• 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

Thorgasm said:
If she is wearing a burka, she wouldn't be applying at Hooters. Let's get serious here.
Click to expand...

How do you know? After all, here we have a woman in a skirt applying to a place she knows doesn't allow skirts.
 
Cephus said:
How do you know? After all, here we have a woman in a skirt applying to a place she knows doesn't allow skirts.
Click to expand...

Well she didnt know they didnt allow skirts due to the fact that they told her it would be no problem. However the Hooters wouldnt have to hire a woman who needs to wear a burka because it would interfere with the job at hand.
 
Cephus said:
How do you know? After all, here we have a woman in a skirt applying to a place she knows doesn't allow skirts.
Click to expand...

Because of Title VII and many other restaurants that have pants policies but accommodate skirts for religiously oppressed women.
 
Omgitsme said:
Well she didnt know they didnt allow skirts due to the fact that they told her it would be no problem. However the Hooters wouldnt have to hire a woman who needs to wear a burka because it would interfere with the job at hand.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that the job requires serving alcohol which a burka wearing woman would not do. That would be a burden on the employer.
 
As long as it does not inhibit her ability to effectively perform her job duties then I believe that Burger King could and should accommodate her. Just my two cents.
 
justabubba said:
actually, i believe the EEOC investigated and found her presentation to have been accurate. that she shared with the burger king hiring official that her religion would require her to wear a long skirt instead of the standard issue pants, and he agreed to make such accommodation when he hired her
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters from the EEOC pov.
 
Thorgasm said:
:rofl The bigger hazard would be someone walking around with a batch of hot fries dripping oil all over the floor.

People don't walk around with hot coffee either. It is made in the same spot it is poured from.

But to follow your logic, maybe they shouldn't wear shoes. OMG, what if a shoelace comes untied and someone trips and does a bellyflop into the frier? :lol:
Click to expand...

Right. Because the fries and coffee magically fly from their locations into the hands of customers.
 
Omgitsme said:
Well she didnt know they didnt allow skirts due to the fact that they told her it would be no problem. However the Hooters wouldnt have to hire a woman who needs to wear a burka because it would interfere with the job at hand.
Click to expand...

Of course she knew they didn't allow skirts, otherwise she wouldn't have asked for an exception from the rule! She was very much aware of the rules.
 
Thorgasm said:
Because of Title VII and many other restaurants that have pants policies but accommodate skirts for religiously oppressed women.
Click to expand...

For women who are voluntarily oppressed, you mean.
 
Furiounova said:
Right. Because the fries and coffee magically fly from their locations into the hands of customers.
Click to expand...

You can order fries by the batch now?
 
Thorgasm said:
Yes, voluntarily oppressed.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I'm not sure how impressed we ought to be with voluntary oppression. They did it to themselves and while they can get out of it any time they want, they refuse to. If they want to suffer, let's oblige them.
 
Cephus said:
Honestly, I'm not sure how impressed we ought to be with voluntary oppression. They did it to themselves and while they can get out of it any time they want, they refuse to. If they want to suffer, let's oblige them.
Click to expand...

You don't see me pulling them out of their churches. I'm not going door to door to "enlighten" them.
 
justabubba said:
he told her to go home because she was wearing the attire another burger king official had authorized for her to wear to the job, knowing her religious convictions
Click to expand...

Again, he did not have the authority to change BK policy. What he should have done is told her that he would check into it from his superiors and get back to her about it.


justabubba said:
he was burger king's agent. he was authorized to hire her. as burger king's agent, he authorized the religious accommodation, permitting her to wear a long skirt instead of slacks
Click to expand...

While he may be authorized to hire her he is not authorized to change policy. How hard is that to undestand?

justabubba said:
thank you for establishing that it was the burger king employees who are now the reason burger king will have to defend its actions before the court
Click to expand...

Yeah they will have to. But if there is any actual justice then she will not win.
 
Thorgasm said:
You would be better served to actually read what I already said about these terrible arguments if you want to be taken seriously. The Pastafarian example is retarded. The pincushion guy would put a burden on BK because of food safety and being found unsettling to guests. I'm not sure what Satanic condition would have to be accommodated.
Click to expand...

YOU consider the Pastafarian example retarded...would the Pastafarians? Funny how you are willing to reject them but not this woman. Is it because this womans religion is a more acceptable type of religion compared?

Pincushion guy as you call him would present no more of a safety hazard than this woman would.

As for the Satanists...it doesn't matter as long as its considered "reasonable" right?
 
Thorgasm said:
If she is wearing a burka, she wouldn't be applying at Hooters. Let's get serious here.
Click to expand...

Why not? If this woman can make BK let her wear a skirt then why couldn't a woman wearing a burka do the same to Hooters?
 
Kal'Stang said:
And she wasn't. She was told to go home by the orientation instructor when she came to work in a skirt. His sending her home had NOTHING to do with her religion. It had EVERYTHING to do with BK's dress code policy. The only people that made this about religion was her and those supporting her.
Click to expand...

...and the EEOC after their investigation. Indeed, they filed themselves against BK which is a rarity in employment litigation.
 
Thorgasm said:
You don't see me pulling them out of their churches. I'm not going door to door to "enlighten" them.
Click to expand...

I meant that if they're going to believe in stupid crap, they ought to embrace the consequences that comes along with believing stupid crap. Their foolish beliefs just might cost them potential jobs. They have a choice, either stop believing stupid crap or have a harder time finding work.
 
Connery said:
...and the EEOC after their investigation. Indeed, they filed themselves against BK which is a rarity in employment litigation.
Click to expand...

And how many times has the EEOC been proven wrong? Your adherance to them is interesting.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And how many times has the EEOC been proven wrong? Your adherance to them is interesting.
Click to expand...

My "adherence" is based on the fact that the EEOC, as the appropriate agency, has actually investigated the claim, unlike anyone here at DP, and that agency is a primary source. That is why I am relying on the fact that they have a prima facie case sounding in discrimination. Should their assessment be incorrect BK has the right to file a responsive pleading based on RULE 12. (b) (6) failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Therefore I am not "hitching my wagon" to her and stating she will prevail. I am saying should the EEOC have done an accurate and adequate job this matter will be determined at trial and unless BK can "demonstrates that they are unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business" the woman will prevail...:)
 
Kal'Stang said:
YOU consider the Pastafarian example retarded...would the Pastafarians? Funny how you are willing to reject them but not this woman. Is it because this womans religion is a more acceptable type of religion compared?
Click to expand...

Look, making stuff up isn't helping your argument. It's obvious you don't want to be taken seriously.

Kal'Stang said:
Pincushion guy as you call him would present no more of a safety hazard than this woman would.
Click to expand...

Then you are hopelessly ignorant about food safety requirements.

Kal'Stang said:
As for the Satanists...it doesn't matter as long as its considered "reasonable" right?
Click to expand...

You'd have to actually give a real life example. Making stuff up just shows the clownishness of your argument.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Why not? If this woman can make BK let her wear a skirt then why couldn't a woman wearing a burka do the same to Hooters?
Click to expand...

Because Hooters wouldn't hire her in the first place. You are really reaching far and failing. I'm embarrassed for you.
 
Cephus said:
I meant that if they're going to believe in stupid crap, they ought to embrace the consequences that comes along with believing stupid crap. Their foolish beliefs just might cost them potential jobs. They have a choice, either stop believing stupid crap or have a harder time finding work.
Click to expand...

This wouldn't be an issue if they didn't hire her. They weren't forced to hire her.
 
Cephus said:
Of course she knew they didn't allow skirts, otherwise she wouldn't have asked for an exception from the rule! She was very much aware of the rules.
Click to expand...

I dont think she asked for an exception. From what I gather she asked if it was going to be a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom