Dunnes settle with woman over wearing a Hijab

Ush1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A Muslim will give you a thousand examples of the presence of Allah. Are you able to prove them wrong?

Oh FFS....

smash

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So a company can bring in policy it likes, as long as it doesn't discriminate on religious grounds? so then a company's policy isn't the final word.

Pretty much. And she agreed to the terms when she signed the contract.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This woman believes that she is required to wear a Hijab. Dunnes are saying no Hijabs, therefore no they are indirectly saying, no Muslim women.

You should just stop after that word and just delete the sentence.

jasonmcco

Rebelkell wrote: »

Watch a women in a burka following behind her husband in an Irish shopping centre and see if you then think its right.[/QUOT


Whether it fits your definition of whats right doesn't matter, you have to accomodate the differences or have you failed to notice how we do things in the modern world.

I mean christians are minorities in many locations around the world and i am sure you wouldn't want them being told how to dress or how not to dress.

Fratton Fred

Shenshen wrote: »

Was she treated in exactly the same way all other employees are treated, yes or no?

The discrimination law does not demand special treatment for religious groups, but equal treatment.

No, it doesn't, the law requires equal access, that is different. Why do new buildings have to have disabled access? are disabled people getting special treatment. or are they just being given the same opportunity as everyone else?

moneymad wrote: »

Are you unemployed?

wtf has that got to do with the price of fish?

Ush1 wrote: »

Can you point out the law that they broke?

Irish Law wrote:

Indirect discrimination happens where a worker or group
of workers or job applicants are treated less favourably
as a result of requirements that they might find hard to
satisfy. For example, if a job advert stated that applicants
had to be Chinese, that condition would put people of
other races and nationalities at a disadvantage.
However, it requires the employer to prove that the condition
is necessary for the job in question, to be unlawful. In
the example given, it might be considered a reasonable
condition if the job is in a Chinese restaurant.

Would a Muslim woman find it hard to satisfy a uniform policy that did not allow her to wear a head scarf - yes.

Can Dunnes prove that the condition is necessary for the job is question - no.

end ****ing thread.

Fratton Fred

Shenshen wrote: »

No, just no women who feel they need to wear a headscarf at work. Religion doesn't even come into it.
Same rules for everyone.

no, its not same rules for everyone, it is same opportunities for everyone.

davet82

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, but the point is they should be perfectly entitled to enforce their uniform policy if it is within the law. That's the real no brainer.

so cut your nose off to spite your face?

Ush1

davet82 wrote: »

so cut your nose off to spite your face?

It's their perogative to cut their nose off though is the point.

smash

jasonmcco wrote: »

Whether it fits your definition of whats right doesn't matter, you have to accomodate the differences or have you failed to notice how we do things in the modern world.

I think you will find it is a lot of Muslims who have failed at that.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Would a Muslim woman find it hard to satisfy a uniform policy that did not allow her to wear a head scarf - yes.

Obviously not these women:

Ush1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, it doesn't, the law requires equal access, that is different. Why do new buildings have to have disabled access? are disabled people getting special treatment. or are they just being given the same opportunity as everyone else?



wtf has that got to do with the price of fish?





Would a Muslim woman find it hard to satisfy a uniform policy that did not allow her to wear a head scarf - yes.

Can Dunnes prove that the condition is necessary for the job is question - no.

end ****ing thread.

Where is that excerpt on Irish law from, do you have a link?

Fratton Fred

Ush1 wrote: »

Where is that excerpt on Irish law from, do you have a link?

I've already linked to this

http://www.equality.ie/Files/Your-Employment-Equality-Rights-Explained-Easy-to-read-version-pdf.pdf

moneymad

So fratton really you support the oppression of women. Is that it?

Ush1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I've already linked to this

http://www.equality.ie/Files/Your-Employment-Equality-Rights-Explained-Easy-to-read-version-pdf.pdf

Well the things detailed in that document are disconcertingly vague to be honest. There is no actual laws or legislations I can see listed.

Having to be Chinese might be reasonable to work in a Chinese restaurant???

How abstract would you have to be? The hijab could fall in her eyes you could even say?

Corruptedmorals

smash wrote: »

It states you must wear a uniform. And I presume it states what the uniform is. Adding clothing yourself falls into the category of altering a uniform.

It does state about altering. Technically she has not altered the rest of the uniform at all. Even so, its a lot more vague and gives the company much less of a leg to stand on than if it stated it explicitly, which is what a lot of people are assuming it says and are basing their posts and opinions on.

Fratton Fred

moneymad wrote: »

So fratton really you support the oppression of women. Is that it?

Why don't you ask all your stupid questions in one go rather than one at a time.:rolleyes:

I know several Muslim women who wear a Hijab and their husbands know only full well that their life would not be worth living if they tried enforcing any form of oppression on them.

Would you consider this (Sadly deceased) woman to be oppressed? she is, after all, wearing a headscarf.

Ush1

If the provision, practice or requirement puts people who

belong to one of the grounds covered by the Acts at a

particular disadvantage, then the employer will have indirectly

discriminated, unless the provision is objectively justified by

a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are

appropriate and necessary.

Sounds like you could easily explain the companies "aim" as a get out clause.

If these types of things are in law it's honestly laughable. There is real equality issues out there in Ireland, religion is not one of them.

moneymad

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why don't you ask all your stupid questions in one go rather than one at a time.:rolleyes:

I know several Muslim women who wear a Hijab and their husbands know only full well that their life would not be worth living if they tried enforcing any form of oppression on them.

Would you consider this (Sadly deceased) woman to be oppressed? she is, after all, wearing a headscarf.

So you are just a contrarian so is it?

smash

Corruptedmorals wrote: »

It does state about altering. Technically she has not altered the rest of the uniform at all.

But she has altered the over look of the uniform by adding to it.

TEMPLAR KNIGHT

asherbassad wrote: »

You are not required by religion to wear piercings or have tattoos.

Try to keep up.

So because its part of her religion that supersedes everything? It's also part of her religion to stone women is this also ok in your opinion?

Also FYI there are religious ceremonies in India that require piercing try to keep up!

irishconvert

Ush1 wrote: »

Yes, but the point is they should be perfectly entitled to enforce their uniform policy if it is within the law. That's the real no brainer.

How far can the policy go? Which of these are acceptable?

- You can't wear a scarf on your head
- You can't wear a ribbon or hairband in your hair
- You must not dye your hair
- You must have long hair
- You must have straight hair
- You must have blond hair.

irishconvert

Fratton Fred wrote: »

So a company can bring in policy it likes, as long as it doesn't discriminate on religious grounds? so then a company's policy isn't the final word.

who says that Islam does not require a woman to cover her head? for every scholar that says it doesn't, there is another saying it does.

This woman believes that she is required to wear a Hijab. Dunnes are saying no Hijabs, therefore no they are indirectly saying, no Muslim women.

It is 100% clear that Muslim women must wear hijabs. It is in the Qur'an which (we Muslim's believe) is the direct word of God. What scholars argue about is covering of the face, but Muslim women are definitely required to cover their hair, no doubt about that.

Boombastic

irishconvert wrote: »

It is 100% clear that Muslim women must wear hijabs. It is in the Qur'an which (we Muslim's believe) is the direct word of God. What scholars argue about is covering of the face, but Muslim women are definitely required to cover their hair, no doubt about that.

Where in Qur'an does it say that?..because I don't think it does

Shenshen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, it doesn't, the law requires equal access, that is different. Why do new buildings have to have disabled access? are disabled people getting special treatment. or are they just being given the same opportunity as everyone else?






Would a Muslim woman find it hard to satisfy a uniform policy that did not allow her to wear a head scarf - yes.

Can Dunnes prove that the condition is necessary for the job is question - no.

end ****ing thread.

If Dunnes decided tomorrow they want all their floor staff to be blond and hire only people who either are blond or are willing to dye their hair for work, then they would be entitled to do that.
That's in no way discriminating, they decide that that's the look they want for their shop, so that's what they'll do.
And it's the same with the uniform. They require employees to wear a uniform. People who don't want to wear the uniform need not apply.

AEDIC

Shenshen wrote: »

If Dunnes decided tomorrow they want all their floor staff to be blond and hire only people who either are blond or are willing to dye their hair for work, then they would be entitled to do that.
That's in no way discriminating, they decide that that's the look they want for their shop, so that's what they'll do.
And it's the same with the uniform. They require employees to wear a uniform. People who don't want to wear the uniform need not apply.

No...they are absolutely not.

TwoShedsJackson

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A Muslim will give you a thousand examples of the presence of Allah. Are you able to prove them wrong?

The onus is on the Muslim to prove the presence of Allah, not the non-believer to prove them incorrect.

Fratton Fred

Ush1 wrote: »

Sounds like you could easily explain the companies "aim" as a get out clause.

If these types of things are in law it's honestly laughable. There is real equality issues out there in Ireland, religion is not one of them.

Shenshen wrote: »

If Dunnes decided tomorrow they want all their floor staff to be blond and hire only people who either are blond or are willing to dye their hair for work, then they would be entitled to do that.
That's in no way discriminating, they decide that that's the look they want for their shop, so that's what they'll do.
And it's the same with the uniform. They require employees to wear a uniform. People who don't want to wear the uniform need not apply.

did you have trouble opening the link?

They can demand what they like, but if someone has trouble complying for racial, gender, cultural or various other reasons, then they are discriminating.

Private companies are not gods, they still have to follow the law. THey cannot say "These are our rules, like it or feck off".

davet82

Boombastic wrote: »

Where in Qur'an does it say that?..because I don't think it does

i think i'll take a muslims word for it

irishconvert

Shenshen wrote: »

If Dunnes decided tomorrow they want all their floor staff to be blond and hire only people who either are blond or are willing to dye their hair for work, then they would be entitled to do that.
That's in no way discriminating, they decide that that's the look they want for their shop, so that's what they'll do.
And it's the same with the uniform. They require employees to wear a uniform. People who don't want to wear the uniform need not apply.

Sure. And can they also specify skin and eye colour? Is it discrimination if they want that look for their shop?

Shenshen

AEDIC wrote: »

No...they are absolutely not.

No? Opticians regularly require staff to wear glasses, if they need them or not. If they've nothing wrong with their eyes, they will have to wear glasses with simple plain glass in them rather than lenses.

It's a shop, and staff selling the product need to comply to certain marketing strategies.
A shop selling cosmetics will not allow staff to come in puffy-eyed and pimpled, they will have to wear make-up.
Staff in bars can be required to wear skimpy clothes if the owner decides this will help shift more drink.

And Dunnes staff have to comply to Dunnes uniforms.

Shenshen

Fratton Fred wrote: »

did you have trouble opening the link?

They can demand what they like, but if someone has trouble complying for racial, gender, cultural or various other reasons, then they are discriminating.

Private companies are not gods, they still have to follow the law. THey cannot say "These are our rules, like it or feck off".

I quoted your own link back to you a few posts back.
Do me the courtesy of reading your own material.

Boombastic

davet82 wrote: »

i think i'll take a muslims word for it

Why because they said so?..It should be no bother for the muslim then to quote where in the Qur'an in says it