• 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

Fletch said:
That is an odd thing for a soldier, supposedly in Afghanistan, to say about a free country. You understand your primary role is to protect the rights of the people, yes?
Click to expand...

First, I think he is and I'm pretty sure all the old-timers are convinced. Second, trying to use that against him in a political debate is pretty crappy.

Explain to me why I as an employer, must allow every backwards-ass religion to set the standards for my private business or go elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Because it's his stuff, not mine. Private property and people can gtfo.

That is probably the most un-American, anti-liberty statement a person could make.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think the owner should be allowed to have the restaurant however they want. The world (even western) is damn ignorant but not as bad as it was. The market can decide. Hooters can hire only hot chicks as waitresses. Why? Because men are in charge of the rules, not because people understand that private property is just that. What kind of utterly biased crap is that? You can do whatever you want, and discriminate in your hiring practices, as long as we the power like it. The ironic thing is that Hooters, of all places, highlights this philosophical oppression. Every owner should be able to do whatever the heck they want. In the world of the internet, no backwards hatehole is gonna live long. Let's get 'em out in the open.
 
As in another debate, I'm going to point something out: not all private property is entirely private.

Your home is definitely private property. Your house, your yard, your rules. EVEN SO, if you mistreat an invited guest you may run afoul of the law.

Most businesses, while private property in a sense, are not in the same category. The employer willfully invites others to come in... employees and customers. He has to have employees and customers to do business; that's what he's there for. So in a sense he has opened his "private property" to the public... or at least that portion of the public that he has invited in to work for him or buy from him.

At that point, he has responsibilities to his "invited guests". He is responsible for keeping the environment they work in/buy in reasonably safe... no rotten floors for them to fall thru, for instance.

He is responsible for not abusing them or infringing unreasonably on their rights. When I enter a private business I do not give up the right of self-defense... and I do not give up the right to freedom of religion. Yes, I must not DISRUPT the business in the exercise of my rights, but if I am not disrupting the business then the employer must prove a compelling interest to infringe on my rights.

Not wearing a skirt in BK is not a compelling reason to violate someone's deeply held beliefs, whether you agree with her or not (I don't).

If you think someone gives up their rights when they walk into your business as an invited employee or a customer, try forcing your affections on them and see what happens. :roll:
 
Kal'Stang said:
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?
Click to expand...

No not in my mind's eye in the eyes of the law and I have cited the law to you several times already. It is a legal compliance issue that BK must adhere to barring the qualified exemptions for which I have already explained and posted.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
So was BK's dress code. Again I ask you, does this girl have no accountability period?
Click to expand...


BK accepted the girl, then rejected the girl. On what basis and where do you wish to hold her accountable?
 
ChrisL said:
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?
Click to expand...

No. Why are skirts cleaner than trousers or vice-versa? Clothes are seldom as clean as bodies. I don't follow your thinking.
 
ChrisL said:
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?
Click to expand...
So a skirt is unsafe and unclean now?If anything a skirt is a bit over-dressed for a fast-food job. Customers were more likely to think she was the manager then just a cashier.
 
Jerry said:
I'm arguing that employers should make reasonable accommodation for religious practices, and you think this is unusual for a US soldier to say?
Click to expand...
That is a slightly different response than the one that drew my comment, but what is and isnt 'reasonable' isnt exactly obvious. Easy for you to say that someone else should be forced to do something, but what about the employers rights? That doesnt seem to enter your calculations.

If some Amish dude walks in, does an employer have to allow him to wear that silly hat because his religion says so or be in violation of that mans rights? What about the vegetarian who wants a job but refuses to work the meat station. Should an employer be obligated to accommodate? What about the Jehovahs Witness who wants to spread the word to customers and fellow employees? Should an employer be obligated to accommodate this sort of nonsense in some way too?

What we are talking about here is an incredibly irrational belief that there is a God out there somewhere that somehow gets angry when women wear mens clothing. Again, womens pants are womens clothing. If this woman and her silly religion cant come to terms with that, then there is no reason to impose their irrationality and unreasonableness upon everyone else.



Interesting that you mention that, because I use a gun while performing that roll and private business owners don't want me carrying a gun, either. I can sport a loaded belt-fed weapon everywhere I go but the shower for an entire year, but as soon as I'm in your precious little hut oh noes I'm a hazard!

What a total load of bull****! If anything, I should be given some kind of special license to own and carry any kind of fully automatic weapon since I actually have documented structured training and experience with them.

News-flash: If I had criminal intent I wouldn't need to enter your business at all because your office is within effective range of my AR if not my SpringfieldXD. Your cute little policy won't save you from a damn thing.



