Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Burka ban
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
christmas2012 wrote: »Or maybe this woman wants to take on a company and sue for the sake of it,at what point did she decide to just start wearing the burka/niquab to work,and start on this crusade..
0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I've given my opinion on the womans perspective in a previous post. The policy did not change. She did. She has the choice of complying with the policy by removing her hijab at work, keep wearing the hijab at work and get fired for not complying with the dress code, or quit her job because she cannot comply with the dress code. She became a Muslim and decided to wear the hijab, so she knew that she would no longer be in compliance with the dress code. The company cannot change their policy to suit an employee. The employee has to comply with the policy to keep their job.
It's hard to read this and not apply the logic carte blanche to justify Dunnes stores in the apartheid situation for firing those people 'who changed' after they'd agreed to company policy (which as you so adamantly say simply cannot change to suit an employee). Note you ignore such an inconvenient consequence of your own logic, a logic that says the government are wrong to commemorate those people with a plaque for changing after they'd agreed to suppress their personal convictions once they'd signed a contract.As for my comment about some Muslim women not wearing the hijab, it was to demonstrate that the company are not firing this woman because she became a Muslim. They even said they wanted her to stay in the job. The issue isn't her religion, it is the hijab which violates their dress code.
You're seriously going to argue that "Many Muslim women do not wear any form of hijab at all" was not meant as a means to imply that the hijab is not a necessity by virtue of the fact that "many" don't wear it? Such a sentence has absolutely no relationship even to the concept that they might be firing her for becoming a Muslim
This is too radical a departure in meaning to be taken seriously quite frankly, I doubt the question wouldn't have been pursued further had I not called you on it, the logic of it fits in perfectly with everything else you're saying so I sincerely doubt such a weapon would have been left unwielded...And not allowing headwear is not an unreasonable demand, in the same way they wouldn't allow staff to wear hats, or bandanas. Again, the reason for the hijab is not the issue, it is the hijab itself. They have to treat all their staff, in all their stores in the same way. If they don't allow headwear, they can't allow any headwear. Hardly an unreasonable demand for staff not to wear headwear.
All of a sudden company policy has concepts like reasonableness attached to it :rolleyes: The rest of what you're saying explicitly & radically refutes such an idea...Again, being overly dramatic with claims of their "dictatorial nature".
Very very easy for you to say this from the outside, not having to deal with such a request that you clearly have no interest in even attempting to begin to even try to start to understand, not ideologically palatable enough but shure it's only one of the less-rational...Finally, with your example of a Christian company doing something similar to an atheist, your argument is flawed because that would be discrimination.
You completely missed the point there, if you're willing to miss the point there I can't convey the point to you - impenetrable...Again, she was not fired for being a Muslim (discrimination), she was fired for violating company policy regarding uniform (being a bad employee). The only way your example would work would be if the atheist wore a t-shirt saying God wasn't real which the Christian company had a policy against. In which case, the atheist would be in the wrong because he'd have known that was against company policy.
I think you're mentioning the concept of discrimination based on fundamentally misinterpreting what I meant as regards company owners & what they could do to every type of minority they have a problem with. I just don't see how you could square such an interpretation of what I was saying with sentences of mine like:sponsoredwalk wrote: »I don't think the woman cares why Dunnes are doing this, it's antithetical to basic human dignity
It's a serious break in logic, just not giving my posts the full weight they deserve - & the fact that you so conspicuously ignored the apartheid orange case is undeniable evidence of this even if everything else was wrong...0 -
Advertisement
-
The issue here is that just because the woman's reason for wanting to wear the thing is religious the organisations reason for baning hte wearing of the item is not automatically anti that religion.
I don't know where I even implied that the banning of religious items of clothing is or isn't necessarily anti-religious but it certainly wasn't in the part of my post you addressed this to. Responding to convenient arguments I'm not actually making is a common theme throughout this so you might prefer to take the time to actually read what I posted before reading on. Also I'm well aware you completely ignored the South African oranges case, I'll make sure to point out how your logic applies to that scenario so we can see how fantastic what you're saying really is...It actually has a fairly massive bearing on it. One of the things the court will look at, when deciding if there has been discrimination, is how widespread the wearing of the item is and if the wearing of it is generally considered to be compulsory.
I conspicuously included the words "large class of adherents" to specifically avoid the first sentence of this response. The only possible reason for choosing what appear as just completely arbitrary & dispensable words otherwise is that they were included to imply that the choice of the woman is substantiated by the fact that there are a "large class of adherents" wearing X just as there are a "large class of adherents" not wearing X, so trying to make the completely obvious argument that obviously follows from the now-disowned sentence "Many Muslim women do not wear any form of hijab at all" (an argument your response implicitly assumes to have been made, because it's just obvious & especially so since the new meaning attributed to these words makes no sense in all of it's backtracking glory) has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the other group wear it. So on the basic logic of what you're trying to justify it just makes no sense. But that brings us to your actual defense of why it "actually has a fairly massive bearing": I see you emphasizing discrimination again, a point I've never argued... Focusing on the trivially easy cases is not worth my time frankly, the benefit of the doubt is obviously being given to Dunnes in that there is no hint at discrimination, it's just a different conversation if we're discussing discrimination - one I'm not having - & I have no idea why people are talking about it... So to justify yourself by emphasizing discrimination is basically to justify yourself by referencing Pluto for all intents & purposes, in other words none of this makes sense & is not at all following what I'm actually saying rather responding to what you'd like me to be saying...I am not sure I get why you are so vehemently against a company having a say in how their employees look...
Claims like this show you're not paying attention to what I'm saying. I specifically said, specifically (as if such trivially & pedantically obvious points needed to be made, but for some reason they do), that:sponsoredwalk wrote: »If I support doctors being forced to wear sterile gloves then isn't it obvious I think that companies should not be allowed to enforce a dress code or uniform...
Just inventing opinions to attribute to me, ones that directly go against the few actual words posted, might work great against some people but it's not working here... Unfortunately this will surface again in this post so I'll unfortunately address this again.At the end of the day the company is the woman's employee and when she took the job she agreed to a certain set of rules and regulations and entered into a contractual arrangement. She agrees to perform certain duties and abide by certain rules and the company agrees to provide certain things in return.
Now here is a peculiar argument. If this were taken seriously then slavery would be justified provided people agreed to it in their contract. But no, the world isn't so black & white, it's a little more complicated than this. There are obviously limits on the amount of influence a company has over another person, limits that cannot be transgressed just because a contract was signed. You yourself contradict this argument in your own response when you start talking about the unreasonableness of Dunnes requesting staff to bare their breasts (more below), I mean offering contradictory arguments couched in rebuttals to arguments I've never made justified by arguments functionally equivalent to referencing Pluto might work when arguing about religion but it's just not working here. You should be the first to recognize there is more complexity than signing ones rights away once one signs a contract, especially since you actually made sure to mention that you're aware of the unreasonableness of certain requests in contracts, but no you just wield contradiction as a weapon to try to attack me for holding opinions I don't actually hold...
Also, again we have another person whose logic defends Dunnes for firing a worker who refused to sell Apartheid oranges. I'd love to see you try to argue that the quote of yours above is not a defense of Dunnes in the Apartheid orange scenario (if actually engaged honestly). The person fired & the strikers went against the most fundamental aspect of their working contract, I mean in a manner far worse than in the case we're discussing, & they now have a plaque in the city commemorating their refusal to submit to company policy based on their particular personal conviction that wasn't trivially dismissible. These are the depths to which you sink with your argument, it's not surprising you chose to completely ignore this less pleasant aspect of what you're saying :rolleyes:I am at a loss to understand why you think that simply because this particular woman had decided to change her religion and now feels she must wear something which is against the regulations and rules she agreed to abide by, that hse is due some kind of special treatment.
It doesn't surprise me that you're at a loss to comprehend why but ask any random person in the street & I'd bet nearly all would give you the same answer that you yourself would give, I'm not going to insult you by telling you what you already know - if you didn't then that'd be something else, though who knows since you're happy with logic that defends Dunnes when they fire workers who refuse to support Apartheid...Unreasonable demands? If Dunnes demanded that female staff had to have their breasts exposed then then I would call that unreasonable. If they are merely trying to enforce a particular uniform then I would not consider that to be unreasonable.
Just hilarious to see you contradict the arguments you've made above. The logic of the rest of your argument claims that it's not unreasonable for Dunnes to demand that female staff expose their breasts as long as it's stipulated & agreed to in the contract :rolleyes: In other words, when we're dealing with your values then it becomes so complex & complicated, not so black-&-white, but shure when it's others ah well they've signed their lives away in this chattel-slavery contract, they knew what they were getting themselves into, if they don't like it they can just go & work in my company as a menial worker never to rise in the ranks due to my friendly company policy of keeping every out-group stuck in menial positions due to my private company policy :rolleyes:What are you on? There is a little more to it than the company simply saying something, they will be required to defend their decision and show it is not based on religion, in this case, or race or sex in your example.
Yes, when it's others involved & nothing to do with your values then there's little more to it than a company saying something & them defending it. When we're talking about women baring their breasts then it suddenly becomes more complex... Also, again with the irrelevant insinuations about discrimination.In the UK, not so sure about Ireland but I expect it to be broadly similar, the courts are fairly adept at looking at this kind of thing and finding hidden discrimination. They won't simply take the companies word for it.
Until recently a comparator was used. So, if we take this particular case the comparator would be a woman, wearing the same item of clothing that was not muslim. If she would have been treated the same way then there was no religious discrimination. This is a very simplictic explaination, but covers the main points.
Companies will be expected to justify their actions and prove they have not discriminated.
You obviously know what you're talking about as regards the examples & are making good points but they are not points that are at all relevant to what I'm saying - it's just a different conversation...If you don't want to follow a particular companies policy then I would suggest you don't work for that company.
Said the people who now have a plaque commemorating their stance. Said women in many parts of the world before anti-discrimination laws came in. Said... I mean such ridiculous tough-love logic, do you even bother to apply this to the real world? You know this is the kind of stance of people who oppose anti-discrimination policies take & argue for, the stance that current laws explicitly reject. My god how do people read sentences like these & then giadneg uop oln moe ignystead of thisThe only fcuking insane thing here is your apparent belief that a company should not be able to regulate the behaviour of their employees. I am all for employee rights and sticking it to the man, but that is fcuking retarded.
This would have been a great rebuttal to me if I'd actually said that. But again you're not paying attention to my actual words & instead go for the caricature, easy-to-knock-down, arguments I've never made. I'll quote myself again:sponsoredwalk wrote: »If I support doctors being forced to wear sterile gloves then isn't it obvious I think that companies should not be allowed to enforce a dress code or uniform...
If you're going to stick it to the man then at least you might like to afford 'the man' some fundamentally basic common decency & not attribute to him ridiculous caricature arguments that 100% contradict his actual words & then go calling his opinions retarded...How about the hilarious consequences of employees being able to ignore company policies? Hilarious and awesome. :rolleyes:
MrP
I'll quote myself again:sponsoredwalk wrote: »If I support doctors being forced to wear sterile gloves then isn't it obvious I think that companies should not be allowed to enforce a dress code or uniform...
I mean the few words I've posted actually made it explicit that I'm not arguing for these joke-arguments you're attributing to me. Well done.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyp9fh-u4w8
Advertisement