PSA53
Topic Author
Posts: 2928
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:54 pm

Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:44 pm

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.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:49 am

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13230
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:37 am

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. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
photopilot
Posts: 3061
Joined: Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:16 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:18 pm

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.
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2511
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 12:55 pm

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 avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13230
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:18 pm

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. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7474
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 1:28 pm

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
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2511
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 5:36 pm

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.
 
PSA53
Topic Author
Posts: 2928
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 1:54 pm

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:24 pm

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.
 
RussianJet
Posts: 5982
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:15 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:33 pm

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 avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7474
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 7:53 pm

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
 
RussianJet
Posts: 5982
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:15 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:07 pm

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 avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13230
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:47 pm

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. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
lewis
Posts: 3564
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:49 pm

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.
 
RussianJet
Posts: 5982
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:15 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:51 pm

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. ✈
 
lewis
Posts: 3564
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:56 pm

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.
 
lewis
Posts: 3564
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:08 pm

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 avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13230
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:06 pm

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. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
lewis
Posts: 3564
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:33 pm

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...
 
ozglobal
Posts: 2511
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:33 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 10:35 pm

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.
 
777way
Posts: 6470
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:38 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:49 pm

^ 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.
 
B777LRF
Posts: 1422
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Mon Sep 10, 2012 11:58 pm

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 avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7474
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Tue Sep 11, 2012 1:55 pm

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
 
Airontario
Posts: 593
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2001 12:04 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:55 pm

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).
 
RussianJet
Posts: 5982
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:15 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:05 pm

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. ✈
 
Starbuk7
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:09 pm

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:18 pm

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?
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:27 pm

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 avatar
CrimsonNL
Posts: 1781
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:34 pm

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:33 pm

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
Always comparing your flown types list with mine
 
lewis
Posts: 3564
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:35 pm

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 avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7474
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:53 pm

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 avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7474
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Tue Sep 11, 2012 7:59 pm

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
 
RussianJet
Posts: 5982
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:15 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:18 pm

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 avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:50 pm

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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:36 am

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:42 am

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 :)
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12361
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:48 am

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.
 
lewis
Posts: 3564
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:52 am

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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:53 am

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
lewis
Posts: 3564
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Wed Sep 12, 2012 12:57 am

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.
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4044
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:34 am

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 avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7474
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:17 pm

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 avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Thu Sep 13, 2012 2:55 pm

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 :)
 
RussianJet
Posts: 5982
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:15 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Thu Sep 13, 2012 3:21 pm

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. ✈
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Thu Sep 13, 2012 4:20 pm

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 avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7474
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:27 pm

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 avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:32 pm

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 :)
 
Starbuk7
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:09 pm

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:47 pm

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 avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:55 pm

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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Thu Sep 13, 2012 7:05 pm

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Pyrex
Posts: 4044
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:24 am

RE: Gov.Brown Signs Protection Muslim Attrie

Fri Sep 14, 2012 4:45 am

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!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tommy1808 and 71 guests