I'm not refusing to see anything. She was arbitrarily seeking to ignore the dress code of the employer.
nothing arbitrary about her actions. she was quite deliberate and appropriate in her actions. when she became aware that she would not be able to conform to the pants requirement due to her religion, she advised the burger king representative of her religious edict which prevented her from wearing slacks
She voluntarily applied for a job which she knew had a dress code that did not conform to her religious beliefs.
she certainly applied for the job of her own free will. no one has asserted that she did so while under duress. so, what point are you trying to make about it?
while it is very possible that she was aware of the dress code when she applied, there is nothing i have read which establishes that to be a fact
but either way, she understood her obligation to communicate the religious beliefs that would prevent her from wearing the standard issue pants. and she so advised the hiring authority, who extended to her the appropriate religious accommodation
You refuse to acknowledge this fact.
i will stipulate that she did apply for the job of her own free will
i cannot stipulate that she knew of the dress code. if you are able to document that she did, please proffer a cite to evidence it
She expects the company to accomodate her religious beliefs.
under title vii that is a reasonable expectation ... for one's religious needs to be reasonably accommodated in the work place. her expectation was not unreasonable
Other than a law...why should they have to?
other than the law, there is no other obligation
but then there is the legal obligation you appear to want to discount ... probably because its requirements absolutely obliterate your debate position
now, beyond the legal obligation, there is a sound business reason to want to accommodate an employee's religious views: it makes excellent business sense to hire and maintain employees who are not disgruntled by the employer's capricious and unreasonable work rules
From someone who did not have the authority to make such an accomodation.
what evidence do you have to prove that the same agent of burger king, who possessed the authority to hire her was also without the authority to sanction a reasonable religious accommodation. i am guessing none - but prove me wrong
The right thing for him to have done is to confirm that it was OK to do such a thing from his superiors.
which would first compel a showing that what he did was inconsistent with the expectation of those higher up the organizational chart. as burger king now knows, not providing a legally required religious accommodation can cause the company to have to defend its actions in court
He was just enforcing BK policy. Should he really be condemned for that?
then you are telling us that it is burger king's policy to refuse to subscribe to the law, title vii, and offer a reasonable accommodation due to one's religious practices? again, show us the proof that causes you to believe something so ridiculous on its face. i'm willing to bet you cannot do so