• 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

Muddy Creek said:
Which I wrote. Then, during the process of thought and discussion, it swelled into Title VII and went from there. Discussions are truly remarkable ways of uncovering more and more information.
Click to expand...

I was just pointing out that the First Amendment said nothing applicable to this case, that's all.
 
ChrisL said:
I am also a proud member of the Magical Panties religion.
Click to expand...

lizzie said:
Well, I wear magical panties, but I just don't divulge that to my employer. ;)
Click to expand...

:mrgreen: Can I see?? :lamo


You all left it out there. I couldnt help myself. Resistance was futile.;)

Ohhhhhhhh I got Star Trek quote in!!!:2dance:
 
PirateMk1 said:
:mrgreen: Can I see?? :lamo


You all left it out there. I couldnt help myself. Resistance was futile.;)

Ohhhhhhhh I got Star Trek quote in!!!:2dance:
Click to expand...

No, that would be against the Magical Panties religious guidelines. :)
 
You folks do realize that the OSHA website is both public and free to view, right?
 
muciti said:
Accomodating is something that should be left to the individual businesses discretion not mandated by law.
Click to expand...

So now you are against someone practicing their religious beliefs? :rofl
 
ChrisL said:
BK will probably go with the safety issues. A skirt is just not appropriate attire for working in a fast food restaurant. I've worn long skirts before, and they are either constricting where you can't stretch your legs apart very far or they are flowing and loose. Both of these situations could pose a danger in an industrial-type kitchen.
Click to expand...

I worked in a restaurant with a pentacostal lady and she never got hurt wearing her skirt. :shrug:
 
Kal'Stang said:
So the wedding rings that you got due to a religious ceremony are acceptable but not wedding rings used in front of a judge?
Click to expand...

Both are fine.

Kal'Stang said:
Yes it is an all or nothing deal. All laws are suppose to be applied equally to the demographics that they are aimed at. If a law prevents a buisness from discriminating against religious things so long as it does not interfere with buisness then it includes ALL religions. You cannot pick and choose which religion the law applies to. That in itself is discrimination. It would be awefully stupid to have a law to prevent discrimination when the law itself discriminates against the very thing that it is suppose to help prevent discrimination from wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

No, it's not an all or nothing deal. And yes, reasonable accommodations are applied equally.
 
ChrisL said:
I read the article again, and then I read a couple of other articles about it, and no where does it state that according to her religion she has to wear "skirt." It simply states she has to wear "women's" clothes, and women's pants would fall under the description of "women's" clothes, and I do believe that Burger King would have given her a pair of women's pants to wear; therefore, BK is NOT making her wear men's clothing. So, is she making up her own rules here?
Click to expand...

No, she isn't making up her own rules. Her demonination of religion makes up the rules. For Pentacostal women, women's pants are a no-no.
 
ChrisL said:
So, I guess that means we'll have to let the Pastafarians wear their spaghetti strainer hats too. Nice. Why would a business even bother with a dress code when they have to make all kinds of silly exceptions?
Click to expand...

You are now being obtuse. A skirt is not a "silly exception". I'm not surprised you don't understand what reasonable means.
 
Thorgasm said:
So now you are against someone practicing their religious beliefs? :rofl
Click to expand...

I don't give a damn about religious beliefs, I think anyone who believes in imaginary friends is an idiot. Personally, I'm defending her only because she was granted a specific exception by an individual in power. It has nothing to do with religion, I'd be supporting someone who wanted to wear a clown nose and got permission for that by the hiring manager.

This really isn't a matter of religious freedom, it's a matter of granted permission in the hiring agreement.
 
Cephus said:
I don't give a damn about religious beliefs, I think anyone who believes in imaginary friends is an idiot. Personally, I'm defending her only because she was granted a specific exception by an individual in power. It has nothing to do with religion, I'd be supporting someone who wanted to wear a clown nose and got permission for that by the hiring manager.

This really isn't a matter of religious freedom, it's a matter of granted permission in the hiring agreement.
Click to expand...

I know. You already said this.
 
Thorgasm said:
You are now being obtuse. A skirt is not a "silly exception". I'm not surprised you don't understand what reasonable means.
Click to expand...

I think it is unreasonable.
 
Thorgasm said:
No, she isn't making up her own rules. Her demonination of religion makes up the rules. For Pentacostal women, women's pants are a no-no.
Click to expand...

And the business should not have to cater to her. She can find a job where skirts are okay. If she can't wear pants, that is HER problem. Why does it have to make it Burger King's problem, or any other business' problem?
 
Last edited:
Thorgasm said:
No, she isn't making up her own rules. Her demonination of religion makes up the rules. For Pentacostal women, women's pants are a no-no.
Click to expand...

Then wouldn't it have made sense to apply for a job where a long skirt is okay instead of walking into a place where EVERY SINGLE EMPLOYEE IS WEARING PANTS??????
 
c'mon people. title VII was established in an effort to end discrimination in the work place
and that is exactly what it is doing here
the young woman - who i suspect would be an excellent employee because she obviously has core values and follows the edicts of her church - should not have to go seek out from among all employers that limited subset which welcomes those of the pentecost faith
she is entitled to worship as she pleases and employers are not free to discriminate against her because of her faith
in this instance, that includes her obeying her G_d and not wearing apparel her religion recognizes to be that of the opposing gender
now, the employer gets a free pass to discriminate against accommodating her religiously prescribed needs IF it can show that such accommodation is unreasonable
and that is now the burden of burger king. to demonstrate to the court that allowing this woman to wear a long skirt in the work place, instead of long pants, is an unreasonable accommodation
 
Companies have a right to have a dress code.
Employees who choose to work there agree to accept that dress code.
 
longview said:
Companies have a right to have a dress code.
Employees who choose to work there agree to accept that dress code.
Click to expand...

Except for those who think they are "special" or something, and then apparently it's okay to bend rules and file frivolous lawsuits. I looked into this religion a bit. Sounds like it can be pretty oppressive to women.
 
ChrisL said:
Except for those who think they are "special" or something, and then apparently it's okay to bend rules and file frivolous lawsuits. I looked into this religion a bit. Sounds like it can be pretty oppressive to women.
Click to expand...

wow, that was intolerant
that someone who insists on following the edicts of her church, someone who obey's the law of G_d as she understands them to be, is 'special'
different, maybe. special, only in the positive sense
 
justabubba said:
wow, that was intolerant
that someone who insists on following the edicts of her church, someone who obey's the law of G_d as she understands them to be, is 'special'
different, maybe. special, only in the positive sense
Click to expand...

You're entitled to your opinions, I'm entitled to mine. :shrug:
 
ChrisL said:
Except for those who think they are "special" or something, and then apparently it's okay to bend rules and file frivolous lawsuits. I looked into this religion a bit. Sounds like it can be pretty oppressive to women.
Click to expand...
We kind of agree, except that I think freedom allows her to choose that religion even if it is oppressive.
My point is that if we force a company to make an exception for her, where are the boundaries?
 
longview said:
We kind of agree, except that I think freedom allows her to choose that religion even if it is oppressive.
My point is that if we force a company to make an exception for her, where are the boundaries?
Click to expand...

Sure, she's entitled to her religion. I totally agree with not forcing the company to make concessions for certain people on the grounds of religious or any other beliefs.

The boundaries issue is good point, and who is to say which religions are considered "true" religions. If you think about it, whether or not a religion is true would totally depend on the believer. Also, when I read into this religion on a website, it specifically said that they can't wear "mens' clothing." It said NOTHING about having to wear a skirt. Maybe they DO believe they have to wear skirts, but I failed to find where it specifically mentioned skirts or dresses anywhere.
 
longview said:
We kind of agree, except that I think freedom allows her to choose that religion even if it is oppressive.
My point is that if we force a company to make an exception for her, where are the boundaries?
Click to expand...
easy answer
"reasonableness"
an unreasonable accommodation does not have to be made
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom