• 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

Your Star said:
How could he have known about her religion when she brought it up? The fact that they can't make a simple accommodation just proves that they are assholes with no thought to understanding.
Click to expand...

Or maybe she had never ever visited earth before and that was the first time she went into a burger king where everyone wears pants.

A long skirt could easily be a safety hazard in a close knit fast paced environment like that.

Or they could do a crazy thing and compromise and let her wear really baggy pants that look like a skirt.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Would you apply for a job at a place where you knew that they had a policy that violated your beliefs?

I've asked this same question a dozen times over in this thread and no one has given me a sufficiant, valid answer.

Does this girl not have any accountability for her actions? Can she not make decisions as to where she works? And don't give me the whole speild about job scarcity. The girl was 17 years old. No doubt still living with her parents which provided and cared for her.
Click to expand...

Depends on the job. If it pays well enough or if its all that I can find or if I enjoy the job enough then yes I would apply at a business that violates some of my beliefs.

And your question is irrelevant. First off she was told she could wear a skirt before she was hired. And secondly im sure she didnt think wearing a long skirt would be against the dress code in a fast food place. In fact im pretty sure ive seen an employee at a local BK wearing a long skirt. So no this isnt her fault in any way shape or form. Wanting to wear a skirt for religious reasons is not an unreasonable request nor an uncommon one as far as I can tell.
 
It is a foolish reason to fire her, but business should be able to hire, fire, and serve who they please.
 
Kal'Stang said:
One more thing that I would like to say about this post. I might agree with your belief IF the girl had no choice but to work there. But she does and she voluntarily applied for a job there. Being that is the case why shouldn't the employer be allowed to dicate that she adhere to the dress code? Which again, she knew about before she applied for the job.
Click to expand...

She didnt know the dress code before being hired. She was told wearing skirts is ok. I checked the BK website where you apply for a job and couldnt find any mention of a dress code.
 
Furiounova said:
That place is always fighting lawsuits and should have been shut down or had EEO laws enforced.
Click to expand...
No, they should make the shorts shorter, the shirts tighter, have a DD minimum cup size and people that dont like it should go get their hot wings someplace else.

I have eaten takeout from hooters precisely once. I couldnt give half a damn about girls in tight tshirts serving my food. Why? Because Im not 15 and dont stink of Axe body spray. BUT...if Hooters wants their waitresses to dress like strippers...their business, their rules, and for the luvamike...people ought to deal with that once and for all.
 
VanceMack said:
No, they should make the shorts shorter, the shirts tighter, have a DD minimum cup size and people that dont like it should go get their hot wings someplace else.

I have eaten takeout from hooters precisely once. I couldnt give half a damn about girls in tight tshirts serving my food. Why? Because Im not 15 and dont stink of Axe body spray. BUT...if Hooters wants their waitresses to dress like strippers...their business, their rules, and for the luvamike...people ought to deal with that once and for all.
Click to expand...
Amen brother. Some people just cant tolerate the concept of individual liberty. That might explain why it is so frequently absent throughout most of human history.
 
Bigfoot 88 said:
It is a foolish reason to fire her, but business should be able to hire, fire, and serve who they please.
Click to expand...

Why is it foolish? People are fired daily because they don't conform with dress codes. Again, I've made the case that I myself have tattoos and earrings and I've made sure my employers know for a fact that I will not remove them in order to please them. Why should she be any different? It's pretty reasonable for an employer to expect all employees to conform to a dress code.
 
hazlnut said:
Reading between the lines -- she was probably fired for being an annoying religious zealot who wouldn't shut up about sinners in a lake of fire bull****.

But in the litigious age, faith in the lottery is great, but a scumbag lawyer is better in terms of $$ Payday. And the church who probably found the lawyer will take their cut.

Folks, this is all about the $$$.

People of faith who get along well with other employees, show up on time, work hard, AND don't shove their faith in peoples face, get promoted, not fired.
Click to expand...

Ironic coming from the man with the religious signature.
 
VanceMack said:
No, they should make the shorts shorter, the shirts tighter, have a DD minimum cup size and people that dont like it should go get their hot wings someplace else.

I have eaten takeout from hooters precisely once. I couldnt give half a damn about girls in tight tshirts serving my food. Why? Because Im not 15 and dont stink of Axe body spray. BUT...if Hooters wants their waitresses to dress like strippers...their business, their rules, and for the luvamike...people ought to deal with that once and for all.
Click to expand...

I see. When did you last protest not having a Whites Only restaurant?
 
American said:
Ironic coming from the man with the religious signature.
Click to expand...

How is having a signature on a forum shoving your religion in people's face? I wonder what you think of courthouse displays of the 10 commandments. ;)
 
Hatuey said:
Why is it foolish? People are fired daily because they don't conform with dress codes. Again, I've made the case that I myself have tattoos and earrings and I've made sure my employers know for a fact that I will not remove them in order to please them. Why should she be any different? It's pretty reasonable for an employer to expect all employees to conform to a dress code.
Click to expand...

The thing is, she took the same initiative that you say that you do. During her interview she discussed her religious requirements and they told her that it would be ok for her to wear a skirt. It would be like an employer hiring you and then firing you later for having tattoos or earrings even though they specifically said that they would be acceptable.
 
digsbe said:
The thing is, she took the same initiative that you say that you do. During her interview she discussed her religious requirements and they told her that it would be ok for her to wear a skirt.
Click to expand...

This claim is only made by the EEOC and her. Again, neither have been validated and in ANY case verbal contracts NEVER trump official company policy.
 
Hatuey said:
This claim is only made by the EEOC and her. Again, neither have been validated and in ANY case verbal contracts NEVER trump official company policy.
Click to expand...

What if it was true that they did say this? I think it may be highly probable, given the lawsuit, that they would refuse to confirm that they told her she could wear the skirt since that could possibly result in them loosing the lawsuit.
 
Hatuey said:
This claim is only made by the EEOC and her. Again, neither have been validated and in ANY case verbal contracts NEVER trump official company policy.
Click to expand...

We should eliminate freedom of speech then. It mandates that people assume the risk of fraud.
 
digsbe said:
What if it was true that they did say this?
Click to expand...

It. Does. Not. Trump. Official. Company. Policy. - Have you ever been to a business and the guys on the floor tell you something about the warranty then when you actually go to buy it, the company policy is completely different? There isn't much the guy on the floor can do but admit that he made a mistake and hope he doesn't get fired. That's it. The company doesn't honor the claims of the person who made they sale and they shouldn't have to. They can however allow you to keep your money and piss off. Which is what this young lady should have done.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
It. Does. Not. Trump. Official. Company. Policy.
Click to expand...

It also means that they were in the wrong for telling her one thing and then mandating another after hire. It may not trump company policy, but it may result in them loosing the lawsuit.
 
digsbe said:
It also means that they were in the wrong for telling her one thing and then mandating another after hire. It may not trump company policy, but it may result in them loosing the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

The bottomline is they forced the employee to assume the risk of fraud.

People trust each other. It needs to be recognized that people have limited attention spans, and that attention is committed on the basis of trust.

Otherwise, we're discriminating against those who have less attention to afford. It's elitism.
 
digsbe said:
It also means that they were in the wrong for telling her one thing and then mandating another after hire. It may not trump company policy, but it may result in them loosing the lawsuit.
Click to expand...

What utter nonsense. If this was even remotely true I'd be able to sue anybody who made a claim on the sales floor and then the claim ended up being untrue when I asked again right before purchase. There was no monetary loss to this lady or even discrimination based on her religion. You're reaching digs.
 
Hatuey said:
What utter nonsense. If this was even remotely true I'd be able to sue anybody who made a claim on the sales floor and then the claim ended up being untrue when I asked again right before purchase. There was no monetary loss to this lady or even discrimination based on her religion. You're reaching digs.
Click to expand...

I would say being terminated from employment is different from being told a lie on the sales floor prior to a purchase (which may be subject to fraud or false advertising). What this does do is affect her employment record and show up on background checks.
 
digsbe said:
I would say being terminated from employment is different from being told a lie on the sales floor prior to a purchase (which may be subject to fraud or false advertising). What this does do is affect her employment record and show up on background checks.
Click to expand...

Again, she never even WORKED there. Did you read the article? When she was found to be wearing a dress right before training she was told she could not because of what she was wearing. She didn't even do the training. You're still reaching.
 
Hatuey said:
What utter nonsense. If this was even remotely true I'd be able to sue anybody who made a claim on the sales floor and then the claim ended up being untrue when I asked again right before purchase. There was no monetary loss to this lady or even discrimination based on her religion. You're reaching digs.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the problem is here. You should be able to sue salesmen for misinformation.

I should also be able to sue you for claiming no monetary loss. She was fired. That's a loss of future revenue.
 
Hatuey said:
Again, she never even WORKED there. Did you read the article? When she was found to be wearing a dress right before training she was told she could not because of what she was wearing. She didn't even do the training. You're still reaching.
Click to expand...

Many employers have a probationary period where they can dismiss you or fire you with no fault. The article isn't very clear, but to go to orientation I'm sure she had been officially put on their books as an employee beginning her training which means she was most likely terminated from her job. Assuming the girl's story is correct then Burger King is in the wrong. If a future company runs a background check on her they may see that she was fired or dismissed which will negatively impact her future job search. If they say one thing and then reverse themselves and fire an employee then they should be held liable for damages.
 
digsbe said:
Many employers have a probationary period where they can dismiss you or fire you with no fault.The article isn't very clear, but to go to orientation I'm sure she had been officially put on their books as an employee beginning her training which means she was most likely terminated from her job. Assuming the girl's story is correct then Burger King is in the wrong.
Click to expand...

Sure you are. Again, read the article. It'll help you a ton. She claims she was told 1 thing. When she went to the training - she was corrected. She refused to change. She was fired. Do you not understand that much yet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom