suing over hijab (Muslim headscarf)

[befree]

I did some Internet-surfing about hijabs and lawsuits today after reading about the Saudi Arabian woman (her name is Intamed Al-Matar),who moved to Chicago 2 yrs ago, who was arrested July 4. Police were suspicious because of her dress and her actions...was wearing full hijab (headscarf) as well as veil covering her face up to her eyes, carrying a backpack, with bulges around her ankles (turned out to be ankle weights), rushing thru a train station. On July 4. She says they pointed at her, rushed her and deliberately pulled off her head/face covering, targeting her due to her religion. She resisted, was arrested and strip-searched at the jail. Now CAIR is suing. Police report filed that day stated she displayed suspicious behavior both before and after being approached by them. While, as an American, I applaud that people can be different here, and we all have the right to be different and dress differently, I also applaud that the police were especially vigilant on a "high terrorist alert" day, and rushed toward a woman they thought looked like she was carrying explosives.
In another lawsuit, a flight attendant who converted to Islam and now declines to serve alcohol to passengers because that's now against her religious beliefs, was suspended from her job, since serving alcoholic drinks is an accepted duty of the job. CAIR is also suing on her behalf, stating that the airline should just make alternate arrangements to accomodate her religious beliefs. Now, this one hits close to home...what?? I may not be able to get my Bloody Mary???
There are actually several reports about women suing to be able to wear hijab and face veils (niqab) in the U.S., in businesses and schools where it seems to be against accepted dress codes.
Contrast this with France, where the law is actually on the books that hijab aren't allowed in schools, and the city of Cannes has recently enacted a law forbidding so-called "burkinis" (head-to-toe bathing suits). And certainly there are no western women suing Saudi Arabia for their right to wear sleeveless tops in public.
So here's what disturbs me...CAIR apparently has the resources to take up all these cases, sue for BIG bucks, demand that employers alter their way of doing business, and even that police should alter arrest and search protocols for Muslim women. In America, I like not only freedom OF religion, but also freedom FROM religion, and I don't like seeing special religious rules given legal standing. Well, I have opened a can of worms here....what say you all?

[bae]

I don't care what religion another person practices, or what they wear, as long as they cause me no harm.

And I have no problem in a work situation with restrictions on clothing/headwear/facial hair/... as long as there is a sound functional job-related performance/safety reason for the restriction.

One of my jobs has a pretty strict facial hair code. It is not for religious reasons, it is for a functional one - you simply cannot have a thick, full beard and get a reliable seal with breathing or filtering gear. The seal area must be free of hair. This discriminates against those whose religious or personal preferences are for real facial hair. The rule-as-written doesn't say "no facial hair", though, it is an objective "no facial hair that prevents achieving a proper seal at such-and-such a pressure...". It is *possible* to pass this with a big beard, exactly trimmed, but...that fit would have to be tested in a 15 minute process each-and-every time you donned the gear, so almost nobody elects to go that route, it would not be "reasonable" to do so, since the test lab has to be brought out and set up at great expense...

Wearing a turban would also be problematic. The protective gear wouldn't fit.

People with those requirements for their facial hair/headwear are offered other positions to fill not in the hot-zone.

[Teacher Terry]

I don't think the flight attendant has a case since it is one of her job duties to served drinks. I think the other incident has a more gray area. People with headscarves could not work around machinery in a factory setting because it is likely to get caught in the equipment and case injury. When I worked in the insurance dept for Inland Steel factory work was dangerous. I literally had a schedule that showed how much $ to pay for loss of certain fingers, etc. Some fingers are worth more then others:0!. so lots of safety concerns to think about in different jobs.

[jp1]

The first situation is definitely more of a gray area. On teh one hand she should be able to dress however she chooses. On the other, if I were a cop, in Chicago in July, I'd be suspicious of anyone covered in clothing head to toe, whether a hijab or anything else. As such they have a legitimate reason to stop her and assess the situation. Whether what they did was reasonable, I'm not sure.

The second case seems much more cut and dry. The main functions of a flight attendant's job are to keep the passengers safe if the plane crashes and to serve them food and drink if it doesn't. A lot of people on planes drink alcohol. A study I read found that 16% of passengers were planing to drink on the flight they were about to get on. That's 1 in 6 people, or an average of one person per every row on the plane. Refusing to serve all those people means she can't effectively do her job. It's not as though there's one cart for soda, coffee and water, and then another for adult beverages.

[creaker]

I can understand being concerned about one can conceal under their clothes and what they carry - but I expect a bazillion people were carrying backpacks and other containers and bulging in the wrong places. And unless this was a very peculiar head covering, I don't see what could be hiding under it that they'd have to rip it off. And are there like rules in place that bombers can never show up in disguise?

She was targeted because she looked muslim - and that's what the case is about.

[LDAHL]

I certainly agree with bae that it's ridiculous for people to sign up for or keep jobs where their individual conscience might conflict with the reasonable requirements. Whether it's a county clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses or a flight attendant who refuses to serve drinks or a soldier who discovers he's a pacifist when a war breaks out, you knew what was expected going in.

As far as the Chicago incident, it's hard for me not to feel some sympathy for the cops. Not knowing how many other people they stopped on that high alert day, and not knowing the reaction they got when they did, but knowing how they'd be excoriated if they had ignored her and tragedy had resulted, I'm not inclined to make snap judgments. It strikes me as one of those damned if you do and damned if you don't situations that seem so clear to the Monday morning quarterbacks.

Just yesterday in Milwaukee, there was an incident where the police shot a black man who refused to put down his gun. Knowing nothing more than that, people reflexively defaulted to their prefabricated positions on such situations, and there was a night of violence and arson.

I think there is too strong a tendency in this country for us to stamp our own interpretation on what happens without waiting for the facts.

[nswef]

Wait and see before reacting often changes perceptions. There's much anger and frustration out in the world and it explodes- causing even more anger and frustration. I keep trying to remember to "just wait and see a bit".