Woman refuses Disney head scarf alternative

I recall many didnt think Rosa was in the right either.

 

You disrespect Rosa Parks to compare her to this woman. You should stop.

The situations are not nearly the same.

 

She is like so many other people in today's world, looking to stir up a stink and get a big settlement from a billion dollar corporation.

She knew the terms of working there and agreed to them. It's not like she was rounded up by the Disney Press Gang and forced to serve.

 

You admit you are using a logical fallacy. I expound on how you are using a logical fallacy. And you *again* use the logical fallacy. Amazing.

 

As history has shown, what's "right" often depends on the day.
My initial admission was that I consider Rosa Parks' struggle far more courageous and substantial, given the times, than this woman's, but at its principle, not wholly different.
I do think the women's situation - at least what it represents - is a discussion society needs to have, as the furor over a Muslim-funded building in Manhattan demonstrates.

 

At Disney, "On stage" is defined as "anywhere guests can see you."

If an Orthodox Jewish person (or is it just "Orthodox Jew?") wanted to work in an on-stage position at Disney, they might have to make quite a cosmetic change. A Christian cannot have a visible "Jesus!" or cross necklace at Disney.

Again, they are simply treating her like any other employee. Meanwhile, the Union is treating her like an opportunity.

She will lose the legal battle, since Disney is a private company that has a rigid dress code, and she attempted to violate it more than two years into her time there. But Disney will lose the PR battle as the Union uses her as a symbol of what a meanypants company Disney is, and the average person doesn't really understand just how draconian (and clearly stated) Disney's costume policies can be.

 

Disney won't lose the PR battle.

 

But Disney will lose the PR battle....

Stop.

 

It is so wholly different that the fact that you are clinging to the comparison makes the entire discussion seem silly.

Public transportation vs. Private employment
Clearly explicit rules to be followed vs. Bus drivers ignoring a key point in the law
Immediate arrest vs. Every effort made to accommodate

You *want* this to be a discussion on Muslim issues in America, so you are mentally shoehorning it into that mold, but it just doesn't fit. I'm sure there are better examples out there to spark that discussion.

 

I guess I'm just in a philosophical mood.
My main point is about something as innocuous as a hijab being seen as threatening.
Mostly by "the public", which is why Disney doesn't want it - or any other religious symbols - displayed.
If middle America wore hijabs, you can bet your bottom dollar they would be all over the place at Disneyworld. Hell, they'd sew ears on them and sell them.
It goes to my first point about intolerance -- really, should anyone give a fuck if someone else wears a yamalke or a hijab or a cross?
But people do, and so "clearly explicit rules" are created to avoid the discussion.
They merely perpetuate the intolerance.

 

You should have stopped at "I know this is stretching the comparison way too far,".

 

lets look at this differently.
What would be the reaction if Disney's (wholly arbitrary) "clear and explicit rules" forbade red hair?