Originally Posted By pleiades357 I'm glad Disney is standing their ground on this issue. I hope they don't pay her to go away either. It will be an endless stream if the don't... bet they know that
Originally Posted By MickeyMommy Would she apply to be a waitress at Hooters, then demand a "modest" uniform? How about a Muslim busboy at a strip club? Would he insist that the performers cover themselves because he is not allowed to gaze at undressed women who are not his wife? How about a Mormon bartender demanding to serve only partons who order non-alcoholic drinks? There are many instances when religious beliefs clash with a specific job. It can't possibly fall on the employer to accomodate the many possible needs of every employee. What about the Devil Worshipers? Do they have the right to wear denomic symbols in the name of religious expression? I can see why some employers want to keep the same rules for everybody.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I agree MickeyMommy. Something tells me that she (the employee) is making this about religion, when in fact it's really about the right of the employer to establish and maintain standardized uniform appearance codes.
Originally Posted By danyoung I don't know that there's any ulterior motive on the young lady's part. She just wants to do what she wants, and can't understand why Disney won't let her. Sadly, she found some union people to champion her cause, and now it's all become a big deal with potential legal action in the future. I've pushed the corporate buttons before, too, wanting to wear something outside the dress code. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. But if her religious beliefs are that important to her, she just needs to take it down the road and work somewhere else (or work where Disney has offered to her).
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I don't know that there's any ulterior motive on the young lady's part." Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there is any ulterior motive. What I'm saying is that SHE is saying that Disney is being disrespectful to her and her religion while the company's actions seem to indicate that they it in fact trying to accommodate her within corporate costuming guidelines.
Originally Posted By Mickeysbestfan Maybe I missed this in the previous postings, but I find it interesting and more like a "set-up" that she was fine with the costume all this time. It wasn't until she completed her US citizenship that she suddenly had the desire to wear the hijab to work. It doesn't say she recently converted, it says she worked there for two and a half years and only now has it become an issue. From the link below: Boudlal has worked at Disneyland for two and a half years, but didn't try to wear the hijab to work until a week ago. She is an immigrant from Morocco and has been in the United States for five years. She became a U.S. citizen in June. After being granted her citizenship, Boudlal decided to challenge Disney's strict clothing rules. She says the U.S. Constitution grants everyone religious freedom and that right applies in this case. "The Constitution tells me I can be Muslim, and I can wear the head scarf," Boudlal said. "Who is Disney to tell me I cannot?" <a href="http://www.dailypilot.com/news/tn-dpt-0825-disney-20100824,0,1310520.story" target="_blank">http://www.dailypilot.com/news...20.story</a>
Originally Posted By danyoung To me this makes perfect sense. Before she was a citizen, I'm sure she just kept her mouth shut and did what she was told. Now that she's one of us, it's time to take the Constitution out for a test drive and see if she can get the system changed to work for her. Again, nothing really wrong with that, but I don't see her prevailing in this.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Something tells me that she (the employee) is making this about religion, when in fact it's really about the right of the employer to establish and maintain standardized uniform appearance codes. > If it gets as far as the courts, it will be about how the two intersect, and what is reasonable accommodation and what is not.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Now that she's one of us, it's time to take the Constitution out for a test drive and see if she can get the system changed to work for her." That has worked well for white males all these years. White males change the system = ingenuity. Brown or black female changes the system = scam. Whether you agree with her or not, I don't understand this idea of abusing the constitution. Whether you got here yesterday or have been here for 40 years, the constitution protects your rights. It's as if people like the idea of other people having rights, but they don't want them to exercise them.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost Rights do not extend to everything. One has a right to believe what they want, but they do not have the right to make everyone conform to it. One has a freedom of speech but you don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater just to exercise your F of S right. One has a right to live within a community but does not have the right to force the community to adjust to their specific personal needs. Along with the right to be here comes the responsibility of respecting the rights of others. In this case, who is really being disrespected, the person that cannot wear a piece of apparel that doesn't fit in with the requirements of Disney or the person that insists that their rights supersede the companies. She has the right to not work for any company that she sees as not able to accommodate her needs, but she does not have the right to demand that see be accommodated. It really is pretty simple.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "One has a freedom of speech but you don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater just to exercise your F of S right." What does that have to do with this issue? "One has a right to live within a community but does not have the right to force the community to adjust to their specific personal needs." What does that have to do with this issue? "but she does not have the right to demand that see be accommodated." Yes, she does. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C..._of_1964</a> The relevant section is Title VII. Any confusion will be cleared up by a judge if it comes to that. There have been wins and losses in this arena. There is definitely a question of law here.
Originally Posted By MickeyMommy I still find it hard to believe anyone thinks she is being discriminated against. No one is stopping her from practicing her religion, no one is keeping her from her job because of her religion. It is a dress code issue. A rule that was clearly spelled out when she applied for the job. The race and religion angel keeps coming up here and I am having a hard time following why. Has Disney done anything that would lead a person to think that they discriminate against people of the Muslim faith?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "It's as if people like the idea of other people having rights, but they don't want them to exercise them." Jeez... no one is saying that. What is being discussed, as Dabob said, is where does her right to religious freedom intersect with the right of the employer to dictate a reasonable dress code.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "The race and religion angel keeps coming up here and I am having a hard time following why." Me too.
Originally Posted By CuriouserConstance When you have a job, you must conform to the dress code or else you can find employment elsewhere. I like to wear sandals, but I can't at my job, so I can either find other shoes or get a new job. It's up to me. My job isn't discriminating against me, just because I happen to want to wear sandals. If her faith and wearing that was so important to her, she shouldn't have agreed to the job where the dress code doesn't allow it.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The race and religion angel keeps coming up here and I am having a hard time following why.<< Because, as has already been explained, it's always easy for the majority to say, "Gee, what's the big deal. She ought to just go get a different job. Them's the breaks." Like it or not, this is driven by cultural expectations of what "normal" theming should look like. For good or ill, our Civil Rights law states that employers have to make "reasonable" accommodations for employees' religious beliefs. If you don't like that then your beef is with Title VII. Of course, the entire thing could have been avoided if Disney just let her wear the hijab she wants, which almost certainly would have caused zero impact to the park, guest experience, and yes, theming. Disney's going to have a very tough case to prove that letting her wear one does harm to their business, which is basically the requirement for denying her request.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>>"One has a freedom of speech but you don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater just to exercise your F of S right." What does that have to do with this issue?<<<< Absolutely nothing when taken out of context like this. My point was and still is that the word "rights" is way overused. To many the word rights means that you can be self evolved, uncaring about the desires and needs of others and insisting that everyone folds to your needs. Unfortunately, that means that rights only extend to ourselves and no one else. I have a right, I have a right, I have a right...not without responsibility you don't. Compromise and concern for the needs of others give you "rights" not just rubber stamped, what ever I want, I have a right too. Does this lady have a right to wear the scarf, I suppose an argument can be persuasively made? Does Disney have a right to run their business and subsequently their show the way they need to make it what was envisioned? I think so...don't you? Where does one right stop and the other begin. One persons rights only exist if they do not eliminate others reasonable and logical rights.
Originally Posted By ecdc Post 197, I really do agree with what you've said, by and large. Words like "rights," "censorship," etc., get thrown around way too often by those who have no idea what they mean or how they work within the law. If this woman showed up with a t-shirt with a picture of the twin towers burning and the words "Death to America," and claimed free speech, she'd have no case. Disney is a private company, no one has argued otherwise. The law requires businesses to make accommodations unless it causes "undue hardship," (that's the phrase, IIRC) to the business. So how can Disney make the case that this causes undue hardship? I think they've got a tough time doing that.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>>The law requires businesses to make accommodations unless it causes "undue hardship," (that's the phrase, IIRC) to the business. So how can Disney make the case that this causes undue hardship? I think they've got a tough time doing that.<<<< And there, you see, is where I think that they have it locked up. Anyone that knows Disney's Mission of theme and show knows that appearance is everything in that business. I'm sure they have no problem with this ladies religion but her religion is not part of the show in any stretch of the imagination. Religion is a personal and private "right" in this country. It is almost unconstitutional for the public to have to make any consolation for someone else's belief. The law of the land as well as the moral law of life in general states that we should not hate others for their beliefs nor should they be discriminated against because of it. This is neither a denial of that right nor a discrimination. In order for it to be a discrimination others would have to have been allowed to bend the dress (show) code in some religious display that isn't part of a show. That hasn't happened. No case!
