Originally Posted By frailejon >>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<< And I'm guessing - in more of the WASPy way of theme park- all of them were white?
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo At Knotts there were Latino and African American cowboys, don't remember that so much at DL.
Originally Posted By ecdc The white Anglo-Saxon angle keeps getting brought up because it's what this is about. It's not to say that Disney is being racist or is deliberately hostile to Muslims; I don't think they are at all. The majority determines what is "normal" in any culture. White Protestants were that majority for the post-WWII era in American history and their "look" was seen as the "correct" or "normal" look. Take for example the term "clean-cut." Don't we usually see this as a positive term, indicating that a male is clean-shaven, short haircut, fresh looking? Other cultures would see that as strange and most abnormal. Where the line is drawn in Disney's rights vs. the employees rights is up in the air, hence the lawsuit.
Originally Posted By danyoung Does Disney have the right to hire white people only and not blacks or Mexicans or middle-easterners? Nope. Do they have the right to say that they're only going to hire from the western religions and no one else? Nope. But do they have the right to control the appearance of the employees that they hire? Within reason, yes, especially when that standard is clearly stated before employment is accepted. For this young lady to work for 2 years without her hajib and then to suddenly have a spiritual awakening and need to wear it - well, it may be admirable on her part, but it is not suddenly Disney's problem. If, on the other hand, Disney is desperately searching for new employees, and realizes that there's a huge work force of hajib wearing women out there, and that hiring them would not injure their image, then they have the right to change their dress code to accommodate them. This is what they did when they saw a great workforce of Latin men who were excluded only because they had mustaches. The dress code was changed to allow the mustache as long as it was neat. It didn't hurt Disney's image a bit, but then there weren't the religious and cultural overtones that a hajib carry.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "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." Yep, and that same person drank on occasion too, yet to this day alcohol is not available for sale inside DL.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Well it is at Club 33, and many other Disney parks. I am very much looking forward to an apparatif and a bottle of wine with my meals in Frontierland and on Main Street this weekend. Times do change.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < But do they have the right to control the appearance of the employees that they hire? Within reason, yes,> Well, that's the rub, isn't it? What's "within reason?" I think many people are reading this the way they'd like to see it, rather than reading the law. Which, once again, specifically addresses dress codes and says "Dress codes may not infringe on religious beliefs." Disney's ace here is their attempt to accommodate their employee, so that will probably prevent any sort of punitive damage. But by offering to make her a scarf that fit with the costume, they also essentially admitted that a scarf would not tarnish their image in any way.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Well it is at Club 33..." The vast majority of folks don't have access to that private club and don't even know that it's there. "...and many other Disney parks." All built after his passing.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Disney's ace here is their attempt to accommodate their employee, so that will probably prevent any sort of punitive damage. But by offering to make her a scarf that fit with the costume, they also essentially admitted that a scarf would not tarnish their image in any way.<< Most well said. The issue here isn't whether an employee can wear the hijab (she legally can; no company can prohibit it). The issue is whether offering to let her work in the back is a "reasonable accommodation."
Originally Posted By utahjosh I just caught up with this thread and find it very interesting. At the same time the OC Register ran this story. Seems the costuming department finally came up with something, but it was rejected by the employee. <a href="http://ocresort.ocregister.com/2010/08/23/muslim-employee-rejects-disneys-hat-alternative/53795/" target="_blank">http://ocresort.ocregister.com...e/53795/</a>
Originally Posted By utahjosh I'm of the opinion that Disney is an entertainment company with costuming (yes, even for servers and hosts) and has a right to expect employees to wear their costumes. It's wonderful that the company custom-made a costume to help this young woman cover her hair and neck so she could practice her religion. Now she doesn't like it. Calls it a joke. How is it mockery? It was a company custom-making a costume to try and help her out. Then she says "it draws even more attention to me." Seems to me like Disney's goal is to have her blend in just like everyone else - part of the show, part of the story. Maybe the costume isn't perfect, but it's a good try by Disney.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Thanks Josh for the update. >>The union released a photo of Boudlal in the alternative costume; Boudlal asked that her face be blurred out because she’s embarrassed by it, said Leigh Shelton, a union spokeswoman. “The hat makes a joke of me and my religion, and draws even more attention to me,” Boudlal said in a prepared statement. “It’s unacceptable.”<< Does it really make a joke of her religion? Of course the hat is ridiculous, which to me doesn't appear to be any more absurd than most costume accessories at DLR. What if they made the hat a mandatory part of all the costumes in the restaurant? Then what? Perhaps I'm too insensitive to this woman's plight, but I'm inclined to think that this conflict is not all that it appears to be. The way the story is unfolding it seems as though she and the union representatives aren't really interested in working with Disney on a suitable compromise but trying to win sympathy by painting the company as anti-Islamic.
