Originally Posted By fkurucz It seems to me that they made a reasonable attempt to accomodate her. She doesn't like wearing a hat over her hijab? Then she should accept the offstage position they offered her. She want's to have her cake and eat it too.
Originally Posted By Roger55 >>She doesn't like wearing a hat over her hijab?<< I'm not sure it was designed to wear over her hijab. My guess is it was designed to cover as much of the top part of her head as possible with the high neck blouse covering her neck area. Without knowing the guidlines for Muslim head coverings, it is not possible to judge whether this was an acceptable offering by Disney or if it was rejected on personal preferences. Regarding the photo, my opinion that it was taken with the hat on top of the hijab to make it look worse that it really is. When I saw the photo I had flashbacks to the videos of OJ "trying on" the glove. He did his best to make it look as bad a fit as possible.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <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. > Well, I'm an ACLU guy too, but this seems an awfully broad brush. Any specific examples, from either legit news sources or posts from people here?
Originally Posted By FaMulan Honestly, if I were on the jury for that trial I would see: Two years of exemplary employment and full knowledge of Cast Member Costume Requirements followed by a period of spiritual awakening calling for insubordination in regards to dress rules on the part of the employee. A corporation offering work at the same pay and benefits to said employee, and attempting to work with said employee to come to a solution, every one of which is rejected. Who is operating in good faith? The Corporation. Who is remaining obstinate? The employee. Finding for the Corporation as they made a more than reasonable effort to accommodate the employee and allow her to continue her employment. I spoke earlier of anti-Muslim sentiment and the fact that the employee should not be given special dispensation to wear a possibly distracting and, yes, angering piece of clothing. I said so as much for her protection as for the corporations right to preserve their image. What if, one evening at her post in her hijab she is accosted and at least verbally abused by some angry, bigoted moron? What if she were attacked on the job because of what she wore? People have been attacked for less, so by conforming to Disney's strict dress code, she is protecting herself and the corporation.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I honestly don't know why they can't get a couple yards of the fabric they use for the uniform shirts, cut that into a few hajibs and be done with it. I can't imagine why that would be unacceptable for all involved. While this is a legitimate issue, I am not sure if the employee and the union are acting in good faith on this.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Absolutely 2oony. The issue is in both sides. Yes, she is being obstinate. But on the flipside, Disney only offered her back stage work (hiding her away sort of speak) and that too is wrong given the simple answer you showed in producing a matching Hajib. There should be no fear of repurcussions here. That is rediculous. It is like saying some bigot may get angered by someone of a different coloured skin, or a gay person (there's no one gay at Disney of course ;-). It is bonkers. Also, Hijabs are not the only faith where covering one's head is not allowed. Are we saying that Disney should not allow - Muslims (men are supposed to wear hats too),Jews, Siekhs (never seen a cast member with a Turban), Christian Orthodox people in. All of them cover their heads if they are devout to their faith. I think it would be great to see more diversity in DL, but with thoughtfully designed costumes that compensate.
Originally Posted By andyll She has no chance of winning. Hijabs are not required except under the strictist interpertation of the Qur'an and if she is following the strictist interpertation of the Qur'an then she shouldn't be working in public anyway. It's a little funny how many here are making this a muslim/Disney issue when it sounds like Disney has been fairly consistent of not allowing any modifications to their costumes for any reason.
Originally Posted By frailejon >>What if, one evening at her post in her hijab she is accosted and at least verbally abused by some angry, bigoted moron? What if she were attacked on the job because of what she wore? People have been attacked for less, so by conforming to Disney's strict dress code, she is protecting herself and the corporation.<< One of the best ways to get people used to things like hijabs is to, you know, *see* them. On ordinary people you talk to and interact with. Would you council a Jew on not wearing a yarmulke because some anti-Semite might harass him? Or a woman not to wear a slightly revealing dress because she might get catcalls and come-ons? If generic-you go to Disney- or anywhere- and get angry at the sight of a hijab, maybe you shouldn't go anywhere and should learn some tolerance.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones It looks like she is walking right into a trap. Disney can say that they offered different types of "alternatives" and claim she rejected them, even though every alternative is utterly pathetic. I thought they were going to design a nice little white headscarf, not come up with the bright idea to put a hat over it. She needs to cease all communication with Disney and gear up for her lawsuit. The biggest thing at stake here for Disney is precedent. If her attorneys do make a good case, Disney will end up settling to avoid a precedent being set. I hope she does not settle. The precedent that headscarfs are to be accommodating at Disneyland needs to be set in a court of law. Disney's handling of this is completely bonkers but it'll play well amidst the incredible anti-Muslim sentiment in this nation.
Originally Posted By MisterTophat I was under the impression the purpose of the hijab was to demonstrate modesty by covering the neck and hair, as encouraged by the Muslim religion. Please, someone quote the Quran where it says the women need to be -fashionably- modest. Wearing silly costumes is a part of working at a Disney park, regardless of what religious background you hold.
Originally Posted By frailejon surah 24:30-31, asking women to draw their khimar over their bosoms.[5][6] And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their khimar over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to [...] (Qur'an 24:31) What a lot of people don't pay attention to is that the Qur'an actually says both men and women should dress modestly. What "dressing modestly" means is open to interpretation. For some this means hijab or the burqa. For others it simply means modestly for whatever culture they are in. So here in the US, for example, if they are a business woman a good, professional suit will work.
Originally Posted By MisterTophat I appreciate the quote, but I'm not sure it addresses the point I was making. The employee claimed the high collar and the brown hat on Disney's concession costume made a mockery of her religious beliefs. While I agree the overall look is rather silly, I don't see any conflict with the text you presented. Is she not still keeping her beauty and ornaments from display? And looking at the OC Register article, she is going to have a difficult time complying with 'not displaying her beauty.' She looks lovely.
Originally Posted By frailejon >>The employee claimed the high collar and the brown hat on Disney's concession costume made a mockery of her religious beliefs.<< I am not she nor any sort of religious expert, but my guess is that she feels that they aren't proper garments. That's it's kind of like throwing a bathrobe at a priest and saying "it goes to the ground and it's got some black around the cuffs; it'll work just fine".
Originally Posted By ChurroMonster barboy2: "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." I can't think of one instance when these religious folks were denied "equal protection." Can you?
Originally Posted By hbquikcomjamesl > I can't think of one instance when these > religious folks were denied "equal > protection." Can you? Depends on how you define "equal protection." Some would evidently define "equal protection" as the right to proselytize their own narrow denomination (which they probably consider to be the entirety of "legitimate" Christianity, just as members of the Taliban evidently consider themselves to be the only "real" Muslims) to a captive audience at Government expense. Those individuals probably don't consider me to be a "real" Christian, even though I was baptized and raised a United Methodist, and as a self-described pan-denominational, I bounce around among churches in a number of denominations. And I think the post from "frailejon," suggesting that what Wardrobe came up with was like substituting a bathrobe for an alb or a cassock is spot-on. It also seems to me that if that was the best they could come up with, then there is somebody in Wardrobe who has a problem with openly Muslim CMs, and hopes that if the proffered solution is a sufficiently insensitive one, the Muslim CMs in question will solve the problem by either assimilating completely or leaving.
Originally Posted By moviela This is nothing more than a smokescreen to wedge a religion into the workplace. Next they will want every woman to wear the beekeepper suits so they "feel" comfortable. In the park, onstage you are a costumed performer. If you cannot wear the costume as directed, seek other work. Disney has bent over backward until their nose touched the ground behind them to help this woman, but she is forcing another agenda, one that dictates all should bow to the whims of her interpretation of liturgy for her faith. I work in the Middle East and hire local people to assist in shooting. Every now and then some guy shows up in a dress and turban. I ask him if he wants to work on the picture or attend a fashion show? So far everyone has changed to proper attire.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Why should it matter what one is wearing when shooting a movie it they aren't in front of the camera?
Originally Posted By MisterTophat >>but my guess is that she feels that they aren't proper garments.<< It's an interesting point. One I think mirrored exactly coming from the position of her lead toward her. I understand she feels a sense of entitlement to wear her hijab due to her religious beliefs, but I've yet to see the specific religious text against wearing more in addition to the hijab, like a brown hat, for example. It could be argued the hat does -more- to follow the religious doctrine behind the hijab, based on the scripture frailejon provided earlier in this page.
