# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/141 "2010-08-20T20:06:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > People are entitled to the particular job they have been _hired to do_, typically, unless the employer can show a legitimate reason why they can’t do it anymore. > > For example, in the case of Disney, there are stringent height requirements for costumed characters. This serves two purposes: > > 1. In the case of “face” characters (the ones who don’t wear big furry suits; typically, the ones playing human characters), it ensures they all look more or less the same, which means the sets, equipment, and costumes can be largely standardized. > > 2. In the case of “fur” characters, the big expensive suits can be standardized. Also, many of the fur character suits are gigantic, and putting people smaller than, say, 4’10" in one means Mickey becomes less of a cute waving mouse and more of a Godzilla opponent with big ears. So once given a job, you can’t be transferred to another department to suit the needs of the company? Please provide a cite. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/142 "2010-08-20T20:09:58Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > [@Contrapuntal](#): > > > > But did they deny it on religious grounds? Many posters seem to be making that assumption and I’m just wondering what the basis for that is. > > I refer my learned friend to the answers given moments ago: > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12820031&postcount=62](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12820031&postcount=62) > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12821357&postcount=76](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12821357&postcount=76) Well, if yesterday and/or 14 hours was moments ago, I suppose. But I already got a polite response from **ascenray** , so you needn’t have bothered. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/143 "2010-08-20T20:16:54Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > So once given a job, you can’t be transferred to another department to suit the needs of the company? Please provide a cite. If the only “needs of the company” that are at stake are the ones preventing you from practicing your religion, and not fundamental requirements of the job, then that’s religious discrimination. ---
**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 20, 2010, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/144 "2010-08-20T20:17:51Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > So once given a job, you can’t be transferred to another department to suit the needs of the company? Please provide a cite. I’m not referring to transfers in general. However, in many cases, no you cannot be transferred to another department to suit the needs of the company, unless you are doing a similar type of work. Depends on the jurisdiction. They are of course free to eliminate your position. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/145 "2010-08-20T20:21:28Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > If the only “needs of the company” that are at stake are the ones preventing you from practicing your religion, and not fundamental requirements of the job, then that’s religious discrimination. Are there any restrictions on what constitutes practicing a religion? The obvious chicken sacrifices and such spring to mind. ---
**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 20, 2010, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/146 "2010-08-20T20:30:53Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > > [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > > I refer my learned friend to the answers given moments ago: > > > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12820031&postcount=62](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12820031&postcount=62) > > > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12821357&postcount=76](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12821357&postcount=76) > > Well, if yesterday and/or 14 hours was moments ago, I suppose. But I already got a polite response from **ascenray** , so you needn’t have bothered. Calm down… it’s _just_ a [figure of speech](http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080216035136AAD2prm). ---
**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 20, 2010, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/147 "2010-08-20T20:32:08Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > > [@acsenray](#): > > > > If the only “needs of the company” that are at stake are the ones preventing you from practicing your religion, and not fundamental requirements of the job, then that’s religious discrimination. > > Are there any restrictions on what constitutes practicing a religion? The obvious chicken sacrifices and such spring to mind. SCOTUS has tossed out several definitions of religion for different purposes (tax avoidance, conscientious objector status, free exercise/expression, etc.) Honestly, I have no idea what the specific test is in Title VII cases. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/148 "2010-08-20T20:38:23Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > SCOTUS has tossed out several definitions of religion for different purposes (tax avoidance, conscientious objector status, free exercise/expression, etc.) > > Honestly, I have no idea what the specific test is in Title VII cases. Well, let’s grant that the religion itself is not in dispute. Surely there are some _practices_ of a particular religion that would not be covered. Snake handling? Preaching? Singing hymns? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/149 "2010-08-20T20:39:46Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Calm down… it’s _just_ a [figure of speech](http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080216035136AAD2prm). Yes, it is. And it’s also one that doesn’t apply. ---
**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 20, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/150 "2010-08-20T20:57:38Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > SCOTUS has tossed out several definitions of religion for different purposes (tax avoidance, conscientious objector status, free exercise/expression, etc.) > > > > Honestly, I have no idea what the specific test is in Title VII cases. > > Well, let’s grant that the religion itself is not in dispute. Surely there are some _practices_ of a particular religion that would not be covered. Snake handling? Preaching? Singing hymns? 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). ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/151 "2010-08-20T21:04:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, it does appear that Disney’s proposed _interim_ solution was reasonable, but if its proposed long-term solution was “a hat”, I’m not sure that would qualify as a good faith effort at reasonable accomodation. Yes, but there’s nothing in any record I’m aware of contending that Disney’s solution would have been a hat. Is there? > [@](#): > > I suspect she’ll also have a case under the California constitution, if she chooses to pursue it. I don’t know much about California law. What is the relevant law on accomodation? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/152 "2010-08-20T21:40:08Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > [@TriPolar](#): > > > > So once given a job, you can’t be transferred to another department to suit the needs of the company? Please provide a cite. > > I’m not referring to transfers in general. However, in many cases, no you cannot be transferred to another department to suit the needs of the company, unless you are doing a similar type of work. Depends on the jurisdiction. > > They are of course free to eliminate your position. Well this seems irrational to me. But the law is not the epitome of reason either. If you have some cites, I’d like to see them. I don’t see how a reasonable person would see that the employee in this case suffered any harm if she was offered an equivalent job at the same pay. ---
**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 20, 2010, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/153 "2010-08-20T22:15:07Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > > > I’m not referring to transfers in general. However, in many cases, no you cannot be transferred to another department to suit the needs of the company, unless you are doing a similar type of work. Depends on the jurisdiction. > > > > They are of course free to eliminate your position. > > Well this seems irrational to me. But the law is not the epitome of reason either. If you have some cites, I’d like to see them. I don’t see how a reasonable person would see that the employee in this case suffered any harm if she was offered an equivalent job at the same pay. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2010, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/154 "2010-08-20T23:38:26Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/155 "2010-08-21T00:35:24Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > > [@TriPolar](#): > > > > Well this seems irrational to me. But the law is not the epitome of reason either. If you have some cites, I’d like to see them. I don’t see how a reasonable person would see that the employee in this case suffered any harm if she was offered an equivalent job at the same pay. > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Suil\_Dubh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85f322/32.png) [@Suil\_Dubh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Suil_Dubh)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/156 "2010-08-21T01:05:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, but there’s nothing in any record I’m aware of contending that Disney’s solution would have been a hat. Is there? This incident is still very much in the “he-said, she-said” phase, which is compounded by “this article says X, while that article says Y”. From a [CBS](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/19/national/main6786918.shtml) article: > [@](#): > > “Typically, somebody in an on-stage position like hers wouldn’t wear something like that, that’s not part of the costume,” Brown said. “We were trying to accommodate her with a backstage position that would allow her to work. We gave her a couple of different options and she chose not to take those and to go home.” > … > > She asked her supervisors if she could wear the scarf and was told they would consult with the corporate office, Qazi said. Boudlal didn’t hear anything for two months and was then told she could wear a head scarf, but it had to be designed by Disneyland’s costume department to comply with the Disney look, Qazi said. > > She was fitted for a Disney-supplied head scarf but was not given a date when the garment would be finished and was told she couldn’t wear her own hijab in the interim. > > Boudlal wore her own hijab to work for the first time Sunday. > > “After these two months and this complicated process, she decided to come forward,” Qazi said. “She really wanted to be able to wear it on Ramadan.” From an [L. A. Times](http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0819-disney-hijab-20100819,0,5537139.story?track=rss) article: > [@](#): > > Boudlal, who is from Morocco and recently became a U.S. citizen, said she approached her employer in June about wanting to wear the hijab on the job. She was told the request would have to be approved by the corporate office. When she followed up, she said, she was told the request was still under review. > > Last week she was taken to the costume department to look for possible alternatives — a hat was suggested — and she was told she could not wear her own hijab, said Ameena Qazi, staff attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which is representing Boudlal. -the two different articles vary slightly, and there’s no mention of a hat in the first -according to the first, the timeline is roughly like: [ul] [li]2 1/2 years with no head-scarf[/li][li]Boudlal learns she is allowed to wear one and makes a request to her supervisors [_]supervisors say they will consult head office and nothing happens for 2 months [_]after 2 months she was fitted for an “official” head-scarf, but not told when it would be ready[/li][li]Ramadan approaches so she shows up in her own head-scarf [/li][li]Disney offers her the choice of working back-stage until presumably the official head-scarf is ready[/li][/ul] -according to the second: [ul] [li]2 1/2 years with no head-scarf[/li][li]Boudlal makes a request to her supervisors[/li][li]some unspecified time later she resubmits the request and is told it was still under review[/li][li]one week prior to incident she was taken to the costume department to look for “alternatives” including a hat, but told she cannot wear her own head-scarf[/li][li]Ramadan approaches so she shows up in her own head-scarf [/li][/ul] In my opinion, the two articles also differ somewhat in tenor, with the CBS article taking a slightly more neutral stance, and the L. A. Times being slightly pro-Boudlal. ---
**Author:** ![Kilmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a6a055/32.png) [@Kilmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kilmore)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/157 "2010-08-21T01:24:54Z")
Doesn’t Disney have Muslim characters anyway? Like in Aladdin? She could be one of those. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/158 "2010-08-21T01:27:01Z")
I assume you mean 2 1/2 months. Maybe the mods can correct it. Both cases are about the same, and don’t sound like religious discrimination or disparate impact. I noted way back in the thread that this was a tempest in a teapot. It sounds much more like a right wing fantasy outrage about a Muslim suing the good people of the US than a liberal fantasy about an oppressed minority being denied constitutional rights. I hope someone follows up on this if a court decision is ever reached. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2010, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/159 "2010-08-21T01:29:40Z")
> [@Kilmore](#): > > Doesn’t Disney have Muslim characters anyway? Like in Aladdin? She could be one of those. Aladdin was Chinese, and set in China. So that would be unfair to Muslim Chinese people who have such few roles available to them.:rolleyes: ---
**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 21, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768/160 "2010-08-21T01:48:10Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > Aladdin was Chinese, and set in China. So that would be unfair to Muslim Chinese people who have such few roles available to them.:rolleyes: Yeah, a fictional predominantly Muslim China. Fictional, you know, like Disney characters ? He wasn’t exactly a Uyghur you know. :rolleyes: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/politically-correct-stupidity-episode-3-872-390-576/550768.md?page=9)