• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Christian Woman Fired from Burger King for Wearing Skirt Instead of Pants

Yes, because, clearly we have had no updates to our OSHA standards since the fifties and sixties. Plus, that's a celeb chef TV show. Hardly a commercial kitchen. And dress codes, as required by the state, is exactly the issue.

The state has filed in this lawsuit? Please provide a link to their input.
 
The problem is religious in nature. Employees have the right to wear clothing that is required by their religion. Im sure she could sue because she had a verbal contract with the employer but she can also sue because they violated her rights as an employee to wear clothing required by her religion.

There is no right to wear clothing required by her religion. However, when the manager agreed to it, she suddenly had a validated exception from the dress code which would exist even if it wasn't religious in nature.
 
The temporary state of the economy is immaterial to basic matters of individual liberty.


This is not temporary, it is cyclic. It gets like this on an irregular but consistently repeating cycle. During periods of prosperity and low unemployment, it gets better for a while... but the wheel turns and employers use that time period (often fairly long) to put the squeeze on employees, hard... and it doesn't necessarily "go back to normal" when prosperity returns. A new norm is established. It is like ratcheting a pulley ever-tighter.
 
This is not temporary, it is cyclic. It gets like this on an irregular but consistently repeating cycle. During periods of prosperity and low unemployment, it gets better for a while... but the wheel turns and employers use that time period (often fairly long) to put the squeeze on employees, hard... and it doesn't necessarily "go back to normal" when prosperity returns. A new norm is established. It is like ratcheting a pulley ever-tighter.

Employers have the upper hand in labor markets where labor is plentiful and the worth of labor is less than or equal to the current compensation offered it. Employees have the upper hand in labor markets where labor is limited and the worth of labor is greater than or equal to the current compensation offered it.

Regardless, the job belongs to the employer, and he or she is free to offer any compensation for any task he or she wishes to hire people to do. If the compensation is too low, no one will take the job, and if the employer wishes to make "wear pants" part of the job description well - the job is owned by the employer, not the employee. Demanding that the government interfere to tilt the balance of trade in your favor is hiring a bully to help you take something that belongs to someone else.
 
Employers have the upper hand in labor markets where labor is plentiful and the worth of labor is less than or equal to the current compensation offered it. Employees have the upper hand in labor markets where labor is limited and the worth of labor is greater than or equal to the current compensation offered it.

Regardless, the job belongs to the employer, and he or she is free to offer any compensation for any task he or she wishes to hire people to do. If the compensation is too low, no one will take the job, and if the employer wishes to make "wear pants" part of the job description well - the job is owned by the employer, not the employee. Demanding that the government interfere to tilt the balance of trade in your favor is hiring a bully to help you take something that belongs to someone else.


I don't know why I have to keep reiterating this... in the relationship Employer->Employee, the vast majority of the power is held by the Employer. The relationship is ALWAYS somewhat coercive because the employer controls your income, at least on a temporary basis. One of the purposes of a government devoted to individual rights is to keep powerful organizations from abusing the less-powerful individual.
 
I don't know why I have to keep reiterating this... in the relationship Employer->Employee, the vast majority of the power is held by the Employer.

you have to keep reiterating it because it is A) simplistic B) incorrect and C) irrelevant.

One of the purposes of a government devoted to individual rights is to keep powerful organizations from abusing the less-powerful individual.

that is partially correct. government exists to keep any entity from abusing individual rights. relative power is immaterial - a weak person stealing from you is just as much an abuse of your property rights as a strong person doing so. However, rights are negative, not positive things, and powerful organizations do not abuse your rights by not giving you something (like a job). If Burger King attempts to steal this womans' property, silence her right to free speech, or take away her guns, let me know.
 
Last edited:
Okay - she's not a cashier at a restaurant or kitchen. She was (and I'm gonna say that 'lightly' considering she never even logged in a single hour of training) a BK employee. You ever seen a single BK, McDonalds, Wendy's cashier who didn't wear pants?

Yes. McDonalds definitely. I think I remember seeing a BK employee wear a skirt but cant quite remember. And half the female employees at Chick-Fil-A wear skirts.
 
There is no right to wear clothing required by her religion. However, when the manager agreed to it, she suddenly had a validated exception from the dress code which would exist even if it wasn't religious in nature.

