Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 Oh and yes, I have refused to mention the case recently here in Perth involving the Muslim woman who has been ordered to remove her burqa(and yes, we ALL know here that the full body covering thing is not called that but that IS what we call it because it's just easier)when ordered to testify in court. The judge presiding decided that since spoken testimony is only part of what constitutes communication(along with body language, facial expression and general demeanor), that the jurors would not be receiving the full affect of the woman's testimony by only having her eyes showing. A LOT of people were VERY happy about this decision.
Originally Posted By Moon Waffle There are lots of different religions that wear certain pieces of clothing as a way of showing their commitment to God. I happen to belong to such a religion. If these people want to consider a job that requires them to wear a costume, they have a decision to make. I know that there are certain places that, if I worked there, would require me to not wear my religious clothing. So I choose not to work there. A private business has the right to make such requirements of its employees. I can find work in other places rather than trying to wedge my religious beliefs into the work culuture and atmosphere the company has chosen to adopt.
Originally Posted By mickeymorris1234 Yes I'm Disney Board Lawyer, Here's my card - *hands him a mickey mouse hat* Based on what has been posted as the law, Disney (to me) has followed the laws.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Based on what has been posted as the law, Disney (to me) has followed the laws." Maybe. But ll we've seen is one pretty ridiculous attempt at compromise. Until we see all the alternatives Disney has offered, we can't really say if they've followed the law. And taking 2 months to come up with a matching scarf (while hers seems to match well enough) seems pretty unreasonable.
Originally Posted By Malcon10t Actually, there was more than one option provided, and she turned them down, whereas a College Program CM accepted the offer and is wearing one of the options. The version I have seen actually looks very nice.
Originally Posted By avatarmickey115 @Yookeroo--You do understand that she signed a contract that stated the rules of the wardrobe, right? Then why do you even WANT Disney to come up with other options for her. THIS IS HER DECISION! She knew she wasn't aloud to wear this when she signed up, so why is it any different now?
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 "THIS IS HER DECISION! She knew she wasn't aloud to wear this when she signed up" Actually, I think her being "aloud" has been a big part of the problem! ; )
Originally Posted By Malcon10t Actually, the go over "The Look" when you put in the application, again when you are interviewed, they ask if you are willing to abide by the rules, and if you get hired, you sign the contract with all the rules regarding maintaining the look. Yes, she signed all of these 2.5 years ago.
Originally Posted By spacejockey How about just placing here in Adventureland? Disney could save money on wardrobe.
Originally Posted By Bob Paris 1 Or just transfer her to Orlando and she could work in Morocco! Or, since the Company seems obsessed with opening resort after resort in Third World countries, they could just annouce Disneyland Iraq and then everybody's happy!
Originally Posted By Roger55 >>Or, since the Company seems obsessed with opening resort after resort in Third World countries<< Third world? Which countries do you mean? You couldn't mean USA, Japan, China or France? Either a bad joke or a very ignorant and disrespectful comment. The Aladdin, Morocco and other and other ethnic slurs poping up in this thread indicate this topic is now headed for the toilet. So much for intelligent and thought provoiking discussions.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "The Aladdin, Morocco and other and other ethnic slurs poping up in this thread indicate this topic is now headed for the toilet." I agree.
Originally Posted By avatarmickey115 Well where else would you send an employee that refuses to obey Disney's dress code? Use her religious garments to their advantage, making the resort more realistic...Transferring her to a land in the park with a theme that closely resembles where she is from sounds like a good idea to me. Instead of firing her, move her! It's all just good fun, although the comment below my previous one went too far...
Originally Posted By mickeymorris1234 If you are to think about it logically to find a place where she can still practice her religion with-out standing out, it would be Adventureland, but the way the comments were presented... they were presented in bad taste. However she has been removed from the schedule so she isn't going the the parks anytime soon. Also I don't know if it is law, but where I work, if you are off the schedual for 90 days you are automatically separated (aka: let go). Wonder if Disney has a similar policy and may release her from her contract that way instead of going through the whole legal process.
Originally Posted By spacejockey Disney has the right to terminate her because she is not complying with dress code.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Well where else would you send an employee that refuses to obey Disney's dress code?" To a "backstage" position where what you wear has nothing to do with the role you play or the tasks you perform. She seems to want to were HER head dress rather than something supplied by Disney, therefore I would assume that even in Adventureland she'd take issue with the costume since it would still be issued by her employer.
Originally Posted By hbquikcomjamesl Allow me to restate what seems painfully obvious to me: She is definitely, by virtue of working at a Disney facility (even though it's a hotel, not a theme park), a cast member in a show. BUT: 1. She is NOT a "principal." She's a supernumary. An extra. She is a waitress, cast in the role of . . . a waitress. If she were cast in the role of Snow White, Cinderella, Aurora, Alice, Ariel, or Belle, Disney would be well within its rights to not only prohibit her from taking even the slightest liberties with costuming and makeup, but also to expect her to at least appear to be of western-European ancestry. Likewise, if she were cast in the role of Pocahontas, Disney would have every right to expect her to be of Amerindian (preferably Powhatan) ancestry, and if Mulan, of Asian (preferably Chinese) ancestry. And if Tiana, African-American. Because the roles call for very specific appearance. In the case of Alice, I'd say the CM ought to have a convincing British accent, too, and if it's affected, rather than natural, she'd better be able to maintain it without conscious effort. 2. I've never been to Storytellers, but my understanding is that it is not as heavily or as pervasively themed as, say, WDW's "50s Prime Time," or "The Liberty Tree." The period represented is "now." The question on my mind is, WWWD?
