• 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

No Aunt Spiker said they couldn't so I'm confused. Can they? Or can't they?

They can't discriminate - but I don't get why it was permissible for her to work there to begin with.
 
No Aunt Spiker said they couldn't so I'm confused. Can they? Or can't they?

If she could not then there would be no basis for the EEOC to file the suit and they never would have. There would be no basis for any complaint to the administrative agency either.
 
this is just ignornat. You cannot justify religious discrimination because people choose their faith.

Oh reeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaally. ;) That seems to be the entire argument in favor of discriminating against homosexuals. It's a choice. Right? ;) So if choices CAN be discriminated against - what's so different about discriminating against Christians on the same basis?
 
Oh whatever the hell ever. A religious belief is an arbitrarily picked out bunch of nonsense people adhere to simply because they want to get into their own version of Oz. You can have it. You just don't get to change the rules everyone else has to do abide by because of that belief. Or are we only going to defend religious belief from now on? How about this. I'll start a new religion that discriminates against every other religion. When christians, jews, muslims etc come and apply for a job at my privately run company - I'll turn them down because of MY religious beliefs. How does that sound?

religion is not nonsense any more than homosexuality or anything else.
 
They can't discriminate - but I don't get why it was permissible for her to work there to begin with.

You're confusing me woman! Why wouldn't it be permissible for her to work there?
 
Oh reeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaally. ;) That seems to be the entire argument in favor of discriminating against homosexuals. It's a choice. Right? ;) So if choices CAN be discriminated against - what's so different about discriminating against Christians on the same basis?

I never said discrimination was ok. so your argument fails right there.
 
religion is not nonsense any more than homosexuality or anything else.

Sure it is. It's a belief magical beings that can't be proven or disproven anymore than leprechauns can. Homosexuality is the adherence to a person's very real biological desires. :shrug: One is tangible. The other isn't.
 
Sure it is. It's a belief magical beings that can't be proven or disproven anymore than leprechauns can. Homosexuality is the adherence to a person's very real biological desires. :shrug: One is tangible. The other isn't.

by that same logic you could say religion is driven by ones very real biological desires as well as their spiritual desires.
 
by that same logic you could say religion is driven by ones very real biological desires as well as their spiritual desires.

By the same logic of what? Are there ANY scientific studies linking DNA to religious belief? If anything it's been connected to parts of the brain - which leave it somewhere between psychosis and stupidity. Depending on how biased ya are. But if you have studies linking religion to DNA, something which is passed down genetically or can be patterned through genetics, show us. :)
 

I keep noticing that they refered to a "long black skirt", not once did they say "dress". To me that would indicate that it went to just below or just above the knees. Anything longer would be a dress. Now considering this religion it was prolly just below the knees. And that is a health hazard. They don't make people wear black slacks just because it looks good. Its also a slight safety matter as it protects from popping greese. Slacks are loose enough that if hot greese gets on them you can immediately pull the pants away from the skin to protect yourself. Can't exactly pull skin away now can ya?

But in any case I think its idiotic that buisnesses have to accomodate anyones belief. Be it religious or not. If this woman had gone to a farm which required riding a horse through thick brush and as such they required the woman to wear chaps and the woman refused to because its "man clothing" should she get the job? Hellz no! The same should apply to any other job. There is absolutely no reason that any buisness should have to accomodate someone for something like this. Its idiotic and totaltarian imo to force them to.

Its one thing to discriminate against the religion itself...quite another to discriminate against an article of clothing.
 
I keep noticing that they refered to a "long black skirt", not once did they say "dress". To me that would indicate that it went to just below or just above the knees. Anything longer would be a dress. Now considering this religion it was prolly just below the knees. And that is a health hazard. They don't make people wear black slacks just because it looks good. Its also a slight safety matter as it protects from popping greese. Slacks are loose enough that if hot greese gets on them you can immediately pull the pants away from the skin to protect yourself. Can't exactly pull skin away now can ya?

But in any case I think its idiotic that buisnesses have to accomodate anyones belief. Be it religious or not. If this woman had gone to a farm which required riding a horse through thick brush and as such they required the woman to wear chaps and the woman refused to because its "man clothing" should she get the job? Hellz no! The same should apply to any other job. There is absolutely no reason that any buisness should have to accomodate someone for something like this. Its idiotic and totaltarian imo to force them to.

Its one thing to discriminate against the religion itself...quite another to discriminate against an article of clothing.

The question is not that it's totalitarian. It's that it's a standard policy that there is very little way she couldn't have been aware of before she signed up for the job. Her unverifiable and mostly unenforceable verbal contract be damned. She probably knew about it and decided her beliefs still mattered more when the day came to show up for the job.
 
I keep noticing that they refered to a "long black skirt", not once did they say "dress". To me that would indicate that it went to just below or just above the knees. Anything longer would be a dress. Now considering this religion it was prolly just below the knees. And that is a health hazard. They don't make people wear black slacks just because it looks good. Its also a slight safety matter as it protects from popping greese. Slacks are loose enough that if hot greese gets on them you can immediately pull the pants away from the skin to protect yourself. Can't exactly pull skin away now can ya?

But in any case I think its idiotic that buisnesses have to accomodate anyones belief. Be it religious or not. If this woman had gone to a farm which required riding a horse through thick brush and as such they required the woman to wear chaps and the woman refused to because its "man clothing" should she get the job? Hellz no! The same should apply to any other job. There is absolutely no reason that any buisness should have to accomodate someone for something like this. Its idiotic and totaltarian imo to force them to.

Its one thing to discriminate against the religion itself...quite another to discriminate against an article of clothing.

Kal, a "dress" is a complete covering garment, usually one piece. A "skirt" is the part from the waist down. "Dress" and "skirt" have no connotation about length inherent in the terms.

I've known Pentecostal women whose churches teach this, and I've never seen one in a dress that was much higher than ankle length... they don't believe in exposing the calf of the leg so their skirts go almost to the ankle, if not over it. There's no reason she can't flip burgers in such a skirt. BK is just being a dick.
 
By the same logic of what? Are there ANY scientific studies linking DNA to religious belief? If anything it's been connected to parts of the brain - which leave it somewhere between psychosis and stupidity. Depending on how biased ya are. But if you have studies linking religion to DNA, something which is passed down genetically or can be patterned through genetics, show us. :)

plenty of studies have been done on religion you can feel free to look them up. there are billions of people in this world who would tell you that their faith is true, that they did not choose their religion, god found them. You can find people who are gay and who dont all share some homosexual dna. homosexuality is not genetic any more than religion. however you want to try to twist it doesnt change anything. you choose to try to discredit religion because you dont want to believe it which is fine. doesnt change anything. homosexuality and religion are not that differnt. it is you who chooses to discriminate and mock.
 
I keep noticing that they refered to a "long black skirt", not once did they say "dress". To me that would indicate that it went to just below or just above the knees. Anything longer would be a dress. Now considering this religion it was prolly just below the knees. And that is a health hazard. They don't make people wear black slacks just because it looks good. Its also a slight safety matter as it protects from popping greese. Slacks are loose enough that if hot greese gets on them you can immediately pull the pants away from the skin to protect yourself. Can't exactly pull skin away now can ya?

But in any case I think its idiotic that buisnesses have to accomodate anyones belief. Be it religious or not. If this woman had gone to a farm which required riding a horse through thick brush and as such they required the woman to wear chaps and the woman refused to because its "man clothing" should she get the job? Hellz no! The same should apply to any other job. There is absolutely no reason that any buisness should have to accomodate someone for something like this. Its idiotic and totaltarian imo to force them to.

Its one thing to discriminate against the religion itself...quite another to discriminate against an article of clothing.

No, it's a skirt, a long skirt that goes to the ankles, if it's just a bottom it's not a dress.
 
No one ever said I had a fasion sense. ;)

But I still stand by the rest of what I said.
 
Was there a rational reason for BK demanding she wear pants? Now in a perfect world free of FDR expansions of the Commerce Clause, a private employer should be able to dictate what their employees wear

for example, if you want to be a playboy bunny you are going to have to meet the standards and wear a silly tail on a leotard three sizes too small for your body. If you want to work at hooters-its tacky orange shorts over nylons. and in a local Pub, the guys wear kilts


but I don't see this much differently than accommodating an Orthodox Jew by allowing him to wear a yarmulke or a Sikh to carry the traditional dagger in his pocket.
 
While I disagree with BKs particular reason for disallowing her employment, I think businesses should have to right to define the behavior and dress of their employers.
 
No, it's a skirt, a long skirt that goes to the ankles, if it's just a bottom it's not a dress.

