Page 73 of 103 FirstFirst ... 2363717273747583 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 730 of 1026

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

  1. #721
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-28-17 @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,909

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Oh yay!!! Perhaps she'll get all kinds of money, and then this will NEVER be a problem for her again. Everybody happy?
    Why are those opposed to this woman religious observance and the EEOC"s lawsuit so hard bitten if this woman gets some monetary award. It will not be much in back wages and she will be taxed like anyone for punitive damages or emotional distress. This woman and everyone else has a Constitutionally protected right in freedom of religion and Title VII merely insures that without breaching the Establishment clause. Hypothetically, if the reverse happened where BK was forcing this woman to wear a "habit" or a male to get circumcised in order to work because BK observed one religion or another The same people would be citing these constitutional guarantees.

  2. #722
    Guru
    Muddy Creek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,103

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

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    But this case is not about whether or not she can practice her religion.
    She says it is

    "The result of the foregoing practices has been to deprive Ashanti McShan of equal employment opportunities because of her religious beliefs and observances as a Christian Pentecostal
    Alex Carey:

    ... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

    Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

  3. #723
    Guru
    Muddy Creek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,103

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Thank you! How kind! But it is doubtful.

    Haven't read anything of doubt. Your opinion has teeth.
    Alex Carey:

    ... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

    Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

  4. #724
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-28-17 @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,909

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    we weren't discussing the law we were discussing the conflict of rights. the law I agree should be applied, my problem is that the law is an abuse of our liberties.
    For those that fall under the responsibility to comply with Title VII and for those who are protected by Title VII those right are insured and there is no abuse whatsoever.

  5. #725
    Guru
    Muddy Creek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,103

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Connery View Post
    Why are those opposed to this woman religious observance and the EEOC"s lawsuit so hard bitten if this woman gets some monetary award. It will not be much in back wages and she will be taxed like anyone for punitive damages or emotional distress. This woman and everyone else has a Constitutionally protected right in freedom of religion and Title VII merely insures that without breaching the Establishment clause. Hypothetically, if the reverse happened where BK was forcing this woman to wear a "habit" or a male to get circumcised in order to work because BK observed one religion or another The same people would be citing these constitutional guarantees.
    Where has her religious freedoms been abolished?

    And what back wages? She left during orientation, which I think is the START of employment.
    Alex Carey:

    ... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

    Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

  6. #726
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Connery View Post
    Why are those opposed to this woman religious observance and the EEOC"s lawsuit so hard bitten if this woman gets some monetary award. It will not be much in back wages and she will be taxed like anyone for punitive damages or emotional distress. This woman and everyone else has a Constitutionally protected right in freedom of religion and Title VII merely insures that without breaching the Establishment clause. Hypothetically, if the reverse happened where BK was forcing this woman to wear a "habit" or a male to get circumcised in order to work because BK observed one religion or another The same people would be citing these constitutional guarantees.
    I don't think "clothing" should be a constitutional guarantee when it comes to employment. If the employer has a dress code, there is usually a good reason for it. I don't think business just have dress codes and buy uniforms for their employees for the fun of it. IMO, a business should not have to cater to a person's religious beliefs in this way, and if they have a dress code, everyone should have to follow it (unless there are medical reasons), or find another job. I'm sorry, but I don't feel sorry for her. I just don't.

  7. #727
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Creek View Post
    She says it is
    Okay. You still aren't getting it, apparently.

    She is Pentecostal, which is a sect of Christianity. Based on her religion, she believes that women should not wear pants. She is not going to work, BK or otherwise, to practice her religion, but she does want to observe what she thinks is proper attire based on her religion.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  8. #728
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,915

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

    Does BK have a requirement that pants must be worn? All I've found so far is their non-skid shoes requirement.

  9. #729
    Guru

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    06-28-17 @ 10:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,909

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Muddy Creek View Post
    Where has her religious freedoms been abolished?

    And what back wages? She left during orientation, which I think is the START of employment.
    I have cited this case, the facts, the press release by the EEOC, the law, the damage award, the investigative process required by law of the EEOC and the right and responsibilities of the parties during the investigative process in numerous posts. I respectfully request that you search my posts herein should you wish to gather that information and discuss my position.

  10. #730
    Guru
    Muddy Creek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,103

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Connery View Post
    For those that fall under the responsibility to comply with Title VII and for those who are protected by Title VII those right are insured and there is no abuse whatsoever.


    I wondered about this. Seems they have lost this in the past and now want to resurrect it again. Pat Robertson and the ACLJ hard at work.

    ACLU Letter on the Harmful Effect of S. 893, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, on Critical Personal and Civil Rights | American Civil Liberties Union

    In preparing this letter, the ACLU reviewed every Title VII religious accommodation federal decision reported either in an official reporter or on Westlaw--since the Hardison decision in 1977 through December 31, 2002--in which a court reached the question of reasonable accommodation or undue hardship. A quarter-century of reported litigation gives a fairly accurate picture of the full range of cases that employees already win under the current religious accommodation standard, and the cases that employees typically lose under the current standard.[1] Based on that review, the ACLU[2]
    has serious concerns about the potential harmful effect of WRFA, but we also see an opportunity for alternative legislation that would have addressed nearly all of the religious accommodation claims that did not involve harm to critical personal and civil rights.

    Over the past 25 years, employees have brought an array of claims for employers to accommodate religious practices that would have resulted in harm to critical personal or civil rights. If WRFA had been law, the following rejected religious accommodation claims could have been decided differently:

    police officer's request to refuse to protect an abortion clinic,
    another police officer's request to abstain from arresting protestors blocking a clinic entrance,
    social worker's decision to use Bible readings, prayer, and the ""casting out of demons"" with inmates in a county prison, instead of providing the county's required secular mental health counseling,
    state-employed visiting nurse's decision to tell an AIDS patient and his partner that God ""doesn't like the homosexual lifestyle"" and that they needed to pray for salvation,
    delivery room nurse's refusal to scrub for an emergency inducement of labor and an emergency caesarian section delivery on women who were in danger of bleeding to death,
    two different male truck drivers and a male emergency medical technician request to avoid overnight work shifts with women because they could not sleep in the same quarters with women,
    employee assistance counselor's request to refuse to counsel unmarried or gay or lesbian employees on relationship issues,
    hotel worker's decision to spray a swastika on a mirror as a religious ""good luck"" symbol,
    My apologies if this is too much information.

    Seems as though this dog is going to get another day.

    This does seem interesting, but it's from the ACLJ site and not sure how accurate it is

    Religious Expression in the Workplace | American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ

    In addition to government workplaces, private workplaces are also constrained by federal law. The law prohibiting religious discrimination in the workplace has been codified under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter “Title VII”). 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer:

    (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

    (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

    Id. at 2000e-2 (emphasis added).

    Title VII has extremely wide jurisdiction. It applies to the federal government, as well as state and local governments. Id. at 2000e-16, 2000e(a)-(b). In addition, it also applies to private employers. Id. at 2000e(b). In fact, it defines an employer as “a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees..." Id. Thus, Title VII applies to virtually all employers in this country.

    In order for an employee to be protected under Title VII, he must show that:

    He holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement;
    He has informed the employer about the conflict; and
    He was discharged, disciplined or subjected to discriminatory treatment for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.
    Alex Carey:

    ... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.

    Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New

Page 73 of 103 FirstFirst ... 2363717273747583 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •