• 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

Goshin said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, everybody needs to compromise sometimes.
 
Kal'Stang said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because BK agreed to so this when they grew their business to such a degree that they became required to recognize these polices and enforce them. This situation is on BK not on the employee and many have asserted.
 
Penderyn said:
Not to me. You either have rights or you don't.
Click to expand...

Again, that is applied with common sense. There are still safety and cleanliness regulations that have to be followed. Haven't you heard of no shirt, no shoes, no service?
 
ChrisL said:
So? Obviously the first EMPLOYEE who told her it was okay was mistaken. Mix-ups happen all the time.
Click to expand...

No the Title VII requirements were already in place prior to the girl applying for the job.....
 
Goshin said:
She says the interviewer told her she could wear the skirt.

Verbal contract.



Dude, think about it... employers can be damn near as oppressive as any dictatorial government. The dictator has you in his palm because he has the Secret Police and all that crap... the EMPLOYER has you by the purse strings, by the way you make your living and pay your bills and support your family. The economy is bad and jobs are hard to come by.... and let me tell ya, lots of employers are seizing this opportunity to squeeze their employees as hard as they can, and pile as much stupid control-freak **** on them as they can get away with.... and that is a LOT because so many people are desperate to keep their jobs.

If you're for freedom, you need to recognize that we need to prevent ALL big orgs from abusing the individual needlessly, whether those orgs are governmental or corporate.
Click to expand...

I cannot express how much I disagree that businesses are on the same par with the government when it comes to the potential for oppressive abuses. Every interaction I have with private industry, including whether I work for someone or not, is completely voluntary. This is not so with the govt, besides, nobody is owed a job any where.
 
Fletch said:
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.
Click to expand...

BK will have their day in court and then it is their burden to show this. Should they prevail, then that will be a ruling they can rely upon in future instances of this nature...:)
 
Penderyn said:
Not to me. You either have rights or you don't.
Click to expand...

What if a Muslim woman took a job at Hooters and filed a lawsuit when they handed her the uniform they expected her to wear?
 
Connery said:
Because BK agreed to so this when they grew their business to such a degree that they became required to recognize these polices and enforce them. This situation is on BK not on the employee and many have asserted.
Click to expand...

So in your minds eye once a buisness grows to a certain point they should have to start altering their rules to fit everyones religious views? Why? Do you hold this view just because of the law? Or is there some other reason?
 
If the only reason this girl was fired was due to her refusal to wear pants, and not other behavioral issues, she has a great case of religious discrimination.
 
johnny_rebson said:
What if a Muslim woman took a job at Hooters and filed a lawsuit when they handed her the uniform they expected her to wear?
Click to expand...

She would lose, as Hooters has been sued over its dress requirements many times before and won them all (If I recall correctly)
 
Spring99 said:
If the only reason this girl was fired was due to her refusal to wear pants, and not other behavioral issues, she has a great case of religious discrimination.
Click to expand...

According to your logic, Muslim women can apply for jobs at Hooters and then sue when they are forced to dress in a manner they find unacceptable due to their religion.
 
Your Star said:
Though that should be respected and allowed, obviously. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Well, and seriously, where does it end? What if someone's religion required that they work naked. Should that be accommodated as well?
 
It is dissapointing when employers refuse to make reasonable concessions to employees in order to respect their religious values.

What would have been the harm in allowing her to wear a dress? Who would have been harmed?
 
X Factor said:
Well, and seriously, where does it end? What if someone's religion required that they work naked. Should that be accommodated as well?
Click to expand...

Is there such a religion? If so, we need to get moving and change our Constitution and make it our national religion.
 
X Factor said:
Well, and seriously, where does it end? What if someone's religion required that they work naked. Should that be accommodated as well?
Click to expand...

LOL! Noooo! There are more people I would rather NOT see naked . . . not to mention having them serving me food. :shock:
 
Spring99 said:
It is dissapointing when employers refuse to make reasonable concessions to employees in order to respect their religious values.

What would have been the harm in allowing her to wear a dress? Who would have been harmed?
Click to expand...

Why should any company have to accomodate anyones religious views? What if the owner of the companies religious view was that all women should wear hijab's? Should he be forced to discard his own personal religious beliefs in order to accomodate someone else's religion?
 
Spring99 said:
It is dissapointing when employers refuse to make reasonable concessions to employees in order to respect their religious values.

What would have been the harm in allowing her to wear a dress? Who would have been harmed?
Click to expand...
According to pro-BK on this thread, BK would have come under the direct control of the Pope, the constitution would have burst into flames, terrorists would have bombed our children's schools, global worming, dogs and cats living together, total anarchy!
 
Jerry said:
According to pro-BK on this thread, BK would have come under the direct control of the Pope, the constitution would have burst into flames, terrorists would have bombed our children's schools, global worming, dogs and cats living together, total anarchy!
Click to expand...

No, it's about etiquette and setting standards at the workplace. If someone's religion does not allow them to wear pants, that is not BK's problem.
 
Jerry said:
According to pro-BK on this thread, BK would have come under the direct control of the Pope, the constitution would have burst into flames, terrorists would have bombed our children's schools, global worming, dogs and cats living together, total anarchy!
Click to expand...

Only if Obama wins in November.

Seriously, wearing a skirt falls under "reasonable" accomodation, IMO. The only possible thing I can think why you shouldn't be able to wear a skirt is that the oil could potentially splatter up the skirt, causing a serious burn. That's unlikely (but I suppose it's possible).
 
Last edited:
I think the point is that she isn't being singled out because of her religious views. Everybody who works there is held to the same standards. No more or less is being asked from her because of her religious views. NOT religious discrimination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom