# Politically Correct Stupidity: Episode 3,872,390,576 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768 "2010-08-19T18:32:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2010, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/181 "2010-08-22T08:49:09Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > So, do you see a distinction between the Hooter’s business model and the Disney model that would call for government intervention in the case of one corporation opposed to a religious employee’s needs and not the other? To expand on the above reply: Yes, because whilst you could say that having waitresses dressed in an overtly sexually alluring manner is a fundamental part of a restaurants business plan it’s much harder to say that not having any staff with any sort of head covering is similarly fundamental. I dare say a company would be able to ban hijabs if their business was that of a photographer supplying examples of different hairstyles to hairdressers. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2010, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/182 "2010-08-22T14:56:10Z")
> [@qpw3141](#): > > > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > > > So, do you see a distinction between the Hooter’s business model and the Disney model that would call for government intervention in the case of one corporation opposed to a religious employee’s needs and not the other? > > To expand on the above reply: > > Yes, because whilst you could say that having waitresses dressed in an overtly sexually alluring manner is a fundamental part of a restaurants business plan it’s much harder to say that not having any staff with any sort of head covering is similarly fundamental. > > I dare say a company would be able to ban hijabs if their business was that of a photographer supplying examples of different hairstyles to hairdressers. But what about the Muslim hooter girl who has no problem wearing sexy garb, but wants to wear a head scarf as well ? ---
**Author:** ![qpw3141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/6bbea6/32.png) [@qpw3141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qpw3141)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2010, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/183 "2010-08-22T15:28:41Z")
> [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > > [@qpw3141](#): > > > > To expand on the above reply: > > > > Yes, because whilst you could say that having waitresses dressed in an overtly sexually alluring manner is a fundamental part of a restaurants business plan it’s much harder to say that not having any staff with any sort of head covering is similarly fundamental. > > > > I dare say a company would be able to ban hijabs if their business was that of a photographer supplying examples of different hairstyles to hairdressers. > > But what about the Muslim hooter girl who has no problem wearing sexy garb, but wants to wear a head scarf as well ? That would definitely be one for a court to decide. I would imagine, however, that a court would expect to see some consistency in the level of religious observance. I can’t imagine, for example, that they would have a lot of sympathy for a Jew who claimed that Saturday working didn’t allow him to properly observe the sabbath if they could show he had a bacon sandwich for breakfast every day. (Unless, of course there is a sub grouping that devoutly obeys sabbath observance but rejects food laws - religion can be a tricky business). ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 22, 2010, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/184 "2010-08-22T17:12:29Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Of course there are. That’s why Mormons can no longer practice polygamy, and native Americans can’t smoke peyote (at least, not under Federal law). I understand that there are. I’m just wondering what they are specifically with respect to Title Vll cases like this. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/185 "2010-08-23T04:12:45Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > If you don’t know that you have a right to enforce your religious beliefs against your employer, it’s not evidence that it’s not your religious belief if you choose not to starve. But they offered a her a job in the back. At the same pay. how is this a choice between starving and her religion? Were you just overstating things for dramatic effect? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/186 "2010-08-23T04:14:35Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > As far as the legal aspects of the matter are concerned, Disney is unlikely to prevail. Since it has routinely allowed cast members to display visible religions clothing or jewelry in the past, it cannot now claim that its position is neutral. > > See [Goldman v. Weinberger](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0475_0503_ZO.html), which I think is still good law. If that is the case then I would have to agree. Can you provide a cite where Disney has allowed other people to wear personal religious clothing? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/187 "2010-08-23T04:19:01Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > As far as the legal aspects of the matter are concerned, Disney is unlikely to prevail. Since it has routinely allowed cast members to display visible religions clothing or jewelry in the past, it cannot now claim that its position is neutral. > > > > See [Goldman v. Weinberger](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0475_0503_ZO.html), which I think is still good law. > > If that is the case then I would have to agree. Can you provide a cite where Disney has allowed other people to wear personal religious clothing? In a lawsuit? No. I happen to know from personal experience that Disney essentially approves all requests for religious exceptions to its dress code, though. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/188 "2010-08-23T04:19:04Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > But also part of the social ill the law is meant to address is the sentiment that minority employees (be they members of a traditionally represented race, sex, or religion) need or should be kept out of public view or that customers should be protected from the affront of dealing with them, perhaps even while wearing non-traditional apparel. So quite apart from the functional or remunerative equivalences that may obtain between the positions, separate is still unequal. Thus, to “accommodate” hijab-wearing employees by keeping them hidden away is no accommodation at all. I think there is a pretty big difference between telling people they have to stay in the back because they are black and telling people they have to stay in the back as long as they insist on wearing religious clothing. With that said, Disney seemed to be negotiating for reasonable accomodations. Anyone that thinks that a couple of month is a long time to design a hijab should try to get a new product past Disney licensing. Its not as simple as taking a scarf and sewing a mickey mouse patch on it. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/189 "2010-08-23T04:20:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > > But also part of the social ill the law is meant to address is the sentiment that minority employees (be they members of a traditionally represented race, sex, or religion) need or should be kept out of public view or that customers should be protected from the affront of dealing with them, perhaps even while wearing non-traditional apparel. So quite apart from the functional or remunerative equivalences that may obtain between the positions, separate is still unequal. Thus, to “accommodate” hijab-wearing employees by keeping them hidden away is no accommodation at all. > > I agree with this as a general principle. > > But in this case, Disney’s proposal was an interim solution while they (presumably) worked out the custom scarf that meshed with their costume. I agree they can’t hold out forever, but I’m not sure that a mere two months wait is enough to show that the promised custom scarf was not to be forthcoming. > > Now, that said, do you happen to have any case law that supports the proposition that assignment to non-customer contact roles, offered as a permanant accomodation, is insufficient? I ask because the language from the Alamo car case seems to key not on the back room, but on the scarf removal required. > > > [@](#): > > > > It is undisputed that the accommodation Alamo offered Ms. Nur required her to remove her head covering during Ramadan when she served clients but still required her to serve clients, making it impossible for Ms. Nur to avoid removing her head covering at work. Why is it unreasonable to have this woman work in the back just during Ramadan? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/190 "2010-08-23T04:27:46Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > > Because hiding staff in the back room is not an equivalent job. This is the gravamen of the complaints against retailers like Abercrombie and Fitch and the allegations that they consign their employees of color to the stock room. > > > > In the first place, the jobs are different, even if the initial pay is minimum wage for both. Working the floor tends to be more likely to lead to advancement, involves more customer contact, etc. etc. > > > > But also part of the social ill the law is meant to address is the sentiment that minority employees (be they members of a traditionally represented race, sex, or religion) need or should be kept out of public view or that customers should be protected from the affront of dealing with them, perhaps even while wearing non-traditional apparel. So quite apart from the functional or remunerative equivalences that may obtain between the positions, separate is still unequal. Thus, to “accommodate” hijab-wearing employees by keeping them hidden away is no accommodation at all. > > I would agree that would be correct in some cases. But there are positions other than hostess that are equivalent. I’m trying to see if there is some specific right to the job you were hired for. Yeah, but you can’t be demoted based on religion either. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/191 "2010-08-23T04:29:33Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](#): > > > > So, do you see a distinction between the Hooter’s business model and the Disney model that would call for government intervention in the case of one corporation opposed to a religious employee’s needs and not the other? > > Yes. How so? Is it because a hijab still shows the face? What if the Disney employee wanted to wear a niqab? How about a burqua? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/192 "2010-08-23T04:32:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > If that is the case then I would have to agree. Can you provide a cite where Disney has allowed other people to wear personal religious clothing? > > In a lawsuit? No. I happen to know from personal experience that Disney essentially approves all requests for religious exceptions to its dress code, though. Well there is at least one case where they haven’t. Can you give me an example of religious clothing? I don’t recall seeing any yamulkas on Disney employees at Disneyland or Disneyworld. What sort of religious dress are we talking about? ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/193 "2010-08-23T04:52:14Z")
> [@](#): > > I think there is a pretty big difference between telling people they have to stay in the back because they are black and telling people they have to stay in the back as long as they insist on wearing religious clothing. Perhaps you think so, but the EEOC and the courts do not: > [@](#): > > Some courts have concluded that it would pose an undue hardship if an employer was required to accommodate a religious dress or grooming practice that conflicts with the public image the employer wishes to convey to customers.[183] While there may be circumstances in which allowing a particular exception to an employer’s dress and grooming policy would pose an undue hardship, an employer’s reliance on the broad rubric of “image” to deny a requested religious accommodation may in a given case be tantamount to reliance on customer religious bias (so-called “customer preference”) in violation of Title VII.[184] > EXAMPLE 47 > Religious Garb > > Nasreen, a Muslim ticket agent for a commercial airline, wears a head scarf, or hijab, to work at the airport ticket counter. After September 11, 2001, her manager objected, telling Nasreen that the customers might think she was sympathetic to terrorist hijackers. Nasreen explains to her manager that wearing the hijab is her religious practice and continues to wear it. She is terminated for wearing it over her manager’s objection. Customer fears or prejudices do not amount to undue hardship, and the refusal to accommodate her and the termination, therefore, violate Title VII. In addition, denying Nasreen the position due to perceptions of customer preferences about religious attire would be disparate treatment based on religion in violation of Title VII, because it would be the same as refusing to hire Nasreen because she is a Muslim. See supra § II-B.