Muslim woman sues US Disney World...

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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]

Yet another one trying to hit the jackpot with a silly lawsuit.

The woods are full of them.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Yes. Time, and time again it is been proven that you just can't seem to hurt The Mouse.

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

[tater]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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).

[tater]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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]

Originally Posted by razark

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.

Originally Posted by TLAM

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)...

Okay, I leave this to the specialists. To me, bunnies have a dresscode that does not include burkhas - or much of anything else.

Originally Posted by TLAM

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by tater

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.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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. 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]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

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/

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.