures like dogs and pigs that are considered as "unclean" in islam. Should they be left out, is that the next demand in order to make Disneyland complying to Islamic world order and not discirminating muslims?
Don't let the facts interrupt a thread flow. :|\\
It doesn't matter if scarves are mentioned or not. Ballet Tu-tus aren't mentioned in my companies dress code but if I asked my boss if I could wear one into work he'd be well within his rights to say no.
Tribesman
08-19-10, 11:06 AM
Some time later, a christian stewardess was commanded to no longer wear a cross around her neck - it would be offensive to Muslims and represents an illegal expression of her religious attitude even if she wears it under her visible cloathings, hidden from everybody.
Thats terrible, its really shocking......OK it isn't true but it would be shocking if it was.
So thats the case where the woman was unable to show any reason why she had to break the jewelry rules and insisted it was worn on the outside of her little uniform neckscarf instead of just round her neck.
Its sad when Sky has to make up such obviously false stories isn't it.
krashkart
08-19-10, 11:13 AM
It doesn't matter if scarves are mentioned or not. Ballet Tu-tus aren't mentioned in my companies dress code but if I asked my boss if I could wear one into work he'd be well within his rights to say no.
^That. Any job I've ever worked has a dress code, even if all they want me to do is keep my hair neatly trimmed and wear clean jeans with no holes in them. "Adapt or hit the bricks" is pretty much what I've learned over the years.
Anyway, the gal is only 26 years old. She still has some time to figure things out. For starters, there are places she could work that would probably allow her to wear her traditional headscarf on the job. :sunny:
Ducimus
08-19-10, 11:22 AM
If she thinks she can take on the big, large, moneygrubbin corporation that Disney really is - with it's deep pockets, and arsenal of lawyers onhand - she is dillusional.
A British airline recently allowed Muslim stewardesses to wear headscarf and other expressions of the politico-relgious ideology of peace and freedom. Some time later, a christian stewardess was commanded to no longer wear a cross around her neck - it would be offensive to Muslims and represents an illegal expression of her religious attitude even if she wears it under her visible cloathings, hidden from everybody.
If that's the case I think it is, the problem wasn't that she was wearing a cross and the offense it would cause. The problem was her disobeying the rule against wearing of necklaces. It wasn't a ban on crosses, it was a ban on all necklaces.
mookiemookie
08-19-10, 01:08 PM
A much better article here: http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-disney-discrimination,0,5536535.story
The key I think is this part:
Boudial has worked at Disneyland for two and a half years, but didn't try to wear the hijab to work until this past weekend.
...
She arrived for work Wednesday afternoon wearing her hijab accompanied by members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
It sounds like she's doing this just to incite. I don't think that will do her court case any favors.
Platapus
08-19-10, 01:16 PM
Mookie,
Good catch, so there is more to the story then was first reported. This is why we should let the courts handle these types of cases. There is often more to the story.
TLAM Strike
08-19-10, 01:24 PM
I imagine a Playboy bunny appearing on the set for a photo shooting and insisting to wear her burkha. Obviously you don't watch enough internet porn. I'm sure Dowly could provide you with links to plenty of Burkha Porn. (It does exist)... :O:
Anyway, the gal is only 26 years old. She still has some time to figure things out. For starters, there are places she could work that would probably allow her to wear her traditional headscarf on the job. :sunny:
If she worked in Food Prep and not Food Service she would need to ware something over her hair anyways.
Whats so hard to understand is the article had the two magic words. Union and Muslim.
Those magic words can set off a trance like state where facts are just blurred abstract concepts. Strange I have to agree with Tribesman. My grandmother wore a headscarf like thing- she was just from Ukraine. No one had a problem with it.
Sailor Steve
08-19-10, 01:31 PM
It sounds like she's doing this just to incite. I don't think that will do her court case any favors.
Good point. It will be interesting to read what the courts say.
Obviously you don't watch enough internet porn. I'm sure Dowly could provide you with links to plenty of Burkha Porn. (It does exist)... :O:
I'm afraid he has to find the sites himself if he is interest, but yes, I back you up, it does exist. :DL
Eightbit
08-19-10, 01:56 PM
I think what bothers everyone else is the idea of religious people getting a sort of special treatment. Which is understandable. Anyways sorry to derail
Takeda Shingen
08-19-10, 02:02 PM
Maybe it will hurt their image with Muslims but somehow I don't see that as something that will affect Disney's bottom line very much.
Yes. Time, and time again it is been proven that you just can't seem to hurt The Mouse.
I hope she wins. It is stupid to forbid someone from wearing a scarf.
It is not like she wanted to wear a burka, in which I would not want her to win.
What exactly is the Disney Look?
This was a poor decision on the part of the Disney person and will probably end up costing Disney a lot, not only money but in image.
Disney probably has no problems taking money from Muslim customers I bet.
Disney should be able to require employees to wear anything they want, or NOT wear anything that DISNEY wants.
The employee can choose to work elsewhere. This is not the GOVERNMENT telling her what she can wear, but a private business on their own property. Their reasons don't even matter. The employee/employer interaction is contractual, nothing else matters, IMO.
breadcatcher101
08-19-10, 02:50 PM
Yet another one trying to hit the jackpot with a silly lawsuit.
The woods are full of them.
mookiemookie
08-19-10, 02:57 PM
Disney should be able to require employees to wear anything they want, or NOT wear anything that DISNEY wants.
The employee can choose to work elsewhere. This is not the GOVERNMENT telling her what she can wear, but a private business on their own property. Their reasons don't even matter. The employee/employer interaction is contractual, nothing else matters, IMO.
The EEOC disagrees.
Platapus
08-19-10, 02:58 PM
Disney should be able to require employees to wear anything they want, or NOT wear anything that DISNEY wants.
I agree, as long as it is in their formal dress code and it is applied equally and fairly to all employees and not just some employees.
Ducimus
08-19-10, 03:09 PM
Yes. Time, and time again it is been proven that you just can't seem to hurt The Mouse.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f8pXcUqZgA8/S4WVIKw56_I/AAAAAAAAAW0/ZrXsOOxtFNE/s320/evil-disney.jpg
She thinks she can hurt me? Muahahahah, Oh that's good. She'd better bring along ten Johnnie L. Cochran's if she expects to take me on! Hah hah hah
The EEOC disagrees.
The EEOC should be abolished, IMO.
Employers should, IMHO, be allowed to discriminate at will, frankly.
I have no problem with the GOVERNMENT not being allowed to discriminate at all (that includes sexual orientation and the military). I have no problem with the government not doing ANY business with any company that DOES discriminate, either.
That would be fair, and Constitutional, IMO. The point of the Constitution is to guarantee the rights of the people vs the STATE, not in their private interactions.
Does this mean there would be some dumb-ass racist businesses? Yeah, it does. Freedom sucks sometimes. But if the government was forbidden to deal with such establishments, that alone would make more than 99% of businesses comply anyway.
Wanting the EEOC style status quo is in effect wanting closeted discrimination, anyway. Employers hire people subjectively. You interview someone, and how you "like" them, or the vibe you get is often the critical factor in hiring them vs the many other equally qualified applicants. If that "feel" thing for a given employer happened to include race, etc...
Better to just do the Constitutional thing, and not mess with private contractual employment agreements, and stick to setting a standard for employers to follow if they ever wish to see a government CC or PO in their shop (note this would include cops stopping for coffee, people gasing up gov vehicles, virtually every business would not want to be on the wrong side of this, but it would instead be a CHOICE).
I agree, as long as it is in their formal dress code and it is applied equally and fairly to all employees and not just some employees.
If Disney wants a 1950s "Main Street USA" look, and that doesn't include a headscarf unless said employee is on chemo, then so be it.
I hope she loses, AND had to pay Disney's lawyers' fees.
Skybird
08-19-10, 03:20 PM
If that's the case I think it is, the problem wasn't that she was wearing a cross and the offense it would cause. The problem was her disobeying the rule against wearing of necklaces. It wasn't a ban on crosses, it was a ban on all necklaces.
"All necklaces" only because stating that they ban crucifix necklaces would have gotten them fire earlier on! ;) It was to avoid a public row over banning the symbol in question. If I remember it correctly it had to do saomethign with the destinations (in Mulsim countries) this ariline used to fly to very often.
Obviously you don't watch enough internet porn. I'm sure Dowly could provide you with links to plenty of Burkha Porn. (It does exist)... :O:
Okay, I leave this to the specialists. :shucks: To me, bunnies have a dresscode that does not include burkhas - or much of anything else. :DL
Strange I have to agree with Tribesman. My grandmother wore a headscarf like thing- she was just from Ukraine. No one had a problem with it.
One can argue whether or not Islam has a rule that says women must wear headscarf, nikhabs or burkhas . Can one? The Quran says clearly that women should mantle themselves. That was because muhammad was pissed to see foreign men staring at women who crouched behind bushes to follow the call of nature. So, there is indeed a scriptorial condensate and a historic reason for the argument that it is indeed an islamic commandement that women should bei veiled. However, Russian women and headscarves. Well,russians do not issue a poltical message and do not communicate the defence of a ceratin ideology when wearing headscarves. Muslim women do. The headscarf in islam is a poltical symbol, like the Palestinian keffiyeh also is not just a scarf like an yother, but is a symbol today, putting this typical textile with it'S unmistakalble pattern into an expression fo sympoathy for a certain ideological context and cause. Or the AK-47 when serving as symbols in flags or insignias - it then is not just any rifle like any other, that in principle could also mean a hunbting rifle, but the silhouette of the AK_47 is a poltical symbol in itself nowadays. That'S why you find it probably esclsuoevly only in leftist symbolical cointexts, but never in rightist symbolical contexts. The islamic veil, headscarf, burkha, must be understood as a poltical statement . And that is why we must fight against oit and should not tolerate it. Like that is the reason why islam pushes the demand for tolerating this symbol so masisvely. In turkey, the fundamentalist AKP has deleted a law by attaturk that women wanting to go to university, were perfectly allowoed to do so, but then were porhibited to wear headscarves. Attaturk anted to prevent relgious radicals gaining access and influence to public institutions and oublic education that way. No wonder then that the AKP and Erdoghan have abandoned this law then.
It sounds like she's doing this just to incite. I don't think that will do her court case any favors.
As I said - check the nature of the Muslim powergroup in the background. In Germany, the vast majority of Muslim cases that are overwhelij ng the courts, are not pushed by private people, but private people get approached by Muslim powergroups to allow serving as the excuse to laucnh another siege of the courts in order to exhaust public resistance to Islam by waging kind of a war of attrition against it. What must be criticised is that the silent majority, the oh so moderate oh so westwern.-value-compliant "moderate Muslims" allow this, and do not stand up against these stelth djihadis, and do allow them to speak and act in their name and define the official position of islam in their name. That is the reason why I do not save them from holding them responsible for their passivity and acceptance of the socalled radicals.
Printing the silhouette of an AK47 on flags, letters and into insignias, is a political message, not an opinion on sports shooting. Wearing a Palestnian keffiyeh does not comopare to wear just any other scarf, but also is expressing a poltical statement. And islamic headscarves and veils also are a poltical statement - in the name of an ideology that is hostile to our values, freedoms and the constitutional order of our home states.
The EEOC disagrees.
Screw the EEOC. We deal with them up here too and they are a bunch of unrealistic pains in the patootie.
Apparently they don't want us to ask for ethnic information from our students that the Feds require us to provide in order to get student loans.
And even though a criminal history will make it nearly impossible for a student to get a job in the Electronic Security field for example, they don't want us to do a criminal background check on our students, even though that information is provided online via the RI Attorney Generals office to anyone with internet access, which puts us in the position of taking 13 grand from a person to provide an education that they won't be able to use.
Tribesman
08-19-10, 03:34 PM
All necklaces" only because stating that they ban crucifix necklaces would have gotten them fire earlier on! ;) It was to avoid a public row over banning the symbol in question. If I remember it correctly it had to do saomethign with the destinations (in Mulsim countries) this ariline used to fly to very often.
So when Sky gets called out for simply making up "facts" about news stories he decides to dig himself into a deeper hole.:doh:
The policy for jewelry the airline has is for all necklaces, all rings apart from wedding/engagement ones, plus earrings are requireed to be either plain studs or small hoops. It applies to all staff that deal with the public either on the ground or in the air.
The Quran says clearly that women should mantle themselves. That was because muhammad was pissed to see foreign men staring at women who crouched behind bushes to follow the call of nature
Bloody hell, not even the craziest fundamentalist nut from the backside of beyond can have views quite as wierd as Skys.
Platapus
08-19-10, 04:03 PM
The EEOC should be abolished, IMO.
Employers should, IMHO, be allowed to discriminate at will, frankly.
I have no problem with the GOVERNMENT not being allowed to discriminate at all (that includes sexual orientation and the military). I have no problem with the government not doing ANY business with any company that DOES discriminate, either.
That would be fair, and Constitutional, IMO. The point of the Constitution is to guarantee the rights of the people vs the STATE, not in their private interactions.
Does this mean there would be some dumb-ass racist businesses? Yeah, it does. Freedom sucks sometimes. But if the government was forbidden to deal with such establishments, that alone would make more than 99% of businesses comply anyway.
An interesting viewpoint and one worth considering. :yep:
Bubblehead1980
08-20-10, 11:37 AM
Its simple, Disney world is a private enterprise. They can dictate what their employees can and cannot wear. Dont agree with the 'dress code' well there are plenty of other jobs out there right?
What is so freakin hard to understand about that?
Besides you would think the woman would be greatfull to have a job these days.
Right on Steam.I am sick of Muslims etc thinking the world revolves around them and everyone should cater to them.:damn: Also sick of any religion that thinks so, just seems in the US the muslims feel entitled.
There is a dress code at work, follow it or if you don't like it, find another job.
Bubblehead1980
08-20-10, 11:52 AM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f8pXcUqZgA8/S4WVIKw56_I/AAAAAAAAAW0/ZrXsOOxtFNE/s320/evil-disney.jpg
She thinks she can hurt me? Muahahahah, Oh that's good. She'd better bring along ten Johnnie L. Cochran's if she expects to take me on! Hah hah hah
Another side of Mickey Mouse...lol
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/221275/
The Third Man
08-20-10, 12:11 PM
It strikes me that even if Disney had responded to the letter the law suit was coming. Imane Boudal was not acting on her own initiative here. The Council On American-Islamic Relations, was certainly there from the beginning.
The other point which makes me wonder is this....
When offered another position, she refused and cried discrimination.
"Their offer to put me in the back is humiliating," she said in a statement. "They're saying because I'm Arab, because I'm Moroccan, because I'm Muslim, they don't want to see me in the front."
So is she Arab or Moroccan? Can she be both?
I would say that Disney acted in good faith by offering the compromise. She gets to wear her scarf and Disney maintains its dress code.
When the EEOC sees that they will back away from enforcement which is why they are going to court.
Tchocky
08-20-10, 12:14 PM
So is she Arab or Moroccan? Can she be both?
Put it this way. Getting off the plane in Marrakesh, you won't be spoken to in German.
CAIR is associated with terror groups, so I don't care what they say—or if I do care, I'd pretty much take the opposite viewpoint.
Regarding Morocco, in my experience German is more likely to be spoken to you than English :)
It was nice that English was so far down the list of languages used to hassle you :)
French first, then Spanish and Italian about equally, then German, and maybe English as an afterthought, LOL.
Gotta say, Morocco is a cool place.
The Third Man
08-20-10, 12:26 PM
Put it this way. Getting off the plane in Marrakesh, you won't be spoken to in German.
Thanks, I didn't realize tha they were interchangable. Does that hold true for all the middle east? Are Palastinians also Arabs? What about Lebonese, Iraquis, Syrians, etc.?
Being spoken to in Arabic does NOT make the speaker an Arab.
Moroccans are not Arabs. The Arabic they speak is also different (slightly), from what I was told there.
Tribesman
08-20-10, 01:34 PM
French first, then Spanish and Italian about equally, then German, and maybe English as an afterthought
Did you find in some towns that speaking French got you worse service?
FIREWALL
08-20-10, 02:17 PM
It's all about the MONEY. Congrats to mookie for finding some facts before some of you made complete fools of yourselves. :up:
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.