RE: fully clothed nudity

RE: fully clothed nudity (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

Sophie11 -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/21/2008 1:13:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wing2000 quote: It hasn't occurred to you yet (after multiple explanations) that she is talking about a moral equivalent, not a physical reality? oh but don't you see...this is all about mocking the woman's morality (...and because she is Muslim, she's fair game). No, this is about some people finding a little too much fun and humor in it, and others finding it too hard to let it go when they know the other is simply making humor. At least IMO.

3cappuccinosmom -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/21/2008 6:53:54 AM)
quote: But this Muslim lady is being deliberately stubborn. She needs to find a job that won't make her violate her PERSONAL convictions! I never defended her suing them. I agree that she should find another job. I just find the mockery distasteful and really unsuitable for a Christian board. [:'(]

buckifn -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/21/2008 7:01:58 AM)
If she wants to work find another job...nobody is making her work at this place....it's like most workers today are told if you don't want to work on Sunday go find another job..companies are not in business to cater to someone's religious belief.

LoyalFriend -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/21/2008 9:54:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kernsfamily quote: Disney will not hire those over forty years old either, their company their rules. says who? or, is it only certain jobs in certain capacities? i just looked online, and it says, "Disney is an equal opportunity employer." It is the policy of The Walt Disney Company to provide equal opportunity for all employees and applicants for employment without regard to race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, marital status, covered veteran status, mental or physical disability, pregnancy, or any other basis prohibited by state or federal law. hmmmm.....have any "documentation" on the "no one over 40" rule? I promise you this information is wrong. Disney does hold various requirements for various positions throughout their parks. Some positions require certain body weights, heights, age, genders and physical features. The character Minnie Mouse for instance is very little so a person would need to be very petite and small to be Minnie. Throughout the parks you will see a variety of races, body shapes and ages of employees. They have a number of retired people working for them as well.

ljmac -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/24/2008 3:44:05 PM)
Wearing pants it not the same thing as being naked. Not sometimes. Not once in a while. Not ever. Try walking down the street naked and then tell me it's the same as wearing pants.

solo_soprano22 -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/24/2008 4:16:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ljmac Wearing pants it not the same thing as being naked. Not sometimes. Not once in a while. Not ever. Try walking down the street naked and then tell me it's the same as wearing pants. You speak of it literally. The female and others are speaking figuratively. Wearing pants (or what have you) to her is being naked, not literally.

mapachito13 -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/25/2008 11:33:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22 quote: ORIGINAL: ljmac Wearing pants it not the same thing as being naked. Not sometimes. Not once in a while. Not ever. Try walking down the street naked and then tell me it's the same as wearing pants. You speak of it literally. The female and others are speaking figuratively. Wearing pants (or what have you) to her is being naked, not literally. Well then can't we phrase it that "pants do not agree with HER moral convictions"? And she still should get another job! And whatever lawsuit she filed should be thrown out at first opportunity. I think she more interested in the financial implications of a lawsuit rather than the moral ones!

3cappuccinosmom -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/25/2008 1:42:30 PM)
quote: Well then can't we phrase it that "pants do not agree with HER moral convictions"? We have in this discussion. Multiple times. [8\|] To her, wearing pants is the moral equivalent of walking naked. I'm sure she assumed that reasonable people would understand she was not speaking literally. quote: I think she more interested in the financial implications of a lawsuit rather than the moral ones! Probably. quote: Wearing pants it not the same thing as being naked. Not sometimes. Not once in a while. Not ever. Try walking down the street naked and then tell me it's the same as wearing pants. Actually, in certain areas of the world, she could very well get exactly the same response wearing pants as going naked--a beating and jail time. Because it's about her brand of modesty.

solo_soprano22 -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/25/2008 1:45:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mapachito13 quote: ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22 quote: ORIGINAL: ljmac Wearing pants it not the same thing as being naked. Not sometimes. Not once in a while. Not ever. Try walking down the street naked and then tell me it's the same as wearing pants. You speak of it literally. The female and others are speaking figuratively. Wearing pants (or what have you) to her is being naked, not literally. Well then can't we phrase it that "pants do not agree with HER moral convictions"? And she still should get another job! And whatever lawsuit she filed should be thrown out at first opportunity. I think she more interested in the financial implications of a lawsuit rather than the moral ones! Maybe so. I was just saying that because some people seem to be taking this literally. No one is saying wearing clothes=naked. I figured since he (she?) started the thread he knew what it meant... unless he's doing it on purpose. I can't say it's the best wording myself, but I understand what she means by it.

mapachito13 -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/25/2008 4:29:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22 Maybe so. I was just saying that because some people seem to be taking this literally. No one is saying wearing clothes=naked. I figured since he (she?) started the thread he knew what it meant... unless he's doing it on purpose. I can't say it's the best wording myself, but I understand what she means by it. Yes. I knew too. She used hyperbole to make a statement and it made her look foolish and extreme. I think if she kept it to the fact that the pants violated her religious convictions people MAY have been more sympathetic. I guess I am not sympathetic because we have a mosque and islamic school by my house and I've seen Islamic women in "Islamic attire" at the pool, jogging, cycling and of course not wearing the hijab but a "religiously acceptable" equivalent. So her protestations fall on deaf ears here.

