Pages

Saturday, November 27, 2010

CAIR Files Complaint On Behalf Of Muslim Woman Barred From Skating Rink For Wearing A Head Scarf

Rules are rules, but many conservative Muslims feel that certain rules shouldn't apply to them because, well, they are special and should be exempt, given all the various strict religious requirements they adhere to. By choice, mind you. And regardless of whether those rules state absolutely 'no exceptions' are to be made, they feel they should be excluded, and if not, they automatically run to CAIR (Council on America Islamic Relations) crying 'discrimination'. There have been several women who, in spite of knowing full well Disney's strict dress code have filed suit against the Mickey Mouse franchise because the company initially balked at their request to wear their hijabs (veils). Sadly, Disney eventually caved after CAIR stepped in and won concessions for the women.

So much for rules.

Now an Hispanic Muslim woman, 40-year-old Marisol Rodriguez-Colon, has solicited CAIR to intervene on her behalf because a roller-skating rink (Ron-A-Roll rink) refused to let her skate with her hijab.

Their rules are very specific, with a sign at the entrance that plainly states:

"No Hats. No Headwear. No Exceptions."

The rule was not instituted to discriminate against Muslims, it's for safety reasons, but Colon decided that this was plainly a case of discrimination when she and another Muslimah relative were not allowed to enter the premises of Ron-A-Roll rink for a birthday party for her niece. They were given the option to wear a helmet over their hijabs, which they both flatly refused.


"I wear this with pride," Colon said. "I was mortified -- by asking someone to wear a helmet you are actually ostracizing us.

"You are singling us out and showing everyone there is an issue -- that something is wrong with these two women."

"You are not allowed -- you are not welcome here. That is what that says to me," Colon said of the statement.

She said she was insulted that the rink would deny entrance to people "because of what they believe and what they are wearing because of those beliefs."


Management insists upon the rules because of safety issues, and we know very well that if they were to be harmed in any way, these women would be the first to sue the establishment, big time, for any injuries incurred.

So instead of removing their hijabs, or using the helmets, the women left and immediately contacted CAIR, which filed its obligatory complaint with Connecticut's Human Rights Commission, because of course not being allowed to skate in a hijab is a major human rights violation.

And apparently, this isn't the first complaint regarding skating rinks and hijabs, but in the following case, the venue caved.

Several years ago, University of Albany student Zahra Shah was barred from wearing her headscarf at an upstate New York roller rink.

That arena, citing insurance reasons, also banned headwear.

An employee at the time told Shah that other skaters could trip and get hurt if the hijab fell off.

When Shah explained that she wore the scarf for religious reasons, one rink employee told her it was like a cowboy "religiously" wearing a cowboy hat.

After a barrage of phone calls from activist groups and others, the rink management apologized and said Shah could skate with her headscarf.


Perhaps these kinds of places should have contracts that people like Colon would have to sign that would prevent them for suing if they were injured. Maybe that would shut them up.

Source: NY Post

3 comments:

My Files said...

I hate to side with the Muslims, but I just can't make up my mind on this one yet.

Incognito said...

thanks for stopping by My files,

as long as the reasons for banning head gear are for safety and insurance reasons, they have every right to disallow it. it has nothing to do with discrimination and she has no right to expect any deferential treatment.

Incognito said...

thanks for stopping by My files,

as long as the reasons for banning head gear are for safety and insurance reasons, they have every right to disallow it. it has nothing to do with discrimination and she has no right to expect any deferential treatment.