Religious Discrimination

Religious Accommodation/Dress & Grooming Policies

Unless it would be an undue hardship on the employer's operation of its business, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices. This applies not only to schedule changes or leave for religious observances, but also to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons. These might include, for example, wearing particular head coverings or other religious dress (such as a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim headscarf), or wearing certain hairstyles or facial hair (such as Rastafarian dreadlocks or Sikh uncut hair and beard). It also includes an employee's observance of a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (such as pants or miniskirts).
 
you have to keep reiterating it because it is A) simplistic B) incorrect and C) irrelevant.



that is partially correct. government exists to keep any entity from abusing individual rights. relative power is immaterial - a weak person stealing from you is just as much an abuse of your property rights as a strong person doing so. However, rights are negative, not positive things, and powerful organizations do not abuse your rights by not giving you something (like a job). If Burger King attempts to steal this womans' property, silence her right to free speech, or take away her guns, let me know.

Burger King is doing to this woman what MOST large corporate employers (much of the labor marketplace now) are doing: attempting to enforce a level of conformity without regard for individual rights like, in this case, freedom of religion. BK could accomodate this woman's deeply held beliefs with a MINOR accomodation that would not impair her ability to do her job or the site's ability to function. When enough employers do this, they're forcing people to choose between important issues of conscience and being able to work and pay their bills.

Corporations trend together in terms of many of the requirements they lay on employees. Many of these are based on liability and insurance; others are based on generic templates for corporate structure like this ICS 9001 thing. As time goes by and more and more employers end up as part of this megacorporate conglomerate structure, more and more of them will be laying on the employee requirements that trample individuality indiscriminately. Employees will have fewer and fewer options to "just go work elsewhere", when almost everywhere else is laying the same requirements on them.

Your ox may not be being gored today, but let this case go and others like it and one day it WILL be your ox who is getting gored by an organization too large and powerful for you to defy alone.
 
Burger King is doing to this woman what MOST large corporate employers (much of the labor marketplace now) are doing: attempting to enforce a level of conformity without regard for individual rights like, in this case, freedom of religion. BK could accomodate this woman's deeply held beliefs with a MINOR accomodation that would not impair her ability to do her job or the site's ability to function. When enough employers do this, they're forcing people to choose between important issues of conscience and being able to work and pay their bills.

Corporations trend together in terms of many of the requirements they lay on employees. Many of these are based on liability and insurance; others are based on generic templates for corporate structure like this ICS 9001 thing. As time goes by and more and more employers end up as part of this megacorporate conglomerate structure, more and more of them will be laying on the employee requirements that trample individuality indiscriminately. Employees will have fewer and fewer options to "just go work elsewhere", when almost everywhere else is laying the same requirements on them.

Your ox may not be being gored today, but let this case go and others like it and one day it WILL be your ox who is getting gored by an organization too large and powerful for you to defy alone.

They can work elsewhere small business is BIG business. Small business makes up most of the business in this country so she can go wherever else she like. Otherwise she can work for hereself. As far as corperations large and small, those one size fits all templates they love so much backfire alot, in BK's case a lawsuit,(plaintif as a small case with practically no damage if any. The case is that she was told it was ok for the skirt and then they reniged the offer.), and high turnover. Hense why they use small business alot.
 
There is no right to wear clothing required by her religion. However, when the manager agreed to it, she suddenly had a validated exception from the dress code which would exist even if it wasn't religious in nature.
actually, she does
if the accommodation required to allow her to meet the requirements of her faith is not unreasonable, the expectation is that the employee will be accommodated to facilitate her religious practices
 
actually, she does
if the accommodation required to allow her to meet the requirements of her faith is not unreasonable, the expectation is that the employee will be accommodated to facilitate her religious practices

Then she never needed to ask permission, BK had no choice in the matter and there's no point in this entire thread.

/thread
 
Then she never needed to ask permission, BK had no choice in the matter and there's no point in this entire thread.

/thread
no. she did the correct thing
she notified the employer of her religious practices and the employer accommodated her
until it did not
THAT is why this thread exists
 

I'm no fan of religion, but I have to disagree with you here. I've worked with Pentacostals that have the no hair cutting and long skirts religious dress code. It doesn't interfere with the job. If they hired her knowing this, they can't turn around and fire her for it.

I think the skirts dress code is ridiculous, but it doesn't harm anyone.

On a side note, I've always wanted to work at a restaurant and get fired for telling someone that the dish they are asking about is horrible. Then I can sue the company for requiring me to break a religious commandment by bearing false witness. :mrgreen:
 
In my humble opinion: -What's good for the goose is good for the gander -


No jihab, no long dresses.... what's fair is fair.
 
no. she did the correct thing
she notified the employer of her religious practices and the employer accommodated her
until it did not
THAT is why this thread exists

Apparently, it never did because she was terminated on her first day of work.
 
And she couldn't wear the proper uniform due to her religious beliefs, which she explained at the interview, and was fired because of it. That's something management cannot do without facing recourse.

This seems like a he said she said situation.where's the written proof of said agreement? I am somewhat confused because I have seen PC's many times in pants.
 
And she couldn't wear the proper uniform due to her religious beliefs, which she explained at the interview, and was fired because of it. That's something management cannot do without facing recourse.

This seems like a he said she said situation.where's the written proof of said agreement? I am somewhat confused because I have seen PC's many times in pants.
 
This lawsuit won't win on the simple basis that the employers are not discriminating against any particular belief. They are discriminating against those who will not follow company policy.
 
actually, she does
if the accommodation required to allow her to meet the requirements of her faith is not unreasonable, the expectation is that the employee will be accommodated to facilitate her religious practices

Are Rastafarians entitled to smoke weed at work? As part of the requirement of their faith, of course.
 
Are Rastafarians entitled to smoke weed at work? As part of the requirement of their faith, of course.

I am not but if I get caught I will plead faith, thanks.
 
If businesses were not FORCED to submit to other people's displays of their religion, then we wouldn't even be talking about this right now. There are pants that are MADE for women. They are made specifically to fit a woman's body. Therefore, this girl is the one being unreasonable when she could easily wear women's pants which are NOT men's clothes, regardless. Nobody is picking on her, nobody is singling her out, nobody is making fun of her religion, and IMO those are the times when "freedom of religion" is being attacked, not because someone says you have to wear pants to work. This is just so stupid, and I am so sick and tired of these frivolous lawsuits. It's just disgusting.
 
If businesses were not FORCED to submit to other people's displays of their religion, then we wouldn't even be talking about this right now. There are pants that are MADE for women. They are made specifically to fit a woman's body. Therefore, this girl is the one being unreasonable when she could easily wear women's pants which are NOT men's clothes, regardless.

Pants "made for women" isn't the issue. I don't know if you are familiar with, or know any Pentecostals, but they are one of the more fundamentalist brands of Christians, even more so than fundamental Baptists, which was the type I was raised in. They don't care if it's pants made for women, or pants made to fit men. The issue isn't the fit, but that they believe women wearing pants of any kind equates to women wearing men's clothing. They don't wear makeup, they don't cut their hair, and they wear loose-fitting plain dresses or skirts, which are very long, with (typically) flats for shoes. They are generally very modest and pleasant women to deal with in my experience. The issue here, is whether or not BK was being unduly harmed by allowing this girl to wear a long skirt, rather than pants. According to the job description given (cashier), I can see no reason that a long skirt would be a liability or safety concern for BK.
 
If businesses were not FORCED to submit to other people's displays of their religion, then we wouldn't even be talking about this right now. There are pants that are MADE for women. They are made specifically to fit a woman's body. Therefore, this girl is the one being unreasonable when she could easily wear women's pants which are NOT men's clothes, regardless. Nobody is picking on her, nobody is singling her out, nobody is making fun of her religion, and IMO those are the times when "freedom of religion" is being attacked, not because someone says you have to wear pants to work. This is just so stupid, and I am so sick and tired of these frivolous lawsuits. It's just disgusting.

This is a good point. Thier religion only says that woman are not suppose to wear mens clothing. AFAIK they do not make any other distinction. So if the clothing is made specifically for the womans body it would BE and IS considered womens clothing. So it appears that it is the woman that is making the distinction, not the religion.
 
Pants "made for women" isn't the issue. I don't know if you are familiar with, or know any Pentecostals, but they are one of the more fundamentalist brands of Christians, even more so than fundamental Baptists, which was the type I was raised in. They don't care if it's pants made for women, or pants made to fit men. The issue isn't the fit, but that they believe women wearing pants of any kind equates to women wearing men's clothing. They don't wear makeup, they don't cut their hair, and they wear loose-fitting plain dresses or skirts, which are very long, with (typically) flats for shoes. They are generally very modest and pleasant women to deal with in my experience. The issue here, is whether or not BK was being unduly harmed by allowing this girl to wear a long skirt, rather than pants. According to the job description given (cashier), I can see no reason that a long skirt would be a liability or safety concern for BK.

People who work at places like BK are rotated. They never have just a "cashier" position. Employees are expected to do multiple duties in a place like BK, like work the drive-through, prepare orders, work the cash register, etc. I've never worked there personally, but I've had a lot of friends who have. I still think that BK could work the angle of employee safety because of the fact that a skirt CAN be considered a hazard in this type of setting.
 
Back
Top Bottom