Posted Saturday, July 11, 2015 9:31 AM | Contributed by Jeff
The ACLU announced that Disney reversed a longstanding decision forbidding a mail carrier named Gurdit Singh from running mail routes visible to park guests because his appearance violated the company's "Disney Look." Earlier this year, the ACLU and a group called the Sikh Coalition had sent a letter to Disney on Singh's behalf. Before that, ACLU attorney Heather Weaver said, Singh had tried to resolve the issue himself.
Read more from The Orlando Sentinel.
I'm surprised, but it's about time. I mean, if it really is a "Small World," then perhaps it's time to represent its diversity.
Countdown to the outrage and boycotts because "one-a-them mooslems!" is granted rights.... 3.. 2..
My experience with Sikhism, although limited, has been overwhelmingly positive.
The intolerance that leads to the kind of comments lampooned above (thanks, J) - displays the kind of ignorance that results in us being unable to have nice things... ;-)
You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)
When I was working for the hospital, there was a doctor who was Sikh - that eventually had to cave to the ignorance and outrage because patients were scare of him and refused to be seen by "a terrorist".
He shaved, and went turban-less because of it.
We also had a doctor named Osama. Everyone knew his by "George".
There's a difference between intolerance and a corporate image.
Intolerance is bad. A Corporate image or professional look or dress code or whatever is...well, real grown-up life.
This isn't a victory for diversity as much as it is a victory against the man. If I was still 19 I would think it was cool.
That's a stupid argument and you know it. Being a rebellious 20-something douchebag who wants to stick it to the man is not anything like adhering to your religious beliefs.
Not at all. Big difference between being disciminated against and an existing dress code. Not even the same thing...remotely.
If there's any fault here, I wonder why they hired the guy given his lack of aherence to the "Disney Look" - I wonder what all the details are.
Then again, if I were a corporate sort of guy, I'd actually argue that they did him a huge solid by giving him special treatment (allowing him a behind the scenes route while others had to rotate) - accomodating him even though he didn't meet their appearance requirements.
Turbans, yes. Sideburns?
OK sorry...back to the debate...
Does Aladdin violate the corporate image? It said they were already starting to allow beards, and perhaps they realized that they were being kind've, well, intolerant in this case. They're entitled to have a dress code, and they're entitled to change it as they see fit.
First the Bill Cosby statue, then the confederate flag, and now turbans are allowed...Disney is becoming...a real boy!
I guess corporations really are people after all, complete with emotion and rational thought.Last edited by OhioStater, Saturday, July 11, 2015 11:45 PM
You must be logged in to post