It does have to deal with her particular sect of Islam, which is heavily influenced by cultural upbringing, so I do disagree with you there, Di.    Those about the jewelry makes a good case why and maybe the Christian woman is overreacting, but I still don't see the harm in it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You keep mentioning the Muslim woman's sect. Why? I haven't read anything mentioning her sect. The option or supposed compulsion to wear a veil transcends all sects of Islam.

Edited October 17, 200619 yr by Surreptishus

Not really. There are the Sunni and Shiite divisions and within those divisions there are those who are moderates and those who are very conservative. The conservative sects use the burka and veil if memory serves.

Edited October 17, 200619 yr by Judge Hades

Not really.  There are the Sunni and Shiite divisions and within those divisions there are those who are moderates and those who are very conservative.  The conservative sects use the burka and veil if memory serves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

OK, you havent got it right. Never mind though, you answered my earlier question.

Edited October 17, 200619 yr by Surreptishus

Its been a while since I read my Islamic texts, so it is no surprise my memory is a little faulty. Oh well, not that it matters.

Sorry, but I'm not feeling particularly charitable toward peeps who confuse "rights" with "wants".

 

Agreed.

If it causes no harm and promotes diversity, why put a ban on it?

Because those in power said so?

Yes, but most of those in power are ****.

I have to side with their employers in this case.

 

If you're working "for" someone and they are "paying you" to do it, you need to abide by their workplace rules and regs.

 

It's that simple.

 

If you don't like it, find another job that is more in tune to your needs.

exactly what darque said.

 

when those that are in power are paying the bills, hades, it does not matter whether they are **** or not. it's their company, and they have a right to set the rules. remember, people don't have a right to work for someone.

 

taks

Yes, but some companies could "abuse" that mentality so that only those of certain backgrounds will apply and work for them. Sort of pre-emptive discrimination.

straws...grasping...

Yes, but some companies could "abuse" that mentality so that only those of certain backgrounds will apply and work for them.  Sort of pre-emptive discrimination.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I pay, I say, you do, you get paid.

 

I'm not seeing the problem here.

 

when someone is paying you to do something, they have the right to tell you how to do it.

Maybe its the anarchist in me but that just seems to me a tad draconian to me.

Edited October 18, 200619 yr by Judge Hades

Hades has it right.

 

Paying people gives an employer the right to their employees work - only to their work.

 

If the employer sets unnecessary descriminatory conditions or provisions against people who they don't like because of their religion or culture or something else the employer is just being too cleverly deceitful as well as bigoted.

 

We shouldn't quibble about such things.

Not really.  There are the Sunni and Shiite divisions and within those divisions there are those who are moderates and those who are very conservative.  The conservative sects use the burka and veil if memory serves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Theres a part of islam called Hajib, which pretty much states that a woman must act and dress modestly in public. Some communities take that a little more seriously than others. Basically, they can't dress like teenage north american girls, but wearing a long skirt and high cut blouse would be just as acceptible as a burka.

 

Burkas by the way are pretty much exclusive to Afghanistan.

 

So the head scarves aren't required. They're just some people's interpretations of hajib.

Edited October 18, 200619 yr by Oerwinde

Exactly, Colrom. What harm does the veil do in the teaching of young students? None that I can see.

Theres a part of islam called Hajib, which pretty much states that a woman must act and dress modestly in public. Some communities take that a little more seriously than others. Basically, they can't dress like teenage north american girls, but wearing a long skirt and high cut blouse would be just as acceptible as a burka.

 

Burkas by the way are pretty much exclusive to Afghanistan.

 

So the head scarves aren't required. They're just some people's interpretations of hajib.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for the clarification, Oerwinde.

Hades has it right.

 

Paying people gives an employer the right to their employees work - only to their work.

 

If the employer sets unnecessary descriminatory conditions or provisions against people who they don't like because of their religion or culture or something else the employer is just being too cleverly deceitful as well as bigoted.

 

We shouldn't quibble about such things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Incorrect.

 

Employers ALSO have the right to set dresscodes. Which both of these fall under.

Yet those dress codes can be discriminatory to minorities who have religious and cultural inhibitions. Sort of racial profiling of whom you want to represent your place of business.

Too bad.

 

Find another job then.

 

Jewelry and clothing are just that.

 

when you're working for someone, you're representing THEM not yourself, not your dog, not your country, not your faith.

 

And so they have every right to determine how you represent them.

Not if it is at the cost of individual freedoms and rights.

It's up for legal interpretation - depending on the country and state.

 

In any case we know that is just quibbling - the intent in the case of the Muslim woman is pretty clearly based on religious bias.

 

As Hades said. In the case of the Muslim woman so far as I can tell the dress code was applied after the fact because some people wanted a more palatable reason than bigotry for removing or bulling the person. It allows people to imagine they are principled rather than bigoted.

Edited October 18, 200619 yr by Colrom

There are laws in place to prohibit discrimination based upon race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, etc., etc., etc. In fact, a private employer (and public employer too, like governmental agencies) have to report to the feds annually about how many of each race, etc., they employ... and woe be to those employers whose percentage of employees by race don't match the percentages by race living in the surrounding areas. Talk about affirmative action run amuck...

 

But I digress. Point being, employers are free to have at least some control over the work environment they provide. If they don't want people wearing jewelry or being masked, they have the right to make that decision. I can think of lots of jobs that an employer wouldn't want to fill with a female wearing a burka... car salesperson comes to mind, lol, but there are tons of others. Employers are already beaten about who they can hire and who they can't hire to conform with anti-discrimination (which, oddly enough, when brought to extremes eventually becomes discriminatory in itself) legislation. I do not look forward to the day when the government will legislate how people must dress, what kind of office furniture must be provided, and what color the office break room must be painted.

 

I'm sick to death of people whining and slapping on lawsuits because they can't have everything they want 100% of the time. I'm also sick to death of people accusing anyone who disagrees with them of being racists or bigots.

Edited October 18, 200619 yr by ~Di

Not if it is at the cost of individual freedoms and rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes, Hades, this is how the real world works.