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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

^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:

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.

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.

A much better article here: http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktl...,5536535.story

The key I think is this part:

It sounds like she's doing this just to incite. I don't think that will do her court case any favors.

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.

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:

If she worked in Food Prep and not Food Service she would need to ware something over her hair anyways.

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.

Good point. It will be interesting to read what the courts say.

I'm afraid he has to find the sites himself if he is interest, but yes, I back you up, it does exist. :DL

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