• 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

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

I did. I don't think Burger King discriminated against this woman based upon her religion.
 
Title VII is not a part of the Constitution. It was a law that was passed. A law that is actually in violation of the Constution.

ok, now explain how title VII violates the provisions of the Constitution
 
ok, now explain how title VII violates the provisions of the Constitution

I've explained it already before in this thread.

So, what are the first few words in the 1st Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Seems pretty obvious that by including religion in Title VII they violated the "make no law" clause in the 1st Amendment.
 
I've explained it already before in this thread.

So, what are the first few words in the 1st Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Seems pretty obvious that by including religion in Title VII they violated the "make no law" clause in the 1st Amendment.

what is made clear is that you have no idea what this provision of the Constitution actually means:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
that title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate against those who exercise their right to engage in religious practices only reinforces what the Constitution has decreed
 
I've explained it already before in this thread.

So, what are the first few words in the 1st Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Seems pretty obvious that by including religion in Title VII they violated the "make no law" clause in the 1st Amendment.

Title VII doesn't establish a religion. :rofl
 
I've explained it already before in this thread.

So, what are the first few words in the 1st Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Seems pretty obvious that by including religion in Title VII they violated the "make no law" clause in the 1st Amendment.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.

Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
They didn't practice religious discrimination in the workplace. They informed her of a dress code and she chose to to violate it (or not adhere to it).

The government disagrees with you. Good thing too, because you seem to be ignorant of the chain of events that explicitly demonstrate discrimination.

I don't even know why someone would bother arguing Constitutionality in this situation. Sure argue your opinion of what should be legal, but to argue current EEOC laws...? get real.
 
what is made clear is that you have no idea what this provision of the Constitution actually means:
that title VII makes it unlawful to discriminate against those who exercise their right to engage in religious practices only reinforces what the Constitution has decreed

Title VII doesn't establish a religion. :rofl

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another.

Establishment Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes I know what the establishment clause is. However I'm looking at the next part of that line when it says "or prohibiting the free exercise of". The key word there being "or" which means that the "shall make no law" also applies. What Title VII does is extend it to private buisnesses also however that is still Congress making a law against the free exercise of religion. It makes it to where a buisness, a private buisness ran by citizens and not the government, can not practice their own religion, even if that is to NOT practice a religion.
 
The government disagrees with you. Good thing too, because you seem to be ignorant of the chain of events that explicitly demonstrate discrimination.

I don't even know why someone would bother arguing Constitutionality in this situation. Sure argue your opinion of what should be legal, but to argue current EEOC laws...? get real.

I am arguing my opinion and I disagree with the government. That can be a very healthy thing at times and if you are implying that this should be discouraged then don't bother replying to me again.
 
I am arguing my opinion and I disagree with the government. That can be a very healthy thing at times and if you are implying that this should be discouraged then don't bother replying to me again.

I am not implying anything. I am being blunt. I think opinions of discrimination should be discouraged. I do not think any discrimination is healthy to either party.
 
Yes I know what the establishment clause is. However I'm looking at the next part of that line when it says "or prohibiting the free exercise of". The key word there being "or" which means that the "shall make no law" also applies. What Title VII does is extend it to private buisnesses also however that is still Congress making a law against the free exercise of religion. It makes it to where a buisness, a private buisness ran by citizens and not the government, can not practice their own religion, even if that is to NOT practice a religion.

I actually kinda agree with you as neither of the two are being violated...
 
I am not implying anything. I am being blunt. I think opinions of discrimination should be discouraged. I do not think any discrimination is healthy to either party.

I agree. I just don't see a dress code as discrimination.

" the equal protection of the laws, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom."

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1979: Religious discrimination. A neglected issue. A consultation sponsored by the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Washington D.C., April 9–10, 1979

Discrimination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She has equal opportunity and access to employment.
 
I agree. I just don't see a dress code as discrimination.

" the equal protection of the laws, equality of status under the law, equal treatment in the administration of justice, and equality of opportunity and access to employment, education, housing, public services and facilities, and public accommodation because of their exercise of their right to religious freedom."

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1979: Religious discrimination. A neglected issue. A consultation sponsored by the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Washington D.C., April 9–10, 1979

Discrimination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

She has equal opportunity and access to employment.

No she didn't have equal access and opportunity. They sent her home because of her religious observance. An observance that in no way caused BK any hardship in any manner.

Might as well let people send workers home for being black.
 
No she didn't have equal access and opportunity. They sent her home because of her religious observance. An observance that in no way caused BK any hardship in any manner.

Might as well let people send workers home for being black.

No they didn't. They sent her home because she wore a skirt when the dress code they've had for decades explicitly said pants. The orientation instructor didn't even know about her religion until after he told her to go home. If she cannot adhere to the dress code of a company that she voluntarily applied for then that is her fault and not BK's.
 
No they didn't. They sent her home because she wore a skirt when the dress code they've had for decades explicitly said pants. The orientation instructor didn't even know about her religion until after he told her to go home. If she cannot adhere to the dress code of a company that she voluntarily applied for then that is her fault and not BK's.

Yeah thats what I said. They sent her home for her religious observance.

Good thing the government doesn't agree with your bigotry. We haven't gotten that retarded yet.
 
Yeah thats what I said. They sent her home for her religious observance.

Good thing the government doesn't agree with your bigotry. We haven't gotten that retarded yet.

BS and you know it.

One: My stance has nothing to do with her religion (or any other relgion for that matter). I could care less what her religion is. You'll note that unlike some other posters in this thread I haven't once said anything negative about her religion. So keep your bigotry comments to yourself.

Two: Twisting what I said does nothing for your arguement. Indeed all that it shows is that you cannot stand on your own two feet and argue this honestly.
 
No they didn't. They sent her home because she wore a skirt when the dress code they've had for decades explicitly said pants. The orientation instructor didn't even know about her religion until after he told her to go home. If she cannot adhere to the dress code of a company that she voluntarily applied for then that is her fault and not BK's.

Companies in America, like BK, usually make reasonable religious accommodations. BK can not say, "Whelp, dress code. Go home lolz". Get with the times man:lol:

Religious Accommodation in the Workplace - Religious Freedom Resources
 
BS and you know it.

One: My stance has nothing to do with her religion (or any other relgion for that matter). I could care less what her religion is. You'll note that unlike some other posters in this thread I haven't once said anything negative about her religion. So keep your bigotry comments to yourself.

Two: Twisting what I said does nothing for your arguement. Indeed all that it shows is that you cannot stand on your own two feet and argue this honestly.

actually, your refusal to see the religious aspect of her argument is what blinds you from seeing the facts of the matter
the pentecost was not arbitrarily seeking to ignore the dress code of the employer. her religious beliefs forced her to wear attire which did not conform to the employer's dress code
due to her religious observance, she sought - and obtained - an accommodation such that she could conform to her religion's expectations while also being able to work for burger king
unfortunately, the training manager, without an understanding of what caused her to be wearing a long skirt instead of the normally required pants, would not allow her to remain at the workplace
 
actually, your refusal to see the religious aspect of her argument is what blinds you from seeing the facts of the matter
the pentecost was not arbitrarily seeking to ignore the dress code of the employer. her religious beliefs forced her to wear attire which did not conform to the employer's dress code

I'm not refusing to see anything. She was arbitrarily seeking to ignore the dress code of the employer. She voluntarily applied for a job which she knew had a dress code that did not conform to her religious beliefs. You refuse to acknowledge this fact. She expects the company to accomodate her religious beliefs. Other than a law...why should they have to?

due to her religious observance, she sought - and obtained - an accommodation such that she could conform to her religion's expectations while also being able to work for burger king

From someone who did not have the authority to make such an accomodation. The right thing for him to have done is to confirm that it was OK to do such a thing from his superiors.

unfortunately, the training manager, without an understanding of what caused her to be wearing a long skirt instead of the normally required pants, would not allow her to remain at the workplace

He was just enforcing BK policy. Should he really be condemned for that?
 
And why shouldn't they be able to? Other than it being from a law.

Haha, you can't say, "other than it being from a law". It IS a law/regulation, and BK has to follow it, or face litigation (as they are now). Now, onto "and why shouldn't they be able to?" Sure they can, but they do have to face the consequences, which is this very topic. You can argue you do not agree with the law/regulation, but it is what it is.
 
Haha, you can't say, "other than it being from a law". It IS a law/regulation, and BK has to follow it, or face litigation (as they are now). Now, onto "and why shouldn't they be able to?" Sure they can, but they do have to face the consequences, which is this very topic. You can argue you do not agree with the law/regulation, but it is what it is.

So in otherwords you have nothing more than "its the law".
 
Back
Top Bottom