Certainly:
If you fire an employee just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, they are going to win a wrongful-termination claim against you and draw unemployment off of you:


******
If you remove a customer just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, you will be cited by the State for braking Public Accommodation codes.

For example:


When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes.
Click to expand...
While interesting, none of that addresses anything I wrote.
 
Your Star said:
I have family that are like this, it's rather annoying.

But this isn't any different than a muslim working wanting to wear a hijab, there's no reason she should have been fired over this.
Click to expand...
Radical stuff, I'm sure, but maybe private businesses should also have some leeway.
 
johnny_rebson said:
I'm free to run my company any way I want to.

My place of business is not your church.
Click to expand...


Sorry bud, but no you aren't. Shall I make a list?

You have to comply with Equal Opportunity rules in hiring and promotions... one of which addresses religion.
You have to comply with OSHA safety standards... no sending employees into ammonia leaks without breathing masks, sorry.
You have to comply with sexual harassment laws... no requiring BJs from employees as a condition of employment.


Dammit, y'all need to get this one thing through your head...


"MY EMPLOYEE" is not the same thing as "MY DOG"!



Hell I wouldn't treat my DOG the way some employers have treated me...
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Sorry bud, but no you aren't. Shall I make a list?

You have to comply with Equal Opportunity rules in hiring and promotions... one of which addresses religion.
You have to comply with OSHA safety standards... no sending employees into ammonia leaks without breathing masks, sorry.
You have to comply with sexual harassment laws... no requiring BJs from employees as a condition of employment.


Dammit, y'all need to get this one thing through your head...


"MY EMPLOYEE" is not the same thing as "MY DOG"!
Click to expand...

You are correct that OSHA guidelines must be followed, but you are incorrectly implying that employees can treat my business as their church.

I am allowed to set a dress code. I am not going to let some employee deviate from it by claiming their Buddhist or Muslim religion won't let them dress like that.
 
johnny_rebson said:
You are correct that OSHA guidelines must be followed, but you are incorrectly implying that employees can treat my business as their church.

I am allowed to set a dress code. I am not going to let some employee deviate from it by claiming their Buddhist or Muslim religion won't let them dress like that.
Click to expand...



Then be prepared for some Title VII lawsuits.
 
Fletch said:
That is a slightly different response than the one that drew my comment...
Click to expand...

That just begs the question: Why didn't you respond to my original responses to this thread before everyone dived in bickering back and forth? Why did you wait for this thread to polarize before chiming in? The comment of mine you responded to, was provoked, so why didn't you chime in then?

Fletch said:
but what is and isnt 'reasonable' isnt exactly obvious. Easy for you to say that someone else should be forced to do something, but what about the employers rights? That doesnt seem to enter your calculations.
Click to expand...

That comment tells me you didn't notice myself and other quoting directly from the relevant Federal and State laws, telling employers they do these things.

Fletch said:
If some Amish dude walks in, does an employer have to allow him to wear that silly hat because his religion says so or be in violation of that mans rights?
Click to expand...

That comment tells me you don't know anything about the Amish. The only Amish who are required to wear the hat are the same Amish who are banned from seeking employment in modern environments. Should such an Amish accept employment in fast-food, that Amish would be kicked out of their church and thus released from the obligation to wear the hat.

Fletch said:
What about the vegetarian who wants a job but refuses to work the meat station.
Click to expand...

Vegetarianism isn't a religion or other protected class. No one forces anyone to eat anything.

Fletch said:
What about the Jehovahs Witness who wants to spread the word to customers and fellow employees?
Click to expand...

That disrupts the business and can drive away customers. The same cannot be said for a skirt.

Fletch said:
What we are talking about here is an incredibly irrational belief that there is a God out there somewhere that somehow gets angry when women wear mens clothing.
Click to expand...

All we're saying is it's against federal law to discriminate this way. If you have a problem with the law itself, that's not what this thread is about.

Fletch said:
Again, womens pants are womens clothing.
Click to expand...

I agree, and a Kilt is men's clothing, but our opinions don't matter.

Fletch said:
If this woman and her silly religion cant come to terms with that, then there is no reason to impose their irrationality and unreasonableness upon everyone else.
Click to expand...

Whatever bro, that's not what this thread is about. We have the Philosophical Forum for that topic.

Fletch said:
While interesting, none of that addresses anything I wrote.
Click to expand...
Other than the fact that it directly answers your question, with credible source material to boot.
 
johnny_rebson said:
How has Hooters fared in their lawsuits?
Click to expand...


Did ya figure out yet that there's a difference between "a dress code that is a necessary and functional part of the job, without which the job cannot be performed as required"...

...versus "a accomodation that WILL NOT affect the employee's ability to perform their job, nor impact the jobsite's ability to function normally?"


There is no harm in letting a Pentecostal woman wear a long skirt instead of pants at a frigging Burger King! If she wanted to wear a long skirt while serving as a firefighter that would be different...
 
Goshin said:
Did ya figure out yet that there's a difference between "a dress code that is a necessary and functional part of the job, without which the job cannot be performed as required"...

...versus "a accomodation that WILL NOT affect the employee's ability to perform their job, nor impact the jobsite's ability to function normally?"


There is no harm in letting a Pentecostal woman wear a long skirt instead of pants at a frigging Burger King! If she wanted to wear a long skirt while serving as a firefighter that would be different...
Click to expand...

Hooters hasn't lost any lawsuits regarding their uniform. The employer has that right.

Don't mess with Hooters, Hooters is sacred.
 
Hatuey said:
Christian Woman Fired from Burger King for Wearing Skirt Instead of Pants | Work + Money - Yahoo! Shine



That the Equal Employment Opportunity is backing her is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Reading between the lines -- she was probably fired for being an annoying religious zealot who wouldn't shut up about sinners in a lake of fire bull****.

But in the litigious age, faith in the lottery is great, but a scumbag lawyer is better in terms of $$ Payday. And the church who probably found the lawyer will take their cut.

Folks, this is all about the $$$.

People of faith who get along well with other employees, show up on time, work hard, AND don't shove their faith in peoples face, get promoted, not fired.
 
Jerry said:
All we're saying is it's against federal law to discriminate this way. If you have a problem with the law itself, that's not what this thread is about.
Click to expand...
There is no discimination here. That is what you arent getting. She is not being singled out or terminated because of her religious beliefs. Her religious beliefs forbid her from wearing a uniform that every employee of that particualr company must wear. There is a profound difference there that many are not seeing for some reason.
 
Fletch said:
There is no discimination here. That is what you arent getting. She is not being singled out or terminated because of her religious beliefs. Her religious beliefs forbid her from wearing a uniform that every employee of that particualr company must wear. There is a profound difference there that many are not seeing for some reason.
Click to expand...
We disagree, and you think we just don't understand.

Lame.
 
Fletch said:
There is no discimination here. That is what you arent getting. She is not being singled out or terminated because of her religious beliefs. Her religious beliefs forbid her from wearing a uniform that every employee of that particualr company must wear. There is a profound difference there that many are not seeing for some reason.
Click to expand...

"Her religious beliefs forbid her from wearing a uniform that every employee of that particualr company must wear" That is the issue for which Title VII has been triggered and wearing her dress is a protected activity, i.e. "includes all aspects of religious observance and practice". This is why she was terminated.
 
Goshin said:
You have to work to live, unless you're independently wealthy or suck off the government tit. If we don't want people sucking off the government then maybe we should look at employer-employee relationships. The employer has most of the power, and "completely voluntary" hardly applies when they have you by the balls by controlling your income and ability to pay your bills. "Find another job" is no good when virtually ALL employers are engaging in behaviors towards their employees that can be characterized as oppressive.
Click to expand...

There is still the option of creating your own buisness. ;)
 
johnny_rebson said:
Hooters hasn't lost any lawsuits regarding their uniform. The employer has that right.

Don't mess with Hooters, Hooters is sacred.
Click to expand...
Hooters is quite possibly the worst example you could have pulled up for your argument.

Hooters begins it's business life by losing a 1.2mil lawsuit for copy-write infringement. Hooters has lost class-action lawsuits brought by it's employees (about 400 employees) not only for the appearance of their uniforms, but also for charging employees for the uniform, forcing employees to pay for customers who ditch, and not giving regular brakes as required by law. Hooters has also lost a few individual lawsuits for wrongful termination when they claimed waitresses were to fat, when the waitresses in question had actually lost weight in the months after being hired.

Hooters won a notable lawsuit when a few men claimed employment discrimination based on sex when Hooters wouldn't let them be wait staff. Hooters was able to demonstrate a [URL="http://definitions.uslegal.com/b/bona-fide-occupational-qualification/"]Bona Fide Occupational Qualification[/url], that a girls-only wait staff was essential to the business model and also demonstrating in court that allowing men would harm the business.

Hooters is a fine example of an abusive employer and their legal history bears this out.
 
Last edited:
American said:
Do you understand what the term "interview" means, and its significance in this case. The employee spoke offically for the company and allowed a variation. Therefore the EEOC has a case.
Click to expand...

Did he have the capacity to change their rules though?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom