LEMME MAKE THIS THREAD MORE INTERESTING

* Will the supreme court deny the country's president his right to wear his hear gear ?

Rev

What's wrong with wearing a dhoti to work? Lots of Indian indentured laborers wore dhotis in the sugarcane and rice fields in Guyana.

Seriously, what that Muslim girl is wearing may one day be acceptable in the workplace in the United States.

Canada has a more liberal outlook. There are Sikhs wearing turbans in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I saw a few of them in Toronto. At Walmart Canada, Muslim sales associates and cashiers are permitted to wear the hijab. I know two of them, immigrants from Yemen.

In my view, there ought to be a balance. When migrants from Eastern countries arrive in the West, they must be prepared to accept some Western customs and habits.

Likewise, in accepting landed immigrants from India, Africa and the Arab world, the United States and Canada must also accept some cultural manifestations from those places.

Thirty or forty years from now I doubt that hijab and turban and dhoti and what not would be an issue in the workplace. For now, the employer has the final say until social and legal pressures kick in.

BTW, I like that girl's eyes.

* Workers are slaves. They trade hours for dollars.

* They must also abide by the dress code of their slave masters.

* If the slave master forbids head wear the slave must obey.

* If the slave master says no jeans, the slave must obey.

* I must admit there are some elegant hijabs.

Rev

Rev, you ever see the Emirates hostess how elegant they are? You would think they're part of the menu. 

The store is a crafted brand of preppy youth  gear. It spends billions to craft a specific brand. I guess that does not include Muslim chic. If she wants to wear her gear then they want to design their company to project a specific look. They will win.   

Sales associates, whether at Abercrombie & Fitch or elsewhere, are required to smile to customers. This girl is hiding her smile. She doesn't qualify for a sales associate position.

Rev, I religiously wear my dhoti and Kurta to temple on Sundays.

Never to the office. We must learn to separate religion and the workplace dress code.

You are like a lawyer. Good point.

But you can see the smile in the young lady's eyes.

On a serious note. I am torn on this case. Let the courts decide.

HERE IS WHAT THE SUPREME COURT WILL DECIDE ON

The high court agreed to hear the case to examine whether a job applicant must give explicit notice to a would-be employer of any potential request for a religious accommodation – such as wearing a Muslim headscarf at work. 

* The Supreme court may rule that a job applicant must explicitly state in their job application what religious accommodation they require.

* And of course the employer can then reject an applicant before granting an interview.

* That muslim girl who showed up at the Abercrombie & Fitch interview with her head gear can apply to WalMart----they allow hijabs.

Rev

Rev

This is a complicated case. The ruling will have to be based on US laws of which I am not familiar.

Canada has enshrined freedoms including practice of religious freedoms and as such an employer cannot prevent anyone from wearing bonafide religious gear to work. As Gil pointed out, policeman and RCMP are wearing religious gear in the case of the Sikh religion in Canada.

This was a big debate here in Canada around 1987 - 1989.

What the courts have to decide on the declaration of religious beliefs, practises and attire worn at the workplace. This might be a violation of a potential employee rights and potential discrimination based on religion or religious attire prior to being interviewed.

I anxiously await the court ruling.

I never thought I'd ever agree with Yugi but here we are in agreement on her eyes.

There has to be beauty behind that veil.

100 percent.

Her eyes alone would attract customers to the store. 

The Human resource personnel of that company should be fired for not recognizing real beauty.

This case should have been about a terminated human resource employee suing the company for refusing to hire a beautiful woman.

A AGREE. This is AMERICA NOT Saudi Arabia.  If they want to dress to work like that go live in Saudi Arabia.

People should be allowed to dress however they want when working. Right now I am in my bukta.....Not like Naith ram a tight one...

Because this is America, she gets a fair hearing...so stop hating the girl's outfit...and telling her to go back to Saudi Arabia

Ray, Are you serious???  Everywhere in America that I have worked, there was a dress code.  Like Rev stated then Dhoti will soon be at Wall Street. This nonesense must stop.

dude

I am not saying it's right or wrong...the fact that she gets a fair hearing is what America is all about...isn't that why we all came here...to be free

OK, I fully agree with that. I am talking strictly about the work place.

TAKE A LOOK AT THESE MUSLIM WOMEN IN NYC

* There is nothing wrong with Muslim women walking the streets and demonstrating in their muslim attire.

* DIFFERENT CULTURES MUST BE RESPECTED.

* But if those Muslim women want to dress in their muslim attire in the workplace, they must receive permission from their place of employment.

* American is a very tolerant and welcoming country.

Rev

Oi Rev, Walmart allows hijabs, which cover a woman's head only.

This girl is wearing a hijab and a niqab, the latter covering her face.

Walmart will not hire women wearing niqabs. Sales associates must smile to customers with their mouths/lips.

Rev, This is exactly my point.

Let that mode of clothing be CASUAL FRIDAY dress attire, many companies allow dress down Fridays. Retail requires many qualities in it's employees, if the customers object to the niqab, then the employee must comply.

How can anyone wear something covering their mouths all day knowing fully well curry,garlic etc breath not too nice.

Add to that,you buss a fart and the smell sneaks up all that cloth,right up to the nostrils,baddam you pass out, nah safe.

I enjoy reading this thread. It would be nice if we all interact this way on a daily basis.

* It's very simple.

* On any thread started by the Rev I don't call fellow posters names and if folks call me names I ignore them.

* Threads become vulgar and boorish when posters start attacking each other personally.

Rev

Rev, I admire you for that Bhai. BUT, Uncle Nehru will respond to Posters who MAKE A FOOL OF THEMSELVES. I cant help it Abee Canecutters staan suh.

Rev

the company is not selling eyes. They are selling urban chic! Maybe they can corner the market with A&F nigabs and burkas but  that would be too much material for too little customer base. An A&F T-shirt can go for 200 dollars!

What? Wha yuh seh deh? You lie, you jest.

Who posted this?----

Only degenerates, sexual deviants, delinquents, wife-abusers, child abusers, and evildoers will continue to support the AFC.

* Some are right here on GNI.

 

Who posted this? ---

THE WANKERS ON GNI WHO DESPISE THE PPP.

 

 

Who posted this? --

* What do the wankers and blowhards on GNI have to say about this positive development in Guyana ?

 

You want more examples, Rev? You're the NameCaller-in-Chief on GNI. Be honest.

 

I need you to answer this honestly (and I know you cannot fall on your own sword especially after proclaiming how wholesome threads are started by you.

By putting a photo-shopped picture of an Arabic (not Muslim, mind you but Arabic) headgear on the US President, you are saying (a) Arabs are never to be trusted (and in a sick way Muslims whether Arab or not are also not to be trusted), and (b) Obama is not to be trusted because he has some affiliation to whatever Arab headgear connotes. Aren't you?

Can't we all get along ?

Storm has and excellent answer too. 

This thread is and example of how we can differ and do so in a civil way. 

I know that debates heat up because we have strong political differences and view. If we can all make an effort to keep it civil, GNI might usher in a new era of debating.

I am not too sure that this might last but I hope we can all make an effort.

I am guilty as everyone else of attacks but I will start being more fair minded and reasonable in my response if my opponents do the same.

Gilbakka:

* The Rev maintains that he does not engage in name calling and personal attacks in threads he starts.

* Let's revisit my statement below:

Only degenerates, sexual deviants, delinquents, wife-abusers, child abusers, and evildoers will continue to support the AFC.

* Some are right here on GNI.

* That is a general statement gilbakka---it does not single out any poster. It is therefore not an ad hominem attack on anyone.

* No poster would be offended by that statement unless he or she takes it personally and is guilty of some of the charges.

Rev

 

 

By putting a photo-shopped picture of an Arabic (not Muslim, mind you but Arabic) headgear on the US President, you are saying (a) Arabs are never to be trusted (and in a sick way Muslims whether Arab or not are also not to be trusted), and (b) Obama is not to be trusted because he has some affiliation to whatever Arab headgear connotes. Aren't you?

* Hmmmm! It's interesting to read your perception of what the Rev is implying or insinuating via his posting of the Obama photo above.

Rev

What has your answer got to do with answering the question posed to Rev?

What's all this about being civil and things heating up? Has this been occasioned by a simple question to Rev about Arab and Islamic bias?

Originally Posted by Kari:

 

 

By putting a photo-shopped picture of an Arabic (not Muslim, mind you but Arabic) headgear on the US President, you are saying (a) Arabs are never to be trusted (and in a sick way Muslims whether Arab or not are also not to be trusted), and (b) Obama is not to be trusted because he has some affiliation to whatever Arab headgear connotes. Aren't you?

 

 

* Hmmmm! It's interesting to read your perception of what the Rev is implying or insinuating via his posting of the Obama photo above.

 

Rev

I'd like you to answer the question about what you do when posting such a picture and questioning trust with that image. I don't want to hear about perception, implication and insinuation. You mean one thing and one thing only. Man up and admit that Islam and Arabs are not to be trusted and Obama is not to be trusted because of one or the other. The imagery says it all. Man up. Don't skirt the question. (mmmmm gender metaphors....see) - act like a man!)

Kari

I was making a general statement and apologize if you were offended. I can assure that my statement was not directed at you but I was making a general statement.

You and Rev are both intelligent posters and are quite capable of engaging in a civil manner as both of you are currently doing right now.