but they actually are
she can follow her religious teachings and not wear pants
or she can wear pants and work at burger king
but she cannot adhere to her religious beliefs and work at burger king
that's what makes it discriminatory
no different than burger king insisting that only white employees could work there ... because as you would want to insist, burger king has a right to have the employees it chooses to have. the white ones
She can get a job elsewhere.
yes. the employer could also say - as you would have us believe - that it only hires white employees
those who are non-white should have to look elsewhere for a job
Nobody disrespected her or her religion.
other than to say that she must quit conforming to her religious practices - not wearing pants - if she wanted to work at burger king
As a business owner (for clarification, I am not), if I chose to have my employees where a uniform because I want to AVOID situations like this, that should be my right.
which is the same thing as saying if as a business owner you wanted to AVOID any racial tension in your store you should have the right to only hire white people
and you would be just as wrong in that position
If she cannot abide by the dress code, she can apply for employment at a business that does not have a dress code.
and if the need for adherence to that dress code is so compelling that burger king cannot reasonably make an exception to accommodate the employee's religious teachings, then she cannot legitimately be employed by burger king and must seek employment elsewhere
which brings us to the present circumstance. burger king gets to show the court why it would be unreasonable for it to allow the woman to wear a long skirt instead of pants
if they can make that argument stand before the court, then they will prevail
if they cannot, they will pay this woman a substantial amount for their failure to accommodate her religious beliefs as is required by federal law
Einstein advised us to make things as simple as possible, but NOT simpler
in my estimation, you are attempting to make a nuanced situation simpler than it actually is
in support of my belief i point you to the law suit that will go before the court for a finding to be made. if this matter were so simple, after the EEOC investigation and conclusion to file suit on behalf of the employee, i do not believe it would now be a matter for the court to resolve
the court is not the place for the resolution of "simple" matters ... again, that is my opinion
It's not like Burger King is the creme de la creme of jobs anyway.
but as an employer, one that is less than a first tier employer, it must adhere to the federal laws which govern non-discrimination
doesn't matter how crappy those jobs may be
