NationStates Jolt Archive

Cashier, supermarket fight over headscarf

AMSTERDAM — A Muslim cashier at a supermarket in the Dutch city of Tilburg took a case to the Equality Commission on Tuesday claiming the headscarf the company has issued her is "unbearable".

The woman claimed that the Nettorama supermarket is guilty of discrimination on religious grounds by issuing her with the heavy scarf.

A spokesperson for the Equality Commission said the woman decided one day she wanted to wear a headscarf at work.

As the headscarf she chose was not in the company colours, she was suspended from work for a short time while an industrial clothing manufacturer created a scarf to match the uniform.

Contrary to Nettorama's instructions the scarf supplied was not 100 percent polyester. "The cloth is now made from very thick material," the spokesperson said. "The woman feels it is unacceptable to wear the scarf and therefore she believes she is being discriminated against."

The hearing was told it will take 13 weeks to create another scarf.

The commission decided not to deliver a judgement on the dispute. Instead, it asked both parties to sit down together to try to reach a solution. This is the first time such a case has come before the commission.

I'm all for religious freedoms, but this strikes me as a little petty.

The job requires a uniform. They altered the dress code to comply with her religious views. She doesn't like the new religiously sensitive uniform. She can quit or be fired for not wearing it, but the company has no responsibility to alter the uniform again just because she doesn't like it.

Well... she cannot be fired really, as she is willing to work. It isn't the United States. They did not alter the dress code either, but they had to make her a special scarf which happens to be really heavy. (Because the company producing company-logo headscarfs sucks, it would seem... or thet have to grow the hemp).

The lesson I'm drawing from this is that people standing on principles can be really, really petty.

Does it mention head scarf anywher in the Quran? It puzzles me why God requires a dress code considering we were created naked.

At my workplace, she would be fired if she refused to comply, and there is only a "maybe" chance of her successfully appealing that in court. I was almost fired for having long hair and had to cut it off.

At my workplace, she would be fired if she refused to comply, and there is only a "maybe" chance of her successfully appealing that in court. I was almost fired for having long hair and had to cut it off.

That sucks. :(

Does it mention head scarf anywher in the Quran? It puzzles me why God requires a dress code considering we were created naked.
It doesn't. It's more of a tradition in some places.

Only cause a bunch of yanks are being idiots and are invading innocent muslim nations for their oil doesn't give some fucked up old bitch to demand a head scarf that is "light" and sue over it!

Does it mention head scarf anywher in the Quran? It puzzles me why God requires a dress code considering we were created naked.

If I understand it correctly, the Headscarf is NOT mentioned in the Koran. What is mentioned is the importance of modesty, especially for women. It is from that which the headscarf derives - a means of modesty.

So it is a method of fulfilling a Koranic command, but not a direct Koranic command.

That sucks. :(

Meh, I need the money.

If I understand it correctly, the Headscarf is NOT mentioned in the Koran. What is mentioned is the importance of modesty, especially for women. It is from that which the headscarf derives - a means of modesty.

So it is a method of fulfilling a Koranic command, but not a direct Koranic command.
okay.. then what are those crazy hats that jews wear for? I mean they don't keep you head dry or shield your eyes from the sun..

I think the scarf should of had the correct material it seems like they didn’t even bother researching what they were making let alone have any concerns over the fact they were tuning a religious symbol into a corporate uniform (a black scarf is hardly going to look scruffy) .

also when was the last time you saw a Christian carrying a cross that is part of the company uniform or a nun having to wear a white coat working in a pharmacy?

Christian symbols in company colours would be cool. A Cross with the halliburton logo superimposed?

Only cause a bunch of yanks are being idiots and are invading innocent muslim nations for their oil doesn't give some fucked up old bitch to demand a head scarf that is "light" and sue over it!
Thanks for your insightful and learned analysis of US foreign policy and the Dutch legal system. Where would we be without brilliant and wise thinkers like you?

I essentially agree with Arcalini, though, even if the way he puts it is a little bit crass. Ah well, this is the general forum. ;)

okay.. then what are those crazy hats that jews wear for? I mean they don't keep you head dry or shield your eyes from the sun..
To remind them that there's someone above them. And to keep people from noticing they're going bald. Those are not mandated either, at least not the whole time.

Only where other men can see them, as far as I know. To prevent these men from lusting after them.

She can get a different ob if she needs them to respect her clothing choices. (And it's not like they didn't make an effort either.) In Britain I've heard of many employers being expected to provide prayer rooms for the Muslim employees. What a bunch of assholes. Whatever happened to keeping your religion out of other people's lives?

Here's my question: The problem was that her original scarf was not in the company colors. Unless the company's colors are awfully weird, I bet she could find one in the correct colors. Why did she have to wait for them to make her a scarf? And for what reason, other than trying to get her to leave, would they make her one that couldn't be worn comfortably?

Does it mention head scarf anywher in the Quran? It puzzles me why God requires a dress code considering we were created naked.

Well it just strengthens the theory that all religions were made up by a bunch of stoned individuals who wanted to have some fun by annoying others:p

Here's my question: The problem was that her original scarf was not in the company colors. Unless the company's colors are awfully weird, I bet she could find one in the correct colors. Why did she have to wait for them to make her a scarf? And for what reason, other than trying to get her to leave, would they make her one that couldn't be worn comfortably?

I suppose this logo has to be on it:

http://www.hvediepvries.nl/images/nettorama.gif

But really, I think both parties are being asses about this whole thing.

She can get a different ob if she needs them to respect her clothing choices. (And it's not like they didn't make an effort either.) In Britain I've heard of many employers being expected to provide prayer rooms for the Muslim employees. What a bunch of assholes. Whatever happened to keeping your religion out of other people's lives?

Suppose a store had a uniform that was strapless. A woman who was used to more modest dress did not feel comfortable with baring so much skin, so she decided to wear a short sleeved shirt under the tube-top in the uniform. Her employer told her that the shirt she wore was unacceptable, as it was not company colors and told her she must wait for them to make her an acceptable shirt. The one they give her, instead of being made out of conventional materials, is made out of chain mail. This shirt is too heavy and restrictive for her to be able to work comfortably.

What would you say then?

I suppose this logo has to be on it:

http://www.hvediepvries.nl/images/nettorama.gif

But really, I think both parties are being asses about this whole thing.

Most likely, they both are - a bit. I just can't see any logical reason that she can't work wearing, perhaps, a yellow, red, or black headscarf of her own until they can make one with a logo that is suitable.

Or they could give her a patch with the logo to sew onto her headscarf.

There are all sorts of rather easy compromises here.

Only cause a bunch of yanks are being idiots and are invading innocent muslim nations for their oil doesn't give some fucked up old bitch to demand a head scarf that is "light" and sue over it!

Ahhh whodawhada?

Suppose a store had a uniform that was strapless. A woman who was used to more modest dress did not feel comfortable with baring so much skin, so she decided to wear a short sleeved shirt under the tube-top in the uniform. Her employer told her that the shirt she wore was unacceptable, as it was not company colors and told her she must wait for them to make her an acceptable shirt. The one they give her, instead of being made out of conventional materials, is made out of chain mail. This shirt is too heavy and restrictive for her to be able to work comfortably.

What would you say then?
I would say Strawman. Although I could be mistaken.;)

I would say Strawman. Although I could be mistaken.;)

I second the motion! ;)

Suppose a store had a uniform that was strapless. A woman who was used to more modest dress did not feel comfortable with baring so much skin, so she decided to wear a short sleeved shirt under the tube-top in the uniform. Her employer told her that the shirt she wore was unacceptable, as it was not company colors and told her she must wait for them to make her an acceptable shirt. The one they give her, instead of being made out of conventional materials, is made out of chain mail. This shirt is too heavy and restrictive for her to be able to work comfortably.

What would you say then?


Unless the headscarf the company gave that woman was made of steel I would concur with the strawman motion.

Most likely, they both are - a bit. I just can't see any logical reason that she can't work wearing, perhaps, a yellow, red, or black headscarf of her own until they can make one with a logo that is suitable.

Or they could give her a patch with the logo to sew onto her headscarf.

There are all sorts of rather easy compromises here.

Aye. Running to a judge would seem to me the least sensible one.

I would say Strawman. Although I could be mistaken.;)

You would be wrong. The issue here is modesty. To a woman who feels she must where the headscarf to be modest, going out in public without it is no different than me going out in a tube top (something I wouldn't do, btw).

The "chainmail" idea was a bit facetious, but the point is that the material is too heavy to be comfortable. Would you be happier if I said it was made out of three layers of teflon-reinforced wool and was long-sleeved, despite the temperature being in the 80's?

You would be wrong. The issue here is modesty. To a woman who feels she must where the headscarf to be modest, going out in public without it is no different than me going out in a tube top (something I wouldn't do, btw).

The "chainmail" idea was a bit facetious, but the point is that the material is too heavy to be comfortable. Would you be happier if I said it was made out of three layers of teflon-reinforced wool and was long-sleeved, despite the temperature being in the 80's?

A heavy headscarf is hardly comprable to a heavy shirt.

BTW does anyone know what material this heavy headscarf was made from?

I think she's taking it a bit too far, but the company should have had the scarf made to the religious specifications involved. She asked for it to be 100% polyester, as far as I can tell, and the company made it with some blend or other material.

Then again, she could take the route of a French student whose school took issue with the head scarves the Muslim students wore, so she shaved her head and continued to do so every couple of days until she graduated from the school so that nobody who shouldn't would see her hair. But that -is- a bit extreme.

A heavy headscarf is hardly comprable to a heavy shirt.

You're right, it would be much, much harder to work in a heavy headscarf, considering where the weight would be, but I bet no one would be freaking out and yelling about how she just needs to find a new job if it had been a shirt and not a headscarf. What does that tell us?

I think she's taking it a bit too far, but the company should have had the scarf made to the religious specifications involved. She asked for it to be 100% polyester, as far as I can tell, and the company made it with some blend or other material.

Then again, she could take the route of a French student whose school took issue with the head scarves the Muslim students wore, so she shaved her head and continued to do so every couple of days until she graduated from the school so that nobody who shouldn't would see her hair. But that -is- a bit extreme.

Actually the company asked for it to be 100% polyester. So why she is suing them is beyond me. Suing the industrial clothing manufacturer would make much more sense. Well realtive to the issue.

Actually the company asked for it to be 100% polyester. So why she is suing them is beyond me. Suing the industrial clothing manufacturer would make much more sense. Well realtive to the issue.
Ah, misread. ^^; It's still being blown way out of proportion, though.

You're right, it would be much, much harder to work in a heavy headscarf, considering where the weight would be, but I bet no one would be freaking out and yelling about how she just needs to find a new job if it had been a shirt and not a headscarf. What does that tell us?

I think you may be over-estimating how heavy this headscarf is.

Nobody here is freaking out, or yelling. If it had been a been a shirt and not a headscarf would she have gone to court?

I think you may be over-estimating how heavy this headscarf is.

Hence the chain-shirt idea being facetious. But if it is heavy enough to be uncomfortable, even to someone who normally wears them, it's probably made of a pretty heavy material.

Nobody here is freaking out, or yelling. If it had been a been a shirt and not a headscarf would she have gone to court?

Probably. Of course, our society expects women to wear shirts and sees nothing wrong with a woman being modest in wanting to wear a shirt, so the example would be unlikely to happen. For some reason, when a woman needs to wear a headscarf to feel modest, people make a big deal over it.

The thing is "not 100% polyester". I cannot say what it IS made of.

Hence the chain-shirt idea being facetious. But if it is heavy enough to be uncomfortable, even to someone who normally wears them, it's probably made of a pretty heavy material.
I don't think that it was uncomfortable because of the physical weight, I think it was probably more a matter of it being more difficult to tie/close, and more restraining, as well as it might not have been an acceptable fabric blend. (After all, the Old Testament says something about not wearing blended fabrics, and I'm not sure about how or whether that was written in the Qu'ran, but it might have been in there as well, meaning that she religiously could not wear it.)

You're right, it would be much, much harder to work in a heavy headscarf, considering where the weight would be, but I bet no one would be freaking out and yelling about how she just needs to find a new job if it had been a shirt and not a headscarf. What does that tell us?

Because such a thing would NEVER happen thus the strawman argument.

Everybody would do a doubletake over a shirt that showed too much but nobody does a double-take a womans head gear or lack there of.

Of course we are talking Western attitudes.

For some reason, when a woman needs to wear a headscarf to feel modest, people make a big deal over it.

So her Religious values trump the policies of the corporation? Let alone the cultural values of the community she chose to live in?

If a western woman went to live in an islamic state, does her desire not to wear a scarf trump their values?

What is this so called "Heavy material?" For all we know it's just an excuse to get around the fact that the company tried to provide her one that fit to their policy.

Because such a thing would NEVER happen thus the strawman argument.

Methinks you need to look up strawman again.

The fact that it "would never happen" is irrelevant. It is no more or less ridiculous than this. In fact, given the point-of-view of one who feels that modesty includes covering the hair vs. one who thinks it involves covering the shoulders, it is the *EXACT* same situation. The only difference is that nobody wants to even attempt to empathize with the woman who feels that modesty requires her to cover her hair.

Everybody would do a doubletake over a shirt that showed too much but nobody does a double-take a womans head gear or lack there of.

Again, irrelevant. Modesty doesn't have anything to do with what other people may or may not do a double-take over. It has to do with the feelings of the person either being (or not being) modest. What is modest to me is modest to me. Others would disagree. It wouldn't change the fact that I should be able to dress modestly at my work, unless it interferes with my job (obviously, if I were a stripper, modesty would be out the window).

So her Religious values trump the policies of the corporation?

The corporation obviously had no policies concerning this until this incident.

But, yes, unless the corporation is made up of complete dicks or being modest will somehow interfere with her job, there is no reason that she should not be allowed to be modest.

Let alone the cultural values of the community she chose to live in?

What cultural values is she breaking by covering her hair? Do you live in a culture where you are immoral or of lesser value if you decide to cover your hair?

If a western woman went to live in an islamic state, does her desire not to wear a scarf trump their values?

From my point of view, yes. The woman should be able to dress in what makes her comfortable. If a head-scarf makes her uncomfortable, she should not be forced to wear it. She might do so in deference to their culture, but she should not be forced to.

Of course, I don't make the laws in Islamic countries.

What is this so called "Heavy material?" For all we know it's just an excuse to get around the fact that the company tried to provide her one that fit to their policy.

It might be, but I doubt it. There's no reason for that unless she's just being bitchy (which is possible, but most people don't go to court just to be bitchy).

Hence the chain-shirt idea being facetious. But if it is heavy enough to be uncomfortable, even to someone who normally wears them, it's probably made of a pretty heavy material.
True, I hadn't considered that.


Probably. Of course, our society expects women to wear shirts and sees nothing wrong with a woman being modest in wanting to wear a shirt, so the example would be unlikely to happen. For some reason, when a woman needs to wear a headscarf to feel modest, people make a big deal over it.

Well it's not something we're used to in our society. It's a clash of cultures, of course we don't see a headscarf as necessary for modesty, it's not part of our western culture. There are parts of there world where a shirt, or pants, or underwear, or any but the simplest pieces of clothing are unnecessary for modesty. Because that is the culture there.

Methinks you need to look up strawman again.


Methinks you need to look it up as well.


The fact that it "would never happen" is irrelevant. It is no more or less ridiculous than this. In fact, given the point-of-view of one who feels that modesty includes covering the hair vs. one who thinks it involves covering the shoulders, it is the *EXACT* same situation.


Actually it is. Modesty is defined by a particular societies cultural values.


The only difference is that nobody wants to even attempt to empathize with the woman who feels that modesty requires her to cover her hair.


Why should they? If it was such an issue,then she probably shouldn't have picked a company that required a UNIFORM.



Again, irrelevant. Modesty doesn't have anything to do with what other people may or may not do a double-take over. It has to do with the feelings of the person either being (or not being) modest. What is modest to me is modest to me. Others would disagree. It wouldn't change the fact that I should be able to dress modestly at my work, unless it interferes with my job (obviously, if I were a stripper, modesty would be out the window).

Modesty is hardly the argument here. The company tried to work with her and she didn't like it.

Again. Bad choice of picking a company with a uniform.

So her Religious values trump the policies of the corporation? Let alone the cultural values of the community she chose to live in?
Where does it say she chose to live there? Does it say anywhere in the article that she isn't a native to whatever country this supermarket is located in? Even if she isn't, I don't see any of her personal history in the article. How are we to know she chose to live in that culture, she may be forced to live there.

If a western woman went to live in an islamic state, does her desire not to wear a scarf trump their values?
In an Islamic state, it should, but it probably doesnt.

What is this so called "Heavy material?" For all we know it's just an excuse to get around the fact that the company tried to provide her one that fit to their policy.
Well the company did try to get her a light, 100% polyester, headscarf. This whole affair is terribly nonsensical.

The corporation obviously had no policies concerning this until this incident.

But, yes, unless the corporation is made up of complete dicks or being modest will somehow interfere with her job, there is no reason that she should not be allowed to be modest.

The companies attitude is not in play here. They have a uniform policy. They went about getting her a scarf to fit their uniforms.


What cultural values is she breaking by covering her hair? Do you live in a culture where you are immoral or of lesser value if you decide to cover your hair?

A company should be able to do what it wants(obviously baring theft, murder, etc). Such choices also limits access to employees. But that is there choice. They decided to have a uniform policy. There are other companies that don't have uniforms.


From my point of view, yes. The woman should be able to dress in what makes her comfortable. If a head-scarf makes her uncomfortable, she should not be forced to wear it. She might do so in deference to their culture, but she should not be forced to.


Clash of cultures my dear. In certain countries it doesn't matter what you think. A coworker lived in Saudi. She told of an incident were a morality cop started beating a girl because she was holding her fathers hand.


It might be, but I doubt it. There's no reason for that unless she's just being bitchy (which is possible, but most people don't go to court just to be bitchy).

Never been to LA eh? :p

Methinks you need to look it up as well.

You show me how I misrepresented someone's argument. Let's start from there.

Actually it is. Modesty is defined by a particular societies cultural values.

I disagree. We are not Borg.

Why should they?

Well, empathy is usually looked upon as a good trait. If you think we should all be dicks to each other, I guess that's your perogative.

If it was such an issue,then she probably shouldn't have picked a company that required a UNIFORM.

Most likely, she was meeting the requirements of the uniform. Most stores that require a uniform give you a shirt and then say, "and wear black pants or skirts of X length and black, non-skid shoes. No gaudy jewelry," or something along those lines. Very, very few places give you everything you are suppposed to wear. Most likely, she was completley in uniform - plus a headscarf. If the uniform had said, "No headscarf," chance are that she wouldn't have gotten a job there.

Modesty is hardly the argument here.

No, modesty is exactly the argument here. People try to act like the headscarf is this big religious symbol, or a sign of oppression, or many other things. In the end, it is simply a garment worn by a woman who feels she is dressing modestly. It is no different to her than wearing a bra is to me.

The company tried to work with her and she didn't like it.

The company must be full of idiots. The easiest way to work with her - for all involved - would have been any number of the things I have mentioned, not, "Oh, we have to make you a special headscarf. Never mind that it's very uncomfortable to work in."

Methinks you need to look it up as well.
Strawman(as defined by Dictionary.com) (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=strawman):
strawman

n
1: a person used as a cover for some questionable activity [syn: front man, front, figurehead, nominal head, straw man]
2: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted [syn: straw man] 3: an effigy in the shape of a man to frighten birds away from seeds [syn: scarecrow, straw man, bird-scarer, scarer]

The companies attitude is not in play here.

And I'm not talking about the company's attitude, in case you hadn't noticed. I was talking about people in general - mostly, the people in this thread.

A company should be able to do what it wants(obviously baring theft, murder, etc).

For the most part, I agree. It doesn't make it any less silly or discriminatory, but if they wanted to ban headscarves altogether, that would be their perogative.

Of course, that doesn't answer my question. In fact, it has nothing at all to do with the question I asked - not even close.

Clash of cultures my dear. In certain countries it doesn't matter what you think. A coworker lived in Saudi. She told of an incident were a morality cop started beating a girl because she was holding her fathers hand.

Unless you are suggesting that Western society should move to these tactics, this is all rather irrelevant. Last time I checked, most Western countries are pretty big on personal freedom.

Strawman(as defined by Dictionary.com):
strawman

n
1: a person used as a cover for some questionable activity [syn: front man, front, figurehead, nominal head, straw man]
2: a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted [syn: straw man] 3: an effigy in the shape of a man to frighten birds away from seeds [syn: scarecrow, straw man, bird-scarer, scarer]

Looks about right. Now, the argument was not weak or sham, or set up to be easily refuted. It was simply an analogy to reframe the situation for those who won't even attempt to pretend to consider that other people have different viewpoints and values.

You show me how I misrepresented someone's argument. Let's start from there.

We have had this argument before. You basically argued then that she views it as being naked if she can't wear a scarf. Which again the company gave her one. So the argument of the ability to wear a scarf is not in play here. And again. A company with uniform policy was probably not the best choice.


I disagree. We are not Borg.

Doesn't matter what you think. Take off your shirt and try to go to work. Try arguing your moral code says it's ok. There are cultures that don't have nudity issues though they are disappearing fast.


Well, empathy is usually looked upon as a good trait. If you think we should all be dicks to each other, I guess that's your perogative.

There is empathy to a degree however it has it's limits. In Florida(I belive) there was a woman who wanted to be a cop. She wanted to wear a scarf that covered her face on Religious grounds. The department said no it would be a hazard. She sued and lost.

The company offered her a scarf and it sounds like she found it ugly(most uniforms are ugly by the way) thus the heavy argument.

*snip on the dress code since we don't know what there uniforms look like anyway*


No, modesty is exactly the argument here. People try to act like the headscarf is this big religious symbol, or a sign of oppression, or many other things. In the end, it is simply a garment worn by a woman who feels she is dressing modestly. It is no different to her than wearing a bra is to me.

Hmmmm braless? Nahhh.....


The company must be full of idiots. The easiest way to work with her - for all involved - would have been any number of the things I have mentioned, not, "Oh, we have to make you a special headscarf. Never mind that it's very uncomfortable to work in."
As always the company is full of dickhead idiots since they are obviously oppressing this poor woman.

I doubt they are using street cloths for a uniform. They usually call it a dress code when they do that.

Again before you get bent on the "heavy" factor we should hear what it was made of.

I still think it was an ugly color that she didn't like.....

And I'm not talking about the company's attitude, in case you hadn't noticed. I was talking about people in general - mostly, the people in this thread.

You made the reference of the company might be full of dicks.....


Looks about right. Now, the argument was not weak or sham, or set up to be easily refuted. It was simply an analogy to reframe the situation for those who won't even attempt to pretend to consider that other people have different viewpoints and values.

Hmmm you paint a picture that she will basically be naked.....

Here's my question: The problem was that her original scarf was not in the company colors. Unless the company's colors are awfully weird, I bet she could find one in the correct colors. Why did she have to wait for them to make her a scarf? And for what reason, other than trying to get her to leave, would they make her one that couldn't be worn comfortably?

I would imagine that if they were going to raise a stink about the scarf being in company colors, they would have taken it far enough to demand that it be the exact pigment, with no patterns or designs to speak of. If she got a beige scarf and they wanted taupe, it seems like that would be enough of a problem for the company to not allow it. After all, they did demand that her head scarf match her uniform in the first place....

We have had this argument before. You basically argued then that she views it as being naked if she can't wear a scarf. Which again the company gave her one.

Yes, they did, a step was a bit silly, since she most likley could have met their policies and still bought her own - and now they screwed it up.

So the argument of the ability to wear a scarf is not in play here.

If the scarf is uncomfortable enough to interfere with her work, yes, it is. I have the ability to wear a bra at work (thank goodness). But what if they told me the only way I could do so would be to wear one that was too small?

And again. A company with uniform policy was probably not the best choice.

And again, the headscarf was most likely not even mentioned in the policy. Otherwise, there would be no situation to discuss.

Doesn't matter what you think. Take off your shirt and try to go to work. Try arguing your moral code says it's ok. There are cultures that don't have nudity issues though they are disappearing fast.

I didn't say I *could* do it. I said that it shouldn't be a problem unless it interferes with my ability to work. You do see the difference, I would assume?

Of course, this woman isn't trying to do anything that is considered improper in the culture in which she lives. In fact, she is going hyper-proper.

There is empathy to a degree however it has it's limits.

Empathy shouldn't have limits. A person should be able to at least try and understand the point of view of any other person. The degree to which that understanding then affects their decisions is another matter...

In Florida(I belive) there was a woman who wanted to be a cop. She wanted to wear a scarf that covered her face on Religious grounds. The department said no it would be a hazard. She sued and lost.

I hadn't heard this case. Could you possibly be confusing it with the case in which the woman wanted to be able to wear a burqua in her dirver's license picture?

Of course, the difference here is that "it would be a hazard." What is the hazard in a woman wearing a head scarf?

The company offered her a scarf and it sounds like she found it ugly(most uniforms are ugly by the way) thus the heavy argument.

How the hell do you get "ugly" from "heavy"?

*snip on the dress code since we don't know what there uniforms look like anyway*

As always the company is full of dickhead idiots since they are obviously oppressing this poor woman.

Unless it interferes with her work, they are being dickheads.

I doubt they are using street cloths for a uniform.

Most places do. They give you a shirt that is actually your "uniform". The rest is up to you. Generally, it's (like I said), "Blue/Black pants (non-denim, usually), black shoes, and some requirements on the size/etc. of jewelry."

I still think it was an ugly color that she didn't like.....

Do you always assume that people are being dishonest?

I still think it was an ugly color that she didn't like.....
If it was a matter of a colour she didn't like, then she wouldn't have started working where she'd have to wear that colour in the first place.

I maintain that it's probably a religious reason, not a personal one, or she would have quit instead of taking it further. It could be, as I've mentioned before, a prohibition against wearing certain fabrics/blends of fabrics. I'm not sure if it's in the Qur'an as well, but I know it's in the Old Testament of the Bible, and there are many things in common between them.

The only reason you're debating over this at all is because the media is notorious for leaving out critical details, such as why she won't wear the scarf, and you're both being petty about it.

You made the reference of the company might be full of dicks.....

But not in response the particular comment in question. Do try and follow the line of a conversation. In this particular case, I made a comment about people in general not showing empathy. You replied with, essentially, "Why should the company show empathy?"

Hmmm you paint a picture that she will basically be naked.....

From her point of view, she will.

A company could decide that a woman was not practically naked if she was supposed to wear a sportsbra to work with no shirt on over it. She might still feel that way, though.

The job requires a uniform. They altered the dress code to comply with her religious views. She doesn't like the new religiously sensitive uniform. She can quit or be fired for not wearing it, but the company has no responsibility to alter the uniform again just because she doesn't like it.
that pretty much says it all

Yes, they did, a step was a bit silly, since she most likley could have met their policies and still bought her own - and now they screwed it up.

If it was a company that was only concerned about a dress code. The fact they went to an industrial clothing manufacturer says it not something she could simply buy off the shelf.

The uniform probably has a certain design they wanted met.


If the scarf is uncomfortable enough to interfere with her work, yes, it is.

That question hasn't been answered. All that was said was that it was not 100% poly. What was the "heavy" material? If it was levies grade cloth then yes she has an argument. If it's a lightweight cotton?

I have the ability to wear a bra at work (thank goodness). But what if they told me the only way I could do so would be to wear one that was too small?

After your comments about people here. Isn't that the wrong question to ask? :p I would have not problems with you wearing a bra that was too small. ;)

Interesting: I dont' recall of any company that mentioned undergarments.


And again, the headscarf was most likely not even mentioned in the policy. Otherwise, there would be no situation to discuss.

Yes they didn't. Espeically when she worked for awhile(does not mention how long) without one. The article did mention she decided to wear one.


I didn't say I *could* do it. I said that it shouldn't be a problem unless it interferes with my ability to work. You do see the difference, I would assume?

Of course, this woman isn't trying to do anything that is considered improper in the culture in which she lives. In fact, she is going hyper-proper.

Her ability to work has only been implied. What is this heavy material they speak off?


Empathy shouldn't have limits. A person should be able to at least try and understand the point of view of any other person. The degree to which that understanding then affects their decisions is another matter...

Most people do and most companies do. The fact they tried to make her a scarf says the company is trying to work with her.


I hadn't heard this case. Could you possibly be confusing it with the case in which the woman wanted to be able to wear a burqua in her dirver's license picture?

No it wasn't a burqua. They showed her picture and it basically covered her head. She wouldn't have even made it to the courts if it was a burqua.


How the hell do you get "ugly" from "heavy"?

The article conviently left out what was the material. When a companies designs a uniform they tend to look at how it affects their work, etc.

I assume ugly as I would be surprised if it was say a heavy wool or denim....


Unless it interferes with her work, they are being dickheads.

Her ability to work was never defined. We only have "heavy" as what is going on.


Most places do. They give you a shirt that is actually your "uniform". The rest is up to you. Generally, it's (like I said), "Blue/Black pants (non-denim, usually), black shoes, and some requirements on the size/etc. of jewelry."

Yes most places do but I am guess this is not the case here since they went to an industrial clothing manufactor for her scarf. They suggests they have a certain design which they either supply or make you buy....

Do you always assume that people are being dishonest?

The article is rather scant for detail so from what I am reading it does come across she is.....

Where does it say she chose to live there? Does it say anywhere in the article that she isn't a native to whatever country this supermarket is located in? Even if she isn't, I don't see any of her personal history in the article. How are we to know she chose to live in that culture, she may be forced to live there.


True. The article is rather limited in detail so it's easy to read in more detail. Which means you read in what you think is right. ;)

I try to be worldly when I travel. I try to fit into their culture out of respect. As such when I am visted I expect the same. In the matters of this argument it's easy for me to take the FU stance as there is enough work here to find another job. I would never work for a company that supplied uniforms and I would barely work for a company that had a manditory dress code. ;)


Well the company did try to get her a light, 100% polyester, headscarf. This whole affair is terribly nonsensical.

AHhhhh! thank you. As I mentioned I would be suprised if it was a heavy grade fabric.

The argument is indeed silly.....

If it was a matter of a colour she didn't like, then she wouldn't have started working where she'd have to wear that colour in the first place.

I maintain that it's probably a religious reason, not a personal one, or she would have quit instead of taking it further. It could be, as I've mentioned before, a prohibition against wearing certain fabrics/blends of fabrics. I'm not sure if it's in the Qur'an as well, but I know it's in the Old Testament of the Bible, and there are many things in common between them.

Unless she is a recent convert, etc. She was working without it as the article mentioned she decided to wear one.

I don't think the Qur'an has requirements as I have seen women wearing Polyester here.


The only reason you're debating over this at all is because the media is notorious for leaving out critical details, such as why she won't wear the scarf, and you're both being petty about it.

Petty? Nahh Demp and I have an unfinished argument from before. She has a mean temper and I like that in a woman ;)

It's always the details. The article said "heavy" and yet Ifreann reported it was a 100% poly scarf. So that begs the question of intent.

Actually, the article says that the scarf was heavy, and that the company ASKED for a 100% poly scarf, but the scarf delivered was not 100% polyester. And since the scarf was probably a poly/something blend, it would have gone against what I was talking about: a prohibition against blended fabrics in the Old Testament and possibly in the Qur'an, although I'm not sure if it's actually in the Qur'an, so I was just putting forth a theory.

But not in response the particular comment in question. Do try and follow the line of a conversation.

I'm sorry what were we discussing?


In this particular case, I made a comment about people in general not showing empathy. You replied with, essentially, "Why should the company show empathy?"


Yes why should they? They want to be dicks so be it. They won't last long if they did.

A company could decide that a woman was not practically naked if she was supposed to wear a sportsbra to work with no shirt on over it. She might still feel that way, though.

And yet the article mentions that she decided to wear the scarf one day so she knew the policies when she entered. She made her request, they responded and she said it was too heavy. Never mind the fact Ifreann reports it was 100% poly.

You do realise sweety we are fighting over perceptions of a rather tiny article with rather limited details right? ;)

And yet the article mentions that she decided to wear the scarf one day so she knew the policies when she entered. She made her request, they responded and she said it was too heavy. Never mind the fact Ifreann reports it was 100% poly.
Actually, the article says this:

Contrary to Nettorama's instructions the scarf supplied was not 100 percent polyester.
Emphasis is mine, of course. And that's why I mentioned the possibility that the Qur'an also has a prohibition against blended fabrics.

Actually, the article says this:


Emphasis is mine, of course. And that's why I mentioned the possibility that the Qur'an also has a prohibition against blended fabrics.


I assume Ifreann was privy to more info.

So it's not 100%. Ok does that mean it's 98%

I doubt a religious material issue is in play here as they tend to try and keep uniforms on the same fabric.

We don't know what the material was so arguing over is a waste.

*and yet I keep on typing reponces Hmmmm ;) *

I assume Ifreann was privy to more info.

So it's not 100%. Ok does that mean it's 98%

I doubt a religious material issue is in play here as they tend to try and keep uniforms on the same fabric.

We don't know what the material was so arguing over is a waste.

*and yet I keep on typing reponces Hmmmm ;) *
But perhaps there's a cultural taboo within the specifics of what she follows about the head scarf. Again, the article isn't worth poking because the important details aren't present. It's no use debating without knowing at least most of the problem, and here we don't know ANY of the actual problem she's taking them to court over.

But perhaps there's a cultural taboo within the specifics of what she follows about the head scarf. Again, the article isn't worth poking because the important details aren't present. It's no use debating without knowing at least most of the problem, and here we don't know ANY of the actual problem she's taking them to court over.

Well could be or a recent convert.

However, the article did mention she decided to wear one. Usually such an issue would be mentioned in the interview process. For example, our Muslims mentioned needed a place for their prayers.....

Actually, the article says this:
Emphasis is mine, of course. And that's why I mentioned the possibility that the Qur'an also has a prohibition against blended fabrics.

Nope. The thing is just too heavy, which she finds uncomfortable.

Nope. The thing is just too heavy, which she finds uncomfortable.
The article says the scarf is heavy, it doesn't say that's specifically why she won't wear it.

I loath the very notion of "religious" freedoms. A person's beliefs shouldn't be given special consideration simply because they attach superstition to those beliefs. If there is freedom of expression, it should apply equally to ALL expression...hell, claiming that you need to wear a special hat because a god or a fairy or an alien told you to is a far WORSE reason than simply saying "that hat is ugly, and I don't like it."

If that woman was insisting on being allowed to wear a tinfoil hat to keep out the government radiowaves, would the company be groveling and having a special hat crafted for her? Why are her beliefs being given special consideration?

If employees are required to wear a certain uniform, then no special exceptions should be made for religious reasons. If employees are not allowed to give secular reasons for having altered uniforms, then they should not be allowed to demand religious alterations. Religious belief should not be a magic ticket for special treatment.

I loath the very notion of "religious" freedoms. A person's beliefs shouldn't be given special consideration simply because they attach superstition to those beliefs. If there is freedom of expression, it should apply equally to ALL expression...hell, claiming that you need to wear a special hat because a god or a fairy or an alien told you to is a far WORSE reason than simply saying "that hat is ugly, and I don't like it."

If that woman was insisting on being allowed to wear a tinfoil hat to keep out the government radiowaves, would the company be groveling and having a special hat crafted for her? Why are her beliefs being given special consideration?

If employees are required to wear a certain uniform, then no special exceptions should be made for religious reasons. If employees are not allowed to give secular reasons for having altered uniforms, then they should not be allowed to demand religious alterations. Religious belief should not be a magic ticket for special treatment.
I have to disagree. If you believe it isn't right to let others see your hair, you shouldn't be forced to let them see your hair.

There are a number of simple solutions, the article gives almost no real details, and just because you may not believe in something doesn't mean it's not right that someone else does. Religion shouldn't be used as a carte blanche, but it should be respected.

I have to disagree. If you believe it isn't right to let others see your hair, you shouldn't be forced to let them see your hair.

Well, I believe it isn't right for me to be seen wearing purple and green at the same time, but I didn't get to use that as an excuse to wear a special uniform at my first job. If she doesn't want people to see her hair, then she shouldn't take a job where she is required to show her hair.

Personally, I think employers should allow some freedoms with uniforms, but they must make those options open equally to ALL employees for ALL reasons. I think she should have the right to wear a scarf at her job, but only if every other employee is granted equal liberty for any personal reason they choose.


There are a number of simple solutions, the article gives almost no real details, and just because you may not believe in something doesn't mean it's not right that someone else does. Religion shouldn't be used as a carte blanche, but it should be respected.Religion should not be respected any more than any other form of belief. Religious beliefs should not carry special perks. If employees are granted freedom of expression then that's great, but there shouldn't be special freedoms extended to certain people simply because they choose to claim superstitious reasoning for their choices.

It doesn't. It's more of a tradition in some places.

It's part of Islamic culture not religion. Something they share with many Jews.

I am part of a voluntary body with a muslim woman (she is lovely) who doesn't wear one.

Well, I believe it isn't right for me to be seen wearing purple and green at the same time, but I didn't get to use that as an excuse to wear a special uniform at my first job. If she doesn't want people to see her hair, then she shouldn't take a job where she is required to show her hair.

Personally, I think employers should allow some freedoms with uniforms, but they must make those options open equally to ALL employees for ALL reasons. I think she should have the right to wear a scarf at her job, but only if every other employee is granted equal liberty for any personal reason they choose.

Religion should not be respected any more than any other form of belief. Religious beliefs should not carry special perks. If employees are granted freedom of expression then that's great, but there shouldn't be special freedoms extended to certain people simply because they choose to claim superstitious reasoning for their choices.
Okay, if you run a company now or in the future, you can take that stance. Obviously, the company in question doesn't mind her request to wear a head scarf for whatever reason, and I would assume other employees have similar freedom. It's not like she's asking to change the colours of her uniform or to wear something against some important company policy, she's just asking that she be allowed to cover her hair when she's working with a scarf, and the company basically said "Okay, as long as the scarf is in company colours," and tried to get her one in those colours.

It should be left up to the company's discretion. Some companies probably don't give any leigh-way in regards to their uniforms or dress policies, while this one obviously does. I think companies should offer some leigh-way in some cases, but it's ultimately not my choice, and I'm not about to go out of my way to change it.

Well, I believe it isn't right for me to be seen wearing purple and green at the same time, but I didn't get to use that as an excuse to wear a special uniform at my first job. If she doesn't want people to see her hair, then she shouldn't take a job where she is required to show her hair.


A supermarket cashier? I miss the part where being required to show hair is a natural part of that job. I don't understand why this is an issue in the first place anyway - how does that headscarf interfere with her performance at that job?

So the clothing company screwed up - what's the problem with letting her wear her original one for the time being?

This is all silly....though as i've said earlier in this thread, I am also one, and the same sort of stupidity goes on at my workplace...

Thanks for your insightful and learned analysis of US foreign policy and the Dutch legal system. Where would we be without brilliant and wise thinkers like you?
I agree. With his obvious grasp of the facts, and his level head, he would make an excellent world leader. *nods*

I loath the very notion of "religious" freedoms. A person's beliefs shouldn't be given special consideration simply because they attach superstition to those beliefs.

The thing about this issue, in all its many incarnations (this being one of the silliest I have heard), is that it isn't really an issue of "religious freedom". It is an issue of a cultural difference in what is and is not considered modest. This woman's religious beliefs require that she dress modestly. Interestingly enough, so do mine. The difference is that some people believe that modesty includes covering the hair. Some think it simply means that the breasts and genitals must be covered. Some may even believe that modesty does not require that. Most of our society does not feel that a head covering is necessary to be dressed modestly, so many feel that a woman's request to wear a headscarf is "weird".

If the uniform were revealing in some other way, one seen as immodest by most of our culture, do you think religion would be brought into it? Most likely not - this issue of the religion of the person would be irrelevant. It should be here as well. Her view of modesty is different. This is not really based entirely on religion - there are cultures in which women of other religions feel that modesty requires them to cover their heads.

If I moved to a country where bare-breasted women were common, but still wanted to wear a shirt to work (which did not include a shirt in the uniform since most women don't wear shirts) because I would not feel comfortable being bare-breasted, would you say that I should simply conform? Obviously any job I took would have the right to say that it was bare-breasted or nothing, but unless it were a strip-club or something else that required my breasts to be shown, wouldn't it be a better solution for them to simply allow me to wear a shirt?

This company obviously made an effort, and I commend them for that. I don't think the woman should sue the company. Of course, I don't think they should make her stay home/wear an unsuitable garment until a suitable one can be obtained. Although the article isn't clear, my guess would be that the company made the scarf out of a heavy material - wool or fleece or something along those lines, which would be very uncomfortable in everyday wear. And how the hell does it take 13 friggin weeks to make one headscarf anyways?

The thing about this issue, in all its many incarnations (this being one of the silliest I have heard), is that it isn't really an issue of "religious freedom".

Ok it's not an issue of religious freedom.


It is an issue of a cultural difference in what is and is not considered modest. This woman's religious beliefs require that she dress modestly.


Ahh what?


Interestingly enough, so do mine. The difference is that some people believe that modesty includes covering the hair. Some think it simply means that the breasts and genitals must be covered. Some may even believe that modesty does not require that. Most of our society does not feel that a head covering is necessary to be dressed modestly, so many feel that a woman's request to wear a headscarf is "weird".

She had no problem not wearing one when she took that job as the article mentioned one day she decided.....


If the uniform were revealing in some other way, one seen as immodest by most of our culture, do you think religion would be brought into it? Most likely not - this issue of the religion of the person would be irrelevant.


Didn't you just write her religious beliefs require her to dress modestly?

It should be here as well. Her view of modesty is different. This is not really based entirely on religion - there are cultures in which women of other religions feel that modesty requires them to cover their heads.


Ok it isn't about Religous beliefs and then it is?


If I moved to a country where bare-breasted women were common, but still wanted to wear a shirt to work (which did not include a shirt in the uniform since most women don't wear shirts) because I would not feel comfortable being bare-breasted, would you say that I should simply conform?


Would you even apply for such a job?


Obviously any job I took would have the right to say that it was bare-breasted or nothing, but unless it were a strip-club or something else that required my breasts to be shown, wouldn't it be a better solution for them to simply allow me to wear a shirt?


The company requires a uniform. A strip club requires you bare breasted.

You do see the similarity don't you?


This company obviously made an effort, and I commend them for that. I don't think the woman should sue the company. Of course, I don't think they should make her stay home/wear an unsuitable garment until a suitable one can be obtained.

Why not? The police will not send out a patrolman without his uniform. Nor would a fireman without his? The Disney Store would not allow you to work while a replacement was found.


Although the article isn't clear, my guess would be that the company made the scarf out of a heavy material - wool or fleece or something along those lines, which would be very uncomfortable in everyday wear. And how the hell does it take 13 friggin weeks to make one headscarf anyways?

Most likely the company that makes their uniforms has to retool and or it falls under production schedules. If it's not something they routinely make, it takes time.

The company must be full of idiots.

On this you might be right... Were I in their shoes, I would have simply fired the woman for being out of uniform.

Ok it's not an issue of religious freedom.

Ahh what?

It is religion in her case. Modesty, on the other hand, is not restricted to religion. There are many people out there who wish to dress modestly - who would be uncomfortable doing otherwise - without religious considerations coming into it.


She had no problem not wearing one when she took that job as the article mentioned one day she decided.....

Would you even apply for such a job?

If I lived in a place where bare breasts were the norm, I might not have a whole lot of choice in whether or not my workplace had bare breasts as the norm.

The company requires a uniform. A strip club requires you bare breasted.

You do see the similarity don't you?

The similarity is very restricted in this case. In the case of a strip club, adequately doing the job requires bare breasts. One might argue that wearing a uniform is necessary for properly doing the job of a retailer, but there really isn't much argument that a uniform plus a headscarf would somehow make her unable to perform her job functions.

Why not? The police will not send out a patrolman without his uniform. Nor would a fireman without his? The Disney Store would not allow you to work while a replacement was found.

She would be wearing the uniform. It would simply be the uniform plus a headscarf. Sort of like if I wore a uniform plus a jacket (something I've had to do at a job before). Or if I wore a uniform plus jewelry. The woman isn't asking that she be allowed to come to work without the required uniform. She simply wants to wear a headscarf in addition to it.

Meanwhile, most jobs have no problem with an employee who is missing a small part of a uniform while new ones are ordered in. In fact, I've seen it happen at every job I've had that required uniforms.

Most likely the company that makes their uniforms has to retool and or it falls under production schedules. If it's not something they routinely make, it takes time.

If the order was for 100% polyester and the company did not comply, none of these things are adequate arguments for taking 13 weeks to make a replacement.

I ordered a piece of equipment for work recently. It was a refurbished piece of equipment, so it took a good while to get to me. When it came in, it was broken. I had to send it back. Do you think I'll take, "We have lots of work to do right now," as an excuse? Hell no! It was not done properly the first time, and they aren't getting any extra time from me to correct their mistake.

The similarity is very restricted in this case. In the case of a strip club, adequately doing the job requires bare breasts. One might argue that wearing a uniform is necessary for properly doing the job of a retailer, but there really isn't much argument that a uniform plus a headscarf would somehow make her unable to perform her job functions.

I wonder if muslim strippers leave their headscarves on?[/humour]

I wonder if muslim strippers leave their headscarves on?[/humour]

Nah, it's probably the first thing to come off. =)

Nah, it's probably the first thing to come off. =)

Followed by their heads. ;)

Suppose a store had a uniform that was strapless. A woman who was used to more modest dress did not feel comfortable with baring so much skin, so she decided to wear a short sleeved shirt under the tube-top in the uniform. Her employer told her that the shirt she wore was unacceptable, as it was not company colors and told her she must wait for them to make her an acceptable shirt. The one they give her, instead of being made out of conventional materials, is made out of chain mail. This shirt is too heavy and restrictive for her to be able to work comfortably.

What would you say then?
Get a job somewhere else? (And it would be clear that were trying to get rid of her if they gave her chain mail - a ridiculous situation.)

Followed by their heads. ;)

Oh dear.....

=)

On this you might be right... Were I in their shoes, I would have simply fired the woman for being out of uniform.

Funny. Seeing as this is not the United States you cannot randomly fire people. :rolleyes: