Muslima sues Disney: demands to wear hijab while appearing before customers

Who is Disney to tell me I cannot [wear a head scarf on the job]?

Hint. Disney's your employer. So for the time you "rent" yourself out as a employee, Disney as employer can set conditions.

If you want to maintain sanity in the workplace don't hire Muslims...time and time again Muslim employees have proven to be unreliable and troublesome....hiring Muslims is cultural suicide....

"My scarf doesn't do anything to harm Disney or the guests,"

Except scare little children.

And adults too.

We is screwed!! More to come in this movie. Let Muslims in your country and weep( or fight as hell)

Well, she may or may not have a headscarf right, but Disney has a right to assign her wherever they want in the business...They could probably fire her if they wanted...many people sign up with a provision that they can be terminated for any reason or no reason...

I love how she complained that the compromise Disney hat - which presumably covered her hair and thereby satisfied the ostensible "modesty" requirement of the head-covering - was nevertheless unacceptable, as it didn't make her look "Muslim enough".

So she isn't just trying to satisfy the modesty requirements of her faith, she's demanding to be showcased as a Muslima.

Next up, she will take a job as an extra in a Shakespeare in the Park production of Julius Caesar and demand to wear her headscarf instead of a Roman costume.

A new discovery: Islam and fun don't mix. Effectively, since 911, most Muslims' demands gone rocket high without paying any expenses. This kind of nonsense would have been never tolerated prior to 911 with or without civil-liberties.

"My scarf doesn't do anything to harm Disney or the guests," she told KTLA. Obviously she is clueless about the American culture. People go to the Disney to have fun with their families and not to be have any tensed-up experience while going for a next ride.

She could apply for a job as a TSA screener, or on one of the Palestinian TV death indoctrination kid shows. That way she could dress to the Muslima 9's and nobody would bat a veiled eyelash or accidentally set off a bomb belt/vest prematurely.

Can't wait for the further Islamization of Disney:

- "Minnie Mouse to wear the veil"

- "Goofy, 101 Dalmations offensive to Muslims, banned from Disneyland"

- "Porky Pig, Piglet, and Three Little Pigs unclean, slaughtered"

"That's Not All Infidels!"
- Muslim Looney Tunes

Come on guys, don't you just love when modest religious women wear head coverings, along with t-shirts and tight jeans? It's so hot... ;) (NOT!)

"The Constitution tells me I can be Muslim"
High time and more that this issue was addressed once and for all. Islam is not simply a religion but a political ideology that is inimical to our democratic system and therefore does not have the protection of the Constitution.

If Disney gives in to this one, I can foretell the next outrageous demand, ably supported by ACLU: "let me walk around in a black tent. It can't hurt anyone." muslim thinking is always "when in a muslim country, islamic practice must prevail; when in an infidel country, islamic practice must prevail". Count on it, they will use the very laws of liberal democracies to undermine them and turn them into islamic hellholes, from where they escaped in the first place.

"The hat makes a joke of my religion..." - Muslima

But your "religion" is a joke, honey! If the shoe/hat fits, wear it...

Ali Sina currently has posted a brilliant response to another Islam pushing Muslimah 'Slavette of Mohammedanism.' Oops, meant to say 'Slave of Allah.' Gotta remember to always keep things respectable when speaking about 'The Religion of Peace' and its 'True Believing followers.' Right ? lollllllll!

The article linked below proves conclusively that the Qur'an, despite all of its many claims to the contrary, is full of errors and contradictions...

>>>

One young lady who left Islam a few months ago wrote to me a few days ago pointing to a contradiction in the Quran that I had not noticed.

She said that despite the fact that usury (ribah) is prohibited in Islam, Allah in the Quran 2:245 offers ribah to Muslims. He asks them to finance Muhammad’s wars and promises to repay them with huge interest after they die. She asked why is it okay for Allah and his messenger to practice usury, but it is not okay for Muslims. But she is wrong. Ribah in Islam is prohibited. Allah and his messenger in this verse are practicing taqiyyah, the holy deception, which is permissible. There will be no reward for all those benighted fools who give their money and life for Muhammad and his fictitious Allah. Does it sound logical for God to need people’s money to finance the raids of his prophet?

Why Allah would need to borrow money from Muslims to finance the raids of his favorite prophet? It doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up.

Although the Quran repeatedly claims to be conveyed clearly (Q. 2:99; 5:15 -16; 10:15; 6:55; 45:25; 41:53; 35:40; 26:195; 24:1; 17:12; 2:256), a complete book that covers all things (Q. 6:38; 16:89; 17:89; 18:54), easy to understand (44:58 , 54:22 , 54:32, 54:40) with all kinds of examples (Q.39:27; 30:58) and no doubt in it (Q 2:2; 11:1), explained in detail (Q. 6:114), which cannot be changed (Q 6:115; 15:41), self-explanatory (Q. 2:185) and without any contradiction (Q 4:82), the verse 3:7 says, Allah “is he who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation, but none knows its interpretation except Allah and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge. This verse seems to be contradicting all those claims about the clarity and the ease of understanding of the Quran.

What is the point of giving parables that no one understands? Parables are used to make complex concepts clear, not to make them more difficult to understand. Something does not sound very sound, sane and rational in this verse.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/quran-koran/the-sound-sane-and-rational-quran-that-makes-you-laugh/

This sort of situation needs to be dealt with, legally, for once and for all. Employers are within their rights to ask for compliance around uniforms. Islam must step down.

We ex-Muslims living with Islam's formal and informal death penalty for apostasy know for certain that Islam is an evil religion/ideology both in part and on the whole.

Here is a recent statement from a group of Bangladeshi apostates living in the UK explaining the reasons why they have abandoned Islam:

"One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives (Qur'an 33:50). He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way...

The statement continues,

Muhammad was a narcissist, like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified."

>>>

Ex-Muslim Ali Sina'a ongoing challenge to Muslims can be found over at Faith Freedom.org:

The Challenge

I receive many emails from angry Muslims, who sometimes beg me, and sometimes order me to remove this site. I consider both, pleading and bullying, signs of psychopathology. Argumentum ad baculum and argumentum ad misericordiam are both logical fallacies.

If you do not like this site and want me to remove it, instead of acting as a bully or as a victim, disprove my charges against Muhammad logically. Not only will I remove the site, I will publicly announce that Islam is a true religion. I will also pay

$50,000 U.S. dollars

to anyone who can disprove any of the dozen of the accusations that I have made against Muhammad. I accuse Muhammad of being:

a narcissist
a misogynist
a rapist
a pedophile
a lecher
a torturer
a mass murderer
a cult leader
an assassin
a terrorist
a madman
a looter

...These charges are irrefutable. You simply can’t disprove them because they are reported in Islamic sources and as such they are as good as confession...

http://www.faithfreedom.org/the-challenge/the-challenge/

This is one of the few times that I would have to disagree with you Robert. I think that is it high time for Disney to change their dress code policies. Allowing Muslim women to wear the hijab is not an unreasonable request, as long as it doesn't pose a safety threat to anyone and does not make the wearer unidentifiable (like the burqa).

Now, I'm not an Islamic supremacist, but I am for religious freedom. I believe that a Sikh should be allowed to wear a turban and a Christian should be allowed to wear a crucifix to work, and the same goes for all other people including the Muslims.

I know you're not anti-freedom of religion, but I can't say the same for some of your readers here. It seems to me like some of your readers would rather have all religion disappear from this earth or at least have everybody pretend to be atheist outside the walls of their homes.

Dinsey is a private company. It can essentially mandate whatever dress code it wants as long as it is religiously neutral or impartial. If it requires that everyone wear black socks, it can do so. If it requires that no one can have hair longer than a certain length, it can do so. If it mandates than no one can wear a head covering (which would include a yamaka, a Sikh turban, dare I say a cardinal's hat, etc.), it can do so. If you don't like the dress code, look for employment elsewhere. Welcome to the free market, the "free" part here being especially something Islam has no sympathy for.

What this is really all about is what Robert Spencer already stated, to wit, when Islam comes up against anything which is in opposition to Islam, it is the Muslim position that the opposition must give way to everytime, which definitely functions as ipso facto evidence of the rancid control-freak aspect of Islam. Such ungracious and domineering a "take" by Muslims in case after case would even include the Constitution of the United States of America, which the more devout a Muslim is the more such a Muzzie will want the Constitution eventually replaced with Sharia as the law of the land in America (Muslims not wanting this, I would argue, are deeply confused about their own religion). Hopefully, even most clueless lefties will eventually grasp this, though banking on a leftie grasping most anything of importance is ordinarily a risky bet, a bad bet.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology that wants its way on everything. Eventually it wants world domination (wow, talk about everything, eh?). And those non-Muslims facilitating this are fools at best and something very much worse at worst.

@BK

Funny how you use the word "freedom". Disney, like other private entities, has the FREEDOM to have and enforce a dress code. End of the story.

http://youtu.be/VDW0ZnZxjn4

Disney is a private employer. The First Amendment applies to government restrictions. Congress has however engaged in legalistic gymnastics to try to make it apply to private companies and even to the conduct of private people.

Insist that any remedy also be religiously neutral. If Congress cannot pass a law that says that Muslims are special then neither can a judge by way of a remedy provided by Congress. A judge is bound by the First Amendment, even when crafting a potential remedy. Insist on it.

This Muslima (is that not a jab itself?) might just as well wear a shirt or cap that reads:

• Auschwitz, Poland
• Treblinka, Poland
• Obama, AnyState
• (Unfinished business.)

This is what her gangware means. Others can rebut then with some sort of sign that means: Never Again!

Let's rewrite Mr Spencer's headline just for fun.

"Neo-Nazi Sues Disney: Demands to Wear Swastika Armband Whilst Appearing Before Customers".

Or, alternatively,

"Neo-Nazi Sues Disney: Demands to Wear SS Deaths-Head Badge Whilst Appearing Before Customers".

Because the Mohammedan female Slave Rag is the functional equivalent of the Black Flag of Jihad. It is a declaration of allegiance to the Mohammedan Mob and an implicit threat to all *uncovered* infidel women that the Slave-Rag-wearing Mohammedan Gang Moll may encounter in the course of her day.

According to a Persian/ French writer - who seems to be either a MINO or an ex-Muslim - the 'veil' (and she seems to mean the Islamic veil in *any* form) symbolises sharia, the summons to sharia, and the intention of imposing sharia.

From this classic article by one N Maruani, summarising the arguments of Chahdortt Djavann (arguments which seemingly helped persuade the French to institute their burqa ban).

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=148041

Outlaw the hijab
N. Maruani
07/08/2009 20:54

'The veil, argues an Iranian-French writer, reflects a refusal to integrate.'

(Understatement of the year - dda).

Excerpt:

'Djavann explains further: "The veil has never been innocent or innocuous. **It has always signified the submission of women to men and the denial of legal rights to women in Islamic countries.** {my emphasis - dda]." '

Would a modern Afro-American woman seek to be allowed to wear a slave's neck-collar, or wrist and ankle shackles?

Yet the Slave Rag worn by Muslim women is just as much a symbol of enslavement. It's S & M 'Bondage Gear'...only in deadly earnest and for a lifetime, not in temporary (though dangerous) play.

More from the article:

'ADDRESSING THE growing phenomenon of veiled women in Europe, Djavann points out its centrality to Islamist propaganda:

'"The political, ideological and psychological impact of the veil goes far beyond its appearance... If this weren't the case, why would the Islamists make it their main focus?... It constitutes a constant call to order by Islamic law."

To repeat: "It [the hijab, the 'veil'] constitutes a constant call to order by Islamic law".

Djavann seems to be a MINO of some sort, yet her insights, as far as they go, are useful.

'Djavann stresses that Islam can exist without the veil, but the Islamist system [sic: presumably, what she means is full-on Sharia - dda] cannot, because "the veil is the symbol, the flag and the keystone of the Islamic system."

There it is again: "the veil is the symbol, the flag and the keystone of the Islamic system".

I think she's right.

And that's why - though it would be preferable to have no Mohammedans in our midst - any country with a Mohammedan minority would do well to ban the hijab/ Slave Rag - in all its forms - as an interim measure, as a shot across the bows, to declare our own intention of NOT submitting to sharia. It's about what Gladwell, in a most interesting book, calls "the power of context".

Except as justification, Coptic conversion isn't what motivates these state sponsored plunderers. What they really want is Coptic wealth. Islam provides the taking of it without fear of punishment.

We do this for Allah, yea right.

From inmates to statesmen.

I would encourage American jihadwatchers to write to whoever's in charge in Disneyland, encourage them to stand their ground against this arrogant Mohammedan Gang Moll who wants to wear her Bondage Gear in front of the public, and enclose for their further information about the *real* meaning of the Hijab/ Slave Rag (not Modesty, but Violent Domination and Enslavement) a copy of the N Maruani article that I have linked above, highlighting the passages to which I have drawn attention - e.g. "the veil is the symbol, the flag and the keystone of the Islamic system" (that is, it symbolises Sharia and the summons to Sharia, an abusive system of sexual and ideological apartheid with Muslim males on top and everybody else - women and non-Muslims - kicked to the kerb and trampled underfoot).

A couple more things that Disney's lawyers might find useful.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/08/fitzgerald-muslims-and-america.html

Fitzgerald: Muslims and America

And a copy of the following:

http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/42603
Thursday, 21 June 2012
Questionnaire For Muslims Seeking U.S. Citizenship

At original site, here:

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Questionnaire_for_Muslims_seeking_U.S._Citizenship

Questionnaire for Muslims seeking U.S. Citizenship

The Disney lawyers might find it amusing to find a way of confronting this Gang Moll, who is using the Constitution in order to further the Cause of Islam (by making Disney a shopfront where she can fly her Flag of Jihad, her personal declaration of allegiance to the anti-constitutional system of unfreedom and outright enslavement which is Sharia), with some or all of the series of Questions there set forth.

And watch her squirm.

It may, however, be worthwhile also drawing the attention of Disney's legal team to the series of excellent articles by Raymond Ibrahim on the subject of Islamic Deception. And to Walid Shoebat's article on muruna. Let them know *exactly* what degree of creeping, sneaking malevolence and passive-aggression may be going forward, every time a Mohammedan applies for a position *anywhere* in their enterprise.

Ps: Of course, globalisation is affecting the hijab question too. Muslim women are dressing up in Muslim get-up voluntarily in Muslim countries to show their men and the whole world that they are part of the "push" and they mean business. They know they are being watched by us all and that the entire world is getting pretty nervous about them. Their moment in the sun, as it were...pity about the Vitamin D they miss out on in the process...

This is about religious practice. Some religious practices are illegal in America.

The Aztecs used to select a human sacrifice by playing a kind of football game. America cannot ban a game that consists of nothing but kicking a ball around in a safe courtyard. But it can ban the "prize" of ripping the champion's heart out of his chest. Of course, such a ruling would completely negate what the Aztec religion stands for. No blood-atonement means no appeasement to the gods. The ball-game was just window-dressing; the really important ritual was the human sacrifice. So the Aztecs might complain that modern America was against their religion.

Bad luck. America is, we hope, opposed to certain religious practices. People have the choice of giving up those practices or going to a place where such practices are legal.

The Muslima has a choice. She can follow the dress code. Or she can work where she is out of sight. Or she can seek work elsewhere. Unfair? No, she chose to be a Muslim, so she can pay the price without complaining.

There would be no point in my signing up for a brothal and then complaining that because my religion forbids me to commit fornication, I could not do that aspect of the job. Nor could I join the band of Merry Men in Sherwood Forest and then complain to Robin Hood that my religion forbade me to steal. If my religion places restrictions on my behaviour, it is my responsibility never to place myself in a position where I will be required to violate those restrictions. This isn't always possible in practice - but it is certainly possible in a workplace situation where one always has the option of changing one's job.

I think that she should adhere to the dress code and rules of a private organisation. She cant force them to bend their rules for her.

And as for her religion demanding that she wear a hijab as a hostess I think that is a lie. Her religion demands that she does not work as a hostess where she will be exposed to other men - period. Could she work in a similar job in Morocco? I doubt it very much.

BK, I've no doubt you mean well, but I think these comments above fatally undermine your position:

AnneCrockett

Wellington

dumbledoresarmy

I figure this Muslima voice for Islamic totalitarianism aims to make a huge bucket of change in a settlement with Disney, all while engaging in her legal jihad to protect the right of Muslim men to treat women as chattel.

In core Islamic texts, Muhammad says the minds of women are deficient

In Sahih al-Bukhari, the most canonical hadith collection:

Volume 3, Book 48, Number 826:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

The Prophet said, "Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?" The women said, "Yes." He said, "This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind."

Bernard Lewis, eminent historian of Islam and the Middle East, says Islam imposes, without limit of time or space, the duty to subjugate non-Muslims

In The Political Language of Islam, p. 73:

"...it is the duty of those who have accepted them [Allah's word and message] to strive unceasingly to convert or at least to subjugate those who have not. This obligation is without limit of time or space. It must continue until the whole world has either accepted the Islamic faith or submitted to the power of the Islamic state.”

The sense of entitlement is appalling. The muslima knew when she joined, what the attire policy was. Yet, now she expects the company to bend to the her preferences, in spite of a pre existing dress code and attire policy and good reasons for such policies.

Special treatment is expected by Muslims. Consider two other examples from current news articles:

From http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2188075/Jobless-mother-seven-insists-family-deserve-1-25MILLION-taxpayer-funded-home-trashed.html

[‘I am entitled to live in a house like this’: Jobless mother-of-seven insists her family ‘deserve’ £1.25MILLION taxpayer-funded home they 'trashed'

Manal Mahmoud moved into the Fulham address following a £76,000 refit
Council says the family's behaviour has been 'appalling' and it must improve
Mrs Mahmoud insists she has 'right to live in a nice house and claim benefits' ]

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/chess/9476038/English-chess-hit-by-race-row-over-abuse-of-young-Muslim-players.html

[The father of the three brothers, aged seven, 10 and 13, alleged that they and their mother were bullied and ostracised by some members of the English delegation to a tournament in Austria. ...

Mr Rahman, from Marshland St James, Norfolk, said the problems started when the hotel where they were staying failed to provide his family with halal food or serve meals at times so that his wife and eldest son could observe Ramadan....

...

He (Rahman) said his wife called Austrian police but was told that they would not investigate the incident because his son’s injuries were not serious enough.

...
The Daily Telegraph understands that the English Chess Federation will conclude that, while there was a falling-out between some of the parents on the trip, there was no racism or Islamophobia involved.

Stephen Whatley, one of the other parents on the trip to Austria with the English delegation, rejected the allegations as “completely untrue”. He said: “We were the victims. We were victimised throughout the whole time we were there – not just us but other people as well.” ]

"The Constitution tells me I can be Muslim...."

Only up to a certain point. The Constitution and the laws found to be in agreement with it also forbid slavery, child marriage and sex with children, cruel and unusual punishments, polygamy, and a privileged legal status for Moslems. All these are fundamental elements of Islam, so the Constitution has already outlawed a good many of the ways that one can be Moslem.

Were I running Disney, I would offer her alternative employment, with a decent raise. She could have her choice of being one of the costumed characters -- either Goofy or one of the Three Little Pigs (the silly one that built the house of straw) -- or appearing in full burkha or chador at the Morocco pavilion in EPCOT, as part of the atmosphere.

Disney and Islam do have a connection, of course! Islam is a Mickey Mouse religion. :)

Muslima clown!

I think this lawsuit will be beneficial for us.

As most know, Islam does NOT mandate hijab.

Hijab, IMO, is an article of cultural clothing.

I would imagine that Disney's lawyers (and I'm sure they have top-notch attorneys--if not on staff at least readily available) will expose the facts about this hijab ruse once and for all.

And, as a bonus, CAIR (which is quite likely involved) and the Muslim community at large will--hopefully--give up pushing the "requirement" to provide reasonable accomodation for hijab, at least.

Dumbledoresarmy, are you in the Q Soc? I am thinking of supporting.

"But Boudlal maintains that wearing a headscarf is her constitutional right."

Hey Princess Disney has the right to impose a dress code ...

and why is she working there if having fun is unislamic? ..tsk tsk!

"The Constitution tells me I can be Muslim, and I can wear the head scarf. Who is Disney to tell me I cannot?"

Hey, muslima, the Constitution also has a few things to say about advocating the violent overthrow of the US government. So why don't you take your hijab, and stuff it where the moon don't shine?

OOPS!

My Bad!

This is what the muslima and all her muslim turd friends and families need to pay attention to:

18 USC § 2385 - Advocating overthrow of Government.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

USC-prelim
US Code
Notes
Updates

This preliminary release may be subject to further revision before it is released again as a final version. As with other online versions of the Code, the U.S. Code Classification Tables should be consulted for the latest laws affecting the Code. Those using the USCPrelim should verify the text against the printed slip laws available from GPO (Government Printing Office), the laws as shown on THOMAS (a legislative service of the Library of Congress), and the final version of the Code when it becomes available.

Current through Pub. L. 112-123. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or

Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

Let's see:

" by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government"

Does 911 count?

Does the assassination of RFK by Sirhan Sirhan count?

Does Ft. Hood TX count?

Do all the assassinations of US troops by muslim turd - pretend - to - be - on - the US military side count?

Unless the courts take strict actions against such legal actions and fine them (for wasting court's time, for example) these kind of "suings" will continue. Remember the sad case of the Salon hairdresser losing because of the political correctness in the judicial system.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1583511/Salon-sued-by-Muslim-hairdresser-in-headscarf.html

If she were really a muslim, she would not be outside the house.You cannot pick and choose the bits that suit you - is she also accompanied by a male relative? Her best bet would be to go back home if she wants to live in a muslim country - we have to comply in their countries - it is that simple

It doesn't get any slimier or un-American than getting a job at Disneyland then demanding to wear a hijab. This is an obvious tactic so that they can scream "Islamophobia".

IN AMERICA!!!

I've been reading these IslamophobiaWatch websites and the biggest scumbags on the planet are those in acadamia that spread this fascist propaganda. What disgusts me and makes me just want to rip their heads off is they're getting paid by the American taxpayer to spread their seditious lies. I'm reading Ivory Tower on Sand and The Professors. And let me tell you, it's one of those books that take months to read because you just want to throw up or throw your coffee cup through the window with every page as you realize the depths to which this country has sunk. And a president in the White House who has LITERALLY allowed a terrorist to stink up the memories of our founding fathers and all those who died building this country... ...I'd like to make Vince Flynns fictional novel "Term Limits" NON-fiction! With a different ending.

Obama is a Traitor. That's the only way to put it. You can try to sugar coat it all you want but by the standards of "the Greatest Generation" this guy shouldn't be breathing free air. He should be doing 25 to life in Leavenworth.

I've said before that we have been completely sold out by our elected officials who have pretty much declared war on the American people. I almost put the "poor and working class". But I realize they have betrayed everybody. I almost wish the Mossad would come and pay Obummer a midnight visit and tuck him in in the way that only they know how. This guy doesn't deserve to live. You can call this anything you want but a hundred years ago he'd be swinging by a rope. For Treason.

The blatant audacity of public employees and their masters is an almost constant exclamation point to the fact that we're becoming a caste society. You can dismiss this or not I don't really give a shit. I'm 55. I was around when you actually DID "dial" a phone. And things are just depressingly bad. Every aspect of our lives is either taxed, fined, levied or otherwise over-regulated. What used to be basic necesseties are now luxeries that most people can't afford anymore. And please tell me milk and electricity are "affordable". (I've got a friend who is 85 years old and goes to pay his electric bill PERSONALLY just so he can complain about his rates.)I've gone to city council meetings for years. And people who haven't gone don't see it for the barometer of decline and corruption that it is. They don't see the contempt directed at members of the public who come down and interupt their precious "city business". They don't see the blatant "screw you" attitudes directed at those trying to come and participate in the political process. And the people who do participate in the political process are usually labeled crazies and mal-contents. The people who, like my friends, who try to warn the public of the corruption but because they're either too stupid or lazy they ultimately end up with the bill like San Bernardino's Bankruptcy.

And I hate to keep harping but what's up with this crap:

AFDI is SION’s American organization.
SION’s next initiative will

the gobblydeegook? I keep asking "is it me?" Or this webpage. Also when I type in the comment section the box keeps jumping down. I've seen this in other places where the words are completely hidden and you have to play a goddamn game just to type a message. With all the other crap; the slow loading because of ads, etc. It can be a pain. Anyway that's my venting for the day. And just so you know I'm taking my frustrations out on you people. I decided to go to my first city council meeting here in Riverside and raise hell and discovered the battery was dead in my truck. What a pisser.

BK,
You said,

The Koran is like any other book, and like any other book, it is not self-interpretive, somebody has to interpret it.

Not quite correct. Some books and traditions provide a much more permissive setting and much more favorable soil for reform and reinterpretation than other books and traditions. That's the essential point, which your above-quoted statement is blind to. Teachings and books exist along a spectrum running all the way from insanely totalitarian to profoundly free-thinking, and along every point in between those two poles.

The Islamic tradition (Qur'an, Hadith, Sira, and Islamic jurisprudence), as is clear to those who are sufficiently acquainted with it -- makes reinterpretation not merely quite dangerous, but a possibility unlikely even to suggest itself to the minds of many heartland Muslims. In many ways Islam is specifically designed to abort in the womb every nascent reinterpretation, and where abortion fails, Islamic doctrine and tradition arrange for the death of reinterpretation at other junctures. Islam is a particularly totalitarian culture for manifold reasons.

Any given book will permit some diversity of interpretation, but the resulting interpretation is not completely dependent on the interpreter or completely independent of the particular contents of the book -- the specific contents of a book will tend to channel interpretation more in some directions than in others.

An Iranian member of a Christian fellowship group in London decided to go on hunger strike (sealing his lips) to protest about the plight of newly converted Christians with Muslim backgrounds.

Read more: http://www.maghrebchristians.com/2012/08/15/london-protest-over-death-sentence-of-iranian-pastor/#ixzz23bomf5Sc

Youssef

I am writing from Europe where labour laws are often more rigid than in the US, and I personally like to dress as informally as reasonably possible reserving dress formality for meeting with anyone not in my closest team.
Having said that, if you work in a position in the show business or anything comparable with this, such as with Disney, you are expected to show some of the life style of the company.
If I visited a park in the style of Asterix and Obelix the Gauls, I would expect to re-live an experience modelled on the Gauls and the Romans, by Teutates, if you do not like to wear a winged helmet or a Roman gladius, you should not work there.
You cannot work there with an out-of-style dress such as an hijab, you would spoil the effect of the park, by Belenus.

May the sky not fall on your heads ...

BK,
An addendum:
Some traditions, like some materials, are too rigid to bend, too static to go through metamorphosis, and thus can only break or shatter under stress, not bend or deeply change. A few isolated individuals or small groups can claim to "reinterpret" and "reform" Islam, but there is no large mainstream Islamic movement in the world today that clearly rejects the totalitarian core aspects of Islam and of Muhammad. The totalitarian aspects are so profoundly and pervasively bound up with everything else in Islam, that removing them leaves not a reformed Islam, but something so different from what Islam's core texts teach as to be utterly unrecognizable. Thus, though it's not impossible that the Islamic culture, jurisprudence, law, and politics could be explicitly reformed on a large scale globally, it's about as likely as pigs flying when you're awake. Islam should be checked and contained at every point until the religion's rigidity in the face of historical change and human life puts Islam under sufficient stress some day to bring about its own spiritual and physical shattering into fragments and dust, somewhat as other totalitarianisms have collapsed.

http://disneyworld.disney.go.com/contact/

Reforming Islam...Islam cannot be 'reformed'...That is because the Quran is the very word of Allah...No Mahoundian want's to face Allah and say 'I didn't like some of the things you say in Quran, so I changed them, eliminated them, or ignored them'. 'I hope you don't mind'...
Islam is Allah's religion...It is not 'owned' by a Mahoundian or group of Mahoundians...To alter any of it makes the alter-er an apostate according to sharia...

As a second thought, just as there are persons who have fun reenacting battles, where a group reenact the Allied troops while an opposite group reenact the German Wehrmacht without being Nazis, a thematic park "Muhammad Renactment" could offer to the public the opportunity to fight the battles of the time of Muhammad.
As an employee of that thematic park you might have to wear a rag on your head and let you grow a beard (or carry a false beard when you are in service) and greet the visitors with your best smile smile and a "Salam 'aleikum".

BK,
Addendum to the addendum:

Perhaps the physical and spiritual shattering/collapse of Islam -- through its own sheer rigidity -- is happening to some extent today in Iran under the mullahs. Statistics show the economy there is a disaster. By world standards, there is a shocking prevalence of drug addiction in Iran -- apparently the problem is something like an order of magnitude worse than in Europe or the U.S. And there are relatively many apostates from Islam in Iran.

Responsibility for all of those situations is attributable to the spiritual rigidity of Islam, which leads the mullahs to provoke international economic sanctions; which leads Iranian youth to dive in droves into harmful drugs to escape Islam's rigid barrenness of meaning; which causes many to apostatize and abandon Islam's rigid cage altogether.

Go the whole hog & dress her up in a full black burqa, then put her in the Ghost Train & have her lunging out from the dark & touching riders arms. That would be the scariest thing to happen to any of those riders that day.

Disney gave her more than one option and she refused.

If she walked into a fashion house and said my constitutional right allows me to wear a headscarf in the Islamic tradition - at work - and I am demanding that you allow me to walk down the runway with the other girls as a model - wearing Islamic attire of my choosing.

- We are looking at huge problems.

I demand I be allowed to wear a hijab at a swimwear shoot!!
And anything else is discrimination and undermines my civil rights!

But because she turned down - alternatives offered by Disney - Disney has a case.

In Morocco - a lot of women don't wear them.

good reason to stop muslim immigration they just cant accept our way of life

Hijab is not a requirement of Islam. If that were true, millions of Muslimas around the world who do not cover their heads would be considered apostates.

In the US, hijab is a political statement of sharia promotion and compliance. Asking Disney to change its dress code to accommodate hijab is asking it to change policies to conform with sharia.

The same thing happened at the Olympics this year, and the IOC buckled to pressure. The athlete involved was not even really qualified to compete at that level; it was all about setting precedent.

And more and more often, this strategy is working.

Were I on the jury in this case, I would vote to throw it out. As others have written here, the Constitution applies to religion, but one is not allowed to "practice" if it infringes on the "rights" of another.

What hasn't been mentioned, I think, is that about "accommodations" and how this might apply. When a person has a job and is or becomes disabled, the company must make "reasonable" accommodations so the employee can keep and do the job. If "reasonable"...meaning they can handle the cost associated with the request and the job requirements can be adjusted so others can share the load, etc., then accommodations must, by law, be made. Otherwise, if the employee cannot do the job assigned, and there are no other open positions for which this one is qualified, the employee can be legally "let go."

Disney offered this woman accommodation. She refused. Not only did she refuse, but her reasoning was that she didn't want to be "behind the scenes" and hidden from view. (I am recalling what she said earlier in the case.) Now she says that the hat Disney gave her to wear would cause her to be looked at even more. "It draws even more attention to me."

She is contradicting herself in that she doesn't want to be hidden and yet, seems to want to avoid "more attention."

Isn't this what she wants? To have "attention?" Of course, but only in her muslim costume so everyone will know that she is muslim. Were a "man of the cloth" to be hired, would he be allowed to wear his official robes while on duty at the restaurant? Would one of Jehovah's Witnesses be allowed to carry their magazines and hand them out while on duty in the restaurant? Would a Native American be allowed to dress as in the old days, perhaps wearing only a loin cloth such as might be worn to his sweat lodge meeting?

They offered her accommodations. She refused. Were she disabled, and it could be argued that she is...mentally...and refused the accommodation, Disney could legally fire her.

I had a position once where it was easier for me to do my job when I wore a ball cap...no logo...just plain blue. A new manager came to the job and sent out new "dress code" memos and "outlawed" sandals and head coverings, among other things. (Thankfully, I was in compliance with the shoe thingy.) I went to him and explained why I needed the cap. He said, "Sorry, but we sometimes have "visitors"...people who came to see us work..."and we want everyone to look a certain way." Not really an exact quote, but close enough.

It made it more difficult for me to do my job, but I complied.

Not very long afterward, I began to see a young woman there wearing...ta da...a headcovering. The religious kind. And fancy sandals below her filmy, billowy pants.Somehow it was okay for her but not for me...my ball cap didn't showcase me as a muslim...thankfully I am not one...and hers did.

Just as this woman suing Disney wanted to have attention as a muslim...not as a "character"...getting attention for her reasons.
They offered accommodations. She refused. This should have ended it. Perhaps it will in Court.

One more thing:

She worked there for some time before demanding her "rights." If her religion is so strict, how did her conscience allow the time spent without the head scarf? It could be argued that she was told, perhaps by CAIR, to wait until she became a "citizen with rights" before making her demands. But anyone inside the U.S. is protected by the Constitution. (except the unborn babies). She had the same rights before that she has now.

But she knowingly worked there without the scarf and suddenly she realizes Disney has a dress code, but she doesn't have to comply. It's all a little too cheesy. Sorry cheese.

Disney is your EMPLOYER. If you don't like it Go elsewhere. That is not appropriate attire to wear at Disneyland. It is not APPROPRIATE in America. You don't like it go back to where you came from. I am so sick of you ALIENS coming into my country trying to change us. You want CHANGE, take BO and move to his homeland Kenya