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.