• 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

Connery said:
What I am doing is applying the facts to the law and determining that there is a violation of a law for which BK is duty bound to comply with.
Click to expand...

Yes I agree that might be the case, and I suspect a Judge will make a more informed decision on that than either of us could. But that was not the point under discussion between Goshin and myself. BK may have violated the law. They did not violate the womans' rights.
 
Thorgasm said:
This wouldn't be an issue if they didn't hire her. They weren't forced to hire her.
Click to expand...

Nope. Nor are they forced to keep her. Just as she is free to change her mind and quit, BK is free to change their mind about skirts. Though as I understand it, the interviewer in this case got it wrong initially, and everyone else after that attempted to correct the oversight.
 
Thorgasm said:
Because Hooters wouldn't hire her in the first place. You are really reaching far and failing. I'm embarrassed for you.
Click to expand...

Not really. He is pointing out that private businesses, when they offer jobs to people, have the right to control what they are going to pay people to do, including wearing work uniforms.
 
cpwill said:
Yes I agree that might be the case, and I suspect a Judge will make a more informed decision on that than either of us could. But that was not the point under discussion between Goshin and myself. BK may have violated the law.
Click to expand...

Yep

They did not violate the womans' rights.
Click to expand...

They could not as they area private corporation for which the constitution in this regard does not apply.
 
cpwill said:
Not really. He is pointing out that private businesses, when they offer jobs to people, have the right to control what they are going to pay people to do, including wearing work uniforms.
Click to expand...

And Title VII and the courts have said that reasonable accommodations will be made for religious practices that aren't a burden to the company.
 
Thorgasm said:
And that's why it is a reasonable accommodation. It doesn't cause a problem for BK.
Click to expand...

That's what you say, but it could easily come down to a safety issue. Even if accidents don't happen every day, not allowing employees to wear loose flowing clothing could prevent an accident from happening. When they make people with long hair put their hair up or wear a hair net, it's not just so hair doesn't get in the food but also so that it doesn't catch on fire or anything.
 
Thorgasm said:
This wouldn't be an issue if they didn't hire her. They weren't forced to hire her.
Click to expand...

No, they're not, but if they don't hire her specifically because her religion doesn't allow her to follow their dress code, they get accused of religious discrimination. They can't win.
 
Omgitsme said:
I dont think she asked for an exception. From what I gather she asked if it was going to be a problem.
Click to expand...

Showing she already knew what the dress code was and knew that her beliefs would likely violate that dress code.
 
Cephus said:
Showing she already knew what the dress code was and knew that her beliefs would likely violate that dress code.
Click to expand...

Or maybe she didnt know the dress code until she was being interviewed and the interviewer brought it up...all of this is just speculation and really doesnt matter.
 
Omgitsme said:
Or maybe she didnt know the dress code until she was being interviewed and the interviewer brought it up...all of this is just speculation and really doesnt matter.
Click to expand...

Seriously, you're looking for a job and you've never stepped foot in a Burger King? That's about as ridiculous as applying at a Hot Dog on a Stick and not knowing you have to wear a stupid hat.

hot_dog_on_a_stick_girls.jpg
 
ChrisL said:
That's what you say, but it could easily come down to a safety issue. Even if accidents don't happen every day, not allowing employees to wear loose flowing clothing could prevent an accident from happening. When they make people with long hair put their hair up or wear a hair net, it's not just so hair doesn't get in the food but also so that it doesn't catch on fire or anything.
Click to expand...

It's nice that your lawyering for BK because you have intolerance to this Christian woman. If she were a black Muslim, you'd be doing handsprings and calling for the ACLU to bring a multi-million dollar suit against them. Women were preparing meals in dresses thousands of years before BK existed.
 
Actually, I was thinking what happens when some stupid 17-year old oversexed kid decides to try to look up her skirt and she sues Burger King for sexual harassment. After all, she's the one that insisted on wearing the skirt in the first place, the incident could never have happened had she just worn pants like everyone else.
 
Cephus said:
No, they're not, but if they don't hire her specifically because her religion doesn't allow her to follow their dress code, they get accused of religious discrimination. They can't win.
Click to expand...

They would be colossal idiots to say that is why they didn't hire her.
 
Thorgasm said:
They would be colossal idiots to say that is why they didn't hire her.
Click to expand...

Sure, but are we trying to achieve non-discrimination, or just not saying why we're discriminating?
 
Cephus said:
Actually, I was thinking what happens when some stupid 17-year old oversexed kid decides to try to look up her skirt and she sues Burger King for sexual harassment. After all, she's the one that insisted on wearing the skirt in the first place, the incident could never have happened had she just worn pants like everyone else.
Click to expand...

That would be pretty difficult since their skirts go all the way to their feet. Also, they don't cut their hair. He might as well google images of chinchillas.
 
Cephus said:
Sure, but are we trying to achieve non-discrimination, or just not saying why we're discriminating?
Click to expand...

I would say that we hired a more qualified candidate.
 
Thorgasm said:
That would be pretty difficult since their skirts go all the way to their feet. Also, they don't cut their hair. He might as well google images of chinchillas.
Click to expand...

Come on, you know it's going to happen anyhow. Hormone-crazy kids usually aren't that picky.
 
Cephus said:
Come on, you know it's going to happen anyhow. Hormone-crazy kids usually aren't that picky.
Click to expand...

You are trying to find anything that will support your opposition of this accommodation now.
 
Thorgasm said:
I would say that we hired a more qualified candidate.
Click to expand...

That's great if it's actually true but you and I both know that it's often a code phrase for discrimination. In some companies, funny how the "more qualified candidate" always turns out to be white or always turns out to have a particular religious belief. Shouldn't the actual goal be to stop discrimination period? To only hire the best qualified candidate regardless of gender, age, belief, creed or race? How many people do you think are turned away, not because they weren't qualified, but because they were the wrong religion or the wrong color?
 
Thorgasm said:
You are trying to find anything that will support your opposition of this accommodation now.
Click to expand...

No, I'm asking a question, it's a perfectly valid question and one that you don't seem to want to answer.

Go figure.
 
Cephus said:
That's great if it's actually true but you and I both know that it's often a code phrase for discrimination. In some companies, funny how the "more qualified candidate" always turns out to be white or always turns out to have a particular religious belief. Shouldn't the actual goal be to stop discrimination period? To only hire the best qualified candidate regardless of gender, age, belief, creed or race? How many people do you think are turned away, not because they weren't qualified, but because they were the wrong religion or the wrong color?
Click to expand...

I don't turn people away for their religion or race. I am looking to build the strongest team possible.
 
American said:
It's nice that your lawyering for BK because you have intolerance to this Christian woman. If she were a black Muslim, you'd be doing handsprings and calling for the ACLU to bring a multi-million dollar suit against them. Women were preparing meals in dresses thousands of years before BK existed.
Click to expand...
You keep bringing up the issue of 'intolerance' and I am not sure why. First of all, when did it become incumbent upon the rationial to tolerate the irrational? Refusing to wear a certain clothing because you think some bearded guy in the sky will get mad at you isnt something that is going to get confused with rational thought or behavior. Pointing that out, is not displaying intolerance. I have no problem if people want to believe that or any number of a thousand similarly odd beliefs. The intolerant ones are those who wish to compel me through force of law to adapt my business plans or proceedures to accomodate such nonsense. If people want to go through life with a lampshade on their head it is no concern of mine. But the idea that I, as a business owner, must by law alter my uniform policy to include a lampshade headdress so as not to offend some cult members faith, shows a lack of respect for, and an intolerance of my rights.
 
Last edited:
Cephus said:
No, I'm asking a question, it's a perfectly valid question and one that you don't seem to want to answer.

Go figure.
Click to expand...

It's a retarded question. It starts with the retarded assumption that 17 year old boys can't control themselves and can't resist the urge to lift up a full length skirt, even when in the workplace.
 
I worked in the food industry for 15 years and everbody wears either pants, shorts or short skirts. Nobody wears dresses or long skirts and this is for safety issues. BK is a huge chain and has its dress code. Even if the interviewer gave her incorrect information it doesn't change the fact that she needs to wear pants.

There is nothing religious about this issue at all and those trying to make it so are completely missing the point, either purposely or ignorantly.
 
Fletch said:
You keep bringing up the issue of 'intolerance' and I am not sure why. First of all, when did it become incumbent upon the rationial to tolerate the irrational? Refusing to wear a certain clothing because you think some bearded guy in the sky will get mad at you isnt something that is going to get confused with rational thought or behavior. Pointing that out, is not displaying intolerance. I have no problem if people want to believe that or any number of a thousand similarly odd beliefs. The intolerant ones are those who wish to compel me through force of law to adapt my business plans or proceedures to accomodate such nonsense. If people want to go through life with a lampshade on their head it is no concern of mine. But the idea that I, as a business owner, must by law alter my uniform policy to include a lampshade headdress to accomodate so as not to offend some cult members faith, shows a lack of respect for, and an intolerance of my rights.
Click to expand...

You all have a weak argument. You keep using the most ridiculous examples. Wearing colanders on heads, lampshades on heads, and implanting zippers in your foreheads is nothing like wearing a skirt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom