Burger King is doing to this woman what MOST large corporate employers (much of the labor marketplace now) are doing: attempting to enforce a level of conformity without regard for individual rights like, in this case, freedom of religion.
You do not have the right to force others to give you things. This woman has no right to force BK to accommodate her religious beliefs. BK is not going to her house and restraining her from attending worship, praying as she pleases, or preaching as she pleases. They are setting rules about what happens on
their property, in
their house. They are saying that part of the job at Burger King is wearing pants, the woman is free to take or leave it as she pleases, and from that freedom of action that is left to her we can draw the conclusion that her liberties are not being infringed.
BK could accomodate this woman's deeply held beliefs with a MINOR accomodation that would not impair her ability to do her job or the site's ability to function.
I agree. And I think that they should, or at the very least should go out of their way to apologize profusely and profoundly and offer one heckuva separation package. But Burger King has the right to be stupid, if they choose.
When enough employers do this, they're forcing people to choose between important issues of conscience and being able to work and pay their bills.
No, they are forcing them to choose between their conscience and taking a job that would require them to violate it. I am not upset that Chip-n-Dales refuses to hire me as a stripper simply because I would not take my clothes off in front of a woman other than my wife. Taking that job would require me to violate my conscience and so I do not seek it. And Chip-N-Dales would not be violating my rights if I
did take that job and was then fired for refusing to perform. The action I object to is what they are paying me to do - for me to take their money and refuse to undertake the action is
theft.
Corporations trend together in terms of many of the requirements they lay on employees. Many of these are based on liability and insurance; others are based on generic templates for corporate structure like this ICS 9001 thing. As time goes by and more and more employers end up as part of this megacorporate conglomerate structure, more and more of them will be laying on the employee requirements that trample individuality indiscriminately. Employees will have fewer and fewer options to "just go work elsewhere", when almost everywhere else is laying the same requirements on them.
and the corporations are up in their corporate buildings being all corporationy, yes, I know. however the standard you are applying here is not about corporations, it is about whether or not an employee has the right to force their religious views upon the employer. Trade out "Burger King" with "Family Owned Restaurant", and the case you are trying to make here ceases to exist
even though nothing has changed.
Your ox may not be being gored today
On the contrary. Not only does my place of work specifically demand what pants, undershirt, shirt, socks, hat, and shoes I wear on any given day, it demands that I shave my face every morning and maintain a certain length of hair. Furthermore, if I refuse to do these things not only do they retain the right to fire me, they retain the right to throw me in
jail. Ditto for working on Sunday.
but let this case go and others like it and one day it WILL be your ox who is getting gored by an organization too large and powerful for you to defy alone.
why would I seek to defy an organization for offering me a job that I will not take? haHAH-take that, megacorp! you think Chip-N-Dales is suffering because they have no cpwill on stage? am I suffering because I'm not up there?