As a conservative, a fast-food employee, and one who lives less than thirty minutes from where the incident occurs give me this perspective on the situation.

The city the McDonalds is in, Dearborn Michigan has a huge Muslim population. One in three people are Muslim, and one in three people speak Arabic as their firstlanguage, but it seems like far more when you visit the city. You’re immersed in a plethora of different Arabic cultures, and it’s kind of hard to realize you’re a skip and a hop from Downtown Detroit, or the quiet suburb where I live.

I find it odd that McDonalds corporation would eliminate such a large demographic from their potential employee base. I’ve worked fast food. A Hijab does nothing to prevent a person from working fast food… trust me.

As for the firearm analogy? I’m of the belief that background-checked law-abiding citizens should be able to keep their CPL useful wherever they go, however the company prevents weapons of any kind from entering the premise. This is a relatively logical liability clause. Negligent discharge is possible, as is a robbery, and McDonalds doesn’t want to deal with the PR debacle and settlements that would ensue. Also understandable from corporate mindset. However, what is so dangerous, or detrimental in any sense about the Hijab?

Now, with that being said, the women in question were out of line. You would have to work for fifteen years straight, twenty four hours a day, non stop to make ten million dollars at McDonalds. Seven a piece if you half the lawsuit money.

If McDonalds asks me to take off my cross on a chain, I’ll do so, but if one third of my area’s demographic were not allowed to take off their crosses as religious doctrine, as a McDonalds exec I would be entering a clause into my conduct handbook rather quickly.

It’s actually the employee who is trying to force her religious beliefs on the businessman. I don’t expect lefties to be smart enough to realize this, however. They are too busy submitting to Islam.

or in a surgery theatre

Wasn’t there already a case of a female surgeon who refused to wash above her wrists? How’d that end?

Here’s a picture of the defiant little bitches:

The ugly mug on the left belongs to Toi Whitfield, 20.
The ugly mug on the right belongs to Quiana Pugh, 25.

Entitled to a McDonald’s job? Way to aim high, girls!

One wonders if the aggrieved lady would be able to wear her hijab while on active military duty, or in a surgery theatre, or as TSA agent, or while operating heavy machinery, or [fill in the blank]?

Fanaticalism, above a very slim degree, has no place in the work environment.
Any signal of fanaticalism should be used to decide on the hiring of a prospective applicant.

I asked you to explain how it’s the same thing for an employer to require a dress code (the girls decided not to continue their application on that basis, it never got further) and to consider employing a sterotypical Mormon missionary. You haven’t done that. All you’ve done is make vague insults against vague behaviors; which, by the way, the way you’ve phrased the quoted potion, suggests that discrimination based on pre-employment behavior which doesn’t impede work or dress code, but that implies the subject has certain beliefs, is acceptable (which isn’t even legal).

“Since wearing the hijab is part of the religion, McDonalds must show that wearing the hajib effects the work. McDonalds will not be able to do this.”
.
..
PUH-LEEEEESE!
.
.
What if, during the normal execution of her job, LaToi-a reaches to fill a super-size container of fries?
With the loose clothing flailing, and quite absorbant,her arm get’s a little close to the hot oil that cooks the fries…..The cloth drinks in the scorching oil,causing terrible skin burns on her.
Figure further that LaQuisha was standing nearby & as LaToi-a starts slingin’ her arms around, the boiling grease flings on LaQuisha, burning her….
.
.
OR
.
.
Should they be hired in, would their fanaticalism cause a rift in the normal day-to-day operations of that store?
What additions would be required in the form of a prayer area, extra break times for prayer, refusal to serve certain customers?
Would it lead to the requirement to provide extra perks for the other workers?
.
It’s very easy to show where something could hypethetically happen.

A good manager will see that & take steps to protect the work environment.

If the restriction has no bearing on the ability to perform the job than it is a Civil Rights violation and yes, it is illegal.

Really? Sez who??? What a silly thing to suggest!

Hiring Muslims is a huge liability.

If one doesn’t want the hocus pocus associated with the religion, then one shouldn’t hire any Muslims. A thorough background check while looking for signs of Islamic nuttiness can take care of most of these problems before they even start.

She is not imposing her religion on McDonalds, she is practicing her religion.

Which is bullshit. She’s demanding a different dress code, ergo – imposing her religion upon McDonald’s.

It’s about image. And this McDonald’s, despite being in Dearborn, Michigan, perhaps doesn’t want to display the 7th century image. Beyond affecting her performance (which the hack lawyer above assumes not to be the case), they can argue that it damages their business by turning off their customers.

But because of the made up “civil rights” and hack lawyers assuming their way through the story, employers probably don’t have that right anymore. They have to sit there and take it as this woman imposes her religion on them. Nevermind that she is violating “Halal” standards by working at and serving “unclean” McDonald’s food. That damages her case. Nevermind that more Muslims practice the “Halal” standard than wear the hijab. That also damages her case. She gets to pick and choose which goofy religious practices she engages in and McDonald’s can’t do a damn thing about it. They have no freedom of this matter in the “land of the free”.

This lady just represents some of the first shots fired in the march of Islam.

THat was a very fair response, Lastat.
Thank you.
.
.
.
.
Now, what about the safety liabilities of the employer?
/This is a big issue in my general area due to a couple of recent incidents.
Knowing that the applicants are devout moslims,would it be fair to assume that their working at a McDonalds was a “western thing” to do?
Could them working there be construed by their elders as an insult?
Even if they’re working the register & taking orders, would that be considered flirting by their elders?
Could it be considered fraternization?
If so, could that lead to another incident of “honor killing”…..maybe even in the store?
If it did, would McDonalds be held liable for injuries?
After all, fanatical moslims are “honor killing” more often in America these days.
/I know this is an extreme, but it is possible.
.
.
.On the same vein, should the manager hire a pair of Mormon boys that ride up on their bicycles & thumping a Bible?
I would say no to them, as well.

Bingo, Rob! Exactly right! …but will some local federal magistrate see it that way? There’s the problem. So many of our courts are out of control.

I’ll admit that if I were calling the shots at McDonald’s I’d just make an exception for the hijab because I don’t really see where it would keep them from doing their work. Although I do find forcing women to go about covered like that to be an offensive practice.

But I suspect that allowing these women to work in their hijabs wouldn’t have been enough. I think that if they’d been hired they soon would have filed a lawsuit over being required to handle pork (sausage breakfast sandwiches, for instance).

I agree to both points, I find it offensive, and if they didn’t file, someone else would. This is America, and our national sport is the lawsuit. However I’m always wary of people using a domino effect as rationale, because those less level headed could simply say that wearing Hijabs promotes domestic terrorism (IE. Let orthodox muslims into Mcdonalds, and hamburger bombs are right around the corner).

Assuming there’s no alcohol in the beer-hat on premise, and there’s tens of thousands of like-minded believers, I believe that would fall under reasonable accommodation…

Now you’re being absurd.

How so? The only difference being that one has a negative stigma of being associated with sports-nuts and frat boys, and the other is a rather odd tradition upheld by the orthodox members of the fastest growing religion on earth. I wouldn’t let you stop work for sippy breaks, or refills, because that would be detrimental to the workplace environment, but simply wearing headgear?

I don’t see what the fuss is. As far as I’m concerned, both parties are in the wrong. It wouldn’t kill the two women to float back down to reality, and get over the fact that they were snubbed by a corporation the size of Micky-D’s, and it certainly wouldn’t kill McDonalds to accommodate to a harmless religious practice.

Maybe a Constitutional primer is needed for you. The Constitutional rights are protected only from what the government can do, not what a private employer. Therefore absent a statute from some authority with jurisdiction, an employer can discriminate. There is no statute that says a private employer cannot discriminate against people carrying guns. There is a statute that says you cannot discriminate based on religion.

Unless that religious practice conflicts with business policy or local laws. When the Bosnians came to St. Louis, they claimed cultural and religious practices let them slaughter animals in alleyways and let the blood drain down the alley. The state disagreed and shut down Bosnian restaurants for violating the law.

As they pointed out with the Rastafarian, not discriminating against a religion is not a blanket defense. Certain varieties of Christian won’t work on the weekends. If they apply for a job that demands weekend work, they simply don’t get it. Why? Because the job DEMANDS they work on weekends and they won’t. Is this religious discrimination? Absolutely not. Of course they have the right to refuse to work on the weekend, and the job has the right to not hire them.

The habib violates company dress policy. McDonalds, like any other job that demands a uniform, expects their dress code followed. McDonalds doesn’t have to show that the habib would negatively affect business, or would hurt productivity. All they have to show is that, by refusing to remove it, that the employee is refusing to follow company policy.

The suit was filed because the employer’s dress-code policy forbids the ladies’ choice of clothing. Outside of the occupation, the head scarf is not mandatory and is not a medical condition. Even if it were considered mandatory, I don’t think the case would have merit.

cb – Beliefs other than those required to do the job (work ethic, health code, thievery)?

Most definitely.

Your reputation precedes you. Always does. An employer will take that reputation, earned or not, into consideration during the hiring process.

The law is only now catching up to this glaring and ‘always was’ reality.

“…All you’ve done is make vague insults against vague behaviors; which, by the way, the way you’ve phrased the quoted potion, suggests that discrimination based on pre-employment behavior which doesn’t impede work or dress code, but that implies the subject has certain beliefs, is acceptable (which isn’t even legal). ”

.
.
I have made no insults.
I pointed out that one kind of fanaticalism is just as detrimental as another.
I draw my conclusions from my personal experiences in filling jobs with qualified applicants.
Even the hygene habits of an applicant carries weight in a pre-employment interview.
Some actions or appearances carry more weight than others, obviously.
For instance, would you want someone with sores around their mouth preparing your food?
Would it matter if the manager had a letter from a doctor that the condition wasn’t communicable?
What about dredlocks or stray hair?
Would you want someone with stray hairs working over your McRib?
What about a guy missing an arm….but had a long nub?
Would you want him clasping your bag of big mac’s under that nub?
All these things ARE valid issues in the pre-employment interview.

They’re not eliminating the demographic from their potential employee base. They’re just applying a dress code.

Not technically no.

-McDonalds doesn’t allow Hijabs.
-I’m a Muslim woman who must wear a Hijab.
-I can abandon my religion, or not get hired.

I’m not saying they have a foot to stand on legally, and there’s no doubt they’re asking for an inordinate amount of money, but with the amount of orthodox Muslims in the area, I’ve got to wonder what the fuss is about.

Fine then. My religion requires me to wear a beer hat at all times.

Don’t want to hire me? Talk to my lawyer.

Assuming there’s no alcohol in the beer-hat on premise, and there’s tens of thousands of like-minded believers, I believe that would fall under reasonable accommodation…

I mean, really… it’s not like we’re going to McDonalds for the snappy dressers running the register.

2 words for Lestat-

Sausage McMuffin.

Shouldn’t have hired the ragheads in the first place…just asking for trouble. That seems to be the problem.

There’s no room for your ignorant racial bigotry in this debate. Remind me to completely discount anything else you ever have to say on any subject matter.

Eddie:

and it wouldn’t kill McDonalds to accomodate to a harmless religious practice..

The issue isn’t accomodating religion; the issue is the right of a private business to set standards for it’s employees.

If the muslim lady refuses to handle pork products, will another employee have to step in and take care of the transaction?

If the muslim lady announces that she needs private prayer space for her morning, noontime, afternoon or evening prayers, will the employer have to provide it?

And if the employer then hires an orthodox jew, is the muslim lady entitled to demand that they have seperate work stations or different hours?

Can the muslim lady refuse to serve customers who are immodestly dressed or jewish? Can she reuse to serve a blind man with a seeing-eye dog?

Where does the line finally get drawn, eddie?

“Please explain how that is the same thing.”
.
.
Surely
.
.
.
.Fanaticalism, above a very slim degree, has no place in the work environment.
Any signal of fanaticalism should be used to decide on the hiring of a prospective applicant.

Does the religion itself inspire violence?

Again, I just want to make sure I understand you (you’re a conservative and so very adept at talking in circles):

Are you claiming that Islam is inherently violent, and that all 2.8 million American muslims are violent as well?

Well not being rude but im not able to wear my cross to work so its far i would be upset if they wear able to show there Religious beliefs at work, i was not

lik and kenny:
Just so we’re clear: are you saying that ALL muslims are inherently terrorists?

Whether all Muslims are inherently violent is irrelevant. Does the religion itself inspire violence?

Caught in utter stupidity, the know nothing imbecile now tries to craft an accusation of racism. And fails again…

Are you claiming that Islam is inherently violent, and that all 2.8 million American muslims are violent as well?

Another stupid question.

Jack, you’re worth nothing other than a cheap laugh.

Isn’t an employer allowed a particular uniform code? Especially when a Hijab could present a health issue to the food industry? A hijab hangs and could easily hang into the food. It is a health and safety risk and has no reason to be worn in a fast food environment.

I guess that’s why they call it a “dress code”, isn’t it?

A Supreme Court decision sounds
like the Law to me.

Don’t fast food workers wear hats for
the sanitary reason of keeping hair out of food?
Whats the big deal about a scarf which
accomplishes the same thing? A hat can be worn
over the scarf.

Employers tell workers they can’t
smoke in the workplace, they tell
them they can’t smoke at home,
where’s the limit?
Can’t bring your gun to work, can’t have
a gun at home?

If I go to church on Sunday
Then cabaret all day Monday
Aint nobodys business if I do

I find it odd that McDonalds corporation would eliminate such a large demographic from their potential employee base. I’ve worked fast food. A Hijab does nothing to prevent a person from working fast food… trust me.

They’re not eliminating the demographic from their potential employee base. They’re just applying a dress code.

I’d be willing to wager money that McDonald’s in the Detroit/Dearborn area already employs Muslim men and Muslim women who are willing to comply with the company’s policies.

If you ask me, this is a $10,000,000 shakedown not an example of discrimination.

As for the firearm analogy? I’m of the belief that background-checked law-abiding citizens should be able to keep their CPL useful wherever they go, however the company prevents weapons of any kind from entering the premise. This is a relatively logical liability clause. Negligent discharge is possible, as is a robbery, and McDonalds doesn’t want to deal with the PR debacle and settlements that would ensue. Also understandable from corporate mindset. However, what is so dangerous, or detrimental in any sense about the Hijab?

Fine then. My religion requires me to wear a beer hat at all times.

Don’t want to hire me? Talk to my lawyer.

Congress has written a law saying employers cannot discriminate based on religion, they have written no such law about guns.

And if this employer were discriminating based on religion you might have a point.

But he’s not. He’s discriminating based on dress code, which he is certainly allowed to do.

He has said that the women could work for him if they’d remove their headscarves. Certainly that does not sound like the sort of offer that would come from someone who doesn’t want Muslims working for him at all.

I mean, do you even know if this guy might have other Muslims working for him? Muslims who agreed to comply with the dress code?

It’s pretty stupid of you to accuse this guy of being a bigot simply because he wants to enforce a dress code.

Since wearing the hijab is part of the religion, McDonalds must show that wearing the hajib effects the work. McDonalds will not be able to do this.

My religion requires me to wear my sidearm at all times.

I’m sure you’ll be defending my lawsuit against McDonald’s when they won’t let me go about armed, right?

You liberals are so dense. Yes, we have freedom of religion of this country. No, that doesn’t mean you can impose your religion on other people up to and including businesses.

The anti-discrimination laws were meant to prevent people from being hired because of their religion, not because they choose to wear hats or hijabs or what have you.

Religion is choice. If you choose to practice a religion that requires to to dress in a way that disqualifies you from working at a certain place of business well that’s your tough luck.

Your choice is not a mortgage upon the freedom of others.

Just because something is “the LAW” doesn’t mean it’s right Poodle. And what you’re quoting there isn’t “the LAW” it’s someone advocacy group’s interpretation of “the LAW.”

Why should your religious choice infringe upon my freedom to run my business as I see fit? Why do I automatically have to accommodate your religious customs? Why can’t you accommodate my dress code?

it certainly wouldn’t kill McDonalds to accommodate to a harmless religious practice.

It’s the principle of the thing. Everything is a slippery slope.