[QUOTE=Marlwolf78;18140889]Or here's an idea: When you go to work, take it off. When you leave, put it back on. Then you can have both.[/QUOTE]
Which is like asking her to take off her shirt when she comes to work
[QUOTE=TH89;18140917]Which is like asking her to take off her shirt when she comes to work[/QUOTE]
A shirt is a little more necessary than a headscarf.
[QUOTE=Marlwolf78;18140959]A shirt is a little more necessary than a headscarf.[/QUOTE]
Elaborate.
[QUOTE=GunFox;18133288]They cannot make exceptions. Otherwise where does it stop?
If I decide that god is in my hat, can I just wear my hat everywhere?
What if I decide god is in a dildo and wear it on a chain everywhere?
Is it not going to be allowed over headscarves simply because Islam is more popular?
The only exceptions to dress codes you can realistically expect are for folks who have disabilities.[/QUOTE]
Being overtly extreme doesn't prove anything. You stop where it's sensible. A head-scarf is sensible, a dildo on a chain is neither realistic nor existent.
It's called minority rights, which is how we get to progression in the world.
I don't get the "No head wear" rule anyway, why do they have it? Do they think shes hiding a bomb in it or something?
[QUOTE=Marlwolf78;18140959]A shirt is a little more necessary than a headscarf.[/QUOTE]
No it isn't.
[QUOTE=TH89;18141128]No it isn't.[/QUOTE]
I get your point. You can do your job without either one. The headscarf IS however, a voluntary piece of clothing, while a shirt is not.
[QUOTE=Marlwolf78;18141179]I get your point. You can do your job without either one. The headscarf IS however, a voluntary piece of clothing, while a shirt is not.[/QUOTE]
Why isn't a shirt voluntary?
[QUOTE=TH89;18141267]Why isn't a shirt voluntary?[/QUOTE]
You can get arrested for going out in public without a shirt. You can't get arrested for going out in public without a headscarf.
(At least in this country)
[QUOTE=Marlwolf78;18141287]You can get arrested for going out in public without a shirt. You can't get arrested for going out in public without a headscarf.
(At least in this country)[/QUOTE]
Is that right?
[QUOTE=TH89;18141298]Is that right?[/QUOTE]
Why don't you answer that question yourself?
[QUOTE=TH89;18141298]Is that right?[/QUOTE]
Yeah. Where do you live?
[QUOTE=Marlwolf78;18141425]Yeah. Where do you live?[/QUOTE]
America.
I mean, is that [i]right[/i]?
[QUOTE=TH89;18141442]America.
I mean, is that [i]right[/i]?[/QUOTE]
Probably not. You're right.
Misunderstood you the first time, sorry.
[QUOTE=Marlwolf78;18141488]Probably not. You're right.
Misunderstood you the first time, sorry.[/QUOTE]
No worries, I should have phrased that better.
But my point is basically a government that claims to be secular but enforces laws based on an arbitrary set of religious mores shouldn't get to choose which arbitrary religious mores are defensible and which aren't (and obviously they WOULD step in if she was being asked to work with no shirt--it'd be exploitation, sexual harassment, etc)
It's not sanitary.
He has to go into sterile environments on a day-to-day basis, of course he won't be allowed to wear headwear of any kind. The political correctness trend is driving me crazy.
[QUOTE=TH89;18141570]No worries, I should have phrased that better.
But my point is basically a government that claims to be secular but enforces laws based on an arbitrary set of religious mores shouldn't get to choose which arbitrary religious mores are defensible and which aren't (and obviously they WOULD step in if she was being asked to work with no shirt--it'd be exploitation, sexual harassment, etc)[/QUOTE]
But...the government isn't making her take off the scarf, the clinic is...
[QUOTE=TH89;18141570]No worries, I should have phrased that better.
But my point is basically a government that claims to be secular but enforces laws based on an arbitrary set of religious mores shouldn't get to choose which arbitrary religious mores are defensible and which aren't (and obviously they WOULD step in if she was being asked to work with no shirt--it'd be exploitation, sexual harassment, etc)[/QUOTE]
That's a good point. I just wonder if wearing a voluntary piece of clothing would be considered defensible.
[QUOTE=SantanaDVX;18141590]It's not sanitary.
He has to go into sterile environments on a day-to-day basis, of course he won't be allowed to wear headwear of any kind. The political correctness trend is driving me crazy.[/QUOTE]
The trend of calling anything political correctness is driving me crazy, especially when it obviously is not political.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;18141616]But...the government isn't making her take off the scarf, the clinic is...[/QUOTE]
He's not saying who's making her take it off, he's saying that the government would be less likely to come to her defense for not being allowed her scarf, rather than not being allowed her shirt.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;18141616]But...the government isn't making her take off the scarf, the clinic is...[/QUOTE]
But the government would step in if they were asking her to go topless.
[QUOTE=SantanaDVX;18141590]It's not sanitary.
He has to go into sterile environments on a day-to-day basis, of course he won't be allowed to wear headwear of any kind. The political correctness trend is driving me crazy.[/QUOTE]
How is it any less sanitary than any other piece of clothing?
Like someone else said, if anything it keeps her hair contained.
[QUOTE=Malumbre;18138233]Because this is the age of science and reason, not wizards and dragons.[/QUOTE]
reason and religion are not mutually incompatible
now stop with your smug internet athiest routine, everyone here has heard it before time and time again from countless other people just like you who look down on anyone with spiritual beliefs
[QUOTE=Marlwolf78;18141663]He's not saying who's making her take it off, he's saying that the government would be less likely to come to her defense for not being allowed her scarf, rather than not being allowed her shirt.[/QUOTE]
Ah, okay. I understand now.
[QUOTE=thisispain;18141032]Being overtly extreme doesn't prove anything. You stop where it's sensible. A head-scarf is sensible, a dildo on a chain is neither realistic nor existent.
It's called minority rights, which is how we get to progression in the world.[/QUOTE]
So where is the magical number of members a church has to have before they will recognize their ability to ignore dress code?
I provided two examples. One was intentionally off the wall in order to display a potential short coming and the other was more reasonable.
You said it yourself it was about minority rights. And yet only the larger religions get recognition here?
[editline]10:24PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=TH89;18140917]Which is like asking her to take off her shirt when she comes to work[/QUOTE]
So do strippers now have the right to refuse to strip and keep their job?
"Oh I'm sorry, I can't remove my shirt, it's against my religion."
[QUOTE=GunFox;18142285]So do strippers now have the right to refuse to strip and keep their job?
"Oh I'm sorry, I can't remove my shirt, it's against my religion."[/QUOTE]
We're not talking about strippers, we're talking about doctors.
[QUOTE=TH89;18142403]We're not talking about strippers, we're talking about doctors.[/QUOTE]
Do fast food workers have the right to refuse to wear the uniform?
What about police?
Paramedics?
Firefighters?
We are discussing the concept of a dress code as enforced by the company.
Yes we are. If the uniform is immodest, anyway, which is the question.
I don't really feel like throwing in on either side at the moment.
And if companies have a right to enforce a dress code amongst employees.
I've always wondered...can a mod ban another mod?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.