Originally Posted By Roger55 Looking at the picture, I do think it looks rediculous, but mostly because it is being worn over the hijab. Was Disney's intent to have the hat replace the hijab? Without the hijab it might just look alright. The high neck collar does the job of covering most of the neck area. The hat without the hijab would leave some of her head exposed. Anyone know what the prescribed rules are for properly covering one's head? It appears Disney has made an effort here. Without knowing the rules and guidlines for proper head covering, I can not judge if their attempt was earnest or mearly a hand wave effort. I would hope Disney did consult with some knowledgalble person to formulate a solution. If so, then the rejection by the young lady is personal preference and may leave her with less of a case. If Disney did not consult a knowledgable person, now would be the time for this young lady and the union representing her to start working with Disney for an acceptable solution insted.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Looking at the picture, I do think it looks rediculous, but mostly because it is being worn over the hijab." According the article there were several different head covering concepts/options presented, along with specially made high collar blouses, and all of the head pieces were turned down by the employee.
Originally Posted By Roger55 Just another observation. This CM appears to be of Asian ethnicity. There are several Asian countries such as Indonesia and Malyasia with majority Muslim populations. Indonesia is in fact the LARGEST Islamic state in the world. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_majority_countries" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...ountries</a> Would not surprise me if this young ladies ethnic roots are from somewhere in Asia. I bring this up because many of the comments on the OC Register site just assume she is from the Middle East. They also assume she is not American which may also be an incorrect assumption. An intelligent discussion regarding religious rights versus employer rights can be very interesting and is worth having. When ignorance and hate come in, that is when the discussion ends up in the gutter.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt I noticed that too Roger55. Of course, my own prejudices tell me that regular readers of the OC Register probably aren't the brightest kids in the schoolyard.
Originally Posted By Roger55 >>According the article there were several different head covering concepts/options presented, along with specially made high collar blouses, and all of the head pieces were turned down by the employee.<< It would appear that she is not willing to try to work with Disney on any sort of compromise. Very disappointing. I still wonder how much of this is based to her own personal chosings, or if she is being influenced by her union and the Council of American-Islamic Relations who are backing her.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///There is nothing in any Christian denomination that I'm aware of that REQUIRES or MANDATES such a thing(like cross displaying)./// Your response looks somewhere between a little off base and non sequitur to the issue at hand----- I'm leaning towards 'non sequitur'. The prevailing issue here is not about mandatory vs optional garb/gear/symbols......it's more of an equal protection and civil rights thing. Whether a specific faith requires or does not require head gear, body art or symbols is completely irrelevant. GENERALLY the law, as well as common fairness, says that both mandatory faith garb(like a head towel) as well as optional faith trappings(like a Christain cross necklace) are protected forms of expressing religion.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I'm going to climb out on a limb and say that I seriously doubt that that particular hat is what Disney offered up as an alternative. It doesn't match anything currently in Storytellers or the Grand at all. I think, like Hans said, there's more going on here than meets the eye. In fact (he said, climbing even further out on the limb) I don't believe that hat is what was offered to her at all. How would she have gotten hold of it if she wasn't reporting to work? I think it's bunk and the paper just ran with it.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///Why only Islam. Seems to me left wingers tend to favor broad civil rights for ALL./// Outside of the ACLU and its followers(like me) I don't see too many self proclaimed liberals cry foul if and when a right wing reborn Christian or Mormon is denied equal protection be it from a municipality or a private sector.
