Problems with Minneapolis Muslims again!

[thebaldguy]

We have had some problems with Muslims in Minneapolis over the last few years. We had cabbies refusing to take customers with dogs and alcohol, clerks refusing to touch pork, making prayer rooms and allowing time for prayer, etc. Here's the latest: they are claiming that a dress code mandating uniforms in food production violate their faith.

http://www.startribune.com/business/19303124.html?location_refer=Most%20Viewed:Homepage

Muslim women: Dress code violates faith
Mission Foods, a New Brighton tortilla maker, is accused of religious intolerance for requiring six Muslim workers to wear uniforms that include pants they say are too revealing.



It's almost hard to believe.

[De Selby]

Why is this so hard to believe exactly?

How would Mission foods be damaged if it allowed them to wear baggier pants at work?

I don't see how people wanting to practice their religion is a "problem" to be remedied. 

[charby]

Why is this so hard to believe exactly?

How would Mission foods be damaged if it allowed them to wear baggier pants at work?

I don't see how people wanting to practice their religion is a "problem" to be remedied. 

Loose, baggy clothes get caught in machinery. Uniforms are used for sanitary reasons?

[De Selby]

Why is this so hard to believe exactly?

How would Mission foods be damaged if it allowed them to wear baggier pants at work?

I don't see how people wanting to practice their religion is a "problem" to be remedied. 

Loose, baggy clothes get caught in machinery. Uniforms are used for sanitary reasons?

I don't see the food company alleging that-if they assert that reasoning, then the rule makes sense, but I don't think demanding that a uniform be of a certain tightness makes any sense if it's only for the purpose of uniformity.

[thebaldguy]

I meant to imply "It's almost hard to believe" as sarcasm.

These issues have been coming up here in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area for a few years now. Many are getting tired of their demands and special treatment under the guise of "accommodation". I have a feeling that employers are getting tired of this and may start NOT hiring Muslims as they are becoming a pain.

We have been much too accommodating. If you don't want to wear a uniform, find a different job. If you don't want to touch pork or pork products, find a different job. If you don't want to transport alcohol or dogs, find a different job.

My mother and her family, all immigrants, are pretty upset about these items over the last few years. They almost cannot believe these demands. As my mom said, "Who do they think they are? They need to learn that they are in the USA now, and need to start behaving like Americans".

What's next? Muslims demanding that liquor stores and bars close?

[De Selby]

These issues have been coming up here in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area for a few years now. Many are getting tired of their demands and special treatment under the guise of "accommodation".

That's not a disguise-that is in fact a demand for accommodation.  They are demanding it primarily becasue federal law requires reasonable accommodations.  The Federal government, unsurprisingly, promotes the freedom to exercise one's religion....and the law reflects that fact.

We have been much too accommodating. If you don't want to wear a uniform, find a different job. If you don't want to touch pork or pork products, find a different job. If you don't want to transport alcohol or dogs, find a different job.

And this leads to "if you don't like not being able to wear a cross, find a different job;" "If you want to go to church, find a different job"  "if you want to have those hair locks hanging from your head, find a different job."  The law requires reasonable accommodations so that people can be religious without becoming total outcasts-that's a good thing, imho.

What you are seeing is Muslims demanding that they be allowed to practice their religion-not demanding that you not practice yours or that you stop drinking.  It is no different from what every other religion in this country has asked for, and I find it curious that the only group that gets the outrage is Muslim.

I can't recall a single thread bashing Sikhs for seeking out accommodation of their religious knives, for example.  Indeed, many comments I saw on that issue were sympathetic.  But if Muslims ask for something like the right to not wear immodest clothes.....it's the end of the free world?

I would like to know, btw, how it is "unAmerican" to want to practice Islam according to one's own beliefs?  What is it that makes it so one is not an American for wanting to wear loose fitting clothing?

[Brad Johnson]

What is it that makes it so one is not an American for wanting to wear loose fitting clothing?

If you don't like the dress code, work somewhere else.  Don't demand that the employer change their established way of doing things for a few people who have a beef with the rest of us.

Brad

[Manedwolf]

Why is this so hard to believe exactly?

How would Mission foods be damaged if it allowed them to wear baggier pants at work?

I don't see how people wanting to practice their religion is a "problem" to be remedied. 

If you want to work for an employer, you follow THEIR rules.

If you don't want to follow their rules, you don't work there.

Perhaps they'd be happier somewhere in the sandbox where they can wear head-to-toe burquas by law and be treated like objects?

But I bet CAIR will send its attack lawyers after this business, damaging its profits and likely resulting in layoffs of other people who did nothing wrong. Because, oh, look. CAIR is involved! I am so shocked.

Six Somali women claim they were ordered by a manager to wear pants and shirts to work instead of their traditional Islamic clothing of loose-fitting skirts and scarves, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a civil liberties group that is representing the women.

Skirts? Skirts are not sanitary for food preparation. Neither are brought-from-home clothing. You wear the industrial-laundered uniforms they provide, or you work elsewhere. It's that simple.

[De Selby]

What is it that makes it so one is not an American for wanting to wear loose fitting clothing?

If you don't like the dress code, work somewhere else.  Don't demand that the employer change their established way of doing things for a few people who have a beef with the rest of us.

Brad

Except that this case was the opposite-the employer changed the dress code, and then demanded that the women who had previously worked with a lab coat type uniform wear the new, tighter uniform.  I say: take your company somehwere like China if you don't want to respect religious freedoms; America is not for people who can't respect the freedom to practice religion.

The fact is, there are laws covering this sort of thing, and they weren't enacted to protect Muslims-they were enacted to protect us all from living in a society where to be religious is to be an outcast.  It is divisive and just plain uncivilized to demand that people completely ignore their religious beliefs in order to participate in society, and that's where we'd be in this age of MTV and "religion is scary" types if we didn't have these rules to protect religious practices.  

[Manedwolf]

You're just not getting it, SS.

This is a requirement of employment at an at-will workplace, NOT a societal requirement.

If a workplace says you have to wear a silly hat, you wear the silly hat or you don't work there. You have a right to say "I quit" and work for another company. You do not have a right to force your religious requirements on a company. Do you even work for a large corporation? I'm guessing no.

[De Selby]

Why is this so hard to believe exactly?

How would Mission foods be damaged if it allowed them to wear baggier pants at work?

I don't see how people wanting to practice their religion is a "problem" to be remedied. 

If you want to work for an employer, you follow THEIR rules.

If you don't want to follow their rules, you don't work there.

Perhaps they'd be happier somewhere in the sandbox where they can wear head-to-toe burquas by law and be treated like objects?

But I bet CAIR will send its attack lawyers after this business, damaging its profits and likely resulting in layoffs of other people who did nothing wrong.

And if you want to employ people in America, you follow THE LAW.

If you don't want to respect the law, you don't operate here.

I don't believe this would be remotely questioned if Mission banned employees from wearing crosses, banned attending Church, or fired an employee for saying the lord's prayer on his break time....would you all be singing this same song if Mission did one of those things, honestly?

The fact is, in America, the right to practice one's religion is enshrined in the Constitution.  In the cases you are describing, an employer would be violating laws based on the fundamental rights established at the foundation of our Country...and the Muslim employee upholding them, yet you all want to send the Muslim employee packing?

I guess to some people the freedoms outlined in the Constitution really are just words on paper.

[De Selby]

You're just not getting it, SS.

This is a requirement of employment at an at-will workplace, NOT a societal requirement.

If a workplace says you have to wear a silly hat, you wear the silly hat or you don't work there. You have a right to say "I quit" and work for another company. You do not have a right to force your religious requirements on a company. Do you even work for a large corporation? I'm guessing no.

No, you are just not getting it Manedwolf-the law prohibits employers from demanding things that impinge on the freedom of religion for no purpose at all.  You don't have the right, as an employer, to say "You can't work here unless you ignore your religious practices because I just plain don't like them."  That's an exception to at-will employment, and it's based on the fundamental right to religious freedom.

Your beef here is with the Constitution and Federal laws based on it, not with a silly challenge to "at will employment."

[thebaldguy]

I know people who work in food manufacturing/production. Almost all wear company provided uniforms. One major reason is that you wear clean clothes for every shift to avoid food contamination. Would you like someone with baby poo or baby vomit on their street clothes packing food products? I think not. Loose flowing clothes may also get caught up in machinery causing injuries. This is a safety and health issue. This has nothing to do with being "unamerican".

Minnesotans are generally very tolerant; however, many have reached their limit with these demands. These are new problems; it has only come out in the last few years that suddenly we have to accommadate their demands and they get to ignore the rules that the rest of us have to follow.

[Brad Johnson]

You don't have the right, as an employer, to say "You can't work here unless you ignore your religious practices because I just plain don't like them."

As long as it's a stated condition of employement then, yes, you can.

Brad

[De Selby]

You don't have the right, as an employer, to say "You can't work here unless you ignore your religious practices because I just plain don't like them."

As long as it's a stated condition of employement then, yes, you can.

Brad

No, you most definitely cannot-it is prohibited by both Minnesota and Federal law.

Federal law banning this practice here:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sup_01_42_10_21_20_VI.html

Minnesota law here:  https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=363A.08

Discriminating against people because of their religion is illegal in employment, period. 

[Manedwolf]

I think the best thing I'd ever heard about this sort of subject was actually said by a Muslim, the sort I respect.

They said "Nowhere in the Koran is it written that you have Allah's permission to act like a spoiled child."

[De Selby]

I know people who work in food manufacturing/production. Almost all wear company provided uniforms. One major reason is that you wear clean clothes for every shift to avoid food contamination. Would you like someone with baby poo or baby vomit on their street clothes packing food products? I think not. Loose flowing clothes may also get caught up in machinery causing injuries. This is a safety and health issue. This has nothing to do with being "unamerican".

Minnesotans are generally very tolerant; however, many have reached their limit with these demands. These are new problems; it has only come out in the last few years that suddenly we have to accommadate their demands and they get to ignore the rules that the rest of us have to follow.

That is clearly not an issue here, since these women were employed for years beforehand without a problem; Was there no safety concern then, or was Mission just ignoring it all that time?

Sorry, but these Muslims are simply calling on your state's laws; the law requires reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs.  Do you want to let people break MN law just because you don't want Muslims asking for things that the law would otherwise award them?

[De Selby]

I think the best thing I'd ever heard about this sort of subject was actually said by a Muslim, the sort I respect.

They said "Nowhere in the Koran is it written that you have Allah's permission to act like a spoiled child."

Demanding that your employer follow the laws passed to protect your religion is not "spoiled child" behavior-indeed, I think this controversy would be quite clear if these were Christians who got fired for praying or wearing a cross. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

as someone who spent 28 years as a slave in foodservice  the company will win  and should  for all the reasons all ready mentioned

as much as ss would pray otherwise a company can upgrade its sanitation standards

[doc2rn]

This is just stupid, as much as I hate that term. Why in the world dont they just throw a Habib over the uniform. What a pathetic group of self absorbed people. They hate to be wrong.

[never_retreat]

I don't think someones dress for a particular religion should be protected. We have the 1st amendment for a reason to protect speech, not clothing styles.

If your employer wants you to dress a specific way for a work related purpose than thats it. Your Garb is not protected by law. Nor should be in any way. Do what you want at home.

If the jew wants to were a yamika under a hat fine. But we don't need 30 square yards of scuzzy fabric running around a food processing plant.

There is a reason the plague disappeared, I don't want it back

[De Selby]

This is just stupid, as much as I hate that term. Why in the world dont they just throw a Habib over the uniform. What a pathetic group of self absorbed people. They hate to be wrong.

A "habib" is what?

This is exactly what they are asking to do-that used to be what they had, a labcoat type garment.  They were banned from doing it any longer.  So I'm curious as to what it is that is "stupid" about the claim here-they did exactly what you are saying should be done, but are no longer allowed to do it.

[De Selby]

I don't think someones dress for a particular religion should be protected. We have the 1st amendment for a reason to protect speech, not clothing styles.

If your employer wants you to dress a specific way for a work related purpose than thats it. Your Garb is not protected by law. Nor should be in any way. Do what you want at home.

If the jew wants to were a yamika under a hat fine. But we don't need 30 square yards of scuzzy fabric running around a food processing plant.

There is a reason the plague disappeared, I don't want it back

A valid health requirement I don't think anyone would argue with-they will lose if there is an actual health reason for the clothing under the law.

But what if an employer just didn't want yarmulke wearing employees, period? For no reason? 

[Balog]

You have a right to practice your religion. You do not have a right to employment on your terms and not the employers.

[RocketMan]

SS, once again you are running off half-cocked.  You made an assumption as to the company's reasons for demanding adherence to their dress code, as in they had no reason. Then you treat your assumption as an absolute truth.  SS is right, period, all stop, end of argument.  And we're expected to go along with it.  Is it any wonder people get tired of debating with you?

The company almost certainly has valid reasons for demanding adherence to their dress code.  Most likely they are safety and health related reasons.  These changes occur all the time in the corporate world.
Why did they not demand these behaviors in the past?  Because they are entitled, even expected, to upgrade their safety and health related procedures over time.  Companies do this constantly to keep from being sued, both by their customers, and by their employees, should there ever be a problem.

Rather than wad your knickers up ever tighter, give them a call tomorrow and ask why they changed the requirements.  Don't assume they made the changes "just because they can."  That's just stupid.  Corporate HR departments live in mortal fear of offending employees unneccessarily, lest they bring the wrath of attack lawyers down upon themselves.