Skirt/dress or whatever anyone else wants to call it BK has a written dress code and their employees should follow it.

Religious tolerance is very important to me (most people who can have discussed religion with me can attest to that) however this is not a case of religious discrimination. If a person wants to work at a business they need to adapt to that businesses policies, not the other way around. Religion has no place in the workplace. Unless you work at a church. If your religion forbids you from doing something that a company requires then you shouldnt work there.
 
Yeah, I think they're overreacting and misinterpreting myself... but it's what they believe and it is very important to them.

It would be VERY little, if ANY, skin off BK's nose to just let her wear the skirt.
No they are not over reacting. I ya want to work at a burger king this is the uniform you wear, and its pants. There are plenty of things I wish I could say or do that I do not because I work with the developmentally disabled.

We have choices to make based on our employment. If YOU want to work at their establishment than YOU will dress accordingly, or go work somewhere else, and wear your skirt or whatever.

Let her have the skirt and everyone else will say I want my nose ring, want my gauges. Burger King should reserve the right to have its employees dress and look the way they wish. If someone dsagrees don't f-ing work there. There are plenty of people who are looking for work who care far more about the money than what they look like while they are working.
 
Skirt/dress or whatever anyone else wants to call it BK has a written dress code and their employees should follow it.

Religious tolerance is very important to me (most people who can have discussed religion with me can attest to that) however this is not a case of religious discrimination. If a person wants to work at a business they need to adapt to that businesses policies, not the other way around. Religion has no place in the workplace. Unless you work at a church. If your religion forbids you from doing something that a company requires then you shouldnt work there.

There was no rational reason for BK to not let her wear the skirt, and the manager said she could wear it. BK was in the wrong here, and they are just being dicks, period.
 
plenty of studies have been done on religion you can feel free to look them up. there are billions of people in this world who would tell you that their faith is true, that they did not choose their religion, god found them. You can find people who are gay and who dont all share some homosexual dna. homosexuality is not genetic any more than religion. however you want to try to twist it doesnt change anything. you choose to try to discredit religion because you dont want to believe it which is fine. doesnt change anything. homosexuality and religion are not that differnt. it is you who chooses to discriminate and mock.

No. You made the claim. Now back it up. Show us studies on DNA and religion being linked.

------

As for homosexuality and religion not being different: LOL. - What utter nonsense. Homosexuals haven't started wars in the name of homosexuality or banned straights from joining their organizations or led lynching parties on straights. So reality begs to differ.
 
There was no rational reason for BK to not let her wear the skirt,

Other than their pesky little dress code.

and the manager said she could wear it.

As stated only by 1 person who won't be able to prove it with anything other than her word. It's her word's against the manager's.

BK was in the wrong here, and they are just being dicks, period.

Subjective.
 
Skirt/dress or whatever anyone else wants to call it BK has a written dress code and their employees should follow it.

Religious tolerance is very important to me (most people who can have discussed religion with me can attest to that) however this is not a case of religious discrimination. If a person wants to work at a business they need to adapt to that businesses policies, not the other way around. Religion has no place in the workplace. Unless you work at a church. If your religion forbids you from doing something that a company requires then you shouldnt work there.


Exactly ... why anybody would want want to push their religious ideas down their throats?

Go work in your Church .... You might get paid there too.
 
There was no rational reason for BK to not let her wear the skirt, and the manager said she could wear it. BK was in the wrong here, and they are just being dicks, period.

The rational reason is that it violated company policy. She shouldnt be allowed to force a business to change their policies because of her beliefs. I would agree that it would be no real harm in letting her wear the skirt, but also no real harm in allowing people to wear their street clothes at work, or a number of other things. They have a written policy stating their dress code. I dont see where they put anything in writing allowing her the exception. We dont even know they actually even said she could wear it, and even if they did they have the right to enforce the policy. Dicks or not, they have that right and they are not discriminating against her religion. She is trying to force it on them..
 
No. You made the claim. Now back it up. Show us studies on DNA and religion being linked.

------

As for homosexuality and religion not being different: LOL. - What utter nonsense. Homosexuals haven't started wars in the name of homosexuality or banned straights from joining their organizations or led lynching parties on straights. So reality begs to differ.

no it doesnt. your ignorance and bigotry begs to differ. wars start because humans are violent and greedy. nothing more. i dont care what name they put to it.
 
Back
Top Bottom