Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie  
User currently offlinePSA53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3065 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4052 times:

Governor Brown signed into law that Muslim women cannot be discriminated against by any California employer for wearing a hijab to work.I think it's a major defeat for woman's rights,which groups has been silent, that clearly suppresses them,IMHO is the worst of mankind religious treatment towards a woman.

This was all brought on by a lawsuit the woman and the ACLU,yes the ACLU of all groups, that it wants to protect "religious rights" against Disney ,which is a private company, which can have any dress code it wants.IMO,Brown is putting is nose where it shouldn't be and why employers are leaving the state.What's your opinion?




http://www.indianexpress.com/news/ca...o-law-prosikh-legislations/999767/


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ight-to-wear-hijab/article4479874/

http://www.deadline.com/2012/08/disn...slim-employee-imane-boudlal-hijab/


Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
82 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19600 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4027 times:

Quoting PSA53 (Thread starter):
Governor Brown signed into law that Muslim women cannot be discriminated against by any California employer for wearing a hijab to work.I think it's a major defeat for woman's rights,which groups has been silent, that clearly suppresses them,IMHO is the worst of mankind religious treatment towards a woman.

Has it occurred to you that not all Muslim women wearing the Hijab are being forced to do so?

I studied under a pediatric pulmonoligist named Dr. Samya Nasser. She wore traditional Muslim garb to work every day (and was very stylish about it, I might add). Whether it was jeans on a weekend or a business suit on a week day, she was always covered from the wrists and face. Her clothes were impressive, though. She might have covered up, but her hijabs matched her outfits and I daresay she was the best-dressed woman in the entire department.

She was also the chief of the Pediatric Pulmonology Division, a delight to work under, and she didn't take any BS from anyone. I challenge you to walk up to her and tell her to her face that she is "oppressed" because she is wearing a hijab.

She could take it off any time she likes. She chooses not to.

That said, I am of the opinion that religious PRACTICE should not enjoy any special protection. Religious BELIEF should be protected. If I don't want to hire someone who needs to wear fancy headgear to work, I shouldn't have to. But I would personally stick more to issues that actually affect the workplace.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12508 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3949 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
Has it occurred to you that not all Muslim women wearing the Hijab are being forced to do so?

This is the only issue for me - if it's the woman's free choice to wear a hijab, then she should be able to do so. The only acceptable exception would be if wearing a headscarf presented a safety issue in her job (e.g. operating machinery), in which case it shouldn't be allowed.

Unfortunately, in many Muslim communities, the wishes of the woman are subjugated by senior male members of the family (father or elder brother for example).



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently onlinephotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2731 posts, RR: 18
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3949 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
I am of the opinion that religious PRACTICE should not enjoy any special protection. Religious BELIEF should be protected.

That's the correct answer in a nutshell, however it's too plain and Common Sense for most people to grasp.


User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2718 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3949 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 2):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
Has it occurred to you that not all Muslim women wearing the Hijab are being forced to do so?

This is the only issue for me - if it's the woman's free choice to wear a hijab, then she should be able to do so. The only acceptable exception would be if wearing a headscarf presented a safety issue in her job (e.g. operating machinery), in which case it shouldn't be allowed.

Why do employers like BA in the UK support Islamic, Jewish and Seik dress, but forbid Christian crosses to be worn?



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12508 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3951 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 4):
Why do employers like BA in the UK support Islamic, Jewish and Seik dress, but forbid Christian crosses to be worn?

BA does not forbid the wearing of christian crosses.   

BA's current uniform dress code policy does not allow the overt display of any religious symbols. A Jewish member of staff may not display the cross of David on their uniform. Any member of BA's staff may wear a cross around their neck as long as it's hidden from view.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3949 times:

What does that law mean in practice ? During the interview to hire her, the woman doesn't wear the scarf, you hire her, and next day she comes wearing it, and now you can't fire her ?

You have to wonder how strong is her belief if she can pull that trick.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2718 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3950 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 5):
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 4):
Why do employers like BA in the UK support Islamic, Jewish and Seik dress, but forbid Christian crosses to be worn?

BA does not forbid the wearing of christian crosses.

BA's current uniform dress code policy does not allow the overt display of any religious symbols. A Jewish member of staff may not display the cross of David on their uniform. Any member of BA's staff may wear a cross around their neck as long as it's hidden from view.

A disingenuous answer, as you know that Jewish scull caps, Muslim Hijabs and Seik Turbans are all "religious symbols" or "symbols of religion" and are all allowed with the uniform. Hijabs and scull caps are not an article of their respective faiths, are not absolute requirements of either's religion, just as wearing a cross is not obligatory for Christians. Christian crosss are an item of clothing as much as a scull cap or Hijab (none are functionally necessary, are they?), but only the christian item is disallowed. Not credible.



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offlinePSA53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3065 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3949 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
That said, I am of the opinion that religious PRACTICE should not enjoy any special protection. Religious BELIEF should be protected. If I don't want to hire someone who needs to wear fancy headgear to work, I shouldn't have to. But I would personally stick more to issues that actually affect the workplace.

Very nicely said.In the example I have presented, do you believe Disney is correct? As you know,Disney is much more dress code sensitive.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):

Has it occurred to you that not all Muslim women wearing the Hijab are being forced to do so?

I guess I'm guilty of stereotyping.But you say "not all." Are you speaking in terms of different levels of commitment of the religious practice?

But overall,businesses should have that final say so in dress code.Right now,Brown's seems want to force businesses to accept such special protection or face discrimination charges.



Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7702 posts, RR: 21
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3948 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I really don't see how a women being protected from discrimination against her in the event that she chooses to wear hijab at work is somehow a bad thing. Really warped logic. As the Doc eloquently documented, it is far from the case that all women who wear hijab are somehow forced into it. I would suggest that those who believe that to be the case probably know nobody personally who chooses to cover up.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3948 times:

What about an employer's right to not want religion involved in his business ?


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7702 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3948 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 10):
What about an employer's right to not want religion involved in his business ?

How does a head covering interfere with almost any conceivable business?



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12508 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3948 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 7):
A disingenuous answer

No, an accurate one.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 7):
Jewish scull caps, Muslim Hijabs and Seik Turbans are all "religious symbols" or "symbols of religion" and are all allowed with the uniform.

Turbans are compulsory for practicing Sikhs. Many Jewish scholars claim that the wearing of a kippa is compulsory. Likewise, the hijab is considered to be an absolute requirement by many Muslims. At the end of the day, the hijab is just a headscarf. My mother wore headscarves for many years.

If the wearing and public displaying of a cross were in any way a requirement of being Christian, BA would have to rethink its policy. But it isn't. It's also interesting that the British Government is of the view that Christians do not have the right to wear a cross at work.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...ross-at-work-says-Government.html#

Quote:
Christians do not have a right to wear a cross or crucifix openly at work, the Government is to argue in a landmark court case.

As I said above, a cross can be worn, it just needs to be hidden beneath the uniform.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3629 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3947 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 11):

There was a story in Canada a few years ago about some Sikhs that filed complaints against the new hard-hat requirements for their jobs. Not sure what ended up happening.


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7702 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3949 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lewis (Reply 13):
There was a story in Canada a few years ago about some Sikhs that filed complaints against the new hard-hat requirements for their jobs. Not sure what ended up happening.

Clear safety reasons are about the only justification I can think of.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3629 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3947 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 12):
If the wearing and public displaying of a cross were in any way a requirement of being Christian

It is not. Same thing for the examples you provided:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 12):
Many Jewish scholars claim that the wearing of a kippa is compulsory
Quoting scbriml (Reply 12):
the hijab is considered to be an absolute requirement by many Muslims

Emphasis added. I do not see how these are requirements of faith, yet not followed by all followers of that faith. From all the Jewish people I know, even the ones that fully practice, only one wears a kippa, so its not really a must, is it? Same thing with the hijab and same thing with the cross. You don't have to wear a kippa to be considered a Jewish male and you do not need a hijab to be considered a Muslim female.


User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3629 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3950 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 14):

Clear safety reasons are about the only justification I can think of.

Yet political correctness trumps any safety reasons. Just look at the UK where Sikhs are exempt from wearing hard hats in a construction zone - they are also exempt from wearing crash helmets while operating a motorcycle. Who knows, maybe it is the same in Canada after the complaints were filed.

[Edited 2012-09-10 14:12:21]

User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12508 posts, RR: 46
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3947 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lewis (Reply 15):
I do not see how these are requirements of faith

You don't, but many Muslims and Jews do.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3629 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3940 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 17):

You don't, but many Muslims and Jews do.

Same can be said about Christians and the cross. Many does not constitute all, which means it is not as much of a necessity as some groups are trying to make it.

Listen, I am a person who is not really into religion and I am a person who likes personal freedom. In the end, I do not care if people want to wear togas to work, but if you want to enforce a rule, it should either be for all or for none. I do not see why a visible cross may be offensive but another religious garment is not. I dislike the kind of PC where all external cultural traits are to be tolerated and respected while the indigenous culture is toned down in order not to "offend".

In the end, is just a different branding method, the one is a hat, the other is a cross on a chain. Same thing with the example of turbans I mentioned above. You cannot make someone wear a hat based on safety regulations yet exempt a group because of the type of clothing they wish to wear.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 12):

As I said above, a cross can be worn, it just needs to be hidden beneath the uniform.

In the case of the Disney worker, would she be fine if they told her that she can wear her headscarf, but it has to be completely covered by a Mickey Mouse hat? I doubt it...


User currently offlineOzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2718 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3940 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 15):
I do not see how these are requirements of faith, yet not followed by all followers of that faith. From all the Jewish people I know, even the ones that fully practice, only one wears a kippa, so its not really a must, is it? Same thing with the hijab and same thing with the cross. You don't have to wear a kippa to be considered a Jewish male and you do not need a hijab to be considered a Muslim female.

     

Exactly. Just asking for one standard for all, please.

The arguments used to support BA / UK rules convince no-one.



When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3900 times:

^ Women are required to cover their heads according to Islam, if they choose not to its their perogative but it is going againt a religious requirement or even order, Muslim men do not have to cover their heads at all, they only wear caps because the prophet, peace be upon him used to at times, so its considered a Sunnah or tradition, but some take it to extreme of considering traditions as obligatory.

User currently offlineB777LRF From Luxembourg, joined Nov 2008, 1334 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3894 times:

There is no answer to the BA/UK rules that will satisfy either logic or fairness. But as anybody discussing anything to do with the UK should know, that place has been savaged by a political correctness race to the bottom. That means, among other things, that any minority will have it's rights protected whilst those of the majority will have it's ignored or, worst case, vilified.

Thus, in the specific case it could be argued that while no mainstream branch of Christianity require the display of a cross, other religions does require its faithful to wear certain garbs in certain ways. BA and the UK can therefore successfully say they are neither discriminating nor offering affirmative action, but at the same time their actions does defy logic and fairness.

The answer to all this is, of course, to have the CoE, Cat C and every other branch of organised mainstream Christianity make it mandatory for their followers to wear a cross of no less than 3 feet by 2 feet, tied across the back, for 8 x 1 minute every day. Or what about a thorn crown, made from slightly less scratchy material than the original, to be worn during daylight hours? Now that'd put a spur up the rear quarter of the PC brigade, and by jolly would it serve them well!



From receips and radials over straight pipes to big fans - been there, done that, got the hearing defects to prove
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3812 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 11):
How does a head covering interfere with almost any conceivable business?

I don't know. Can you imagine a woman with an attire saying "I'm Muslim" cleaning up a christian church or selling christian books at the library of the church ?

Each country has its culture of course, in some it will pose little problems (but then, why the need for a law ?), in others it wouldn't fly. In France any job where you have to interact in person with a customer would frown upon any kind of display of faith, unless it's a job related to religion (and you wear the attire corresponding to it). Even a McDonald's where you might expect a lot of Muslim customers and a lot of Muslim employees won't allow it. And even in an office job it would often be seen as detrimental to the work atmosphere. All religions are treated equally, and indeed that culture stems from an opposition to the main religion of the country, catholicism.

The funny part is that hardliners/islamists wouldn't allow women to work or even go out, anyway.

Quoting lewis (Reply 18):
In the case of the Disney worker, would she be fine if they told her that she can wear her headscarf, but it has to be completely covered by a Mickey Mouse hat? I doubt it...

Some Muslim women try this kind of stuff. For example my mother is a high school/community college professor, where public display of religion is illegal. Some girls put a scarf and then a wig on top of it. Usually after a week they either quit or remove the scarf, only wearing them in the street.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineAirontario From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 551 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3800 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 16):
Yet political correctness trumps any safety reasons. Just look at the UK where Sikhs are exempt from wearing hard hats in a construction zone - they are also exempt from wearing crash helmets while operating a motorcycle. Who knows, maybe it is the same in Canada after the complaints were filed.

In Canada hard hats must be worn by everyone in constructions zones. The people who brought the challenges lost on the basis that if you choose to work in the construction industry you must follow the standards of that industry. Sikhs are allowed to wear their turban in other workplaces where helmets are not mandatory (In Toronto the police department even has a turban with the badge on it).


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7702 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3756 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 22):
even in an office job it would often be seen as detrimental to the work atmosphere

That just seems such a bizarre claim. Unless you're going out of your way to be offended I just cannot understand how wearing a headscarf is detrimental to anyone. Any hint of religious proseletysing in the workplace should rightly not be tolerated, but wearing such an item of clothing as a headscarf just isn't offensive. What would be offensive is if someone who gets on well with their job, does not force their views on anyone but wears a headscarf, was treated badly or victimised by an anti-religious zealot on a mission to 'get offended'. It is pure prejudice and victimisation.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinestarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3789 times:

But I just do not see it in the workplace. If you go to a shopping mall or to a restarant I do not care what you wear but I expect the employees of the store or restarant to be dressed in a generic attire representing the store or restarant and not a religion or special group.

If I owned a business I would want everyone to wear what represents my business, not something that singles them out from the other employees. If they can wear their religious attire what then stops the other employees from wanting to wear something that is special attire to them even if it is not religious, is that not discrimination as well by their defination?


User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3362 posts, RR: 9
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3783 times:

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 8):
I guess I'm guilty of stereotyping.But you say "not all." Are you speaking in terms of different levels of commitment of the religious practice?

It is optional and there are many Muslim women who choose not to wear it.

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 8):
But overall,businesses should have that final say so in dress code.Right now,Brown's seems want to force businesses to accept such special protection or face discrimination charges.

How far does this go and there has to be some protections for the worker to express themselves and does wearing a hijab hurt your business??

If a Muslim woman wears suitable attire and does her job I fail to see the issue.

Quoting lewis (Reply 13):
There was a story in Canada a few years ago about some Sikhs that filed complaints against the new hard-hat requirements for their jobs. Not sure what ended up happening.

Didn't hear that but I have seen on the news about Sikh's that didn't want to wear motorcycle helmets because it didn't fit over their turban. I think they were given tickets like everyone else who didn't wear one.


Quoting Aesma (Reply 22):
Even a McDonald's where you might expect a lot of Muslim customers and a lot of Muslim employees won't allow it. And even in an office job it would often be seen as detrimental to the work atmosphere. All religions are treated equally, and indeed that culture stems from an opposition to the main religion of the country, catholicism.

I can see for McDonald's that it is possibly a health and safety issue. How is it detrimental in an office environment unless it makes one uncomfortable, which IMO is a piss poor excuse.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineCrimsonNL From Netherlands, joined Dec 2007, 1862 posts, RR: 42
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3797 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting Aesma (Reply 22):
And even in an office job it would often be seen as detrimental to the work atmosphere.

I don't agree with the protection of religious practice, but tell me how a headscarf or a hijab is any different from a Christian woman wearing a skirt and a cross around her neck?

Martijn



Nothing's worse then flying the same registration twice, except flying it 4 times..
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3629 posts, RR: 5
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3794 times:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 26):
How is it detrimental in an office environment unless it makes one uncomfortable, which IMO is a piss poor excuse.

  

Whether it is a cross, a headscarf or a small hat, it is not detrimental really, it is just that some people try hard to be "offended" while they should just deal with it! Personally I find a lot of non-religious apparel choices really bad, tasteless and borderline offensive, but I keep it to myself!

From what I have read on the Disney case is that there is a strict uniform and appearance policy since all front-facing employees are considered "cast members" or basically as part of the show. Don't know if this is really the case or if it is worded like that to limit what one can wear (religious or not).


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3783 times:

Quoting CrimsonNL (Reply 27):
I don't agree with the protection of religious practice, but tell me how a headscarf or a hijab is any different from a Christian woman wearing a skirt and a cross around her neck?

Martijn

It is not : a company will certainly not allow too short a skirt or too big a cross, for similar reasons.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 30, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3779 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 24):
Any hint of religious proseletysing in the workplace should rightly not be tolerated, but wearing such an item of clothing as a headscarf just isn't offensive.

I think you got your answer in that sentence, here not much is needed to think proselytizing is happening. The fact that only women have to wear something doesn't help either.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7702 posts, RR: 21
Reply 31, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3765 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 30):
here not much is needed to think proselytizing is happening

Not sure what you mean. Wearing a headscarf is not equal to proseletysing. That is a real stretch if this is really what you mean.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 30):
The fact that only women have to wear something doesn't help either.

Doesn't help what? As has already been discussed at length it is far from the case that women are always forced into this, or that they see it as some kind of burden.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 32, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3737 times:

Didn't we have a thread a while back about tattoos and the consensus was it is "individual freedom and expression" but now all of the sudden because it's "religious" it's offensive? Sorry, I value personal freedom, especially when it doesn't harm anyone (don't by the "distracting work environment" unless it's overtly crazy.) Whatever, the UK, France, and other countries can do what they want with their countries, I just hope the US doesn't go with the big-brother approach (and I know we're far from perfect in many regards)


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19600 posts, RR: 58
Reply 33, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3723 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 16):
Yet political correctness trumps any safety reasons. Just look at the UK where Sikhs are exempt from wearing hard hats in a construction zone - they are also exempt from wearing crash helmets while operating a motorcycle. Who knows, maybe it is the same in Canada after the complaints were filed.

Can you back that up?

At any rate, someone needs to decide that their "religion" mandates that they come to work naked. And file a lawsuit.

That will put an end to this business of using "religion" to justify not having to live up to contractual obligations.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 34, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3718 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33):
At any rate, someone needs to decide that their "religion" mandates that they come to work naked. And file a lawsuit.

That will put an end to this business of using "religion" to justify not having to live up to contractual obligations.

Yes, there are limits, as there should be. I agree with you though, I don't think female Muslim attire is bad or automatically oppressive. But again, if the good people of Europe want to do something in their countries, let them, we have our country to deal with. It just puzzles me how easily offended some people get. I mean I know a lot don't like religion, see it as phony, and even harmful, but surely they're smart enough not to generalize. A cross, skull cap, hajib, etc... I see it as someone getting a tattoo, wearing their hair some certain way, etc... as long as it doesn't get out of hand



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13092 posts, RR: 12
Reply 35, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3718 times:

I live in an area of New Jersey that has mosic of many ethnic and religious groups. I can go into a local grocery store and see a Muslim woman with there heads covered at the register or shopping. The person behind me can be an orthodox or Hasidic Jew, the person behind them from the Carribberan, Poland, Dominican Repubic, Peru, Mexico, Christian Middle Eastern or even Italian or Irish. I seen nothing wrong with the head coverings for Islamic women unless it interferes with health or safety. I think this is a law, with perhaps some careful exceptions included, to protect religious rights and shoud be in every state.

User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3629 posts, RR: 5
Reply 36, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3716 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33):
Can you back that up?

Sure!

This is for protective hats in construction sites - effective exemption only when a Sikh is wearing a turban.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/fod/oc/200-299/282_27.pdf

This is for motorcycle helmets, first paragraph:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069854

From looking around I also saw that:

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 26):

Didn't hear that but I have seen on the news about Sikh's that didn't want to wear motorcycle helmets because it didn't fit over their turban. I think they were given tickets like everyone else who didn't wear one.

Apparently it is just in British Columbia :

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bcl...new/document/ID/freeside/30_237_99


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19600 posts, RR: 58
Reply 37, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3718 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 34):
Yes, there are limits, as there should be. I agree with you though, I don't think female Muslim attire is bad or automatically oppressive. But again, if the good people of Europe want to do something in their countries, let them, we have our country to deal with. It just puzzles me how easily offended some people get. I mean I know a lot don't like religion, see it as phony, and even harmful, but surely they're smart enough not to generalize. A cross, skull cap, hajib, etc... I see it as someone getting a tattoo, wearing their hair some certain way, etc... as long as it doesn't get out of hand

There needs to be a test: does an employer have a valid reason why the employee's religious PRACTICE would affect that employee's job performance? A secretary in an office wearing a hijab would not. An actor wearing a hijab would. If Disney considers these front-line workers to be "cast members" and they are a private company, they could have a point.

By the flipside, what defines a "cast member?" Is someone serving food in a restaurant who doesn't actually do any acting a "cast member?" Would a hijab of matching color really make that much of a difference?

I'm more concerned about the idea that you can't "discriminate" against a job applicant who can't work Friday/Saturday because of religious practices. This has been an issue for residency programs, for example. To me, that is fundamentally wrong and not what was intended when the First Amendment was written.


User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3629 posts, RR: 5
Reply 38, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3713 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 33):
At any rate, someone needs to decide that their "religion" mandates that they come to work naked.

I thought about taking up dodekatheism, I can launch toga Fridays at the office.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4008 posts, RR: 28
Reply 39, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3706 times:

Not sure what the big news here is. There is a very clear and well-established priority of values for liberals

Non-Christian/Mormon religions > Atheists > women / homossexuals > Christian/Mormon religions

Once you learn this simple equation out it is very simple to figure out what side of an argument liberals will come out at.

An atheist film-maker or cartoonist criticizes Islam or their prophets in one of their works? Shame on them for inciting hatred - any violence that occurs out of it is their fault. A visual artist gets Federal money to dump a statue of Christ in urine and some people passingly comment they don't like it? Shame on those people for "trying to infringe on the freedom of expression".

Similarly, a religion wants to treat women as second class citizens? Fine, it is a "cultural value" and we cannot be culturally imperialist or "moral absolutists". Some people don't want to pay for a woman's free contraceptives? Shame on them for engaging in a "war on women".

Take-home exercise: see where gay marriage comes out in that equation



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 40, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3626 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 31):
Not sure what you mean. Wearing a headscarf is not equal to proseletysing. That is a real stretch if this is really what you mean.

Can you look at that woman without being reminded of her religion ?

I'm an atheist but I don't wear anything to advertise it.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 31):
Quoting Aesma (Reply 30):
The fact that only women have to wear something doesn't help either.

Doesn't help what? As has already been discussed at length it is far from the case that women are always forced into this, or that they see it as some kind of burden.

It doesn't help because equality is one of our core values, even part of the motto of the French Republic.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 41, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3615 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 40):
Can you look at that woman without being reminded of her religion ?

Really, does it matter? Are you offended by seeing someone wear a cross or something? Just wondering, you seem so up in arms about religion...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7702 posts, RR: 21
Reply 42, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3599 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 40):
Can you look at that woman without being reminded of her religion ?

Yes, particularly in the case of people I work with regularly and can value their skills, knowledge and character far more than whether they are wearing a particular item of clothing. Frankly, you have essentially just suggested that you cannot see past the headscarf. If that is the case then it is a firm admission of your problem, not theirs.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3362 posts, RR: 9
Reply 43, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3589 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 36):
This is for protective hats in construction sites - effective exemption only when a Sikh is wearing a turban.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/foi/internalops/fod/oc/200-299/282_27.pdf

This is for motorcycle helmets, first paragraph:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069854

From looking around I also saw that:

I have a problem with this because these exemptions on the basis of religion trump very strict health and safety rules. Also if a Sikh gets in an accident on his motorcycle or on a construction site for not having protective gear it costs me and society money because of health care costs that otherwise would have been avoided or reduced.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 32):
Didn't we have a thread a while back about tattoos and the consensus was it is "individual freedom and expression" but now all of the sudden because it's "religious" it's offensive? Sorry, I value personal freedom, especially when it doesn't harm anyone (don't by the "distracting work environment" unless it's overtly crazy.) Whatever, the UK, France, and other countries can do what they want with their countries, I just hope the US doesn't go with the big-brother approach (and I know we're far from perfect in many regards)

In Australia it has been reported that many people with exposed tats are not being hired because of a negative impact on the company's image. It is discrimination especially if you are making assumptions on their personality if they have tats but I'm hung on it especially if that person is meeting clients they probably should have to cover it up.
It is a very grey area.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 44, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3574 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
Really, does it matter? Are you offended by seeing someone wear a cross or something? Just wondering, you seem so up in arms about religion...

I'm not offended either way, but I don't feel totally comfortable either. A small cross (or david star or whatever) is no problem but I would feel the same if someone would wear a 20cm cross and I doubt I'd be alone.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 42):
Frankly, you have essentially just suggested that you cannot see past the headscarf. If that is the case then it is a firm admission of your problem, not theirs.

Maybe. I would add that I have never actually encountered the situation, since it seems few women wearing a scarf have a job (I've worked in small companies, and multinationals). That's in a country with roughly 10% Muslim population, although not all practicing.

When I was a student there was this girl wearing a "modest" outfit, all brown/black, lose, long sleeves and a tight scarf. I frequented her since I was trying to seduce her girl friend who did not wear such outfit, and I concluded that the first one wore it for self-esteem, as she was far less pretty. I'm sure she's now married to someone who needed her nationality...



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 45, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3572 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 44):
but I don't feel totally comfortable either.

Why? I don't see how's it's any different than wearing a "I ♥ NY" shirt, a shirt with a picture of their favorite band, a picture with a big flag on it, except... it's religious. Freedom of expression?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinestarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Reply 46, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3555 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 45):
Why? I don't see how's it's any different than wearing a "I ♥ NY" shirt, a shirt with a picture of their favorite band, a picture with a big flag on it, except... it's religious. Freedom of expression?


Because that is standard "American" attire and is expected when you are walking on the street, just as seeing someone wearing their standard "religious" attires on the street would not be a problem with me either.

But if I go into a McDonald's I expect to see the employees wearing the standard black pants/slacks, whatever color McDonald's shirt/blouse for their position in the store, and the McDonald's ball cap, not some religious attire.

This is the point, when you are not working I do not care what you are wearing, but in the work environment, there should be no "special privileges" for what is worn. Every workplace I have ever worked in has a dress code that they expect to be followed or you will no longer be working there.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 47, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3555 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 46):

I think we're arguing 2 different things, though I did kind of drift away from the workplace argument.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19600 posts, RR: 58
Reply 48, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3555 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 39):
Non-Christian/Mormon religions > Atheists > women / homossexuals > Christian/Mormon religions

I defy you to list one instance in which Christians have been persecuted in this country.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4008 posts, RR: 28
Reply 49, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3504 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 48):
I defy you to list one instance in which Christians have been persecuted in this country.

Nice attempt at deflecting the conversation away from your tolerance for intolerance.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 50, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3501 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 49):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 48):
I defy you to list one instance in which Christians have been persecuted in this country.

Nice attempt at deflecting the conversation away from your tolerance for intolerance.

What are you talking about??



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2148 posts, RR: 16
Reply 51, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3480 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 41):
Really, does it matter? Are you offended by seeing someone wear a cross or something? Just wondering, you seem so up in arms about religion...

If I understand correctly, the freedom for expression is very important in the USA.

In France the freedom from religion is equally important. It is part of the national fabric and history.



Tonight we fly
User currently offlineaa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3347 posts, RR: 8
Reply 52, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

Quoting PSA53 (Thread starter):

This is really just a political move -- existing federal laws already cover employees in this situation.

As an example, take a look at this hypothetical scenario posed by the EEOC:

Quote:


Susan is an experienced clerical worker who wears a hijab (head scarf) in conformance with her Muslim beliefs. XYZ Temps places Susan in a long-term assignment with one of its clients. The client contacts XYZ and requests that it notify Susan that she must remove her hijab while working at the front desk, or that XYZ assign another person to Susan's position. According to the client, Susan's religious attire violates its dress code and presents the "wrong image." Should XYZ comply with its client's request?

XYZ Temps may not comply with this client request without violating Title VII. The client would also violate Title VII if it made Susan remove her hijab or changed her duties to keep her out of public view. Therefore, XYZ should strongly advise against this course of action. Notions about customer preference real or perceived do not establish undue hardship, so the client should make an exception to its dress code to let Susan wear her hijab during front desk duty as a religious accommodation. If the client does not withdraw the request, XYZ should place Susan in another assignment at the same rate of pay and decline to assign another worker to the client.

The federal laws regarding this are very clear and very reasonable. If appearance actually matters, such as working as an actor, model, stripper or Hooters waitress, the employer may ban such clothing. That applies to very few professions and definitely not, in my opinion, to the Disney waitress.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 53, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

Quoting aa757first (Reply 52):

These is indeed a gray area, but I'm wondering what insensitive people would care if a receptionist has a hijab. I've seen many here that say that it might offend "some people" but where are these strange people? Homosexuality "offends" some people, just stick up the middle finger and move on IMO



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3629 posts, RR: 5
Reply 54, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3409 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 53):

Exactly. I can see what something extreme like a burqa may not be appropriate for work, especially for a receptionist as this example shows, but a hijab is just a headscarf, no reason to be offended by it. Women wear headscarves or all sorts of scarves over their clothes or around their necks outside the Muslim realm too.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 55, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3402 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 45):
Why? I don't see how's it's any different than wearing a "I %u2665 NY" shirt, a shirt with a picture of their favorite band, a picture with a big flag on it, except... it's religious. Freedom of expression?

Are we still talking about the work place ?

Quoting Asturias (Reply 51):
If I understand correctly, the freedom for expression is very important in the USA.

In France the freedom from religion is equally important. It is part of the national fabric and history.

Yeah, it has very historical roots but has become cultural : religion is for the home or the religious building. An archbishop just weighed in on the gay marriage debate since a law is coming, there was instant outrage.

Quoting aa757first (Reply 52):
XYZ Temps places Susan in a long-term assignment with one of its clients. The client contacts XYZ and requests that it notify Susan that she must remove her hijab while working at the front desk, or that XYZ assign another person to Susan's position.

Interesting example, I don't know how it would work out here. I'm guessing that whatever the law says, Susan wouldn't have got the job with XYZ to begin with.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 56, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3400 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 55):
Are we still talking about the work place ?

No I kinda drifted a bit (I misunderstood something). But back to the workplace, I realize there are times were safety and image is concerned. But a McDonalds worker that has a small cross around their neck is normal freedom of expression, doesn't interfere with McDonalds' image, and isn't bad IMO. I don't know where exactly I'd draw the line, but definitely not the PC try not to offend anyone line that some seem to want to draw. But again, France is France, America is America, can't really dictate what yall do



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineaa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3347 posts, RR: 8
Reply 57, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3396 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 53):

These is indeed a gray area, but I'm wondering what insensitive people would care if a receptionist has a hijab.

Probably the same people who are worried that their waitress is wearing a hijab as she sets down their Diet Coke.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8135 posts, RR: 26
Reply 58, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3387 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 39):
An atheist film-maker or cartoonist criticizes Islam or their prophets in one of their works? Shame on them for inciting hatred - any violence that occurs out of it is their fault. A visual artist gets Federal money to dump a statue of Christ in urine and some people passingly comment they don't like it? Shame on those people for "trying to infringe on the freedom of expression".
Quoting Pyrex (Reply 39):
Similarly, a religion wants to treat women as second class citizens? Fine, it is a "cultural value" and we cannot be culturally imperialist or "moral absolutists". Some people don't want to pay for a woman's free contraceptives? Shame on them for engaging in a "war on women".

What's missing from your total equation here is that freedom of expression protects everything - including poor taste. Which is basically how I define all of the above examples because the folks who profess them are completely out to lunch - on all sides. Nonetheless, they have the right to be so.

This particular case is no different. Some people think the hijab is exclusionary and defiles a woman's individuality. Some people think any kind of religious expression is appropriate in any venue. Most employers think they shouldn't be told what kind of dress code is appropriate so long as the guidelines are reasonable and apply to everyone. All of these views are protected by freedom of expression, and should be. The nitty gritty is where lawyers earn their living.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 59, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3388 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 22):
I don't know. Can you imagine a woman with an attire saying "I'm Muslim" cleaning up a christian church or selling christian books at the library of the church ?

Why would any Muslim work such a job when its against their religion teachings? unless they want to convert people they would never take up such jobs in any religious setup thats non-Islamic.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 60, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3388 times:

Quoting aa757first (Reply 57):
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 53):

These is indeed a gray area, but I'm wondering what insensitive people would care if a receptionist has a hijab.

Probably the same people who are worried that their waitress is wearing a hijab as she sets down their Diet Coke.

LOL the horror. I think it stems from anti-religion... looking at some of the pictures overseas right now (the riots) I can kinda see why many non-religious people would really hate religion but I would hope they'd be able to see that most religion is peaceful and improves many people... if they don't see that they can at least respect freedom of expression.

And it's very easy to incorporate religious garb into businesses/organizations... when I was in the Army, we all wore uniforms (obviously,) the ACU camo pattern, and I saw some Jewish soldiers with an ACU style/colored skullcap. Sure that's "special treatment" for Jewish soldiers, but no one was "offended" and it kept the soldier happy... what is wrong with situations like that?

Is it really harmful to McDonalds or society if a worker wears a hijab, skullcap, or a small cross? The small cross thing is kinda funny because necklaces wouldn't get anyone enraged but heaven forbid it has a cross on it (no pun intended)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 61, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks ago) and read 3326 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 59):
Why would any Muslim work such a job when its against their religion teachings? unless they want to convert people they would never take up such jobs in any religious setup thats non-Islamic.

I don't know. The few jobs that hijab wearing women do get are cleaning jobs, so it could happen, since those jobs are almost always handled by contractors. Then, if the woman is not really convinced about religion, but wears the thing to please her husband or son... But I guess she would probably remove it to work, just like this new girl in my mother's class does before entering the high school.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 62, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3316 times:

No it would not happen, you are just trying to dmean hijab waering women with the manner you have commented on the type of jobs they get, why would a church even allow non-christians to work on their premises? as for the latter yes the young are rebellious and would go againt things imposed on them, better to let them choose it on their own.

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 63, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3292 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 62):
why would a church even allow non-christians to work on their premises?

I don't know, I (and the churches I've attended) welcome people of all faiths in. In fact I know my church does do some work with employees of different faiths (landscaping and such.) I think the office workers are mostly volunteers, so I can't imagine anyone but that church's members would work there. I think someone of a different faith would be more discouraged to work there than the church would be to hire someone of a different faith. Can't speak for all churches though.



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineJAGflyer From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 3517 posts, RR: 4
Reply 64, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3287 times:

As far as I know, there is no "requirement" for a Sikh to wear a turban. It seems though that the turban is the most convenient (for lack of a better word) way to cover the hair. They are required to wear at all times: Kesh (uncut hair), Khanga (a comb), Kirpan (the metal daggar), Khatcha (silk undergarments), and Kanga (metal bracelet). I'm surprised no company has invented a hardhat that can accommodate the extra hair on a Sihk's head. There are a lot of Sihks in industries requiring head protection. They could even adorn it with the Sikh symbols...

[Edited 2012-09-15 18:44:24]


Support the beer and soda can industry, recycle old airplanes!
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12508 posts, RR: 46
Reply 65, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3247 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting JAGflyer (Reply 64):
As far as I know, there is no "requirement" for a Sikh to wear a turban.

The wearing of turbans is an absolute requirement for practicing Sikhs.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 66, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3202 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 62):
No it would not happen, you are just trying to dmean hijab waering women with the manner you have commented on the type of jobs they get

I'm not trying to demean anybody. The fact is to get a good job you often need an education, and for that to happen you first need a high school diploma, meaning no hijab until 18-19 years old.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineAsturias From Spain, joined Apr 2006, 2148 posts, RR: 16
Reply 67, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 3199 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 55):
Yeah, it has very historical roots but has become cultural
Quoting Asturias (Reply 51):
It is part of the national fabric and history.

That was implied with my remark on the national fabric, which indicated severe cultural roots.



Tonight we fly
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26449 posts, RR: 75
Reply 68, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2958 times:

Seeing discussions like this on an airplane website is pretty funny for me, given what I do for a living and where I do it.

Quoting PSA53 (Thread starter):

Governor Brown signed into law that Muslim women cannot be discriminated against by any California employer for wearing a hijab to work.I think it's a major defeat for woman's rights,which groups has been silent, that clearly suppresses them,IMHO is the worst of mankind religious treatment towards a woman.

Governor Brown signed into law an express clarification of existing doctrine, and it does not just apply to Moslem women. In fact, the most vocal actors behind the bill were the Sikh Coalition, which was seeking express protection for men who wear turbans.

Quoting PSA53 (Thread starter):
.IMO,Brown is putting is nose where it shouldn't be and why employers are leaving the state.What's your opinion?

I suppose you think anti-discrimination laws should not exist then? Civil rights laws? No way! Right?

Quoting 777way (Reply 20):
Women are required to cover their heads according to Islam

No they aren't.

Quoting aa757first (Reply 52):
The federal laws regarding this are very clear and very reasonable.

1) States are allowed to enact greater protections than federal law.

2) California's public policy is for all anti-discrimination laws to be at least as protective, if not more protective than federal laws.

3) California has an interest in the protection of those in protected categories that is separate and apart from federal law.

4) There is no express protection for the types of practices that were being undertaken prior to the enactment of this law. While the practices may have been illegal, they involved significant fights.

Quoting aa757first (Reply 52):
As an example, take a look at this hypothetical scenario posed by the EEOC:

The EEOC is not the interested party here.

Quoting aa757first (Reply 52):
This is really just a political move -- existing federal laws already cover employees in this situation.

Not necessarily, and California is not bound to simply allow the minimal protections of federal laws. Indeed, we have substantial differences that are more protective, and for good reason.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlinePSA53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3065 posts, RR: 4
Reply 69, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2948 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 68):
Quoting PSA53 (Thread starter):
.IMO,Brown is putting is nose where it shouldn't be and why employers are leaving the state.What's your opinion?

I suppose you think anti-discrimination laws should not exist then? Civil rights laws? No way! Right?

Please include businesses in that conversation as private companies have civil rights,too.



Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26449 posts, RR: 75
Reply 70, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2942 times:

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 69):
Please include businesses in that conversation as private companies have civil rights,too.

Yeah - not to be discriminated against if they are a member of a protected category.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 71, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2887 times:

Meanwhile, Marine Le Pen, 18% of the votes in last presidential election, is proposing a ban of all religious signs everywhere.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 72, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2874 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 71):
Meanwhile, Marine Le Pen, 18% of the votes in last presidential election, is proposing a ban of all religious signs everywhere.

Is a draconian law like that even legal (in France?)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 73, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2863 times:

Constitutional experts are saying no. I'm guessing it would go against EU law too (in fact the current laws are already being attacked at the EU level).

But the constitution isn't everything here, it's being amended every couple of years, and sometimes the constitutional court gives decisions that really have nothing to do with the constitution, it happened just yesterday on the subject of bullfighting, it has been ruled constitutional even though there is nothing in the constitution protecting it.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 74, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 73):
Constitutional experts are saying no. I'm guessing it would go against EU law too

Oh ok. I think that would be along the lines of banning football team merchandise... rooting for your favorite team, except it's your religion

Edit: after reading this (dated) article from 2004 it appears yall have it way crazier over there. I know there are things the US and Americans do wrong, but I think we are pretty good (more or less) of integrating cultures and religion. NOT perfect, but this article is just crazy!
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/wo...-religious-symbols-in-schools.html

[Edited 2012-09-22 10:05:43]


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 75, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2844 times:

Well, we (the French) mostly disagree. But as I said above it's cultural, the Catholic Church once had so much power that now religion outside private quarters is seen as proselytizing.

"broad public support for the French secular ideal but is certain to deepen resentment among France's large Muslim population"

Broad public support, the article got that right, but resentment among the Muslim population, not so much (with exceptions, of course). Until a few years before that law, no girl went to school with a veil (and no boy with a kippah), so there was no need for it. The Muslim population was already large at that time, and well integrated. It's Saudi and Qatari influence that changed the situation, promoting a more backward view of the religion by sending money and preachers, a view that just doesn't work in our country.

Besides, Muslims can always do like a lot of Jews and Catholics and fund their own schools, if they follow the official department of education's program they'll get money to hire professors and all. In the 80's religious schools came close to being cut off from any public money but in the end the Socialists caved in to Catholic pressure.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7893 posts, RR: 52
Reply 76, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2823 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 75):

I understand, and I know people aren't as religious in France, but isn't there a middle option between letting the Catholic Church run things/Sharia law going rampant and banning someone from wearing a religious garment? Religion is very important to some people, so what's the harm in having a religious symbol as long as it's not affecting safety or causing the chaos mentioned in the article?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 5716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 77, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2754 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 68):
Quoting 777way (Reply 20):Women are required to cover their heads according to Islam
No they aren't.

Yes they are:

"And say to the believing women that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts and do not display their ornaments except what appears thereof, and let them wear their head-coverings over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments except to their husbands or their fathers, or the fathers of their husbands, or their sons, or the sons of their husbands, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or those whom their right hands possess, or the male servants not having need (of women), or the children who have not attained knowledge of what is hidden of women; and let them not strike their feet so that what they hide of their ornaments may be known; and turn to Allah all of you, O believers! so that you may be successful."

Verse 24:31 from Surah Nur

Clearly states that women are expected/required/meant/should cover their heads, though not a strict commandment.

Also loose clothes with full sleeves annd covered head were normal wear for women back then including unbelivers, especially the region they lived in with the heat and dust so it was clutural too, it carried over to Islam normally with no changes but with the added reccomendation that part of the head covering be used to cover their bosoms as well, Islam did not bring in any new Islamic clothing styles, ther clothes remained as they were worn even by idolators.


User currently offlineaa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3347 posts, RR: 8
Reply 78, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2677 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 68):
4) There is no express protection for the types of practices that were being undertaken prior to the enactment of this law. While the practices may have been illegal, they involved significant fights.

All of my understanding of anti-discrimination laws come from an undergraduate employment law course (taught in California), so while I understood your first three points, this one kind of surprises me. It seems like the EEOC makes it pretty clear that policies like Disney's are illegal. Is there enough wiggle room that employers can regularly claim undue hardship in such cases?

Also, just out of curiosity, does California resolve such complaints faster than the EEOC?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 68):
Not necessarily, and California is not bound to simply allow the minimal protections of federal laws. Indeed, we have substantial differences that are more protective, and for good reason.

Just pointing out that the new law isn't some sort of radical decision, but already established in federal regulations.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 76):
Religion is very important to some people, so what's the harm in having a religious symbol as long as it's not affecting safety or causing the chaos mentioned in the article?

As Aesma said, it seems to be rooted in the history of religion in France. My understanding of it is limited to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9 . Personally, I disagree with the model, but I think it's easier to comprehend when you get familiar with the rationale behind it.

Quoting PSA53 (Reply 69):
Please include businesses in that conversation as private companies have civil rights,too.

I have some degree of sympathy to this argument as I have strong libertarian leanings. But this is just one case where the public policy argument wins out. What good is the constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion when an employer can ban you from practicing your religion?

Out of curiosity, where do you stand on "conscience clause" laws that allow clinicians to refuse to participate in abortions and other controversial procedures?


User currently offlinePSA53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3065 posts, RR: 4
Reply 79, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2671 times:

Quoting aa757first (Reply 78):
What good is the constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion when an employer can ban you from practicing your religion?

Employer is not banning you from practicing you're religion.When an employee is serving the public,employers will have a universal dress code applied to all.It will be impartial dress code.If the applicant is insensitive to be aware of such a universal image to the public then the employee is at fault and the employer is not discriminatory,in this case,IMHO.

I want to thank all of you for you're postings.Very educational and when I started this I thought it would last about 15 reply's.

[Edited 2012-09-24 16:56:14]


Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6617 posts, RR: 9
Reply 80, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2573 times:

Quoting aa757first (Reply 78):
As Aesma said, it seems to be rooted in the history of religion in France.

I talked about the influence of the catholic church but I would like to add that France also had several religious wars (catholics vs protestants) that contributed to shape laïcité.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently onlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14011 posts, RR: 62
Reply 81, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2538 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 77):
Also loose clothes with full sleeves annd covered head were normal wear for women back then including unbelivers, especially the region they lived in with the heat and dust so it was clutural too, it carried over to Islam normally with no changes but with the added reccomendation that part of the head covering be used to cover their bosoms as well, Islam did not bring in any new Islamic clothing styles, ther clothes remained as they were worn even by idolators.

Actually up to the late middle ages women in Europe would cover themselves very much like Muslim women in hijab today. Look at a typical Catholic nun´s habit: This is how medieval women (especially married ones. Catholic nuns consider themselves to be married to Jesus, therefore they dress like medieval wives) would cover themselves. They would never leave the house with the hair uncovered (usually in a wimple). Also men would cover their head when going outdoors.

BTW, what do you understand under "Muslim attire"?
Depending on the region in the world there are many different versions, from easygoing West Africans, Filipinos and Indonesians to extremely strict Gulf state Arabs and Pashtuns.
Personally I have no problem with the headscarf (hijab), which leaves the face free. In fact, as DocLightning has written, it can be used like a fashion accessory and can be very stylish and let the woman look very attractive. Similarly I have no problem with Christians,Turkish Alevite Muslims or Jews wearing a SMALL pendant on a necklace denoting their belief. Or Jews or Sikhs wearing the reaspective headdress, as long as safety is not compromised (this also goes for the hijab, but where safety or hygiene is a factor a woman with long hair would have to cover her hair anyway, e.g. in a hairnet or under a surgical hood, which would cover the same area as the headscarf).
What I have a problem with is clothing which covers the face and religious insignia which are big "into-your-face" statements.
As for the face cover, a lot of communication goes through body language and facial expressions. I find a woman fully covering her face just as impolite as some guy covering himself behind big sunglasses.

Jan


User currently offlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5692 posts, RR: 44
Reply 82, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2523 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting lewis (Reply 36):
This is for motorcycle helmets, first paragraph:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAn...69854

And this is where my Indian freinds "rights' impinge on mine..
"This does not apply to a follower of the Sikh religion while wearing a turban."

Scenario 1-driving along, obeying as always the traffic laws, momentarily distracted by a flash of light or a child on the foot path, turban wearing motorcyclist comes out of a side street, bump him off his bike.. hits head on pavement, sadly does not survive.. accident was my fault, no argument. I may go to prison for this.

Scenario 2-driving along, obeying as always the traffic laws, momentarily distracted by a flash of light or a child on the foot path, Helmet wearing motorcyclist comes out of a side street, bump him off his bike.. hits helmet on pavement, happily only injury is scuff mark on helmet, accident was my fault, no argument.We exchange details, let insurers sort out repairs and arrange to meet at local for a pint!

Scenario 3-driving along, obeying as always the traffic laws, momentarily distracted by a flash of light or a child on the foot path, Helmet wearing motorcyclist comes out of a side street, bump him off his bike.. hits helmet on pavement, happily only injury is scuff mark on helmet, accident was my fault, no argument.Motor cyclist was aggressive gang member , beats me to a pulp and is charged with felony assault.. he goes to prison.

For the proponents of, and apologists for freedom of religious expression please explain why I should agree with this rediculous notion of "religious freedom"



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
New Hawaii Gov. To Combat "Birthers" posted Tue Dec 28 2010 15:48:46 by Aaron747
Obama's Granny Prayed For Him To Be Muslim posted Fri Nov 26 2010 17:54:36 by kevin
Happy Eid To All Muslim Members! posted Mon Nov 15 2010 22:01:07 by BrusselsSouth
Lou Dobbs Signs With Fox posted Wed Nov 10 2010 19:50:33 by WarRI1
Screen / Case Protection For MacBook Pro posted Thu Nov 4 2010 12:34:53 by ALTF4
The Muslim Calendar posted Sun Oct 17 2010 21:04:06 by DocLightning
Funny Signs & Text From Around The World (Photos) posted Sun Oct 17 2010 12:43:34 by MadameConcorde
CA Race: Brown, Whitman & "W" Word posted Mon Oct 11 2010 11:39:15 by Aaron747
The Tea Party Isn't About Anti-Muslim Sentiment. posted Sat Oct 9 2010 11:36:10 by DocLightning
Abominable US Gov Action In Guatemala In 1940s posted Fri Oct 1 2010 19:30:24 by Derico