• 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:
Its not. What is does do though is elevate one particular religious denomination over all others. The wackier the belief system, the more likely you are to not have to follow the same rules as everyone else.
Click to expand...

Im sorry but allowing someone to wear a skirt to work isnt elevating their religion over others. If you ask me not accommodating her on this one meaningless issue is doing the exact opposite.
 
Goshin said:
Very funny, Kal. I don't get to treat my employer like a dog, but I've seen the reverse a lot.

Show up for work late? Get written up, keep it up and get fired.
Not in full uniform? Written up, maybe suspended without pay.
Has a brand of cleaner (like Windex) in the work truck that we don't have office Hazmat sheets for? Written up, maybe suspended.
Insubordination, back-talk, arguing with supervisor? Quick ticket out the door.

Hell I can get fired for getting a speeding ticket IN MY PERSONAL VEHCILE ON MY OWN TIME. One ticket.

I'm not saying I disagree with most of these rules, but what I am saying is that a few examples clearly show you where the power is in the employer-employee relationship, and who it is that needs to be restrained against abusing the person-of-lesser-power in the relationship.

Not long ago an employee was fired for going on Facebook on the office computer. She was fired for this BY a corporate supervisor who I've seen playing Angry Birds (or some such crap) on the same computer. :roll:

One standard for the boss, another for the peons.
Click to expand...

So two wrongs make a right?
 
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...

Burger Kings generally are franchises. I would normally say let the girl go pound sand she knew what she was getting into. However in this case the employer said they would accomidate her. The employer has the right obviously to change their minds, nontheless this be bad juju because they went back on their word. Not kosher. They need to pay her a small sum, and provide a great referance, to make this go away. Otherwise this gona be expensive.
 
Jerry said:
No one contests this.
Click to expand...

But that is what is being contested. The employer (BK) is not being allowed to set the dress code for this one employee just because her religion happens to be against the dress code.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So two wrongs make a right?
Click to expand...
Facebook and video-games aren't federally protected classes.

Religion is.

Wasting company time directly, measurably harms the company. A skirt does not.

***
How do you folks expect us to take you seriously when it comes to "under God" or "in God we trust" when you freak out over a skirt?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Forcing an employer to accomodate her religious belief despite a several decade old policy is itself a form of pushing her belief onto the employer.
Click to expand...

Kind of like how not allowing an employer to discriminate against employees race, sexual orientation, and gender is pushing your beliefs on employers right?
 
Kal'Stang said:
In this case it forces it upon the employer by making them accomodate for something that the employer obviously does not believe in. If you make someone follow or allow something which is against company policy, or even personal policy then you are applying force.
Click to expand...

See my last post.
 
Kal'Stang said:
How is it fiction? Do employers have no rights?
Click to expand...

Of cousre they do with the exception of discriminating against a person based on religion in this situation.



You are doing nothing more than evading my questions. Why are you avoiding answering them? They are quite legitimate.
Click to expand...

You have ignored the law , the reasoning, the case filed by the EEOC and the press release issued by the EEOC all of which I have I posted and provided explanation therein. I am not avoiding your questions I have answered them, quite extensively in fact.
 
Omgitsme said:
Kind of like how not allowing an employer to discriminate against employees race, sexual orientation, and gender is pushing your beliefs on employers right?
Click to expand...
Yup, can't have your same-sex spouse come meet you for lunch, that would be pushing your sexuality onto others.

Can't let any pregnant women be employed with the company, either, because that's pushing your sex/gender onto others.
 
Connery said:
Religious organizations are exempt from the ADA in section 307. These organizations can comply and many do as the attendance at these religious groups by members and their families may be contingent upon them having access as a matter of course, but , not as a matter of law.
Click to expand...

Right, compliance is optional. Full houses of worship are fully compliant. But they can be or not, if they so choose.
 
Omgitsme said:
Kind of like how not allowing an employer to discriminate against employees race, sexual orientation, and gender is pushing your beliefs on employers right?
Click to expand...

Yep, this.

There are certain things that need to be protected. We have rights, we are not sheep for the employers to disregard our humanity.
 
Jerry said:
Facebook and video-games aren't federally protected classes.
Click to expand...

Where did I ever say it was? In fact where did I ever bring those up?

Jerry said:
Religion is.
Click to expand...

You're right, it is federally protected. People have the Right to practice whatever religion that they want. This is why the employer cannot make a person follow thier personal religious belief and they also cannot fire someone due to a bigotry of their religion. But people do NOT have the Right to force others to accomodate their religious beliefs. If I told this girl that she is welcome in my house so long as she wears pants there is nothing that she could do to me legally.

Jerry said:
Wasting company time directly, measurably harms the company. A skirt does not.
Click to expand...

Again, as I have stated before, "harm" is irrelevent. The employer has a right to apply a dress code to everyone equally.

Jerry said:
How do you folks expect us to take you seriously when it comes to "under God" or "in God we trust" when you freak out over a skirt?
Click to expand...

I think you're mistaking me with someone else. I could care less if the government puts "In God We Trust" on money or not. Same with the pledge.
 
Omgitsme said:
Kind of like how not allowing an employer to discriminate against employees race, sexual orientation, and gender is pushing your beliefs on employers right?
Click to expand...

Not even close to the same thing. Can someones race be donned and chosen like a skirt? Can someones sexual orientation be donned like a skirt? Can gender be donned like a skirt? All of those are of course no. They cannot be donned like a skirt. Ones religion can be chosen. Those examples you gave cannot be.

Not that it really matters to me. I'm quite willing to allow the employer to discriminate against whatever they want all they want. I fully believe that today's society will weed them out of buisness if thier belief is truely wrong.
 
Kal'Stang said:
But that is what is being contested.
Click to expand...
That's not it at all.

The owner still sets the uniform even while they have to make small exceptions. The owner still tells the Pentecost employee what length, color, material and general appearance the skirt has to meet, just as they do for the Hajib today. Based on my experience ordering my own pants for fast-food in highschool, the employer can even require that you order from a certain catalog at your own expense (you wouldn't believe the quantity of alternative approved uniform pieces KFC has). A Muslim KFC employee had the right to wear the Hajib, but it has to be a solid color with no writing, of either red, blue or white, couldn't cover the face, had to be tucked into the collar, and couldn't otherwise dangle or get in the way.

Just because a pregnant employee has the right to un-tuck the uniform shirt, doesn't mean the employer lost the ability to set the uniform. An amputee can pin up the pant leg, doesn't mean the employer can't still require uniform pants. An employee on oxygen and has to have a tank doesn't mean the employer can't prohibit writing or flair on the tank or it's carrier.

We say "small exception to the rule", and you respond with "complete and total loss of control". You're being hysterical. The only thing the employer needs to give on is allowing a skirt. Everything else stays well within the employer's control.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
Yep, this.

There are certain things that need to be protected. We have rights, we are not sheep for the employers to disregard our humanity.
Click to expand...
Except this case is neither an example of discrimination nor of a rights violation.
 
Connery said:
Of cousre they do with the exception of discriminating against a person based on religion in this situation.
Click to expand...

I have shown several times now that this persons religion was not discriminated against. The person that told her to go home told her to go home BEFORE he even knew her religion. Kind of hard to discriminate against someone based on their religion when you don't even know thier religion.

Connery said:
You have ignored the law , the reasoning, the case filed by the EEOC and the press release issued by the EEOC all of which I have I posted and provided explanation therein. I am not avoiding your questions I have answered them, quite extensively in fact.
Click to expand...

Yes you did avoid them. All that you have done is quoted law. You never once stated your opinion of that law. Nor have you provided an explanation of why you support the law if you do or why you don't support the law if you don't. Now I CAN assume that you fully support the law by your posting of it time after time. But you still have not given a valid reason as to why you support the law. I know you have basically stated that it is because the employer has too much power, which is subjective, but that is not a valid enough reason to deny the right of the employer to dictate their companies dress code and apply it to everyone regardless of race, religion, gender, or creed.

Even the Federal government has the ability to apply a rule/law so long as they apply that rule/law equally. Hell, they can even allow a religion to display thier religious display's so long as they allow ALL religions to do it..or not...as long as its all applied equally. Why shouldn't a private company be allowed the same thing?
 
Jerry said:
That's not it at all.

The owner still sets the uniform even while they have to make small exceptions. The owner still tells the Pentecost employee what length, color, material and general appearance the skirt has to meet, just as they do for the Hajib today. Based on my experience ordering my own pants for fast-food in highschool, the employer can even require that you order from a certain catalog at your own expense (you wouldn't believe the quantity of alternative approved uniform pieces KFC has). A Muslim KFC employee had the right to wear the Hajib, but it has to be a solid color with no writing, of either red, blue or white, couldn't cover the face, had to be tucked into the collar, and couldn't otherwise dangle or get in the way.

Just because a pregnant employee has the right to un-tuck the uniform shirt, doesn't mean the employer lost the ability to set the uniform. An amputee can pin up the pant leg, doesn't mean the employer can't still require uniform pants. An employee on oxygen and has to have a tank doesn't mean the employer can't prohibit writing or flair on the tank or it's carrier.

We say "small exception to the rule", and you respond with "complete and total loss of control". You're being hysterical. The only thing the employer needs to give on is allowing a skirt. Everything else stays well within the employer's control.
Click to expand...
Really? And when another female employee sees this girl wearing a skirt and asks to wear a skirt as well, how do they say no without discriminating against her?.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Not even close to the same thing. Can someones race be donned and chosen like a skirt? Can someones sexual orientation be donned like a skirt? Can gender be donned like a skirt? All of those are of course no. They cannot be donned like a skirt. Ones religion can be chosen. Those examples you gave cannot be.

Not that it really matters to me. I'm quite willing to allow the employer to discriminate against whatever they want all they want. I fully believe that today's society will weed them out of buisness if thier belief is truely wrong.
Click to expand...

This isnt about a simple article of clothing. Its about religious beliefs. And if you believe that wearing pants will upset god or whatever you really arnt going to wear pants. So to her wearing a skirt is the only option.

I dont believe an employer should be able to discriminate against whoever they want.
 
Your Star said:
Yep, this.

There are certain things that need to be protected. We have rights, we are not sheep for the employers to disregard our humanity.
Click to expand...

Nor are the employers rights any less valid just because they are employers.
 
Your Star said:
Yes it is, you know the right to religious freedom.
Click to expand...
A right represents your freedom of action. No one is restricting her right to believe whatever she wishes. That she may not be able to practice every aspect of her faith on someone elses property is not denying that right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom