It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Muslim employee sues Disney over dress code

page: 5
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 
Alot of "if" in your statement. Try sticking to the facts as we know them. Woman wants to wear scarf, employer says ok, but not on a job dealing directly with customers, you can work backstage instead. Woman cries dicrimination and sues.

Stop trying to give her excuses.




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by vimanarider
 


It does have nothing to do with religion or race and that's why I can't understand why we have any issues about religious tendencies in the first place when it comes to business or anything in the federal and state government. I mean isn't it law in the US that religion and state are seperate? So wouldn't that imply that you couldn't sue for anything religious because a suet like that would be in a State Court??? This stuff pisses me off to high hell, I say get rid of religion in the first place so I don't have to read about something this retarded. I do although love the fact that disney has dress codes in there company policy so this woman will get absolutely nothing!!!! HURRAY!



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


Although I see where your going, we're dealing with a muslim matter you could've at least tried to make up some witty muslim jokes!



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Why do you continue to dodge my question?

How about a request instead: Will you please provide proof of your assertions?

[edit on 20-8-2010 by AdAbsurdum]

EDIT TO ADD: I don't think you are a racist. I think you are a xenophobe.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by AdAbsurdum]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 


If this turns out to be a 'cultural' thing, I want to be allowed to wear an Irish kilt to work. Without underwear. Just like Groundskeeper Willy on the Simpsons!

Also, who said I was kidding.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Section31]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


Pretty simple, as long as they have been consistent with all personnel on disallowing personalization of wardrobe for religious reasons, they are completely in the clear. It was a nice gesture for them to offer to make a head scarf for her, which would make it part of official dress code. This would protect them from other idiots out there who would sue for not being allowed to wear their ... when she got to wear her ... They could have just said no and required her to be in dress code, resign or be fired.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


He's Scottish!



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hidesert
 


If she worked at my store, she would have the remove her hijab, our dress code strictly forbids hats. I don't allow tattoo's to be publicly displayed, I don't allow piercings to be worn at work. It is my right as an employer and as long as I explain the conditions of employment up front and apply the rules consistently, my organization has done nothing wrong. Is this case somehow different than what I am describing above. Do we know that Disney has singled her out? If that is the case, then yes it is discrimination, otherwise it is just good business.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Section31
 
He's Scottish!

It doesn't mater. We both wear kilts and carry an accent.

Hopefully this girl will lose her case, so that the United States stays as unbiased as possible.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by Section31]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Section31
 


Did I say you were kidding? O that's right I said you were making jokes, but you have to admit it's very hard to take a catholic or a christian seriously, I mean with that book full of contradictions and all... I'm not sure what to think.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Yes this person is obviously out for the money! Regardless of religion I have worked no where that I am allowed to make my religion a physical presence. Especially when it comes to dealing with external customers. Personally I feel that there is one idiot on this forum that has forgotten that this is not about religion but contractual obligations. Perhaps this is one of those 'employed people' that are expected to bring ATS to the level of ... ???

My 2 cents or so



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   
no mosqueteers? it isnt a small world after all?
say what about this Alladin character- i dont
want my kids exposed to islamic devil worship!


[edit on 20-8-2010 by p51mustang]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by burning_need
Personally I feel that there is one idiot on this forum that has forgotten that this is not about religion but contractual obligations. Perhaps this is one of those 'employed people' that are expected to bring ATS to the level of ... ???

My 2 cents or so


See that big thing standing beside you. Yes the thing with 4 legs and a trunk. Its the elephant in the room that you are trying to ignore.

If that women wins, she will have furthered Muslim rights in the US.

I find it hard to believe that anyone is stupid enough to miss the elephant in the room so I have to wonder about your true motivation???



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Endtime Warrior
If they wanna make it a race issue, they will. If they wanna make it a religion issue, they did. To me its propaganda and I've been seeing it more and more lately, leads me to believe some big showdown is about to go down. Ill leave you all to fill in the blanks.


Oh man, things like this have been going on for a long time everywhere else, but as soon as it starts popping up more and more in the US, it's a sign of the impending big showdown...


Let the madness continue...




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by Hefficide
 


The fact that Disney is supplying their personnel with Disney-supplied headscarf's indicates that they acknowledge the product as such...

If Disney acknowledges the headscarf then they also acknowledge the reason why some of their personnel want to wear this piece of garment.

So if Disney is aware of the reason why some of their personnel wants to wear a headscarf but they fail to supply their personnel with such garment they are the ones lacking here.


Unless it was a courtesy and not a requirement of the job.

No employer has an obligation to supply a head scarf to employees. None. What illogical things are going on here...

If the job uniform does not require this item of clothing, Disney are in no way obliged to ensure it is on hand at any given time, even if they gave her one initially. Even that sounds corrupt and absurd.

I want a nuns habit should I ever work at macdonalds - and a tutu. See how far I get.. Might get a MacSuprise! Or I'll MacSue them for MacMillions for MacBigotry.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Kind of new here but I am not sure what you mean? I agree with you and am not sure where you are coming from? My argument is that this is totally about legal obligations and of course if she wins this is truly a loss for our justice system on the grounds of religion. ( They really should remain separate ) .



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by vimanarider
 

Are they building a Mosque in Disneyland?
Build it and they will come.
Didnt Mohamed forbid Disneylands?
A minimal post can be a good way to get to the end of a thread.




[edit on 20-8-2010 by RRokkyy]



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 01:47 AM
link   
This sounds like the familiar "bait and switch" approach to me. I mean, who wouldn't want to target one of the largest - and most industry-loved - employers in America. I need to understand why she didn't make it clear upon her being hired, this was so important to me. All that said, I have to question her intentions.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Badwolf,


Unless it was a courtesy and not a requirement of the job.


Irrelevant! If it was promised to the woman it is irrelevant whether or not it is a requirement.


No employer has an obligation to supply a head scarf to employees. None. What illogical things are going on here...


If the woman was fitted for a Disney approved outfit then this suggests some consensus was reached in earlier negotiation. Is nobody seeing how the whole issue is beyond the question whether or not Disney should allow head scarfs?


I want a nuns habit should I ever work at macdonalds - and a tutu. See how far I get.. Might get a MacSuprise! Or I'll MacSue them for MacMillions for MacBigotry.


The question here is not if you would be allowed to wear such garment. The question is, if you agreed with your employer that you will be fitted with a garment of your choice and they agree but under the condition that it has to be McDonalds-approved nuns habit but then fail to produce the result of this agreement, that is the question...

IMHO

Peace





posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by burning_need
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Kind of new here but I am not sure what you mean? I agree with you and am not sure where you are coming from? My argument is that this is totally about legal obligations and of course if she wins this is truly a loss for our justice system on the grounds of religion. ( They really should remain separate ) .


Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.

Note Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


The Religious rights granted by the constitution to religion is a negative right - a right that congress will not interfere with the establishment or free exercise of religion.

It doesn't give religious bodies or individuals, Muslims included, the right to ride rough shod over everyone else's secular rights.

In the US, no where in the Constitution does it say that the right to establish a religion nullifies and supersedes non religious rights.

The constitution merely states that congress has no business prohibiting religious rights. Private citizens rights are neither discussed nor curtailed by the pledge by congress to keep its hands off of religious freedom.

Many Muslim apologists mistakenly think that the constitution gives religious people rights over secular citizens. It does nothing of the sort.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join