Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Latest.asp?I1=ID&I2=75358" target="_blank"><b>Latest: OCReg: Sketch of Costume Alternative offered to Muslim worker at Disneyland Resort Hotel</b></a> <p>The <i>Orange County Register</i> offers a sketch of one of the alternative costumes offered to Muslim employee Imane Boudlal. She has recently attracted media attention by taking her fight to wear her own traditional head covering, the hijab onstage in her role at Storytellers Cafe.</p>
Originally Posted By believe I thought it looked good. But the one they had with the cowboy hat looked hokey. What is the Muslim rule for this head covering anyways? What's the purpose? Is it just to cover the head or what- does it have to look a certain way? Sorry for my ignorance of this part of the religion.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan It certainly seems like a reasonable solution. But I think the union sees this as too big of an opportunity to let it be settled in a simple, reasonable way. They want to ramp the situation up. I think it'll backfire from a PR standpoint, because it appears Disney has made an effort to provide a reasonable, in-theme alternative.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Interestingly, nearly all the opinion pieces I have seen on this have come down in favor of Disney. The company has a clearly defined appearance code, of which each new employee is aware at the time they are hired. It was only after she had been working at Storytellers for a while that this employee began insisting that her religious rights were being violated.
Originally Posted By Sparrow I think it's a blatant attempt by the woman for attention and money. I haven't weighed in on this too much because it's such a heavy topic but if you knew there was a dress code to begin with and you didn't bring the issue up when you were hired, what's the motive to do so now? Right.
Originally Posted By ecdc Hmmm.... I've defended this woman and her right to wear her hijab on the job. I still don't think just letting her wear the one she wanted was that big of a deal. That said...this seems like a pretty reasonable solution. If it's true that Disney has offered three different costume varieties and four different jobs that wouldn't impact her, then it's hard to argue that they haven't met the legal requirement of "reasonable accommodations." I still think much of the knee-jerk reaction of outrage at this woman was uncalled for, but at this point it seems like Disney is acting in good faith.
Originally Posted By ecdc Also, it may be that the sketch was just drawn up by Disney for PR purposes. But if they drew these sketches for the woman to review and they are making her a separate costume, they've also shown a willingness to incur additional expense just to accommodate her.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I still think much of the knee-jerk reaction of outrage at this woman was uncalled for..." I definitely agree with you on that.
Originally Posted By u k fan I agree with the above statement that what she wanted to wear wasn't that bad in the first place, but it does seem that Disney is trying to do their best in this situation!!!
Originally Posted By FerretAfros While I think that this is a pretty good solution to the problem, I'm a little worried that it sets a precedent for this sort of stuff. When they have to design every costume out there with every religion in mind, it starts to lose a lot of the theme. Obviously, she turned this down, so it's not much of a precedent, but if they did this for her, then they would need to accomodate others as well. That just opens the door for costume modifications to the point that it just becomes silly to even wear one. Yes, I realize that I'm taking the snowball thing a little far, but there with other legal precedents out there, Disney really has no need to be accomodating with thier long-standing dress code.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Obviously, she turned this down, so it's not much of a precedent, but if they did this for her, then they would need to accomodate others as well." Well of course they do. They really don't have much of a choice.
Originally Posted By spacejockey What happens if an actress refuses to wear her wardrobe in a film or tv?
Originally Posted By Yookeroo I'm back to Disney's side here. That was a reasonable alternative. "What happens if an actress refuses to wear her wardrobe in a film or tv?" Not an equivalent situation.
Originally Posted By Malcon10t Just to add, there is a CM (College Program) who also requested a hijab alternative, and she is on stage wearing the option given, and she is satisfied. Difference? She isn't with the union Unite HERE.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Why?" Because the actor's costume is required in order to accomplish their work. In theory a waitress doesn't have to dress in 1920's garb to do her job.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Why?" Because discrimination in mainstream Hollywood is an accepted practice. <a href="http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20206271,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0...,00.html</a> Discrimination should not also be accepted in the workplace. By saying that a waitress is a "cast member" on a "stage" you are basically opening the door to allow businesses to discriminate against anyone who isn't the stereotypical all-American white Christian person, justified by this arbitrary idea that he/she is playing a "role." These barriers must be broken down not just at Disneyland, but at all businesses.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt This emphasis on the All American White Christian thing is taking it too far Spokker. Disney hasn't forced that kind post WWII look at its parks in at least two decades.
