Originally Posted By ecdc >>The statement that "legal has looked at this" is profoundly arrogant.<< No, it's just accurate. It doesn't mean they're right, but it's incorrect to assume that any company that denies an employee Sundays off is unaware of Title VII, or the cases involved, etc. Perhaps they are taking a gamble that they won't get sued and lose, but it doesn't mean they aren't aware of the implications. The issue of "reasonable accommodations" can be broadly interpreted, as can harm to the company. Which of course will be the issues the court will hear in this case. All I was pointing out was the issue of Sundays off is not as clear-cut as you'd like it to be. I agree 100% that plenty of big companies use poor judgment or think they can get away with ridiculous things. Those same companies are also extremely lawsuit-phobic and in other areas will act with absurd caution or cater to employees or customers in ludicrous ways, all to avoid a potential lawsuit.
Originally Posted By TMICHAEL >>>California is an At Will state to work in. You don't have a right to work at Disney.<<< So True! And according to all reports, Disney acted in good faith since being put on notice of possible discrimination. The fact that Disney offered the woman another position, that was not a demotion and at the same rate of pay, this will be Disney's win. The fact that, although not legally required to, Disney offered a hijab in costumed material and the woman decided it was taking too long and walked off the job, it will be Disney's win. Don't Know why Spokker keeps trying to put the "white look" in there, it has nothing to do with color, race or religion. A white (black, brown, tan, yellow) person can be muslim. This is purely a violation of grooming and costume standards that this employee previously acknowledged and agreed to abide by. And quite seriously, I can see this being the entire reason for her employment with Disney. To work on a frontline position and after a term decided by her "supporters", take Disney to court for public scrutiny/humiliation and cash settlement. I find it very odd that over the past 55 years, no other lawsuit of this type has come to fruition or made it to the media or the court system. Conspiracy theory? sure. Possible? oh yes.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "We have this white, Christian, middle-class sense of what is normal - of how people ought to look and behave." I totally disagree that this is a "white Christian" thing. Why does this keep getting thrown into the discussion. To me the guidelines are neutral and universal. It's kind of like an corporate directive: one would expect to see the exact same dress standard at any park worldwide with the name "Disney" attached to it.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "Don't Know why Spokker keeps trying to put the "white look" in there" Because if Christians wore turbans and grew long beards, the Disney Look would have reflected that from day one. This guy is ready to work for Disney: <a href="http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/CLT/CLT003/1950s-1960s-laughing_~f6771.jpg" target="_blank">http://comps.fotosearch.com/co...6771.jpg</a> So are these guys: <a href="http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafbadminton/gallery/1950s.cfm?viewmedia=3" target="_blank">http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafbadmi...wmedia=3</a> Only four mustaches in the bunch. Everybody is clean shaven. If everybody in America looked like this... <a href="http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/11_01/bushraES_468x562.jpg" target="_blank">http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/p...x562.jpg</a> ...it might be a Christian minority fighting to NOT wear a headscarf at work, and I would join them in that fight. It might be that there is a big problem with this issue because we are currently going through ignorance like this: <a href="http://www.exposebarackobama.com/image/muslim.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.exposebarackobama.c...slim.jpg</a> If religious freedom is what a country values, then they should be held to that.
Originally Posted By Moondoggie Hopemax, If a Christian brought suit against Disney for not allowing them to wear a cross, I doubt very seriously any of the "atheists" on this board would defend them nearly as much as they're defending the woman at the center of this issue. Oh, they would say they would (otherwise one quickly becomes a hypocrite), but I'd be interested to see just how much they would go to bat for the person. Fighting for "human rights" only goes so far for some people. And when a Christian walks in the room, you'll see how quickly so many won't defend them. As far as the term "cast member" being minimized to nothing more than Disney "corporate speak" is concerned, and CMs being no more CMs than those who work at McDonalds (or whatever it was that said)...what? Employees at Disneyland are called CMs because that's what Disney calls them, regardless of how some might feel about it. I do find it interesting that anyone who spends so much time posting thousands of posts on a DISNEY board would minimize such a thing. Disney decided a very long time ago to call its employees cast members. Seen as playing a role, and doing so on, or off, stage. They had a right to do that as something unique to a theme park. Why bring McDonalds into it? Apples and oranges.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Interestingly enough, there have been changes to the Disney dress code. <a href="http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/jun/16/freer-fashion/" target="_blank">http://www.commercialappeal.co...fashion/</a> When it happens attention is paid to Disney's rigidness. This article implies that Mickey Mouse is a pimp and he's easing up on his women. There was a utilitarian justification to remove the pantyhose requirement, but it also allows women a choice about whether or not to wear a traditionally female garment. Times change. Cast members are also allowed to wear cornrows (most associated with African Americans). The Disney Look is not concrete and it is not eternal. It will change many more times in our lifetimes as we realize that "all-American" isn't what we think it is.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "If a Christian brought suit against Disney for not allowing them to wear a cross, I doubt very seriously any of the "atheists" on this board would defend them nearly as much as they're defending the woman at the center of this issue." Correct. Cast members are already able to wear crosses underneath their costumes. Wearing a cross above your clothing is not common in the real world. As a kid, I wore mine underneath my shirt, never over.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones The point is that the Disney Look already accommodated Christians for the most part. If you are that hardcore about your belief you don't have to work Sunday mornings, but that is becoming less and less common as time goes on. California happens to be one of the least church-going states in the nation, with 32% (rank: 41st) of Californians attending church according to a 2006 Gallup poll. The unofficial word is that Disney also loves to hire Mormons because their style of dress fits the Disney Look so perfectly and they are upbeat. When BYU students participate in the Disney College Program, they do not work on Sundays. Utah happens to be one of the most church-going states in the nation, at 55% (rank: 5th). Other polls put total church attendance in the United States at 21%. The reason? People lie. I think the same thing will happen to Muslims. Each successive generation of American Muslims are likely to be less observant. You already see it happening in many religious and ethnic groups. From my experience, my grandparents were hardcore Catholics, my parents less so and myself not at all. It may be that many Americans see such a passion for religion as just plain weird. But for now I think we're going to have to deal with hijabs.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***If a Christian brought suit against Disney for not allowing them to wear a cross, I doubt very seriously any of the "atheists" on this board would defend them nearly as much as they're defending the woman at the center of this issue*** Ridiculous. I find the Islamic religion to be every bit as silly (at best) and destructive (at worst) as Christianity. And I would speak out for ANYONE'S civil rights. What balderdash!
Originally Posted By Mr X ***As far as the term "cast member" being minimized to nothing more than Disney "corporate speak" is concerned, and CMs being no more CMs than those who work at McDonalds (or whatever it was that said)...what? Employees at Disneyland are called CMs because that's what Disney calls them, regardless of how some might feel about it*** Exactly. That's what Disney calls them, it means nothing beyond that. ***I do find it interesting that anyone who spends so much time posting thousands of posts on a DISNEY board would minimize such a thing*** I neither minimize nor maximize those jobs, they are what they are...low wage entry level service positions. ***Disney decided a very long time ago to call its employees cast members. Seen as playing a role, and doing so on, or off, stage. They had a right to do that as something unique to a theme park*** In other words, they found a way other than money or benefits to motivate their employees to work harder because they feel special. Kinda like teachers. ***Why bring McDonalds into it? Apples and oranges*** Nope, it really is apples and apples. Think about any of the quick service establishments in Disneyland and tell me one single requirement that is different from a McDonalds position. Is the pay any different? The odd hours? The wearing of an employee uniform? The crappy working conditions? Same same bro.
Originally Posted By Moondoggie >>Correct. Cast members are already able to wear crosses underneath their costumes. Wearing a cross above your clothing is not common in the real world. As a kid, I wore mine underneath my shirt, never over.<< Okay, then for the sake of argument. A Christian CM wears his cross outside of his costume so as to emphasize his beliefs for all to see, and he is asked to put it away. He files suit. How many atheists would defend? Again, many will pretend like they would, because they have to in order make it seem like they are for equal rights for all. But most of the atheists I've met, seen and heard speak have such animus for Christians I still find it hard to believe many would.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo >>>but when one digs deeper then it's not so funny/ironic but fairly predictable since a great many anti-faithers bend left. And the left side tends to favor protection for Islam followers in the US.<<< Actually, maybe agnostics and athiests believe in the American ethos that everyone is created equal and would like to let freedom ring. An objective approach of live and let live unburdened by the teachings on one faith that someone happens to be born into.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Okay, then for the sake of argument. A Christian CM wears his cross outside of his costume so as to emphasize his beliefs for all to see, and he is asked to put it away. He files suit. How many atheists would defend?*** This is a completely false argument. There is nothing in any Christian denomination that I'm aware of that REQUIRES or MANDATES such a thing. Therefore you are making up a false premise and attacking atheists with it. Sorry, Charlie. Not gonna fly. Generally speaking, there are NO garment-specific requirements (or even strong suggestions) in any Christian sects outside of perhaps the Priesthood or other religious occupation. Strict Judaism and strict Islamic requirements are just that...requirements. The only remotely similar thing in Christianity would be the Mormons and their underpants. Now, if Disney were to require for Mormons to remove their sacred underpants and replace them with company issued underpants, I would bet a whole lot of money that we'd see a far more pitched level of complaint from many quarters (including some other Christian sects that consider Mormons their allies for one reason or another). Aside from THAT, your argument doesn't hold water. But nice try.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>>Because if Christians wore turbans and grew long beards, the Disney Look would have reflected that from day one.<<< I think Disney has proven that to be untrue with yet another previously enforced dress code. For a long time, Disney didn't allow any male CM to sport any facial hair because it didn't fit with the Disney image. I can think of a person that was pretty directly connected with Disney that had a mustache basically all his adult life. Can anyone guess who that was? I'm sure you can, and yet they were considered to symbolize something less then stellar when it came to appearance and show. No, the guidelines were set to maintain a show and a story and a theme. The utilidors were built because someone remembered that Walt used to get upset if a character from Frontierland was spotted in Tomorrowland. It's the show folks. It's what separated Disney from the herd. Everyone has personal rights but not when you agree to take money to follow other guidelines that don't necessarily become compatible with your own. Your option, as is everyone's, is to remove yourself from that conflict. Why? Because these are your beliefs not everyone else's. I feel that if Disney allows one individual to express themselves personally while on stage then the floodgates open and everyone with a gerbil as a religious symbol will be carrying one around the parks. Then no more show, no more magic. No more separation of reality from fantasy.
Originally Posted By frailejon I'm actually a little surprised this issue hasn't come up before, to be honest. To be honest, I see enough women walking around in hijabs these days that I don't think it would even register that a Cast Member was wearing one unless it was an outrageous color or glowed in the dark or something like that. I agree with Spokker that Disney- like the rest of the US and the world- needs to understand that times change and the WASP world ideal of the 1950s needs to expand.
Originally Posted By MisterTophat The employee is likely going to lose this battle with Disney. Even disregarding the sad truth that these sorts of cases are swayed most by the war of financial/legal attrition (in which Disney is clearly holding the higher ground); from what I've read, the employee was offered alternative work within the company, in an offstage environment, where her current head scarf would be permitted, at equal pay and benefits. The only argument I've seen against this is that the employee feels entitled to guest interaction during her employment with Disney. I've never seen any sort of law granting the right on any grounds that an employee be positioned to work with customers (guests) directly at their request or preference. Except in the case of grave danger to myself or others, if I were to tell my employer where to position me and who I'll be servicing, I'd be laughed out the door. The only possible victory for the opposition to Disney lies not with this employee, but in the unions and the religious groups supporting this employee's case, with PR damage to Disney that -may- benefit their causes. The employee herself has walked from the job, and her chances of seeing it returned to her are slim. The only injustice to her that I see is that these groups are milking her naivety for their own political gain. I hope they take good care of her if things don't go the way she expects; But somehow I doubt their sympathies won't expand that far. Time will tell, though.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Because if Christians wore turbans and grew long beards, the Disney Look would have reflected that from day one.<< Hmmm... it seems to me that the Disney look was influenced more by the "all American" well scrubbed, clean cut look that was never really embraced in the US except perhaps in TV shows such as Leave it to Beaver. As for this "look" being Christian, I would say that it was the stereotype of American culture when DL opened. In the 19th and early 20th century periods beards were quite common. I'm wouldn't be surprised if the preacher at the church Walt attended as a child wore a beard. That said, I don't see why the Disney look couldn't change. Then again a big part of Disney's "value proposition" to its customers is nostalgia.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<There is nothing in any Christian denomination that I'm aware of that REQUIRES or MANDATES such a thing.>> Someone did bring up Ash Wednesday ashes and that they are not allowed by Disney. Granted, this is a once a year event, but it is an example
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I have to admit, as a kid the cowboys at Knott's were always more always more believeable than Disney's because they had beards. Lol
