• 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

johnny_rebson said:
Dear old mom never made French fries. As you know French fries are a big seller at fast food restaurants.

French fries are cooked in hot oil which would be very painful if spilled on a bare leg.
Click to expand...

There would be no bare leg. Do you know any Pentecostals? ;)
They dress to cover themselves for the sake of modesty.
 
ChrisL said:
I'm sure I've never seen anyone who works at any fast food restaurant wearing a skirt.
Click to expand...

Take a trip to Fairbury, Illinois. There's lot's of Pentecostals and Apostolic Christians.
 
ChrisL said:
That's not a very good answer. :roll:
Click to expand...

Most I have noticed wear denim. You didn't think it was going to be silk did you?
 
Omgitsme said:
Ever been in a Chick-Fil-A?
Click to expand...

We don't have any where I live. I'm talking Burger King, McDonalds, Wendys, all very similar in uniform style, and I've never seen any of them wearing a skirt.
 
There are multiple reasons why some companies require their employees to wear uniforms. One of them is security. Restaurants obviously do not want non-employees in the kitchen.

Someone wanting to impersonate a BK employee would have to get their hands on a BK uniform shirt and a pair of BK uniform pants.

I know that nobody on the DP board has been conspiring to impersonate a BK employee, but companies today are lawsuit conscious.

Also their costs of supplying uniforms to employees would likely go up if they offered skirts as an alternative to pants.
 
johnny_rebson said:
Also their costs of supplying uniforms to employees would likely go up if they offered skirts as an alternative to pants.
Click to expand...

Not to quibble, but from what I understand, BK employees are expected to supply their own pants and shoes, the company only provides shirts and hats.
 
johnny_rebson said:
There are multiple reasons why some companies require their employees to wear uniforms. One of them is security. Restaurants obviously do not want non-employees in the kitchen.

Someone wanting to impersonate a BK employee would have to get their hands on a BK uniform shirt and a pair of BK uniform pants.

I know that nobody on the DP board has been conspiring to impersonate a BK employee, but companies today are lawsuit conscious.

Also their costs of supplying uniforms to employees would likely go up if they offered skirts as an alternative to pants.
Click to expand...

Restaurants usually only supply shirts, hats, and aprons. You must purchase the pants yourself.
 
Thorgasm said:
Most I have noticed wear denim. You didn't think it was going to be silk did you?
Click to expand...

Do you know that would be a requirement. Would she be able to wear any skirt as long as it was the right color? Who really knows? All of this could be avoided if businesses were allowed to have a dress code requirement that everyone has to follow no matter what, especially places like restaurants. IMO, that is not discrimination.
 
lizzie said:
There would be no bare leg. Do you know any Pentecostals? ;)
They dress to cover themselves for the sake of modesty.
Click to expand...

But if they allow one female employee to wear a skirt, they must give all female employees the option to wear a skirt. The other female employees may decide to wear skirts that are shorter.
 
Surtr said:
Actually, it means everything, since it was the interviewer who told her that she could wear the skirt. That's not a small thing, the girl did everything right by telling her employer during the interview, and when the employer agreed to it a verbal contract was made.
Click to expand...

If this is true then I would have to take her side on the issue.

But I'd imagine it would be difficult for her to win if it was a he said she said issue and the official dress code is clear.
 
ChrisL said:
Do you know that would be a requirement. Would she be able to wear any skirt as long as it was the right color? Who really knows? All of this could be avoided if businesses were allowed to have a dress code requirement that everyone has to follow no matter what, especially places like restaurants. IMO, that is not discrimination.
Click to expand...

Requiring them to wear skirts of a certain material would be fine. That would still abide by Title VII and not be a burden to the business where safety is a concern.
 
johnny_rebson said:
But if they allow one female employee to wear a skirt, they must give all female employees the option to wear a skirt. The other female employees may decide to wear skirts that are shorter.
Click to expand...

They could regulate the length of skirt.
 
Thorgasm said:
Take a trip to Fairbury, Illinois. There's lot's of Pentecostals and Apostolic Christians.
Click to expand...

I live in Illinois and im not sure but I think we have a decent sized population of Pentecostals.
 
Omgitsme said:
I live in Illinois and im not sure but I think we have a decent sized population of Pentecostals.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there are plenty of them "downstate".
 
ChrisL said:
We don't have any where I live. I'm talking Burger King, McDonalds, Wendys, all very similar in uniform style, and I've never seen any of them wearing a skirt.
Click to expand...

I know I have seen employees in skirts at McDonalds. I never eat at Wendys.
 
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...

As if you know anything at all about me.
 
ChrisL said:
Do you know that would be a requirement. Would she be able to wear any skirt as long as it was the right color? Who really knows? All of this could be avoided if businesses were allowed to have a dress code requirement that everyone has to follow no matter what, especially places like restaurants. IMO, that is not discrimination.
Click to expand...

I run a business I dont have a dress code execept for that it be proffesional for our field, and complies with our clients codes. Most of my clients have been changing their codes this year to mandate FR clothing (fire retardent, I work about the oil patches in California) Chevron, Occidental, et al.. Dont ask why. I will just start spouting obsenities.:flames: Anywho FR clothing is significantly heavier than the typical hot weather clothing we use. We work in 110 degree weather rountinely in the summer. I think you can see were this is going. Now I comply fully with their rules. Its their property I want their business. That said I have to bill them more time and increase my rates to cover the added expense of the clothing and the longer time it takes me or my subs to do the job because I have to take more frequent breaks to keep from overheating. They aint happy about that. I told them it was their decision to intitute the new policy and I have to cover costs. I sure as hell dont want heat stoke for me or my subs, and they dont either its expensive. I am not eating those costs every time mandate something new, which is frequent. They were unhappy but understood. But I think you can begin to see why a one size fits all dres code for any company is rather foolish. That said I am all for a company to have whatever dress code they desire. The only thing I see with this particular case that I can agree with government on is the employer said it would be ok for the young woman to were the skirt, then reneged. The woman was damaged, because she thought she had a job. She has the right to recover those damages, though to be blunt arent much. Thats my only sticking point.
 
PirateMk1 said:
I run a business I dont have a dress code execept for that it be proffesional for our field, and complies with our clients codes. Most of my clients have been changing their codes this year to mandate FR clothing (fire retardent, I work about the oil patches in California) Chevron, Occidental, et al.. Dont ask why. I will just start spouting obsenities.:flames: Anywho FR clothing is significantly heavier than the typical hot weather clothing we use. We work in 110 degree weather rountinely in the summer. I think you can see were this is going. Now I comply fully with their rules. Its their property I want their business. That said I have to bill them more time and increase my rates to cover the added expense of the clothing and the longer time it takes me or my subs to do the job because I have to take more frequent breaks to keep from overheating. They aint happy about that. I told them it was their decision to intitute the new policy and I have to cover costs. I sure as hell dont want heat stoke for me or my subs, and they dont either its expensive. I am not eating those costs every time mandate something new, which is frequent. They were unhappy but understood. But I think you can begin to see why a one size fits all dres code for any company is rather foolish. That said I am all for a company to have whatever dress code they desire. The only thing I see with this particular case that I can agree with government on is the employer said it would be ok for the young woman to were the skirt, then reneged. The woman was damaged, because she thought she had a job. She has the right to recover those damages, though to be blunt arent much. Thats my only sticking point.
Click to expand...

I hear what you're saying, but I still think it should be the choice of the business as to whether or not they want to change a dress code to accommodate someone's personal religious beliefs. Okay, so maybe the skirt isn't such a big deal, but it is the principle.

I'm going to be stubborn about this. :2razz:
 
ChrisL said:
I hear what you're saying, but I still think it should be the choice of the business as to whether or not they want to change a dress code to accommodate someone's personal religious beliefs. Okay, so maybe the skirt isn't such a big deal, but it is the principle.

I'm going to be stubborn about this. :2razz:
Click to expand...

I hear ya. I agree completly. A business should have whatever dress code they like. Enforced as they see fit. That said a one size fits all approach though would be a bit foolish in my opinion. Thats all I was saying.
 
ChrisL said:
I hear what you're saying, but I still think it should be the choice of the business as to whether or not they want to change a dress code to accommodate someone's personal religious beliefs. Okay, so maybe the skirt isn't such a big deal, but it is the principle.

I'm going to be stubborn about this. :2razz:
Click to expand...

You have to be unreasonably stubborn, but at least recognize that the Constitution does not agree. Unless BK can show a compelling reason to prohibit her, than they are deep poo. Proof of this is the EEOC speedy involvement.

We haven't come far enough in our respect of religious liberties at the workplace if we have employers saying that uniform policies trump a religious observance without articulation of any hardship posed by letting an employee 'hold the pickles' and 'hold the lettuce' while wearing a skirt," regional attorney Robert A. Canino of the EEOC's Dallas District Office said.
Click to expand...
 
Aberration said:
You have to be unreasonably stubborn, or recognize that the Constitution does not agree. Unless BK can show a compelling reason to prohibit her, than they are deep poo. Proof of this is the EEOC speedy involvement.
Click to expand...

Where does it say in the constitution that businesses cannot have a dress code and enforce it? I'm sorry, I just don't see this as being religious discrimination at all.
 
Cephus said:
Sure, but are we trying to achieve non-discrimination, or just not saying why we're discriminating?
Click to expand...

Perhaps we haven't learned the lessons of the ADA.
 
ChrisL said:
Where does it say in the constitution that businesses cannot have a dress code and enforce it? I'm sorry, I just don't see this as being religious discrimination at all.
Click to expand...

You have to be joking. You should research this a bit more. Read what the EEOC said.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-22-12a.cfm

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC filed suit after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process. The EEOC seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief to ensure that no further discrimination takes place.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom