Posted on 09/03/2008 5:58:29 AM PDT by Victory111
Score another victory for the stealth jihad: Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport, where the janitorial firm GCA Services recently instituted a new uniform that featured pants. But thirty Somali Muslim women who work for GSA Services protested: up to that point they had been allowed to wear skirts, and they thought that pants offended against the modesty Islam mandates for women. With help from the Council on American-Islamic Relations, this week they won permission to forgo the new uniform and wear skirts on the job.
(Excerpt) Read more at crossactionnews.com ...
I don't see a thing at all unreasonable about this request. None whatsoever.
Nor do I. This seems like a textbook example of reasonable accommodation for a religious practice. They're still wearing a uniform, yes? They can still perform the job while wearing the uniform, yes? Seems like a win-win to me.
On the other hand, it's accommodating a small group of people who are using their religious beliefs to change standard job requirements. The question is, what's next? What else will they ask to be accommodated on? And what about other religious or ethnic groups? If you are going to change the rules for one group, how can you then say no to the next group that wants to do things differently? And what about the precedent set by accommodating these people? What kind of snowball effect could this have on other businesses/government agencies in Phoenix, or for that matter, across the country? Simple changes may seem innocuous, but can, down the road, create even bigger problems.
The bottom line is you don't do for one what you can't do for all. I don't agree with changing the rules to satisfy a small number of people. If they don't like the job requirements, then find another job. I had to wear a uniform on the job, and I had to wear it according to the guidelines my employer set down in agency directives. As we were told when we took the job, the uniform was part of the paycheck, so handle it.
If the women requesting this accommodation had been Orthodox Jews or conservative Christians who don’t believe women should wear pants, the response they would have gotten is “Sure, no problem, but we’d appreciate it if your skirts could be the same color as the uniform pants”, and the “story” would never have made it into the media. Given that there are plenty of Muslim activities and requests that really are dangerous and unreasonable, the motives of anybody who tries to make an issue out of something like this are highly suspect.
You're exactly right. Thanks for posting common sense.
“bit by bit, piece by piece”
OUTSTANDING article by Robert Spencer! Thanks very much for posting.
The supremicists have us over a barrel. Step by step, inch by inch. First Phoenix, then Pittsburg, Miami, Dearborn...until rivers of blood will flow.
Larry Mohammed and Curley are not pals of mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ9lQe2YoBs
/sarcasm
Read their texts. Listen to their representatives words. Watch their deeds. They’re not joking.
Thanks Robert Spencer.
I disagree, for a number of reasons.
"Small groups" get accomodated all the time. It's part of having a pluralistic society, which, like it or not, we have. The reason for this is that we have laws in this country which say that employers are to make reasonable accomodations to employees' personal - including religious - sensibilities. There is nothing wrong with those laws, in fact, they are quite in accord with the spirit of the Constitution. I know that many FReepers don't get this point, but the Constitution doesn't just protect citizens from the government, it also protects citizens from each other, via the legitimate arbitrative role of government. It isn't just a matter of "hey buddy, you like it or find a job somewhere else", at least when it comes to non-essential aspects of a job. An employer forcing an employee to start conforming to a non-essential standard you set, but which is against their conscience, is basically the same thing as an employer forcing their own religious beliefs onto an employee. There is a very thin, perhaps non-existent, line between "start wearing this uniform or we'll fire you" and "start saying the rosary, or we'll fire you." And believe it or not, employers don't actually have the right to just fire somebody at will who doesn't toe the line on non-job essential issues like "skirts vs. pants". When you operate a business in the public square and interact with other people as employees, you become subject to the legal regulations of the commonwealth, regulations which, in the case of accomodation laws, are well-placed. You aren't just free to act towards employees however you like, on threat of termination.
If these women wanted to wear a skirt and still work in a position (such as in close spaces with moving parts) where that would make them a danger to themselves or others, that's one thing. But that's not what's at issue here. It's janitorial staff wanting to wear skirts instead of pants as they clean toilets. What's so unreasonable about accomodating them? I'd say that any reasonable employer wouldn't find a problem with that.
And of course, if this were an issue of Muslim women wanting to wear disguises for their driver's license photo, I'd be right there with you. But it's not. It's them wanting to wear a skirt instead of pants while they clean toilets and pick up the trash you drop on the airport floor.
I have no sympathy at all for the "this is just the tip of the iceberg" argument. I've been greatly disappointed by the number of unintelligent posters on FR today who've been taking that line on the other thread on this topic. Yes, sure, like Somali women want to wear skirts while they clean the airport so that they can sneak in all that bomb-making material that wouldn't otherwise be discovered by the metal-detectors and explosives-sniffing dogs and whatnot. Please. Give me a break.
This is not some "tip of the iceberg" where if we fail to force some women to wear what we want them to wear rather than what they themselves want to wear, we're suddenly going to end up with shar'ia law. Tell me again, who exactly is being put upon by "shar'ia law" when Somali women are allowed to wear what they themselves want to wear? How exactly does "Somali women wanting to wear what they feel, religiously, that they should wear" translate into "The Muslims is gonna cut all our heads off'n us!" Riddle me that, would you Batman?
Sorry Mass55th, but there are a lot of people in this country who aren't like you, don't wear the same thing you do, and don't believe the way you do. You're just going to have to get used to it, instead of worrying that their acting on the dictates of their own consciences is somehow a threat to you.
Sorry, but I worked for a state government agency, and there were no accommodations for any personal or religious sensibilities, especially when it came to dressing for work. You wore the uniform as directed, or you didn't have a job. And you're naive if you think that making exceptions for certain groups of people doesn't lead to more accommodations down the road. First it's the skirts, then it's the head dress, then it's the foot baths, then it's the prayer rooms and rugs, then it's special religious observances, then it's special food, etc. That crap is already happening here and overseas. And we're allowing them to get away with it.
People are all the same when it comes to getting what they want. They'll push as long as you allow them to. Once you've shown any sign of weakness and give in, you've lost the upper hand for good. It's all down hill from there. The Dems have been successful using this technique time and time again against the Republicans. And it's why most of us don't believe that the Republicans in Congress have any backbones.
What position did you work in? If you were required to wear a uniform because the position necessitated it for safety, authority, etc., then that's one thing. But it's not what we're talking about here. Especially not with a private corporation.
And you're naive if you think that making exceptions for certain groups of people doesn't lead to more accommodations down the road. First it's the skirts, then it's the head dress, then it's the foot baths, then it's the prayer rooms and rugs, then it's special religious observances, then it's special food, etc. That crap is already happening here and overseas. And we're allowing them to get away with it.
Then I'm naive (amusing, since I probably know more about Islam than 95% of the people on FR), since I find this talk about allowing skirts leading to foot baths leading to everybody having to say the shahada or have their head chopped off to be a tad....paranoid. Whatever happened to people simply acting like adults and agreeing to tolerate each others differences on non-essentials (like wearing skirts instead of pants), while drawing the line at the over-the-top requests like footbaths or five 30-minute prayer times, on the clock?
Let me ask you a question. Let's say you have a Christian lady whose conviction is that she should not wear pants, as she believes them to be men's clothing and thus has a religious conviction against it. She has been a hard-working, integral part of her office environment doing clerical work for 10 years. One day, the new management hands down a dress standard requiring all female office employees to wear pantsuits. This is not for any essential concern (safety, utility towards doing the job, etc.), but simply because of the preference of the management. Do you think she should be forced to start wearing pantsuits, or else find another job, for not wearing an article of clothing that is not essential to the performance or safety of her job?
I don't. And I think the employer ought to be penalised financially and open to a hefty civil suit if they fire her for holding to her conviction on this issue. If her clothing is not causing a safety issue for herself or others, and if it has no effect on the actual performance of her job, then the employer has no business mandating what she wear, period.
Your question about the Christian woman is silly. A conviction is a personal belief or opinion. It has nothing to do with religious requirements. There are dress and personal appearance codes at many companies. If people want to keep their jobs, they comply. If they put their own personal beliefs or opinions ahead of their paycheck, then they don't belong working for that company. If a company requires their staff to dress in a specific manner, ie., suits, then perhaps they should, or may even offer, a monetary bonus so employees can achieve the necessary appearance.
The article doesn't explain if the company will be required to provide the uniform skirts to the Muslims, or if they'll be able to wear a personal skirt. If the company is required to provide the uniform skirt, well then, the company's taking on an extra expense for a small number of employees receiving special treatment. If the female Muslims will be allowed to wear their own personal skirts with a uniform top, then why can't a white or Hispanic female be allowed to wear her own personal slacks with a uniform top? Why should one group have to be in full uniform, and not another?
You have your fantasy company changing the fashion for its employees on a whim. This comparison is unfair since the janitorial staff at the airport has obviously worn uniforms all along. Uniforms are a lot different than business clothes. The company these Muslim women work for decided to change the style of uniform all their janitorial staff would wear. When it comes to uniforms, if the company provides them to their staff as part of their employment, then I guess they have a right to decide what style of uniform those employees will be wearing. Obviously, uniforms are worn so that all employees achieve uniformity in appearance.
Sure these 30 Somali woman were allowed to wear skirts previously, but basing their demands to continue to wear skirts on their religious beliefs was a piss-poor way of achieving their desired goal. I would have been more supportive of them if they'd simply used the argument that they had always been able to wear them, and left their stupid religion out of it.
The article says that the wearing of pants isn't specifically against the beliefs of Islamic authorities. So basically, these 30 women are using their own personal opinions, dare I say "feelings," to get their way on the job. Now if some of these Muslim women choose to wear pants instead of skirts, then this whole affair was nothing more than a show to create trouble. My question now is, will non-Muslim women working for this company as janitors also have the right to wear a skirt instead of pants if they choose? Enquiring minds want to know.
That helps me to better understand your particular perspective. I would agree - a prison is a place where adhering to a specific dress code should be mandatory - the safety of the guards and other personnel may very well be on the line, so the ability to move freely and otherwise act as necessary is required.
Your situation is not, however, the same situation that obtains for every last job, or even for most jobs, in this country. Trying to apply your experiences to every situation is simply not relevant.
Your question about the Christian woman is silly. A conviction is a personal belief or opinion. It has nothing to do with religious requirements. There are dress and personal appearance codes at many companies. If people want to keep their jobs, they comply. If they put their own personal beliefs or opinions ahead of their paycheck, then they don't belong working for that company. If a company requires their staff to dress in a specific manner, ie., suits, then perhaps they should, or may even offer, a monetary bonus so employees can achieve the necessary appearance.
Actually, it's not silly. The underlying point to the question is simply - should employers have the right to force employees to wear certain types of clothing (for example), when these are not relevant to the job duties or safety? I say no. FReepers would be up in arms if the government came in and forced people to wear certain types of clothing in non-relevant situations, so why would we not also find it an infringement on the liberty of an individual if and when a private employer does the same? As I said before, we have accomodation laws for a reason, and they are constitutional laws, based off the principle that the Constitution implicitly provides for the regulation of behaviour between citizens, protecting them from each other, as much as it protects us from the government.
Again, in response to my own question, I would say that no employer has any right to mandate that employees wear certain types of clothing if that mandate is not related to safety or job performance - even granting that such things as tidiness, etc. are a part of "job performance" (i.e., the company wants employees to look neat and clean and well put together as a part of the public face they present, which helps with customers, etc.) However, I don't think any reasonable person would say that a Christian lady wearing a nice, calf-length skirt with blouse is any less well put together than one wearing pants and a top.
The article doesn't explain if the company will be required to provide the uniform skirts to the Muslims, or if they'll be able to wear a personal skirt. If the company is required to provide the uniform skirt, well then, the company's taking on an extra expense for a small number of employees receiving special treatment. If the female Muslims will be allowed to wear their own personal skirts with a uniform top, then why can't a white or Hispanic female be allowed to wear her own personal slacks with a uniform top? Why should one group have to be in full uniform, and not another?
As you said, the article doesn't say, so your speculations are not relevant to this issue. However, since the article does indicate that they had previously been wearing skirts, and GCA Services instituted a new dress code, this would seem to suggest that the skirts these women wanted to wear were their own which they had already been wearing, would you not think?
Sure these 30 Somali woman were allowed to wear skirts previously, but basing their demands to continue to wear skirts on their religious beliefs was a piss-poor way of achieving their desired goal. I would have been more supportive of them if they'd simply used the argument that they had always been able to wear them, and left their stupid religion out of it.
See, that's not a rational reason to take the position you are taking. You'd have been fine with it if they'd have wanted to continue wearing skirts for no reason at all, but since they say they have a religious conviction about it (and that religion happens to be Islam), suddenly it becomes an issue where we just can't, under any circumstances, no way and no how, let them continue to wear skirts because of their stupid religion. That's, frankly, ridiculous.
Look, I'm certainly no friend of Islam. In fact, I've written a book about it which Muslims find to be, ah, quite critical of their religion. Nevertheless, I have no reason to hate these particular Somali women, or to say that we have to force them to wear clothing that is against their religious sensibilities (especially when we wouldn't force them if they didn't have those religious sensibilities). Your position is motivated not by reason or by good argumentation, but just by the fact that you apparently hate them because they are Muslim. That's not a good enough reason, not by a long shot.
The article says that the wearing of pants isn't specifically against the beliefs of Islamic authorities. So basically, these 30 women are using their own personal opinions, dare I say "feelings," to get their way on the job. Now if some of these Muslim women choose to wear pants instead of skirts, then this whole affair was nothing more than a show to create trouble. My question now is, will non-Muslim women working for this company as janitors also have the right to wear a skirt instead of pants if they choose? Enquiring minds want to know.
Actually, what the article says is that wearing pants isn't against some Islamic authorities (implying that it IS against others). Do you know these women personally, to know which they truly belong to? Since you don't, how do you even know anything to comment about their motives? That's just paranoia, not rational thinking. Look, some Christian women have a conviction (not just a feeling or preference) that they should not wear pants. Other Christian women do not have this same conviction. It is not "hypocritical" or indicative of some type of evil, horrible conspiracy when some Christian women want to wear skirts or dresses on the job, while others don't. Hence, your rumour-mongering is moot.
Sorry, but I think the whole premise of this article is way off-base. Normally, Robert Spencer is right on, but in this case, I think he's barking at nothing. If you want to pick your battles, pick them against footbaths or other junk where employers would be forced to go to great expense to accomodate employees. Why restrict the personal liberty of the individual, however, if they are not restricting yours? What skin off your back - besides your apparent religiously motivated hatred and paranoia - is it is these women wear a skirt or a pair of pants while they scrub a toilet, anywise?
But your speculations about a Christian lady are?
These women were hired to do a job, not practice a religion or pursue personal beliefs. Uniforms were part of the picture when they were hired. They knew what they were getting into. Either they want to earn a paycheck, or they don't. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're entitled to your opinions, as I am mine. So we'll leave it at that because neither of us is going to see the other's side. Nice talking to you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.