en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/810139 Comments by Npeffer https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-might-be-the-second-step__trashed/#IDComment66717837 The most obvious thing that comes to your mind is to simply outlaw doing business with any place that uses slave labor, or that cannot be shown to provide fair wages. Of course the common response is that doing so will leave these people in even worse shape than they are now. "They NEED American dollars to grow their economies!" "The alternative to what they do now is death or worse!" These arguments probably make a lot of sense, and I can't claim to have a great understanding of the economics or reality of the situation, but I can't help but detect a bit of denial and hypocrisy in this type of response. If you make this argument, would you agree that slavery would be acceptable in the United States if our economy collapsed? Would you be fine with repealing laws that say one person cannot own another? If you would, you might be able to maintain your position, but I have a feeling most people would be against allowing slavery in the US under ANY circumstances. If that's the case, why do you support it elsewhere in the world? Does the imaginary line that separates one country from another allow us to make exceptions? Why did putting it in perspective of the US give you more of a moral dilemma in the pit of your stomach than when you've thought about it in third-world countries? Maybe when it's your own country and you imagine your own family being gathered up in the back of a truck to pick beans for nothing, you realize that you'd rather die defending your freedom than live in bondage. Maybe someone here will change my mind. I'm not well versed in the issue so I could easily be missing a key point, but perhaps in some cases freedom is more important than keeping our pockets and bellies full in the name of "saving lives." The lives have already been lost. Fri, 9 Apr 2010 03:44:02 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-might-be-the-second-step__trashed/#IDComment66717837 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/fired-for-a-scarf__trashed/#IDComment60268147 > "Your comparisons don’t really make any sense because they are not parallel to the girl in the video's issue." How so? Why is a hijab different than someone who has an equally sincere religious belief that they can only go out in public with red paint and a cape on their body? You claimed that it's not analogous, but didn't give any argument to support it. Also, I hope nobody thinks I'm mocking the hijab with such analogies; I only intend them as an argument in the style of "reductio ad absurdum." Look it up on wikipedia to see what I mean. > "If you work at Target no you shouldn’t be allowed to wear your anti-abortion-dead fetus shirt because it is offensive and not allowing you to wear it there does not change your beliefs any. If target mandated that you no longer believe that then it would be discriminatory, and impossible." Not allowing head scarves does not change anyone's beliefs either, only their actions. Just like your hypothetical Target bans my shirt but not my belief, A&F has banned the scarf and not the belief that the scarf should be worn. If I'm in a religion that considers all clothing unholy, and being seen in public with even one article of clothing on goes against everything God wants for me and goes against all of my religious beliefs, would you defend that as well? Would you demand that a high-class restaurant give me equal opportunity to work as a waiter while naked (barring obvious health concerns)? Is it religious discrimination that they do not, or do you think they're simply interested in having a clean, structured, formal look among their employees? Also, like I mentioned before, many people (especially feminist groups) consider the hijab and other head coverings to be extremely offensive, sexist, misogynistic symbols of oppression and control. It is no more or less offensive than nudity, animal furs, red face paint, etc depending on who is judging them. In any case, who or what these things offend is of no relevance. The only important thing is that all could be sincere religious practices, and all break the dress code. > "It shouldn’t be up to me and my family to alter our beliefs or the physical manifestations of our beliefs in order to have the same opportunities of anyone else. So businesses and government should alter their policies and principles to suit everyone's religious beliefs instead? My religion requires an hour of prayer for every half hour I do physical labor. Should I reasonably expect a construction company to hire me under those conditions? We all limit ourselves and our opportunities by the beliefs we hold and the actions we choose to take. If I were a conservative Christian, I would be "prevented" from getting a job with the Obama admin. or at a Muslim bookstore. Technically, I could get a job at these places, but I would have to suspend the actions associated with my beliefs. I would be expected to help promote liberal policies with Obama, and at the bookstore, to not preach the gospel to every customer I check out, even though the bible requires me to spread the word to all non-believers. It is not discrimination for them to expect these things of me, and the same goes for a head scarf when there is a dress code in effect. You make your own decisions regarding your religious beliefs, how strongly you hold to them, and the sacrifices you are willing to make in order to maintain them. Expecting the rest of the world to not only cater to everyone's religion-associated actions, but put into law the unyielding respect for those actions, is not only selfish and absurd, it's impossible. Mon, 8 Mar 2010 01:17:33 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/fired-for-a-scarf__trashed/#IDComment60268147 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/fired-for-a-scarf__trashed/#IDComment59972072 Why does being a member of a religion grant you the right to wear whatever you want to your job? Are you really proposing that simply having religious beliefs should grant you an enforced legal lenience on what parts of your job you comply with? Like I said above, if I