• 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

Kal'Stang said:
A person has a right to follow whatever religion they wish. They do not have the right to have others follow that belief or force them to adhere to their beliefs. No matter what some law says.
Click to expand...

Then work for an entity that is not required to follow Title VII. There are many out there.
 
Connery said:
BK will have their opportunity to show whether it is reasonable or not. As a individual I can understand why some one may view this as unreasonable, but, that is not the law. "The employee should prevail as a matter of law unless BK "demonstrates that they are 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."( see posts 63, 172, 252)
Click to expand...

I think BK could easily claim that is for her own safety. There is hot grease, slippery floors, and probably a whole bunch of other things that I'm not aware of because I've never worked there.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And I've asked before...does that guy have the right to supercede the companies rules? Or am I reading your post incorrectly?

And no, my wording is entirely correct. Otherwise why would the girl try and get a job at a place she KNEW had a dress code that did not coincide with her religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

The condition precedent to the girl filing is whether the company needed to follow Title VII, if so what procedures do they have in place. Then when the girl's issue became apparent whether they followed those protocols.
 
Jerry said:
Just pointing out that your claim was baseless, just like this idea that employers have 100% total control of their workplace.
Click to expand...

But as I just showed it obviously was not baseless.

But you are right in that companies do not have 100% control over thier workplace. But on the issue of determining what should and shouldn't be worn by thier employee's they should definitely have 100% control.
 
Hatuey said:
I am - not - religious. I don't honestly give two ****s what religion it is. Burger King has rules for its employees. She doesn't have to work there if she doesn't like their rules.
Click to expand...

Your deep and vicious hate for religion is duly noted. She was hired and told she could wear the skirt. As a cashier there could be no safety issues to hinder her being able to perform the job.
 
ChrisL said:
I think BK could easily claim that is for her own safety. There is hot grease, slippery floors, and probably a whole bunch of other things that I'm not aware of because I've never worked there.
Click to expand...

That is not what happened, "according to the EEOC’s lawsuit, (Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-03169-M), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Ashanti McShan, a member of the Pentecostal Church, adheres to an interpretation of the scripture about the wearing of clothing that is befitting of specific gender. She informed the company of this aspect of her faith during the job interview, and was told that she could work in a skirt instead of the Burger King uniform pants. However, the EEOC said, when Ms. McShan arrived at orientation, she was told by store management that her skirt was an unacceptable alternative and subsequently sent home"

Grand Prairie Burger King Franchisee Sued by EEOC for Religious Discrimination
 
Connery said:
The condition precedent to the girl filing is whether the company needed to follow Title VII, if so what procedures do they have in place. Then when the girl's issue became apparent whether they followed those protocols.
Click to expand...

In this case why should BK have to follow Title VII? Why should BK have to alter thier decades old dress code for one girl that knew she was applying for a job that had a dress code that went against her religious beliefs? Does the girl not have some accountability in any of this?
 
Connery said:
That is not what happened, "according to the EEOC’s lawsuit, (Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-03169-M), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Ashanti McShan, a member of the Pentecostal Church, adheres to an interpretation of the scripture about the wearing of clothing that is befitting of specific gender. She informed the company of this aspect of her faith during the job interview, and was told that she could work in a skirt instead of the Burger King uniform pants. However, the EEOC said, when Ms. McShan arrived at orientation, she was told by store management that her skirt was an unacceptable alternative and subsequently sent home"

Grand Prairie Burger King Franchisee Sued by EEOC for Religious Discrimination
Click to expand...

So? Obviously the first EMPLOYEE who told her it was okay was mistaken. Mix-ups happen all the time.
 
American said:
Your deep and vicious hate for religion is duly noted. She was hired and told she could wear the skirt. As a cashier there could be no safety issues to hinder her being able to perform the job.
Click to expand...

So none of the cashiers ever have to go through the kitchen?

I once worked at a Mc'Donalds before, a company that is run basically the same as BK from what I can tell and it was common for an employee to be trained in several positions besides the primary one that they were hired for. My wife did work at a BK so comparing experiances has shown me that this is true.
 
Maybe BK should terminate the employee who first told this woman it was okay for not knowing they have a dress code. Who knows? Maybe he wasn't even paying attention to her, and was just like "yeah, yeah, that's fine." A "verbal" contract could be pretty ambiguous. That's why you should always have agreements written in clear legal terms.
 
People should wear what they choose - or nothing, if they prefer. There's a bloke over here being persecuted for walking round the country nude: not to my taste, but if he feels happier that way, fine!
 
Penderyn said:
People should wear what they choose - or nothing, if they prefer. There's a bloke over here being persecuted for walking round the country nude: not to my taste, but if he feels happier that way, fine!
Click to expand...

Work is an entirely different scenario. :roll:
 
Spring99 said:
He is probably right. If a Muslim were to do a similar thing there would be accusations that she was trying to impose Sharia law.
Click to expand...

Or, on the other side, BK would be accused of being Islamaphobic and intolerant.
 
Connery said:
BK will have their opportunity to show whether it is reasonable or not. As a individual I can understand why some one may view this as unreasonable, but, that is not the law. "The employee should prevail as a matter of law unless BK "demonstrates that they are 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."( see posts 63, 172, 252)
Click to expand...
I think it does impose undue hardship on BK. BK is a global company and if it has to alter its uniform policy to accommodate any conceivable religious observance, they will have no uniform policy. Plus, the policy itself is not burdensome. It offers mens and womens uniforms--much like any company.
 
I could understand if they singled out this person somehow, but they are not singling her out. This is a rule that ALL employees have to abide by. They shouldn't have to make an exception for one person. If they do that, then they have to do it for everyone, and then bye-bye dress code and uniforms.
 
Hatuey said:
It's fun to watch all the conservatives who rail about PC going crazy - trying to be PC now. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Just as it's fun to watch you be all "if you don't like it, you don't have to work there". I'm Christian and I think the lawsuit is silly. Businesses should have the right to project the image they want and anyone who doesn't like it doesn't have to work there.
 
This could be counted as an instance in which the Loser pays legislation would prove itself fruitful. Much ado about nothing.
 
Hatuey said:
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?
Click to expand...

So you'd be fine if someone was fired over their political beliefs, right?
 
X Factor said:
So you'd be fine if someone was fired over their political beliefs, right?
Click to expand...
If they voice their political beliefs in a manner that clashes with their occupational requirements, they do not retain the guarantee of employment.
 
This goes right down to the core of why I self-label "independent" rather than anything else... nobody really stands up for individual rights anymore, not consistently.

Most conservatives are pro-business to the point of thinking "freedom" means to let employers walk all over their employees.
Libertarians mostly live in a fantasy world where they think the employer-employee relationship is non-coercive and a negotiation between equals (it isn't).
Liberals vary, hell at least SOME of them support the individuals' right to follow their conscience within reason, but a then others are knee-jerk religion haters.

No political ideology is really looking out for "the little guy/gal" these days. One side wants to let government walk all over you, the other side wants to let corporations walk all over you.

A plague on both houses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom