Here is what is pissing me off about this. The lawyers and Imane make it seem like Disney said you can't wear it at all. But that's not the case, they said she can work in the back and wear it there. That is an accommodation. She wants to wear it, Disney is telling her how she can.
Of course, that isn't good enough. We see her courageous words;
“I’m not going to accept to work in the back,” said Boudlal, 26, of Anaheim.
“I’m not here to scare anyone,” she said. “I’m here to do my job.”
No one said you were there to scare anyone. But if you know about Disney, they have a ton of dress code requirements that you sign off on when you decide to work there. So now this lady wants Disney to make an exception for her? Why is she special? If you can't work in the back, because "I’m not going to accept to work in the back", then quit your job!
I was watching an interview last night and it was a great example. What if she decided to get a job at Hooters, then decided to wear the full black robe. Would she expect Hooters to change their dress code?
This is a huge case. Private businesses should be able to have a dress code that they can enforce. If she wins it opens up the floodgates and all the other crap that comes with it.
Why is she so special? They offered her another place to work and wear her head scarf, it's reasonable, take it or leave it.
No comments:
Post a Comment