• 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

Preop, postop. Still, that's totally different than wearing religious items in the workplace, but you're right about it being off topic.

I dont see the problem with letting employees wear religious items. As long as they dont interfere with the job.
 
I dont see the problem with letting employees wear religious items. As long as they dont interfere with the job.

Or so long as they are not visible to the public. You want to wear a cross under your shirt, go for it. You want it stuck on your forehead, forget it.
 
I dont see the problem with letting employees wear religious items. As long as they dont interfere with the job.

I do see it as being a problem, as demonstrated by the topic we're discussing right now. Just another reason for lawsuits, which could even potentially put some companies out of business, thereby creating more people without a job, and why? Because somebody has to wear pants. (Not that I think BK will go out of business because of this).
 
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.
I'm utterly shocked to see a liberal talking this way. I thought you guys always pulled for the underdog.
 
I do see it as being a problem, as demonstrated by the topic we're discussing right now. Just another reason for lawsuits, which could even potentially put some companies out of business, thereby creating more people without a job, and why? Because somebody has to wear pants. (Not that I think BK will go out of business because of this).

I dont think this will cause many companies to go out of business. But to the woman in the OP is a bit more then just wearing pants. It violating her religious beliefs.
 
I'm utterly shocked to see a liberal talking this way. I thought you guys always pulled for the underdog.

The evangelical right wing and all its bitchy protestant brethren are hardly underdogs in America.
 
The evangelical right wing and all its bitchy protestant brethren are hardly underdogs in America.
Then it appears you do give a crap about whether it's a Christian or non-Christian.

But that wasn't my point. I was referring to the "poor little victim employee" versus the "hated corporate monster" scenario. Or do you not see it that way when the employee happens to be Christian?
 
Then it appears you do give a crap about whether it's a Christian or non-Christian.

No. I corrected your assessment that her religious position makes her an underdog.

But that wasn't my point. I was referring to the "poor little victim employee" versus the "hated corporate monster" scenario. Or do you not see it that way when the employee happens to be Christian?

She's not a victim. Quit fishing? Thanks.
 
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.

I mean, I agree, but that's because generally I support employer rights and sovereignty whenever possible.
 
I dont think this will cause many companies to go out of business. But to the woman in the OP is a bit more then just wearing pants. It violating her religious beliefs.

But the problem really isn't religious in nature. Employment is a contract between an employer and an employee, where the employee agrees to trade their labor for a certain amount of money and/or benefits. To get entirely away from religion, if someone in an interview said they wanted to wear a clown nose while at work and their hiring manager agreed that they could wear a clown nose while at work, then that's part of the contract. If that employee shows up on day one wearing a clown nose and is told to go home, they have every right to be pissed off because an official representative of the company, in a position of authority, has told them they could do it. In fact, I think the individual is perfectly validated in suing the company because the employee had a verbal contract with the employer through their legitimate representative.
 
And that surprises me coming from a liberal.

That is true. Usually when it's a corporation v an individual, the individual is the victim with them. Apparently like white men, conservative Christians can't be victims.
 
Not when the economy is bad and 100 people line up to apply for even the crappier jobs....

The temporary state of the economy is immaterial to basic matters of individual liberty.
 
But the problem really isn't religious in nature. Employment is a contract between an employer and an employee, where the employee agrees to trade their labor for a certain amount of money and/or benefits. To get entirely away from religion, if someone in an interview said they wanted to wear a clown nose while at work and their hiring manager agreed that they could wear a clown nose while at work, then that's part of the contract. If that employee shows up on day one wearing a clown nose and is told to go home, they have every right to be pissed off because an official representative of the company, in a position of authority, has told them they could do it. In fact, I think the individual is perfectly validated in suing the company because the employee had a verbal contract with the employer through their legitimate representative.

The problem is religious in nature. Employees have the right to wear clothing that is required by their religion. Im sure she could sue because she had a verbal contract with the employer but she can also sue because they violated her rights as an employee to wear clothing required by her religion.
 
If you work in a prof kitchen, you wear pants. /thread.
 
If you work in a prof kitchen, you wear pants. /thread.

... but why is that? I've never seen a cook/chef who doesn't wear pants now that I think about it.
 
If you work in a prof kitchen, you wear pants. /thread.

and those cashiers at the professional restaurants/kitchens often wear skirts, especially when they are women
 
and those cashiers at the professional restaurants/kitchens often wear skirts, especially when they are women

Okay - she's not a cashier at a restaurant or kitchen. She was (and I'm gonna say that 'lightly' considering she never even logged in a single hour of training) a BK employee. You ever seen a single BK, McDonalds, Wendy's cashier who didn't wear pants?
 
Okay - she's not a cashier at a restaurant or kitchen. She was (and I'm gonna say that 'lightly' considering she never even logged in a single hour of training) a BK employee. You ever seen a single BK, McDonalds, Wendy's cashier who didn't wear pants?
thought she was hired as a cashier
 
thought she was hired as a cashier

Yes but BK could hardly be considered a restaurant or kitchen. It's a fast food joint. The difference is simple from what I've seen - restaurants/kitchens you are conventionally required to provide a tip to your servers. Fast food joints have no servers and most places refrain from asking for tips for the service provided.
 
If you work in a prof kitchen, you wear pants. /thread.




Well .......no.......but, that is not the main issue in this situation.

aHR0cCUzQSUyRiUyRjI0Lm1lZGlhLnR1bWJ.jpg
 
As long as they dress appropriately according to the dress code, it shouldn't be a problem. The dress code covers both men and women, so whichever gender one chooses to live as. That is apples and oranges too.

It shouldn't, you are right.
On the other hand, we must recognize that some will have to face some rather extreme circumstances. One would hope that every applicant would have enough sense not to apply at a potential workplace which has strict rules against what one can't compromise on.
 
thought she was hired as a cashier

And where is the register in those types of places?

Pants are an OSHA requirement in the kitchen. If someone walking by her spills, on her bare legs, a 2nd degree burn just became a 3rd. Specially when deep fryers get involved. In addition to this, not just reg pants, in most cases, but those god awful "chef" pants. They are baggy in order dolor a spill victim to easily pull them away from their skin.
 
Well .......no.......but, that is not the main issue in this situation.

aHR0cCUzQSUyRiUyRjI0Lm1lZGlhLnR1bWJ.jpg

Yes, because, clearly we have had no updates to our OSHA standards since the fifties and sixties. Plus, that's a celeb chef TV show. Hardly a commercial kitchen. And dress codes, as required by the state, is exactly the issue.
 
It shouldn't, you are right.
On the other hand, we must recognize that some will have to face some rather extreme circumstances. One would hope that every applicant would have enough sense not to apply at a potential workplace which has strict rules against what one can't compromise on.

LOL! One would hope! ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom