Quoting crj200faguy (Reply 19): Muslims always want to cause trouble with this stuff. I highly doubt I could wear my cross working the ek counter in dxb.

Im not sure about DXB or EK,but you can definitely wear your cross or anything that represents your religion if you worked at KWI.
and please don't stereotype and generalize. one persons mistake doesn't make everyone who follows the same faith just like them.

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 33): Muslims working at the TSA checking other peoples boarding passes and ID's when it was their own kind that forced the US Gov't to create the TSA.

Again just because some people claimed that what they did is whats right in islam doesnt mean that all muslims think the same way, actually the quran teaches people to spread love and peace, not to kill and destroy  .

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 45): The Islamic blog post is clearly written by someone who does not understand Islam. Growing a beard & shouting Allahu Akbar at everything does not make you a Muslim. Sadly today, these are the people who media chooses to represent Muslims. These types have hijacked the religion.

I totally agree with everything you posted above pnd100, im glad common sense is still present here.

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 46): You have no need to apologize, there need to be more people out there like you speaking your mind. I've also studied religion and atheism and have settled as an agnostic. There's just too much hate from religious leaders nowadays. I used to be passionate about the airline industry myself, but left the industry in 2009 after 14 years at it, starting at TWA. Now I focus on my family, and growing my various businesses. Welcome to my respected users list, pnd100.

Thank you WesternA318. I loved TWA by the way, from the romance of the Constellation to their last days with their (ultimately unfulfilled) A318 order!

Quoting 9w748capt (Reply 47): I thought the Sri Lankan conflict was more Tamil vs Sinhalese as opposed to Hindu vs Buddhist. Both groups have members of all religions - IIRC the last head of the LTTE was a Christian? ... but anyways that's off topic. Speaking of Hindu vs Buddhist, I did notice when I toured the temples at Angkor that Buddhist kings would desecrate Hindu shrines and Hindu kings would return the favor when they took power. Quite interesting.

There were a lot of religious politics intertwined in that conflict. Nevertheless it proves my point that just because people get violent & stupid, we should not judge the religion. If it is against company policy to lie to the customer & 10 agents out of 10,000 lie to the customer, the customer should not then conclude that the company condones lying. What killers do violates the very religions they claim to represent.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 48): You must not know US employment and religious accommodation law. AF might as well start designing a sub-uniform with a hijab (for their US employees) now because this one is pretty much open and shut with plenty of precedents, if all the facts are true. AF would have to prove that this employee's headscarf is a safety hazard or that accommodating her beliefs would cause an unreasonable burden upon the company to get away with firing her because of a headscarf.

Assuming the contract was ratified by AF's legal team & signed by the ex-employee I do not see a case. Your example would apply IMO if there was no such clear clause in the contract. Then I would agree with you. For me AF does not have to comply if the clause itself is legal. Now if the clause is challenged to be illegal that is different. Then I would wonder why the AF legal team did not see this coming, especially since AF is based in France where accommodation issues are at the forefront

Quoting Aesma (Reply 20): That's true. Public servants, state or local, cannot wear any obvious religious sign, however (including hijabs, turbans, big visible cross, kippahs, etc.)

Stop posting things like that! You're making us americans jealous; we're supposed to be that advanced!

Quoting ScottB (Reply 24): In the U.S., "An employer is required to reasonably accommodate the religious belief of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship."

So then we can just consider such religious garb a hardship on non-religious employees (which it is). Problem solved.

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 45): The Islamic blog post is clearly written by someone who does not understand Islam. Growing a beard & shouting Allahu Akbar at everything does not make you a Muslim. Sadly today, these are the people who media chooses to represent Muslims. These types have hijacked the religion.

Correct. There is no problem with religious people who can "mainstream" with their surroundings (which some amount of the koran actually does say to do, btw). It's the overtness of any religion/religious appearances that's getting out of control here...

I disagree with woman who wants to wear head scarf, since when do they say its part of the uniform policy for all or most females require head scarf. I think AF is doing the right thing to ban people wearing them. I'm sorry if those women want to wear headscarf then they should do that when not working at all. Headscarf is not part of AF uniforms. Its ok for them to wear if they are not working with any company. They should do that on their on time after work before work and on weekends.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 8): The USA has well established Constitutional freedom as to religion or that their cannot be an official state faith, that has been clearly interpreted that employers cannot discriminate as to faith (or not having a faith belief) including one to wear religious head coverings. The employer must accommodate. They could require the headscarf be of certain colors that match her uniform.

Employers do not have to accommodate - they have to accommodate if it would not require an undue hardship.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 24): In the U.S., "An employer is required to reasonably accommodate the religious belief of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship." (from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). Therefore, AF (or any other foreign carrier employing staff in the U.S.) would have to demonstrate "an undue hardship" suffered by permitting an employee to wear a headscarf. The law might be a bit more murky with respect to employees of a contractor, which appears to be the case here, but I suspect it still applies.

Undue hardship is pretty broad but the burden is on the employer. In this case, if U.S. courts have jurisdiction, the employer would probably have to accommodate. It's not like it is a burden on the employer nor does it seem like her scarf is going to get sucked into machinery.

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 51): Assuming the contract was ratified by AF's legal team & signed by the ex-employee I do not see a case. Your example would apply IMO if there was no such clear clause in the contract. Then I would agree with you. For me AF does not have to comply if the clause itself is legal. Now if the clause is challenged to be illegal that is different. Then I would wonder why the AF legal team did not see this coming, especially since AF is based in France where accommodation issues are at the forefront

It really doesn't matter what the contract says because any contract that violates law is automatically null and void. This why many employers with dress and grooming codes, the most infamous being Abercrombie and Fitch, have been forced by courts to allow employees to wear hijabs, even the employees may have been advised of the dress code at the time of hire.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 3): I wonder if a somewhat over-zealous local French employee may be responsible. If so that could well require AF to conduct a quick inquiry to determine exactly what happened and why. After all we all know that the media often gets stories about commercial aviation very wrong.

   Playing Devil's advocate I see! I think your theory has some merit. There is definitely something fishy here.

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 52): Correct. There is no problem with religious people who can "mainstream" with their surroundings (which some amount of the koran actually does say to do, btw). It's the overtness of any religion/religious appearances that's getting out of control here...

You are correct. It does indeed clearly state in the Holy Qu'ran that you are to do good for your neighbours:
Qu'ran 4:36 “do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, the poor, the neighbour who is near of kin, the neighbour who is a stranger, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (you meet)... Verily, God does not like those who are falsely proud and boastful.”

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 9): Apparently, she was technically not an AF employee but an employee of a staffing agency hired by AF.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 24): In the U.S., "An employer is required to reasonably accommodate the religious belief of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship." (from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). Therefore, AF (or any other foreign carrier employing staff in the U.S.) would have to demonstrate "an undue hardship" suffered by permitting an employee to wear a headscarf. The law might be a bit more murky with respect to employees of a contractor, which appears to be the case here, but I suspect it still applies.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 55): It really doesn't matter what the contract says because any contract that violates law is automatically null and void. This why many employers with dress and grooming codes, the most infamous being Abercrombie and Fitch, have been forced by courts to allow employees to wear hijabs, even the employees may have been advised of the dress code at the time of hire.

Judging by all of these responses it appears that perhaps my assumption of AF's proactive verification of their contract may be wrong. If they did check it out, why was it allowed to go through? Playing judge; on the one hand the contractor should have known the requirements for AF & steered clear of the mess in the first place. On the other hand it appears that the law would favour the complainant. This is why I suggested that AF should have simply accommodated the employee with a colour matching headscarf. We may not all like that but if you were running AF what is going to cause you more "undue hardship"? All the bad press around this or designing a scarf?

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 8): I believe that AF's policy against religious head coverings in their workplace, unless there is a legitimate safety reason, is illegal in the USA. I am quite sure Federal workplace agencies would quickly agree with the woman and against AF and if AF were to enforce such a policy could lead to a fine or other penalties. ...employers cannot discriminate as to faith (or not having a faith belief) including one [edit - not] to wear religious head coverings. The employer must accommodate. They could require the headscarf be of certain colors that match her uniform.

I live in an area of Northern New Jersey with a significant number of those of the Islamic faith. It is not uncommon for a woman at a office or the check out clerks at a grocery stores or store clerks in other stores I go to regularly to be wearing a Islamic head scarf. At one grocery store near me a head scarf wearing Islamc woman check out clerk, their customers include Hasidic Jews, people who have their own clothing and for women the use of wigs and head scarfs, to a range of Hispanics, Polish, Greek and so on. Their employer has no problem with a Islamic woman wearing her head scarf. Now there could be a problem if they did not want to touch pork products and other foods not allowed to be consumed in their faith, but the head scarf - no conflict.

AF should want to show diversity in hiring a woman who is proud to wear her Islamic encouraged head scarf, maybe she speaks Arabic or some other language found in the Islamic world, or understands the cultural issues of those of the Islamic faith, to the advantage of customers probably common at that airport.

Regarding some of the issues raised in this post:

1. US law applies.

2. A similar issue has been previously litigated in 2002, See EEOC v. American Airlines, Civil Action No. 02-C-6172 (N.D. Ill.) (Order of Resolution filed September 3, 2002) (resolving claim on behalf of employee who was not hired as passenger service agent because she wore a hijab for religious reasons in violation of the airline’s since-changed uniform policy; the airline’s current uniform policy specifically contemplates exceptions for religious accommodation of employees)

3. Air France could get away with it if they were able to show that the banning of the hijab to be a limited situation in which the need for uniformity of appearance is so important that modifying the dress code would pose an undue hardship on the employer (think dress codes for places like Disney World or Hooters)

Hope this helps....

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 57): Islamic head scarf.

Just to clarify, there is no requirement in Islam to wear a headscarf. It is a choice.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 57): AF should want to show diversity in hiring a woman who is proud to wear her Islamic encouraged head scarf, maybe she speaks Arabic or some other language found in the Islamic world, or understands the cultural issues of those of the Islamic faith, to the advantage of customers probably common at that airport.

   I agree with this if this is indeed the case. Let's not forget that we have not heard any response from AF. We do not know the exact reason she was asked to leave. There could have been performance issues or other matters. After the fact now this woman is accusing AF of religious discrimination.

In any case, I have said from the beginning that AF could have / should have handled this better.

The facts as presented so far are that this woman applied through a temp agency to work at the airport for AF, signed a contract, presumably started work, was asked to take off her hijab, refused to do so & was asked to leave.

I've worked from temp agencies for about 5 years & there were times that I was told after 1 day that I wouldn't be right for the job. I was sure that the employers had this ability to "test" new employees. They would tell the agency & the agency would find you something else. Another conspiracy theory is that maybe AF told the agency that she would not work out & the agency told her it was due to the hijab?

Also to the best of my knowledge, in my country, even a full time employer can specify a probationary period of up to 6 months at which point they can dismiss you for any reason. I'm assuming I'm probably missing something because the statement "sounds" wrong. Maybe someone could clarify.

What is wrong with a money grab? It's the U.S.A. If someone has been wronged, the best way to right him or her is with dough. C.R.E.A.M.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 3): "Q: Why is there such sensitivity to overt religious symbols in a Catholic country?"

I think It has nothing to do with a religious issue or sensitivity.... the point is that every company has "dress-code" for employeess. I have to comply with my company dress-code wether I like it or not.......

Quoting ferminbrif (Reply 61): I think It has nothing to do with a religious issue or sensitivity.... the point is that every company has "dress-code" for employees. I have to comply with my company dress-code whether I like it or not.......

Totally agree.

However, if the dress and/or accessories are something representing religious, I would say 'leave it at home'.
Religious is preference, it will, of course, annoy others who prefer differently if you express your preference too "loud".

By dressing in the stereotype way of expressing your religious preference, you are, in a way, show off and offend others indirectly.

Funny enough, no other religious are showing their stereotype way of dressing in daily life. Why would one should make it so stereotype.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 29): In my workplace, people have been fired for letting their grooming slip.

You're an English professor?

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 45): 1) Headscarves are not mandated by Islam so claiming it as a religious ground just adds to the misconception that it is

You get into a sticky zone with that argument. There simply isn't an objective measure of what is and isn't "religious." I'm Jewish. I haven't been to Temple (barring weddings/funerals/bar mitzvahs) in over a decade. In fact, in 1.5 decades. But if I decide that I worship the Moon, the Stars, and the Holy Cannelloni and that my boss can't make me work on Tuesdays, I suddenly have legal protection.

On the one hand, this is good. You run into major tyranny issues when the government is allowed to decide what is and isn't a religion. And ours is, BTW. On the other hand, you run into people claiming the most absurd behaviors as "religious" and demanding legal protection to engage in them.

I am of the opinion that religion is and should be a personal matter. You don't wear it to work. You don't proselytize. You don't try to pass laws in accordance with your religion. You should practice your religion at home and at your house of worship.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 8): that has been clearly interpreted that employers cannot discriminate as to faith (or not having a faith belief) including one to wear religious head coverings.

If it causes undue hardship to the company, then yes, they can discriminate. The burden is on the employer to prove the hardship.

Quoting LordMontenegro (Reply 37): As far as this woman's complaint, if she did indeed sign a contract with AF that outright stated that she cannot wear a headscarf, for whatever reason, then I don't see where she has any legal ground to stand on.

A contract that is in violation of a law is null and void. The law clearly states that you cannot discriminate against religious beliefs without evidence of undue hardship.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 39): AF has their dress code.

And it's in violation of US labor law. It may not apply on their aircraft, but at a gate on US soil, with a US resident being paid in US dollars, it does.

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 52): So then we can just consider such religious garb a hardship on non-religious employees

It doesn't work like that; the employer has to give specific reasons why it would be an undue hardship. Rewriting a few paragraphs in a dress code is nowhere near "undue". Even if other employees were to get upset and uncomfortable, you would have to prove that the person wearing the offending material was doing it solely for the purpose of making them uncomfortable.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 63): But if I decide that I worship the Moon, the Stars, and the Holy Cannelloni and that my boss can't make me work on Tuesdays, I suddenly have legal protection.

Not really. If the company you work for can't cover for your missing work on Tuesdays, or better yet has to pay someone else overtime which significantly affects their balance sheet, they can absolutely let you go. It falls under the "undue hardship" clause.

This is why people like me, who have to bid for shift times and days off based on seniority, cannot claim a day off for a religious reason, bypassing all the people senior to me who couldn't get that day off. It violates our contract, and puts the company in a bad situation. Undue hardship.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 63): I am of the opinion that religion is and should be a personal matter.

I am too, but in this great country of ours, the opinions of other people count too. That being said:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 63): You don't proselytize.

Mentioning it is one thing, but the second someone says stop, and they don't... they get the can for harassment.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 4): This seems kinda strange since there is more than one minority christian sect that require women to cover thier heads/hair in public. I dunno about other religions, but wouldn't be suprised if there was plenty around the globe with these kinds of restrictions for thier members.

which is why the French ban does not specify any specific religion or other reason for wearing the thing, it bans them outright, all of them.


No religious discrimination going on here. The woman could have known about the clothing requirements at the time she took the job (and will likely have been told about them when appearing veiled during a job interview).
In all such cases I've ever seen the woman in question deliberately put herself in a situation where she had to remove a scarf, for the sole reason of making trouble for a company. It's an act of violence against non-believers, religious stealth warfare.

Quoting pnd100 (Reply 16): For those who may not know. There is a major difference between the Hijab (headscarf) & the Niqab (face veil) in terms of security. Please note that the Holy Qu'ran does not require women to wear EITHER. It asks BOTH men & women to dress modestly but does not specify that they MUST cover their heads or faces. This is a custom that is followed by SOME people who feel this brings them closer to God by doing so.

Good point. Now here's the thing-most people do not think that the Niqab is a requirement/written in the Qu'ran. However most people believe that the Hijab is a requirement as stated in the Qu'ran.

Quoting crj200faguy (Reply 19): Muslims always want to cause trouble with this stuff. I highly doubt I could wear my cross working the ek counter in dxb.

You certainly can't do that working for BA in LHR. I remember reading about a Christian employee at Heathrow who was wearing a cross and was fired/reprimanded. If it were banned in DXB, but not because it's a Christian symbol, but because certain employees wearing jewellery might be prohibited while on duty. No pendants, overwhelming earrings etc.
The Hijab however, is not an accessory. For women who wear them, it is not simply a symbol of their faith, but something they have to adhere to 24/7.

Quoting jwenting (Reply 65): which is why the French ban does not specify any specific religion or other reason for wearing the thing

First of all, you might want to get your facts straight. France only bans the wearing of the Niqab, which covers the whole face. Hijabs are only forbidden in schools.

And it's irrelevant how it's worded. As far as the US is concerned, the 1st Amendment forbids the government from banning religious garb, so long as nobody is physically harmed by it.

Quoting jwenting (Reply 65): No religious discrimination going on here

There is absolutely religious discrimination going on here. It is the burden of the employer to show that they are unduly burdened by allowing the headscarf.

Quoting jwenting (Reply 65): In all such cases I've ever seen the woman in question deliberately put herself in a situation where she had to remove a scarf, for the sole reason of making trouble for a company

An anecdotal tale which carries no weight in court, and has no place in any civilized discussion.

Quoting jwenting (Reply 65): It's an act of violence against non-believers, religious stealth warfare.

        

I so wish I could find something to say... but I don't feel like another vacation.

Quoting directorguy (Reply 66): The Hijab however, is not an accessory. For women who wear them, it is not simply a symbol of their faith, but something they have to adhere to 24/7.

wrong. And you contradict yourself there as previously you stated there's no such requirement whatsoever in their scripture.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 67): First of all, you might want to get your facts straight. France only bans the wearing of the Niqab, which covers the whole face. Hijabs are only forbidden in schools.

Doesn't matter. The ban is universal and not restricted to any religion.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 67): There is absolutely religious discrimination going on here.

Any piece of clothing covering the entire head and/or face is banned, the exact limits depending maybe on where you are.
A Christian wearing a scarf or a yob wearing a hoody would fall under the same ban.

Again, there's no religious discrimination at all. The company sets clothing standards, employees have to adhere to them.
It's that simple. If a homosexual pilot comes and refuses to wear his hat because it "ruins his hairdo' he can't claim sex discrimination either claiming as a homosexual he needs to have his hair perfect at all times.
When my boss requires me to wear a suit and tie at certain occasions he too can take action if I don't, never mind that I don't like it. It's my choice to take that job. If I don't want to stick to their rules, I can bloody well go and find another one.
This falls under the same logic.

Of course if the rules were changed after someone starts working, there might be a legal dispute whether the change in working conditions can legally be imposed on existing employees, but that's not the case here.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 67): An anecdotal tale which carries no weight in court, and has no place in any civilized discussion.

do your own research. Lots of such cases have been reported over the last several years, many of which ended up being thrown out in courts because of the reasons I and others mentioned already.
And that's official court records, which weigh very heavily in court cases.

Quoting jwenting (Reply 68): wrong. And you contradict yourself there as previously you stated there's no such requirement whatsoever in their scripture.

Re-read what I said. I agreed with a previous poster who said that hijab is not a requirement in the Qu'ran. But there are many people who do believe that it is a requirement in the Qu'ran, which is why they wear the hijab.

Allow me to clarify. Technically speaking, there is nothing in the Qu'ran that explicitly states that 'all women must wear a hijab'. But the Quran does make a few references to women being veiled (in certain specific contexts), which some take as a mandate from God to wear hijabs. As a result, a lot of 'mainstream' Muslim women do wear the hijab, as they choose to interpret the Qu'ran literally.

Quoting directorguy (Reply 66): Quoting pnd100 (Reply 16): For those who may not know. There is a major difference between the Hijab (headscarf) & the Niqab (face veil) in terms of security. Please note that the Holy Qu'ran does not require women to wear EITHER. It asks BOTH men & women to dress modestly but does not specify that they MUST cover their heads or faces. This is a custom that is followed by SOME people who feel this brings them closer to God by doing so. Good point. Now here's the thing-most people do not think that the Niqab is a requirement/written in the Qu'ran. However most people believe that the Hijab is a requirement as stated in the Qu'ran.

Within the Islamic world, it largely dependes on regional customs and traditions (and also to which sub-branch of islam the person belongs to).
I used to be married to a woman from West Africa, who came from a Muslim (moderate Sunni) family. In her place Muslim womwn would generally not wear a heaqdscarf in daily life, only when they went to the mosque or to pray. Female genital mutilation though (eventhough not prescribed in the Q´ran) was common there (possibly a leftover from pre-Islamic times).

Similarly in the Southern Philippines Muslim women would traditionally just wrap a light cloth around their hair and not cover the whole head.

In Turkey, the female members of the Alevi sect only wear headscarves when praying. Many educated and younger women don´t wear headscarves at all.
The strictest rules come from the Gulf states and Afghanistan / western Pakistan, where women (have to) wear the Niqab or a burka, which both cover the woman completely.

There was, many years ago, an issue with Iran Air in Frankfurt where they required that female non-muslim staff in their German offices must wear a head scarf and I believe also that black coat. Not sure how this ended but I think these ladies had little choice but leaving the company or wearing a full body condom.

Quoting jwenting (Reply 68): When my boss requires me to wear a suit and tie at certain occasions he too can take action if I don't, never mind that I don't like it. It's my choice to take that job. If I don't want to stick to their rules, I can bloody well go and find another one.

The whole problem is that as soon as anyone starts to play the "religious sensitivity", "diversity", "acceptance" cards in the pussified world of political correctness, simple common sense and logic no longer apply and people get away with all kinds of nonsense they otherwise would not.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 72): The whole problem is that as soon as anyone starts to play the "religious sensitivity", "diversity", "acceptance" cards in the pussified world of political correctness

  

This has nothing to do with "sensitivity" or "diversity" or even "acceptance". This is about US laws dealing with discrimination. You don't have to like or accept someone because of their religion or cultural background, but you are forbidden to discriminate unless you can show it will unduly burden your business.

It's nothing to do with being PC (and I'm one of the most anti-PC people you'll ever meet). This has to do with individual freedoms and :gasp: human rights, something you'd think Europeans would support.

Quoting jwenting (Reply 68): Any piece of clothing covering the entire head and/or face is banned, the exact limits depending maybe on where you are. A Christian wearing a scarf or a yob wearing a hoody would fall under the same ban.

And if you believe this was targeted at "yobs with hoodies", I have a bridge to sell you.

The original school-oriented law is titled "concerning, as an application of the principle of the separation of church and state, the wearing of symbols or garb which show religious affiliation in public primary and secondary schools"

So much for religious freedoms and the advancement of human rights....

Quoting jwenting (Reply 68): Again, there's no religious discrimination at all. The company sets clothing standards, employees have to adhere to them.

Again, this is simply not true in the US. The company must show undue hardship to prohibit the display of religious garb.

Quoting jwenting (Reply 68): When my boss requires me to wear a suit and tie at certain occasions he too can take action if I don't, never mind that I don't like it.

Probably because wearing anything else will turn clients away from the business, hence undue hardship. And again, you live in the Netherlands, where the laws may or may not be the same as the US.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 73): It's nothing to do with being PC (and I'm one of the most anti-PC people you'll ever meet). This has to do with individual freedoms and :gasp: human rights, something you'd think Europeans would support.

Well, the French remember when religious differences caused wars across Europe, and even civil wars. The French remember when religion ruled the people. So, we prefer freedom from religion, and do whatever you wish at home or in your religious building.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 73): The original school-oriented law is titled "concerning, as an application of the principle of the separation of church and state, the wearing of symbols or garb which show religious affiliation in public primary and secondary schools" So much for religious freedoms and the advancement of human rights....

Yeah, because kids being forced to wear religious stuff and proselytize is so great.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 74): So, we prefer freedom from religion

In other words, you're full of crap when you talk about freedoms and human rights. Gotcha.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 74): kids being forced to wear religious stuff

Quoting Aesma (Reply 74): proselytize

Are not the same thing. And once in school, the kids can take it off if they want.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 74): Well, the French remember when religious differences caused wars across Europe, and even civil wars.

Maybe the French should remember the last time religious persecution happened. Because it was the exact same line... blame the problem on the religion, not the xenophobic. 6 million Jews died because of that attitude.

Hatred only begets more hatred. Learn to understand and accept, and you'll find that many problems really aren't problems after all.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 75): In other words, you're full of crap when you talk about freedoms and human rights. Gotcha.

Well, I have no lessons to receive from an US citizen, maybe when Guantanamo is closed and W Bush in jail. I'm sure between torture and not being able to force your girls to wear a scarf, the choice is difficult.

And for something more light about freedoms and their limits, my personal religion forces me to go about naked, but somehow, that's forbidden pretty much everywhere, including the US ! I guess freedom is not limitless after all.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 75): Are not the same thing. And once in school, the kids can take it off if they want.

Of course not. There will always be a brother or sister or neighbor's kid to keep the parents informed.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 75): Maybe the French should remember the last time religious persecution happened. Because it was the exact same line... blame the problem on the religion, not the xenophobic. 6 million Jews died because of that attitude.

Ethnic Jews, not religious Jews (and of course, gypsies, homosexuals, political opponents, resistance fighters, etc. but I guess those are religions too). Antisemitism existed in France of course (and still does) but it's really not about religion, most antisemitic people (and most people) don't know the first thing about the Jewish religion, here.

When I was working in the Republic of ireland, religious and political statements were banned (a sackable offense) on company property.
The reason:
We had people working there from both the Republic as well as Northern Ireland and from Britain, both Catholics and Protestants. We had Republicans working there (County Clare used to be a hotbed of IRA activity) as well as Loyalists.
The company wanted to prevent the differences, which caused the civil war in Northern Ireland (and the centuries of sectarian and politcal fighting) from taking hold in the company.

If you look at central and northern European history (and that includes France and the UK), you´ll see that we had centuries of religious warfare, which devastated the whole continent, with one religion or the other favoured by the respective government. Germany had the 30 year war. France had a civil war between Catholics and Protestants (Hugenottes). The UK had the Jacobite insurrections. Mostly strong religious movements were coupled with a monarch who insisted on absolutist rule.
The French, during their revolution decided to get completely rid of religion in public life (especially since the Catholic clerus had special privileges as the 2nd Etat under the monarchy).
In Europe religion is mostly considered a private matter. Openly proselyzing religions and blatantly showing of your religious preference is considered bad form, though in some more Catholic regions (like the states of Bavaria in Germany still has signs of cross in classrooms of public schools, which is agasin and again being contested in courts of law and which the conservative party which rules Bavaria since WW2 and which is closely connected to the Catholic church, describes as "adhering to local traditions").

Islam only came into the picture during the last 50 years. The aim of these much older laws and traditions was to break the power of institutionalised Christian churches (and there have been abuses by Protestant churches as well, look at the English Puritans, original Zurich Calvinists or the original Mennonites (who, while peaceful today, ran a rule of terror in some parts of Northern Germany during the 16th century).

Jan

I don't see why we can't leave well enough alone here. In the US, we obviously have a different idea of freedom and society than the EU, and vice versa. Not saying one is better than the other, but in this case at IAD, she's in America, play by American rules. Had this been an American in CDG, better take it off, you are in France, live with their rules! Don't see the need for any country to try and impose their rules on the rest of the world (and yes, I know the US is guilty of that sometimes...)

I came across this on the EOE's website.

Quote: EXAMPLE 14 Employment Decision Based on Customer Preference Harinder, who wears a turban as part of his Sikh religion, is hired to work at the counter in a coffee shop. A few weeks after Harinder begins working, the manager notices that the work crew from the construction site near the shop no longer comes in for coffee in the mornings. When he inquires, the crew complains that Harinder, whom they mistakenly believe is Muslim, makes them uncomfortable in light of the September 11th attacks. The manager tells Harinder that he has to let him go because the customers’ discomfort is understandable. The manager has subjected Harinder to unlawful religious discrimination by taking an adverse action based on customers’ preference not to have a cashier of Harinder’s perceived religion. Harinder’s termination based on customer preference would violate Title VII regardless of whether he was Muslim, Sikh, or any other religion.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html

Quoting nethkt (Reply 62): Funny enough, no other religious are showing their stereotype way of dressing in daily life. Why would one should make it so stereotype.

Have you ever seen a Hasidic Jew, Mennonite, Sikh or an Amish person before? All are instantly recognizable. And that excludes the large number of people you see in daily wearing either a cross, saint's portrait or Star of David around their neck.

Quoting wn700driver (Reply 52): So then we can just consider such religious garb a hardship on non-religious employees (which it is). Problem solved.

A hardship? It's now a hardship to look at someone wearing a scarf on their head? If I put my hood up outside when it's raining are you offended?

Quoting jwenting (Reply 65): It's an act of violence against non-believers, religious stealth warfare.

   Putting a piece of cloth over your hair is warfare? I guess Taco Bell and Jack in the Box are army bases then.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 76): Well, I have no lessons to receive from an US citizen, maybe when Guantanamo is closed and W Bush in jail. I'm sure between torture and not being able to force your girls to wear a scarf, the choice is difficult.

Yes, because 100% of American citizens support torture and voted for George W. Bush.  

--

I have a question for people who think that AF's dress code is alright. Suppose a female CSR was left bald because of cancer treatments. She approaches her supervisor and asks if she may wear some sort of hat or scarf over her head because she's self conscious. Ignoring law, do you think it's appropriate, reasonable and fair for AF to accommodate such a request?

Quoting VV701 (Reply 3): This echoes the situation in 2004 when the French government introduced a law banning headscarfes from French schools: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3328277.stm Scroll down to: "Q: Why is there such sensitivity to overt religious symbols in a Catholic country?"

This shows typical BBC francophobic and anti-Catholic stance: Factually inaccurate and ignorant: France has been officially a secular state for well over a century.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 76): Well, I have no lessons to receive from an US citizen, maybe when Guantanamo is closed and W Bush in jail.

Right... because I totally supported both torture and Dubya.

If you're gonna make an attack, make sure you actually know the views of the person you're arguing with.



And for the record, I work at an airport. You'd be surprised how many people wear hijabs and turbans, and how almost nobody has a problem with that. The same with crosses and such.

There is no reason to hate them because of that.

Just found this, unfortunately in German only.

An Austrian insisted that he wears a spaghetti colander on his driving license photo.

http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/artic...delsieb-auf-Fuehrerscheinfoto.html

They let him but then send him to a psychiatrist who checked his "mental ability to operate a car". took them 2 172 years but he finally got his licence, with the noodle colander.  

OK, I am not saying that the mountain tribe making up our southern neighbour is a bit strange as this story is rather funny and fits to this thread.

The guy is a practising atheist and after he founded the church of the flying spaghetti monster his next goal is to establish Pastafarianism in Austria. In case there is an earthquake in Jamaica the cause will be clear.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 18): Air France can do if they want.... They have a dressing code so if you don´t follow or if you don´t like.... bye bye.... look for something else....

True, and I agree!

Quoting ju068 (Reply 21): Couldn't agree more with this. If the person is not happy with the dress code imposed by the airline it can always apply to work with another one that allows it.

Again, agreed!

Quoting EBGARN (Reply 23): And I would be able to do a perfectly fine job wearing a wetsuit and a Dolphins cap at the check-in counter. But it is against the AF dressing code, so I wouldn't be allowed to wear that! I see no reason whatsoever why religious beliefs should give a right to breach the dressing code. What would that reason be? Someones faith is private matter, and should be kept out of workplaces, schools etc. Otherwise we'll one day end up in a mad world.

Thumbs-up!

Quoting FlySSC (Reply 27): The AF dress code clearly states that no apparent religious sign is allowed, whether it's a scarf, a christian cross, a jewish star or anything you want. This dress code is valid for the ground staff and flying staff, in any AF Office/Airport/Airplane. You are informed about this when you sign your work contract. Then it's up to you not to work for AF if you don't agree with this.

Quite so and very much important in this discussion - since it may even trump US laws accommodating religious things at the workplace. There is a reason for the uniform. It's supposed to be... uniform.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 39): This is a 'mountain out of a mole hill.' AF has their dress code.

Quite so.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 72): The whole problem is that as soon as anyone starts to play the "religious sensitivity", "diversity", "acceptance" cards in the pussified world of political correctness, simple common sense and logic no longer apply and people get away with all kinds of nonsense they otherwise would not.

Great comment. As always!

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 78): I don't see why we can't leave well enough alone here. In the US, we obviously have a different idea of freedom and society than the EU, and vice versa. Not saying one is better than the other, but in this case at IAD, she's in America, play by American rules. Had this been an American in CDG, better take it off, you are in France, live with their rules! Don't see the need for any country to try and impose their rules on the rest of the world (and yes, I know the US is guilty of that sometimes...)

Agreed! Let's see this case brought to the US courts. Unless she was hired in France of course.

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 80): This shows typical BBC francophobic and anti-Catholic stance: Factually inaccurate and ignorant: France has been officially a secular state for well over a century.

You should see their anti-Spanish attitude!

asturias

Quoting Asturias (Reply 83): True, and I agree!

Unfortunately for you, US law disagrees.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 83): since it may even trump US laws

Hmm... I wasn't aware that US law could be ignored because someone doesn't like it.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 83): Let's see this case brought to the US courts.

Ah, but since you claim US law doesn't really matter, why should it be brought to the courts?

Quoting Asturias (Reply 83): Unless she was hired in France of course.

Irrelevant. She is working full-time in the US, and must follow US labor law.

Quoting Asturias (Reply 83): Quite so and very much important in this discussion - since it may even trump US laws accommodating religious things at the workplace. There is a reason for the uniform. It's supposed to be... uniform.

AF's policies do not supersede US law.