[185] (From [EEOC Compliance Manual](http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359534)) As to the distinction between Hooters and Disney, I think I have already addressed this above. Hooters’ _raison d’etre_ is to use attractive young women as a draw. Disney’s is quite different. But, I hear you ask, why couldn’t a restaurant use “white people only” or “no Muslisms” as a draw—and the answer is (1) so far as I know, Hooters settles these cases before they go to trial, and (2) I think the BFOQ defense would prevail. The fact that most men and women find each other sexy and that this attraction can be monetized is not as noisome a practice as indulging racial or religious bias. This may offend some who cannot bear the idea that the law is founded on a humanistic and holistic sense of promoting the common good rather than the systematic application of unbending axioms, but that’s the way life goes. (Although there is certainly nothing wrong—and much good—about continually being mindful of these quasi-double standards.) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/194 "2010-08-23T13:50:59Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > In a lawsuit? No. I happen to know from personal experience that Disney essentially approves all requests for religious exceptions to its dress code, though. > > Well there is at least one case where they haven’t. Can you give me an example of religious clothing? > > I don’t recall seeing any yamulkas on Disney employees at Disneyland or Disneyworld. What sort of religious dress are we talking about? Crucifixes, tattoos of religious significance and dreadlocks, for a start. I’ve never seen a Disney worker wearing a yarmulke either, but then I’ve never seen _anyone_ wearing a yarmulke in public in Orlando, outside weddings. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/195 "2010-08-23T14:21:49Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > I think there is a pretty big difference between telling people they have to stay in the back because they are black and telling people they have to stay in the back as long as they insist on wearing religious clothing. > > Perhaps you think so, but the EEOC and the courts do not: > > > [@](#): > > > > Some courts have concluded that it would pose an undue hardship if an employer was required to accommodate a religious dress or grooming practice that conflicts with the public image the employer wishes to convey to customers.[183] While there may be circumstances in which allowing a particular exception to an employer’s dress and grooming policy would pose an undue hardship, an employer’s reliance on the broad rubric of “image” to deny a requested religious accommodation may in a given case be tantamount to reliance on customer religious bias (so-called “customer preference”) in violation of Title VII.[184] > > EXAMPLE 47 > > Religious Garb > > > > Nasreen, a Muslim ticket agent for a commercial airline, wears a head scarf, or hijab, to work at the airport ticket counter. After September 11, 2001, her manager objected, telling Nasreen that the customers might think she was sympathetic to terrorist hijackers. Nasreen explains to her manager that wearing the hijab is her religious practice and continues to wear it. She is terminated for wearing it over her manager’s objection. Customer fears or prejudices do not amount to undue hardship, and the refusal to accommodate her and the termination, therefore, violate Title VII. In addition, denying Nasreen the position due to perceptions of customer preferences about religious attire would be disparate treatment based on religion in violation of Title VII, because it would be the same as refusing to hire Nasreen because she is a Muslim. See supra § II-B.[185] > > (From [EEOC Compliance Manual](http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html#_Toc203359534)) This is clearly a case where the management action was directed at the religion and not at some pre-existing general policy. > [@](#): > > As to the distinction between Hooters and Disney, I think I have already addressed this above. Hooters’ _raison d’etre_ is to use attractive young women as a draw. Disney’s is quite different. You’re basically saying this is a burden on hooters. > [@](#): > > This may offend some who cannot bear the idea that the law is founded on a humanistic and holistic sense of promoting the common good rather than the systematic application of unbending axioms, but that’s the way life goes. (Although there is certainly nothing wrong—and much good—about continually being mindful of these quasi-double standards.) I’m not sure that the common good is served by letting people sue employers who are making efforts to accomodate religious practices because they’re not doing it fast enough. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/196 "2010-08-23T14:24:51Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > > > Well there is at least one case where they haven’t. Can you give me an example of religious clothing? > > > > I don’t recall seeing any yamulkas on Disney employees at Disneyland or Disneyworld. What sort of religious dress are we talking about? > > Crucifixes, tattoos of religious significance and dreadlocks, for a start. I’ve never seen a Disney worker wearing a yarmulke either, but then I’ve never seen _anyone_ wearing a yarmulke in public in Orlando, outside weddings. Well, I haven’t seen these things but if you say so then I believe you. This makes Disney’s case weaker, almost flimsy. but it makes you wonder why someone would not have realized after 2 and a half years taht the policy was not really enforced. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/197 "2010-08-23T14:46:11Z")
The cast appearance policies _are_ enforced. They just have another policy of granting religious exemptions. As far as why they’re not granting this particular exemption, I couldn’t say, though I’d guess it has something to do with the anti-Islamic current we’re seeing at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2010, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/198 "2010-08-23T14:59:49Z")
I find it fairly amusing that \*\*Magellan \*\*is attempting to tie the PC “movement” strictly to Liberals, considering that’s pretty much the basis of the anti-“ground zero” mosque crowd. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/199 "2010-08-25T15:09:44Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Disney supplies _some_ items. Cast members typically get to wear their own shoes, watches, hair accessories, jewelry, and so on. Minor nitpick: Disney offers approved shoes for sale. You can get them at Costuming. You don’t have to though ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2010, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/200 "2010-08-25T17:21:39Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The cast appearance policies _are_ enforced. They just have another policy of granting religious exemptions. > > As far as why they’re not granting this particular exemption, I couldn’t say, though I’d guess it has something to do with the anti-Islamic current we’re seeing at the moment. Well if that’s the case then its bullshit and the woman is entirely correct to sue. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768.md?page=11)