• 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 it's not. That's their job. Their existence is ridiculous. If an employer wants to ask its' employees to wear pants, skirts, or nothing at all in order to perform the job - the job belongs to the employer. Not the employee. Folks shouldn't take jobs that would require them to violate their conscience and then expect special treatment when they refuse to do so.


We ALREADY put legal limits on what the employer can demand of the employee... like 40 hour weeks and overtime, child labor laws, sexual harassment laws, OSHA safety regulations... and oh yes, a little law that says you have to try to make reasonable accomodation for religious requirements if possible. LIke this one.
 
theere is a question of harm. the chain reaction it could set off. we also do not know what took place in the interview other than her claims. Furthermore they did not let her wear a skirt for a while then changed their mind. She was told no at her first attempt to wear a skirt to work.

Say, did you miss the part where its a law?
 
-absurd excuse snipped

This is not being forced to suck a dick and its simply not comparable. There is no reason what so ever I should humor your absurdity.
 
The problem with accommodating one, is that you have to accommodate all, and where does it end? I believe in freedom, but there are times and places where you just have to suck it up, like at work and school.
 
So you're saying you prefer to let businesses dictate to people over their individual conscience, even when accomodating them would do no harm... really?

If the person wants to work there....yes. If you go to Germany would you have to follow thier laws? Or should they accomodate your religious belief that all male Germans should have mustaches and all female Germans look like Helga?

Or if you want another example a bit closer to home would you agree to the government requireing that you allow someones religion dictate the people that you let into your home?

Thier property, their rules. You have a choice to go there or not. If you go there then you accept to abide by their rules.
 
jobs have requirements. For instance if you were out of work and looking really really hard for employement I wouldnt be able to hire you unless you met certain criteria and were willing to adhere to my companies policies. How tough the employment market is isnt going to come into play. If you cannot abide by the rules in your employee handbook, you'd be let go.

And if the handbook violates one's rights......
 
I have been involved with employment discrimination cases quite extensively on a variety of levels for the claimant at times and for the employer at other times and have worked closely with investigators . It is rare that the EEOC files an actual lawsuit on behalf of an individual and the investigation process is quite extensive.

This is the process used by the EEOC.....




The Charge Handling Process

i am not going to claim to have any experience in employment discrimination as it has never come up. However when BK denies telling her it was ok, and it is a case of he said/she said and BK has a handbook that she likely signed off on saying she read, understood and agreed to follow I cant see this going well in court for her. Her case does not appear provable.
 
Because telling you to keep your religious crap at home is uncalled for. Right...
*

No more uncalled for than telling you to keep your anti-religious crap at home, bud. Or to leave your dignity at home, or your whatever.

There are rules about how employers can treat employees... get over it. They are employees, NOT SLAVES.
 
That is not what is happening in this case. The lady wanted to fulfil her religious obligation to wear a skirt. She says the interviewer told her it would be ok. Then she was fired for not wearing pants.

Allowing someone to wear a skirt while working at BK is a minor accomodation that hurts no one. Also, as Turtle pointed out, IT IS THE LAW that reasonable accomodation must be made for religious requirements if it is feasible to do so in the worksite in question. In this case there is no question that a skirt would harm nothing.


I respect your opinion.


But I do not agree. What is all this business of accommodation? You can stretch it only that far.... this PC thing ... anyway :shrug:
 
Funny, I've never heard of a Christian woman who wouldn't wear pants before. I must be out of the loop.
 
This is not being forced to suck a dick and its simply not comparable. There is no reason what so ever I should humor your absurdity.


You're the one being absurd, sir. Are you going to try to claim that there is not and never has been sexual abuse of employees by their bosses?

There are laws to prevent employers from abusing employees. Employers do not get to have it all their way. Reasonable accomodation for religious issues is such a law, whether you like it or not.
 
No more uncalled for than telling you to keep your anti-religious crap at home, bud. Or to leave your dignity at home, or your whatever.

There are rules about how employers can treat employees... get over it. They are employees, NOT SLAVES.

Unless you can show me a right violation I will not agree with you on this case and furthermore working for someone is not slavery, so don't even go there.
 
i am not going to claim to have any experience in employment discrimination as it has never come up. However when BK denies telling her it was ok, and it is a case of he said/she said and BK has a handbook that she likely signed off on saying she read, understood and agreed to follow I cant see this going well in court for her. Her case does not appear provable.
^^^^
Quite fortunately this is not the way things work in this very fact sensitive and labor intensive situation.
 
Last edited:
i dont think that is appliciable here. However if a handbook violated peoples rights then the handbook would be wrong.

Personally from I know about this and it ain't much I think the lady doesn't have a hope in hell of winning this.
 
You're the one being absurd, sir. Are you going to try to claim that there is not and never has been sexual abuse of employees by their bosses?

There are laws to prevent employers from abusing employees. Employers do not get to have it all their way. Reasonable accomodation for religious issues is such a law, whether you like it or not.

Is it part of the Christian religion that women cannot wear pants?
 
And if no employer would accomodate her then I guess you'd say she is free to starve to death then?

Jobs don't fall off trees like apples these days.

I doubt very seriously that no job would accomodate her. I'm sure her church has thier hands in a few buisnesses which would hire her.

Also there ARE jobs out there. Even jobs which have no dress requirement. I am working at one. And I am one of those people who most employers would take a look at the application and throw it away. I have a spotty job history, a criminal record, and hadn't worked for 7 years. Yet I still found a job. Plus I happen to know that N. Dakota is looking for people and Alabama and California needs people to work the fields.
 
You're the one being absurd, sir. Are you going to try to claim that there is not and never has been sexual abuse of employees by their bosses?

There are laws to prevent employers from abusing employees. Employers do not get to have it all their way. Reasonable accomodation for religious issues is such a law, whether you like it or not.

demanding that BK disgard their uniform dress code and allow employees to dress however they wish is not reasonable if such a law exists.
 
That is not what is happening in this case. The lady wanted to fulfil her religious obligation to wear a skirt. She says the interviewer told her it would be ok. Then she was fired for not wearing pants.

Allowing someone to wear a skirt while working at BK is a minor accomodation that hurts no one. Also, as Turtle pointed out, IT IS THE LAW that reasonable accomodation must be made for religious requirements if it is feasible to do so in the worksite in question. In this case there is no question that a skirt would harm nothing.

I have set forth the law in a previous post


If the dress code was due to safety reasons then I do not believe she would have a basis for suit as she would not be able to perform due to safty reasons. If it is a simple dress code and the employer said no based upon her religion then I believe she could go forward and sue. Unless it caused undue hardship on the employer(see below)


If the manger had the authority to speak for BK yes they could bind the corporation.

An accommodation is not a matter of right in as much as if it is practicable and does not cause undue hardship then those who are subject to these laws must comply.

"The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business."

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
 
You're the one being absurd, sir. Are you going to try to claim that there is not and never has been sexual abuse of employees by their bosses?

Dude, I have no reason to even fight for a claim I never made. You can have fun in the corner with yourself. I have no plans of going over there with you.
 
Right. So you prefer to let employers dictate to employees, and tell them if they want to be employed they will have to give up the dictates of their conscience, violate their own deeply held beliefs, and either suffer the guilt this choice will impose on them or else suffer unemployment... even if the accomodation is a TRIVIAL minor thing.

Really?

Damn.

Thier beliefs do not trump someone elses beliefs. And no one has a Right to a job.
 
Back
Top Bottom