Woman refuses Disney head scarf alternative

Apples and oranges, again.

But if they provided wigs to their employees or offered them non-visible jobs as alternatives, more power to them.

 

Then I guess you'd be comparing it to Malcolm X or something.

Anyway:

They do forbid red hair.

If the red color is unnatural looking.

Disney's rules are Disney's rules. A person can choose whether or not to work there, based on their own desire to follow or not follow those rules. This particular individual was just fine with them for more than two years.

 

fuck the fact that its Disney, and look at the bigger picture of the issue of the hijab. You can't tell me it - and other Muslim symbols - are not a lightning rod in the 2010 U.S.
Perhaps the young woman in question is merely an extension of the frustration many Muslims must feel. For fuck's sake, I read something that says 20% of the U.S. electorate believes Obama was not born American and is Muslim -- with all its negative connotations because of 9/11.
If this woman decides to take a stand and fight back at Disney, power to her. Its not as if Disney's policies are unique.

 

So at least you are finally admitting that your opinion on this has nothing to do with this actual case or the people and companies involved.

 

It's not a Disney thing.

No big company wants its employees projecting a political or religious message.

It can make some people uncomfortable and lead to conflict. Some of the people who feel the need to wear their political or religious beliefs "on their sleeve" are also likely to want to "proselytize".

Think about the people you interacted with today. Were any of them displaying conspicuous sybols of their religious or political beliefs?

Besides, the hijab has noting to do with religion. It's not required by either her religion or her ethnic custom. It's not a religious symbol, it's a symbol of submission not to God, but man -- radical Islamist men.

If you want to fight for women's rights, fight against the hijab, fight against radical Islam.

 

If I were her lawyer, I would make it about everything but

 

You're creating an argument that doesn't exist in this particular discussion. I'll add my voice to those who say that if you think this whole idea of Islam being a "lightning rod" is a discussion that needs to happen, that's fair enough. I also get the need to turn every discussion, especially those involving this particular religion, into some kind of battle for hearts and minds.

But in this particular case involving a private company that wouldn't allow:

- a Jewish person to wear a yarmulke
- a Christian to wear visible cross jewelry
- Any individual to display any allegiance to a particular religion or political party
(for what it's worth, them offering her the chance to work backstage is a better deal than she likely would have gotten if she worked in corporate)
- Anyone to have visible tattoos
- A lot of makeup
- A lot of facial hair
- A lot of jewelry of any kind

it's a non-starter. Especially when you consider the fact she has been with the company for more than two years. Therefore, the timing of her stand, and her reaction to Disney's attempts to solve this issue without jeopardizing her employment or singling her out, give one pause.

If she decided to take a stand at this particular moment because she sees it as "a lightning rod" or because she's trying to become a symbol the Union can use in its stalled negotiations, then that's a shame.

 

SST, I don't think anyone is saying we don't need to have a very real, very frank, very serious discussion about the way Muslims are being treated in this country. In fact, I'll go ahead and agree with you on that. We have a huge problem on our hands. It is absolutely disgusting what's happening in our national discourse on the subject of Islam. I truly believe it's un-American, and it's downright immoral.

But it's not related to what's happened in this case.

 

So what would your point be, that not enough concessions are made for Muslims in America?

Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis will not take fares if the passenger is carrying alcohol or has a service dog:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2006-09-17-airport-check-in-usat_x.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,241527,00.html


Colleges are installing foot baths to accommodate Muslim students (public money spent for the religious needs of students?):

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/world/americas/07iht-muslims.4.7022566.html


Public high school's football team holds 11:00PM practices during Ramadan to accommodate Muslim students

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/highschool/news/story?id=5467167


A prayer chapel in the Pentagon where Muslim employees can gather for their daily prayers:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mosque-controversy-skips-pentagon-muslims-gather-911-crash/story?id=11417673


No one has a problem with mainstream, moderate Islam as practiced by most Muslim Americans and no one is against modest accommodations when they can be made without interfering with a business or school's core focus.

Many accommodations have been made all over the county for Muslims. Some have gone too far.

This woman has no argument.

Neither do you.

 

I think the point he's trying to make is that even though America goes out of its way to accommodate myriad special-interest requests, the country needs to bend over more often.

 

Absolutely agree. And here's a sad escalation of the ugliness that's being directed at Muslims today:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/08/25/driver-stabbed-muslim/

 

I'll have the check the Quran on that one, Y2K. Not sure where Muhammad stood on anal sex.