Replies

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.

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.

I worked in uniform in NY's prison system for almost 25 years. I dealt with Islamic inmates within the prison system on a daily basis for all those years. I saw over and over, the continual changing of policy to accommodate the various religious groups in the prison system. Prior to my retiring in 2003, the department began recognizing the Nation of Islam. As I said previously, in many situations, accommodation eventually leads to incremental changes that aren't always for the good.

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.