were part of a religion that required me to wear overtly ridiculous things or be naked, etc, would you call it discrimination if a company didn't hire me? It would maybe be different if this were over a piece of jewelry with a Muslim symbol (if they simultaneously allowed crucifixes), but a head scarf is a very large and obvious breach of their dress code and there is no reason for them to overlook it simply because it's "part of her religion." Companies simply having a dress code, no matter how strict or silly, is not discrimination. They can't be forced to pander to everyone's religious concerns, just like they can't be forced to pander to everyone's political or social concerns. Should I be allowed to wear my anti-abortion-dead-fetus shirt when working at Target because it's part of my political affiliation? Why does "religion" or "culture" get a free pass? It seems to me from reading the stories here that Abercrombie certainly does have a few discrimination issues. This is just not one of them. Sat, 6 Mar 2010 02:05:34 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/fired-for-a-scarf__trashed/#IDComment59972072 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/fired-for-a-scarf__trashed/#IDComment59954341 I think you and I are the only ones so far. Check out my response below, it's fairly similar. Fri, 5 Mar 2010 23:15:34 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/fired-for-a-scarf__trashed/#IDComment59954341 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/fired-for-a-scarf__trashed/#IDComment59917610 I'm going to take the minority opinion here and say that I have little problem with Abercrombie's "look policy." First, I think it is wrong that she was told the scarf would be fine and was then later told that it was not. Obviously, somebody made a mistake and this is an unfortunate consequence of that mistake. The look policy should be very clear on what it does or does not allow and the policy should be adhered to. I won't deny that this is a problem in this instance, but this alone is not newsworthy. Aside from that, I don't have a problem with the look policy banning any type of clothing or action, be it religious or not. Sure, it may be shallow, contrived, etc, but it should be well within their legal rights to do so. Consider this: If I were part of a small religious "cult" that required me to paint my skin blood red and wear a floor-length cape, would you demand that Abercrombie allow me to engage in that sort of dress? Would you demand that they not discriminate against my sincere religious practices? Why or why not? What makes this ideologically different than the head scarf? Granted, a head scarf is certainly less extreme than painting your body red, but the concept is the same; companies are trying to create an image with their products, and certain symbols and styles of dress that conflict with their image are potentially harmful for business. It's easy to see how someone painted red wearing a cape would be off-putting to customers, and the same goes for head scarves, which are often viewed not just as fabric, but even as signs of oppression (not that it's my view). The concept of giving a higher level of respect and deference to religious practices is entirely unfounded. Had the girl been fired for wearing a spiked "dog collar" instead of a head scarf, this story would have never made the news. This illustrates another point - it's not even clear this this is a religious neutrality issue for Abercrombie. Just like a dog collar (which many people wear) doesn't fit the look Abercrombie is promoting, a scarf covering almost the entire head and shoulders is simply not "stylish" in the Abercrombian sense. The bottom line is that companies should retain the right to remain politically and religiously neutral (or affiliated) through their practices and through the requirements placed on their employees. The "uniform" exists for good reason: company cohesiveness, neutrality, and image. Anti-discrimination laws, if deemed necessary, must stop at the level of religious affiliation, not religious practice. That is to say that Abercrombie should be open to hiring me regardless of what "cult" I'm a part of as long as I agree to leave the paint at home. Fri, 5 Mar 2010 18:01:18 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/fired-for-a-scarf__trashed/#IDComment59917610 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/why-is-this-racist-really__trashed/#IDComment59641956 I can't speak for all racists, but the KKK does not acknowledge that they are a racist group. Their justification comes from the Bible, where after the Tower of Babel incident God split up the people into different races and languages. The KKK says that the re-mixing of these races is against God's will since he intended for them to be separate. Wed, 3 Mar 2010 22:35:24 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/why-is-this-racist-really__trashed/#IDComment59641956 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/why-is-this-racist-really__trashed/#IDComment59158885 I think this one is treading on thin ice, but not necessarily inherently racist. Things like "Miss Black Penn State" are acceptable because they fill a niche that the "main" event doesn't have. Black people are seemingly absent from most pageants, so it makes sense to start something that helps include or highlight that underrepresented group. Professional basketball seems to be an area where whites are currently underrepresented, so it could make sense to start a "white" basketball league. That said, the legitimacy of this league stops there. "Moose" is clearly a racist from his comments, alluding to his opinion that blacks only bring violence and insanity to the court, where white players are sophisticated and civil. He sounds like a crotchety old racist complaining that "they" are moving into his neighborhood. Putting a ban on all non-white players crosses the line for me. A similar league which allowed anyone to try their skills at "white" basketball could be fine in my eyes, but the exclusive admission and opinions on which this one is founded seem questionable at best. Mon, 1 Mar 2010 02:54:20 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/why-is-this-racist-really__trashed/#IDComment59158885