solo_soprano22 -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/27/2008 10:14:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mapachito13 quote: ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22 Maybe so. I was just saying that because some people seem to be taking this literally. No one is saying wearing clothes=naked. I figured since he (she?) started the thread he knew what it meant... unless he's doing it on purpose. I can't say it's the best wording myself, but I understand what she means by it. Yes. I knew too. She used hyperbole to make a statement and it made her look foolish and extreme. I think if she kept it to the fact that the pants violated her religious convictions people MAY have been more sympathetic. I guess I am not sympathetic because we have a mosque and islamic school by my house and I've seen Islamic women in "Islamic attire" at the pool, jogging, cycling and of course not wearing the hijab but a "religiously acceptable" equivalent. So her protestations fall on deaf ears here. Yeah, I'm just trying to see why the thead-starter keeps saying if you're wearing pants you're not naked, lol. I see what he means, but he doesn't seem to get what the woman meant when she said it. Anyway, I think she should just give it up and find another job. I know very conservative Christian women who don't believe in wearing pants/shorts (only wear dresses or skirts), and I'm sure they'd not get up in arms about a job asking them to wear pants. They'd just find another job. <shrugs> Or decide that they'll just go against their beliefs (but I can't see them doing that). :)

3cappuccinosmom -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/28/2008 6:58:54 AM)
quote: I guess I am not sympathetic because we have a mosque and islamic school by my house and I've seen Islamic women in "Islamic attire" at the pool, jogging, cycling and of course not wearing the hijab but a "religiously acceptable" equivalent. So her protestations fall on deaf ears here. Islam is not monolithic. Just like Christianity and Judaism, there are various brands, and various intepretations and various levels of adherance to laws and rules. I know there are Christians who have the same belief about women wearing pants as this Muslim woman does--to them, it's abhorant. It's not unreasonable to think that she could be part of a sect of Islam that truly does make pants of any kind for a woman an absolute no-no. But believing her doesn't mean I think she should sue. [8\|] I was fortunate to be allowed to wear dresses in my job at a nursing home, but if they'd required pants/scrubs, I would have simply found a different job.

wing2000 -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/28/2008 10:38:57 AM)
quote: I guess I am not sympathetic because we have a mosque and islamic school by my house and I've seen Islamic women in "Islamic attire" at the pool, jogging, cycling and of course not wearing the hijab but a "religiously acceptable" equivalent. So her protestations fall on deaf ears here. And of course there are many Christian groups (Amish, conservative Mennonites, German Baptist, etc) who do not allow women to wear pants -- much less a two piece bathing suit that many other Christians have no problem with. Within every religion that holds people to certain standards of dress, there is a large range of what is considered modest.

19ramman85 -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/28/2008 10:41:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kernsfamily " is an equal opportunity employer." Be careful when throwing that around ........... Yes- they are EEOC compliant, but - that don't necessarily mean anything! Know what I mean? (Age/sex discrimination still happens- "THEY", just know how to work the system!) -charles

1love1God1way -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/28/2008 11:35:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mapachito13 I think she more interested in the financial implications of a lawsuit rather than the moral ones! Living in the area this news story came from, being surrounded by Muslim men and women every day, talking and interacting with them, I can say pretty surely that this is not the case. They hold very high moral standards concerning their clothes. As I had said earlier, most employers around here are FANTASTIC about helping the Muslim women out, and providing a special uniform for them. They are more often than not willing to work with them on this. She just happen to land in a place that wasn't. It's unfortunate, but that is the employer's right. She will just have to find a place more willing to meet her needs. The End.

teaspoon61 -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/29/2008 3:15:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: buckifn If she wants to work find another job...nobody is making her work at this place....it's like most workers today are told if you don't want to work on Sunday go find another job..companies are not in business to cater to someone's religious belief. Exactly!!

rlj -> RE: fully clothed nudity (6/29/2008 3:26:38 PM)
quote: Expect a successful lawsuit on this....after all Muslims are demanding and being granted more in the way of workplace accommodations every day. The employer has OSHA and the BWC to deal with I feel sorry for him. : / However this does stand out: quote: for refusing to wear a new company uniform -- a shirt and pants -- they consider a violation of their Islamic beliefs. There are many reasons to wear a company uniform. Safety, hygiene and cosmetic. We don't have mandatory uniforms where I work but the company said if we ever decided to they would pay %100 of the cost instead of the percentage they pay now because it looks that good for visitors such as OSHA and any kind of customers who come through. If they don't like it they can go somewhere else there's a zillion illegals who would want that job anyway.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI