Disney sued over headscarf.....

fuck wrote:

Are people understanding this entire controversy the wrong way? The way I understood the woman's problem with Disney was that it was discrimination. That is, she has some reason to believe that the reason Disney was not allowing her to work with her hijab on was due to some inherent prejudice toward Islam. In other words, she has reason to believe that they would have accommodated her, had she not been Muslim and of another faith that they are more welcoming to. That she simply demands Disney to accommodate her without any basis is, I believe, not the main argument here, though it appears that that is what many of you are sitting here arguing against, without taking into consideration the various possibilities.
It's amazing how we all purport to believe in the American judicial system, in having all the information before reaching a verdict, and so on, and yet with one measly news article we can take such a harsh stance against not only the principle supposedly being fought for, but against the person him/herself!

fuck wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

Big fuckin deal !! who cares what hijab is...she should find her self a job that lets her where her ..hijab
and I don't want to hear about "it's religious thing" over half the people on this forum have stated that they don't believe a cross should be displayed on public property but wearing a ..jihab is o.k :? I'm calling bullshit !
with all the non believers on here that blame everything on religion all the sudden this jihab crap is o.k ? :problem:

Godfather.

Hmm...
A few thoughts:
1. You begin your post by basically declaring that you have no interest in learning where the grievance of someone else might stem from, and would rather speak from a position of ignorance as regards the topic of hijab.
2. You take a stance against her, but then make it incredibly apparent (so much so, I almost thought you were joking) that your opinion is completely reactionary, and stems from people's disagreement with public property displaying of the cross.
3. By not defending the analogy, it appears that you're speaking from a position of emotion rather than reason, which hurts your overall point.
4. It's "hijab" not "jihab." You spelled it correctly earlier in your post, but as it appears you are speaking from a position of rage, you seemed to have forgotten its correct spelling only a sentence or two below it. Misspelling something once can be a typo, twice is a clear disregard for accuracy, and considering that it is a five-letter word and the subject of what the dispute is about, I would hope you'd strive to at least try to gain some insight into the topic.

redrock wrote:

fuck wrote:

redrock wrote:

Since this thread is about a non-muslim country I was under the impression we were talking about the legal system of such country (eg US or even similar countries such as UK, France, etc.) Sharia courts will usually deal with civil cases only - within the community. They would not have any impact on lawsuits such as this one or the ones I have referred to.

So you're telling me you were talking about secular courts when you said that courts have denied women cases because they ruled that the hijab was not a religious obligation? Tell me, which of these secular courts would make a religious ruling like that? An American judge ruling that the hijab is not obligatory in Islam--now, I've heard it all. :roll:

I think you misunderstood my posts. Just as in the 'cross' example, I am talking about some women, as the person subject of this thread, taking on companies on the grounds of religious discrimination where the courts of law of the relevant countries ruled against them and in favour of the employer as they did not judge this to be discrimination on the grounds of religion. Understand that as you wish.