Muslim woman sues US Disney World... - Page 2

tater · 08-19-10, 03:14 PM

Quote:

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.

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?

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.

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.

razark · 08-19-10, 10:43 AM

Quote:

"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.

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.

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

Quote:

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?

We still haven't found out whether scarves are mentioned in the dress code.

Platapus · 08-19-10, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

We still haven't found out whether scarves are mentioned in the dress code.

Don't let the facts interrupt a thread flow.

August · 08-19-10, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platapus

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.

mookiemookie · 08-19-10, 10:17 AM

Quote:

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.

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".

Skybird · 08-19-10, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

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?

razark · 08-19-10, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

Dowly · 08-19-10, 10:18 AM

Quote:

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.

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?

08-19-10, 10:27 AM

Quote:

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.

08-19-10, 09:39 AM	#3
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,388 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Do we know what the dress code is? __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

08-19-10, 10:29 AM	#4
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,696 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. 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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

08-19-10, 09:58 AM	#6
Weiss Pinguin Ocean Warrior Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Auburn, Alabama Posts: 3,333 Downloads: 101 Uploads: 0	I dunno. I don't think 'did not go with the Disney look' will hold up very well. 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? __________________

08-19-10, 10:01 AM	#7
SteamWake Rear Admiral Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 13,224 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ Follow the progress of Mr. Mulligan : http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147648

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-19-10, 09:26 AM	#2
krashkart Navy Seal Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,292 Downloads: 100 Uploads: 0	She was out of compliance with the dress code. I see no reason for a lawsuit, but it is her choice to file one.