Disney among the employers adapting to changing appearance expectations

There's not really anything to buy.

If a policy doesn't apply singularly to a protected person or group then they're not being discriminated against.

I'm not sure how that can be argued against. That's pretty much the definition of discrimination - treating one person or group differently. If a dress code is not specific to a person or people and applies to all across the board...

I dunno. I don't see it.

Because I'm reasonable, fair and incredibly cool:

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/qa_religious_garb_grooming.cfm

Flat out, as the law is written. Disney is in the wrong. It's not even close.

Quite honestly, I had never really read the law before and it's even worse than I imagined.

For the TL;DR version, it goes something like this:

Employer: We don't do that around here.

Employee: Religion! **** you.

And that's about it. It's all based around whether or not "undue hardship" is caused and pretty much nothing qualifies as undue hardship.

Blech.

For the record, my opinion stands. The law is much too one-sided.

Lord Gonchar said:

That's pretty much the definition of discrimination - treating one person or group differently. If a dress code is not specific to a person or people and applies to all across the board...

Again, that's a total strawman. There aren't people saying, "I'm not Sikh, but I totally want to wear a turban just because and you better allow it!"

No. Because no one is allowed to wear headwear of any kind or a long beard. It's not a rule applied to one specific type of dress or the dress of one kind of people. It's a broad rule that applies to every employee.

However, if there were people saying that, they'd get the same answer.