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: 6
27
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by p51mustang
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]



mosqueteers!

funniest thing i ever heard! lololol!

hey! jasmine is cuter than ariel!




posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   
My goodness, what a long thread about such a logical issue, sadly these issues are now on the rise and we must stop this nonsense cultural cohesion crap that applies only to one set of people.

In an age when employment is now almost a luxury it is now considered quite normal to bend a little to keep yourself in employment.

Basically the way it should work for all is you go for a job, impress your future employer, get offered the job, do the work, be happy..

As a one time employer for at the time a racially minded management I chose who worked based upon the person and their skills, this got me many little chats from my management but I employed based on credit, not colour.

So if I had a person in front of me telling me what they would not or cannot do for me as part of a normal job then I have to worry about their loyalty and dedication straight off, she would not have been employed, simple as that.

For Disney to bend over backwards is a credit / foolishness to them, when a business lets the staffs personal beliefs affect the way the business performs then you have made a bad choice.

Anyhow, they offered her options which she refused, sorry but that's not a person who should be there.

But here's the real stinker here, the persons choice was apparently made because of her religious beliefs but lets look at that. The Kuran does not state you must dress in that manner it simply asks women to dress modestly, the rules that were made after that were made by MEN and the rules where the woman has to cover her face were made by controlling 3rd world men frightened of women, not made by the Kuran.

So basically as a Muslim woman you have to decide what YOU call modestly dressed, any so called rules are from men and not the religion. So what we effectively have here is a person wishing to dress differently because all her mates do it.

I'm sorry but if you chose that then you have no right to make rules or requests to employers, either do the job or not.

I'm hoping this world shows some common sense and throws this law suit out, but this PC notions dictates that she will win and we will have a million or so more law suits the day after, all this will do is hamper the economy, destroy firms and make even more people unemployed.

If you choose religion then I'm happy for you but in the real world you have made a choice that affects your employment etc, sorry but if you don't want to show your hair or face then don't apply for jobs where you know its the norm.



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by operation mindcrime
 


The original article claims a Disney spokesperson as saying "We were trying to accommodate her with a backstage position that would allow her to work. We gave her a couple of different options and she chose not to take those"

Obviously the backstage positions must have been unacceptable to her but you stand behind her intentions / motivations by stating that "...without knowing the EXACT (my emphasis) description of the work she is expected to do on the alternative location, we cannot judge on the motivations of the woman to refuse this alternative."

Now I'm going to make an assumption and that being that because Disney locations are family orientated the couple of offers would not have involved any thing indecent or immoral, or criminal or...... you get the picture. Thus it seems she's doing it for the greater good of changing the rules of Western society to bow to the idiosyncrasies of Islam rather than earning a living. I could be wrong but without knowing the 'true' motivation of why she demands to wear her head scarf in a setting which the employer deems it is not acceptable is all just speculation......



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


"If I am a racist, as you have asserted, it is your civic duty to alert both a moderator and the police.

Act quickly man! "


Brilliant ! It shuts them up every time.....



posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by eNaR
 



Thus it seems she's doing it for the greater good of changing the rules of Western society


It seems?? what's that....??

NO!! She is challenging the rules of her employer.

Which she is FREE to do!!!!

This is still the land of the free?? Or are you guys not advocating that slogan anymore??

If you have a difference with your boos and you think you should sue, go ahead!!

If she wins, she must have had a point. If she losses, well.....how cares?

We care because it is connected with Muslims and head scarfs and terrorist and war and.........at least, if they media is doing their job well.

Peace

Edit for exclamation marks :!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 21-8-2010 by operation mindcrime]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by eNaR
 


Actually I replied to him and he has run off deciding to ignore me instead.

So, I'll also ask you to show me where being a racist is illegal and where the Bill of Rights grants you the right to enjoy Disney Land.

The fact of the matter is: he is wrong at best and a liar at worst. If he was right the KKK wouldn't be marching freely through Denver every summer like they do and he'd be able to easily show where in the Bill of Rights we are granted the right to pleasurable experiences at theme parks (in this instance, having to see a head scarf).




[edit on 22-8-2010 by AdAbsurdum]



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
Actually I replied to him and he has run off deciding to ignore me instead.


I was busy arguing with Muslim apologists on another thread. So many tree huggers, so little time.


Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
So, I'll also ask you to show me where being a racist is illegal


Racism is illegal in the USA when racist hate speech incites illegal violence and the threat of violence is imminent. See Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).


Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
I'll also ask you to show me...where the Bill of Rights grants you the right to enjoy Disney Land.


The 14th amendment of the Bill of Rights (due process clause) has been interpreted since 1897 as providing substantive protection to private contracts and thus prohibiting a variety of social and economic regulation, under what was referred to as "freedom of contract".

Freedom of contract is the freedom of individuals and corporations to form contracts without government restrictions. See Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897)

It looks as if you are wrong again.


Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
The fact of the matter is: he is wrong at best and a liar at worst.


It looks as if it is in fact you who is wrong. Does that mean you are wrong at best and a liar at worst?

You tree huggers do love to throw out the slurs and insults.

The fact that you feel the need to do so, would suggest that you lack confidence in the strength of your argument.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
I was busy arguing with Muslim apologists on another thread. So many tree huggers, so little time.


I apologize then. It seemed as if you were avoiding me.


Racism is illegal in the USA when racist hate speech incites illegal violence and the threat of violence is imminent. See Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).


So being a racist is not illegal. Inciting violence is. Also, SCOTUS overturned Bradenburg's conviction...


The 14th amendment of the Bill of Rights (due process clause) has been interpreted since 1897 as providing substantive protection to private contracts and thus prohibiting a variety of social and economic regulation, under what was referred to as "freedom of contract".

Freedom of contract is the freedom of individuals and corporations to form contracts without government restrictions. See Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897)


But this does not give you a right to enjoy Disney Land. It gives you the right to enter into a contract with Disney Land with out government involvement, not to be fully satisfied and enjoying said contract.


It looks as if it is in fact you who is wrong. Does that mean you are wrong at best and a liar at worst?


I don't think I'm wrong here and I still don't see what you posted defeating my argument.


You tree huggers do love to throw out the slurs and insults.

The fact that you feel the need to do so, would suggest that you lack confidence in the strength of your argument.


Sweet irony. Pot meet kettle.

While I do think you are a xenophobe, I do not think that immediately invalidates your argument. I think you being wrong invalidates your argument.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
This bears to think on a few other things that many people tend to forget. A business or even a manager is forbidden by law from asking an employee or any person that they hire about their religion. It is part of a series of questions that could get a company sued for. And many companies are not required to accomidate anyone on the grounds of religion, except for those holidays that are mandated and recognised by law.
Most employers will attempt to accomidate to a degree, but are not obligated to do such. There are businesses out there, that can not afford to, under any circumstances, as it would cripple the business.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I am a Brit but similar situations happen here.

Isn't it about time that religion was left at home? it is to diversive.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I can imagine an even more poignant story -- that this Muslim girl applies for a waitress position at Hooters, then, when hired, insists she must wear the burka.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
who cares if she wants to wear it. it's just a head-scarf, let her.

It really doesnt bother me if they want to wear one as long as it doent affect their ability to work.

They are just trying to push someone around, for no reason.


[edit on 23-8-2010 by MR BOB]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
So being a racist is not illegal.


Racist speech is illegal in the USA when it incites illegal violence and the threat of violence is imminent. You didn't know that, did you?


Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
But this does not give you a right to enjoy Disney Land. It gives you the right to enter into a contract with Disney Land with out government involvement, not to be fully satisfied and enjoying said contract.


Can I be as ridiculous as you?

Can I demand to know where does the constitution guarantee that religious people will enjoy their religion?

It would rather miss the point. Rather like you have.

My statement was:-

"...I have the right to enjoy a traditional all American Walt Disney experience."

And I do, if that is what Walt Disney wishes to provide.

The 14th amendment guarantees my right to enter into a contract, free from congressional interference.

Hence, I have a right under the 14th amendment to enter into a contract with Walt Disney that has the objective of me "enjoying a traditional all American Walt Disney experience."

Walt Disney wants to provide me with "an enjoyable traditional all American Walt Disney experience" and I wish to experience one.

Interestingly, the constitution no more guarantees that I enjoy the contract with Walt Disney than it guarantees that religious people will enjoy their religious experience.

None the less, I have a right, under the 14th ammnedment, to enter into a contract with that objective.


In Summary:

Religion has the right to be established and exercised under the constitution, free from congressional interference (1st Amendment).

Individuals have a right to enter into a contract with other legal persons and exercise that contract, free from congressional interference (14th Amendment).


Anyway, now that we have established that private citizens and legal persons do indeed have contractual rights under the constitution, would you be good enough to answer the question I posed that you have so far have evaded?

Where in the Bill of Rights does it say a religious right supersedes a secular right?

I would appreciate an answer.


Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
While I do think you are a xenophobe, I do not think that immediately invalidates your argument. I think you being wrong invalidates your argument.


So far you have called me a racist, a xenophobe and at best mistaken and at worst a liar. In response I called you a tree hugger.

I will repeat it again: The fact that you feel the need to insult others would suggest that you lack confidence in the strength of your argument.

Still, in light of the quality of your legal knowledge, perhaps it would be best if you stuck with the insults.


[edit on 23-8-2010 by ollncasino]

[edit on 23-8-2010 by ollncasino]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MR BOB
It really doesnt bother me if they want to wear one as long as it doent affect their ability to work.


But it does bother Walt Disney and Walt Disney's rights need to be respected also.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by MR BOB
It really doesnt bother me if they want to wear one as long as it doent affect their ability to work.


But it does bother Walt Disney and Walt Disney's rights need to be respected also.



Indeed! But let's not be sexist here and consider the importance of wearing a beard by men in Islam:

www.islam.tc...


Little do these Muslims realize the magnitude of their actions in imitating Kufaar (see Hadith section). This is a truly shocking! Hopefully the information presented herein will enlighten those. And then there are others who claim that the matters concerning beards is a "little" issue not worthy of mention nor practice. To them I say get off the denial bandwagon, you're a Muslim! Follow the Prophet (Peace be upon him) in all aspects of life, for he was the best of examples. I couldn't tell you how many times I've mistaken a Muslim brother (outside of the Masjid) for a kaafir on account of his clean-shaven, well oiled, face. How can I say "Assalaamu Alaikum Brother!" when I do not know if he is a Muslim.


Assume a Muslim takes employment as one of the Mickey Mouse characters and his beard sticks from below the mask (just bear with me for a second). Disney offers him an "off-stage" job. He sues. Is it cool?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
Racist speech is illegal in the USA when it incites illegal violence and the threat of violence is imminent. You didn't know that, did you?


I did. But, you claimed being a racist was a crime and it has been shown not to be... If you concede then we know you were merely mistaken. If you continue espousing it, after having been shown to be wrong, we know you are a liar.


"...I have the right to enjoy a traditional all American Walt Disney experience."


To clarify, lemme ask you this: What do you think, personally, about affirmative action?

Economic regulations do exist and are found to be Constitutional by SCOTUS so I think the question is related to the 14 Amendment issue.


Anyway, now that we have established that private citizens and legal persons do indeed have contractual rights under the constitution, would you be good enough to answer the question I posed that you have so far have evaded?

Where in the Bill of Rights does it say a religious right supersedes a secular right?

I would appreciate an answer.


Here is my answer:

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet

This ruling stated laws could not be passed in favor of 'irreligion'. They can not honor non-religion over religion or vice versa.

It was tested with Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal and upheld.

The laws must remain neutral and because of this the issue is not cut and dried.


So far you have called me a racist, a xenophobe and at best mistaken and at worst a liar. In response I called you a tree hugger.

I will repeat it again: The fact that you feel the need to insult others would suggest that you lack confidence in the strength of your argument.

Still, in light of the quality of your legal knowledge, perhaps it would be best if you stuck with the insults.


I explicitly stated I did not think you were racist. You can stop attributing to me a position I do not hold, now. As for you feeling insulted and inferring my lack of confidence; that's your business, not mine. Your personal assessment of my feelings and your dismissive last sentence, do not invalidate my arguments any more than my thinking you are a xenophobe invalidates yours. Repeat it all you like, it's a strawman.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by AdAbsurdum]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Where does it state that religious rights supersede secular rights?


Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
Here is my answer:

Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet

This ruling stated laws could not be passed in favor of 'irreligion'. They can not honor non-religion over religion or vice versa..

It was tested with Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal and upheld.

The laws must remain neutral and because of this the issue is not cut and dried.


So you are done a 100% U turn and are agreeing with me?

Good stuff.

Your above summary of the case supports my assertion that a religious rights don't supersede or over-ride secular rights.

The case actually says

"The anomalously case-specific creation of this district for a religious community leaves the Court without any way to review such state action for the purpose of safeguarding the principle that government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."

The court clearly stated it can't favor one religion over another or religion to irreligion.

The principle that religious rights don't have priority over non religious rights is clear.

Does the case lay down a principle that religious rights supersede non religious right?

No.

Here is the original case. Have a wade through.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

In Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, the case doesn't even discuss a conflict of interest between religion or irreligion (a conflict between religious and secular rights). It discusses, and I quote directly from the case

" Among other things, Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion, "even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,..."

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Perhaps you should read cases more carefully? Or even try reading the original cases rather than someone else's conclusion?


Originally posted by AdAbsurdum
To clarify, lemme ask you this: What do you think, personally, about affirmative action?


Sorry, what does that have to do with my right to enjoy a traditional Walt Disney experience or a religious employee demanding the right to wear religious clothing at work?

It looks suspiciously like an attempt to go horribly off topic and derail the debate.




[edit on 24-8-2010 by ollncasino]

[edit on 24-8-2010 by ollncasino]

[edit on 24-8-2010 by ollncasino]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
Your above summary of the case supports my assertion that a religious rights don't supersede or over-ride secular rights.


The principle that religious rights don't have priority over non religious rights is clear.

Does the case lay down a principle that religious rights supersede non religious right?

No.

Perhaps you should read cases more carefully? Or even try reading the original cases rather than someone else's conclusion?


I never made the argument that they do. You are attributing to me a position I do not hold yet again. You are like a scarecrow factory. How about you address my actual argument. On a side note it also says that nonreligious rights do not have priority over religious ones, it doesn't just say the part you want it to.


Sorry, what does that have to do with my right to enjoy a traditional Walt Disney experience or a religious employee demanding the right to wear religious clothing at work?

It looks suspiciously like an attempt to go horribly off topic and derail the debate.


I explained in my previous post. I have no problem going into greater detail if you require elaboration but I would ask for some concessions on your part so that I won't be wasting my time.

From what I can tell, what we have here is a refusal for you to concede on a previous point you made and multiple straw-man arguments. You're inability to admit when you are wrong doesn't show me that this can possibly move forward in a constructive manner.

I ask that you admit that racism is not illegal and you have been unable to prove so.
I ask that you admit that I do not think you a racist as I have stated multiple times.
I ask that you admit that I made no such claim that religious rights supersede secular ones unless able to show where I made that statement.

Since we're all adults here that shouldn't be a problem, eh?

[edit on 24-8-2010 by AdAbsurdum]



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Assume a Muslim takes employment as one of the Mickey Mouse characters and his beard sticks from below the mask (just bear with me for a second). Disney offers him an "off-stage" job. He sues. Is it cool?


Can I have a wack at it??

If he was specifically hired for this function and it is not described in his contract or company rules that a beard must not be visible from under his mask....yes, he can sue.

It is ridiculous but he could.

Why does my microwave come with an instruction booklet that states that I cannot put my dog in there to dry him. Or why does my inflatable pool come with a giant warning label that says I shouldn't put the pool into an other body of water (????)........

Because people are dumb and in the land of the free you have the right to be dumb. Heck, you could get rich by doing dumb sh*t...

Watch out, you McDonald's coffee might be hot!!!!

Peace



posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by operation mindcrime
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Assume a Muslim takes employment as one of the Mickey Mouse characters and his beard sticks from below the mask (just bear with me for a second). Disney offers him an "off-stage" job. He sues. Is it cool?


Can I have a wack at it??

If he was specifically hired for this function and it is not described in his contract or company rules that a beard must not be visible from under his mask....yes, he can sue.

It is ridiculous but he could.


All right, what if the language was more generic in saying that the costume shall be worn in a way consistent with the intended image? That would effectively nix the beard and cover other cases.

You see, than this goes into a stage when a person might argue that it's OK if Mickey has a beard (he's male). And such is the will of Allah.

Indeed, Ad Absurdum.




top topics



 
27
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join