• 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

ChrisL said:
Is it part of the Christian religion that women cannot wear pants?
Click to expand...


No, just certain sects like the Pentecostals. To them it is a big thing.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Thier beliefs do not trump someone elses beliefs. And no one has a Right to a job.
Click to expand...

They have a right not to be discriminated against in hiring because of their religion.
 
Goshin said:
We ALREADY put legal limits on what the employer can demand of the employee... like 40 hour weeks and overtime, child labor laws, sexual harassment laws, OSHA safety regulations... and oh yes, a little law that says you have to try to make reasonable accomodation for religious requirements if possible. LIke this one.
Click to expand...

Oh don't get me wrong. I think BK is wrong in this instance and should apologize, offer to hire the woman back, and generally make nice. The last thing you want is bad news cycles about your business being anti-Christian.

I just think that BK should also have the legal right to do this if they chose. I recognize the current law - I think the current law is destructive to liberty.
 
cpwill said:
Oh don't get me wrong. I think BK is wrong in this instance and should apologize, offer to hire the woman back, and generally make nice. The last thing you want is bad news cycles about your business being anti-Christian.

I just think that BK should also have the legal right to do this if they chose. I recognize the current law - I think the current law is destructive to liberty.
Click to expand...


Letting employers run roughshod over employees, like many did back in the 1930's, would be destructive to liberty. What use political liberty if you are, for all intents and purposes, a slave to your employer?
 
Goshin said:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.


Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Click to expand...

thansk for providing this. I still beleive discarding their dress code could be detrimental to their business. Making this exception basically gives anyone the right to dress how they want anywhere they want and strips employers of the right to have uniforms or dress codes.
 
ChrisL said:
Is it part of the Christian religion that women cannot wear pants?
Click to expand...
Deuteronomy 22:5
A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.
Click to expand...
Of course there's variation in opinion on this...some say all pants are men's clothing, while others make a distinction between a man's suit and a woman's pants suit.

My personal take on the issue is that if women can't ever wear any kind of pants, then Scots need to put their Kilts away.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Letting employers run roughshod over employees, like many did back in the 1930's, would be destructive to liberty
Click to expand...

no it wasn't and largely no they didn't. in fact, the higher wages of the 1930's is one of the reasons we had such higher unemployment.

What use political liberty if you are, for all intents and purposes, a slave to your employer?
Click to expand...

slaves can't leave. employers should be as free to fire for any reason as employees are free to quit. that's called free trade.
 
Goshin said:
We ALREADY put legal limits on what the employer can demand of the employee... like 40 hour weeks and overtime, child labor laws, sexual harassment laws, OSHA safety regulations... and oh yes, a little law that says you have to try to make reasonable accomodation for religious requirements if possible. LIke this one.
Click to expand...

So you don't see the difference between...

40hr workweek
Child labor laws
Sexual harassment
OSHA

and

Demanding an employer accomodate some religions dress code?
 
And where does this crap end? Are we going to let people wear pasta strainers on their heads because they are pastafarians? Do people have to accommodate every idiotic request?

'Pastafarian' wins religious freedom right to wear pasta strainer for driving licence - Telegraph

"'Pastafarian' wins religious freedom right to wear pasta strainer for driving licence
An Austrian has won the right to be photographed wearing a pasta strainer for his driving licence on grounds of religious freedom."
 
muciti said:
thansk for providing this. I still beleive discarding their dress code could be detrimental to their business. Making this exception basically gives anyone the right to dress how they want anywhere they want and strips employers of the right to have uniforms or dress codes.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. It doens't have to be thrown out.

Accomodation is allowing certain exceptions for certain specific and important reasons.
First, it has to be an IMPORTANT reason... like "i have to wear a skirt for religious reasons"... OR "I can't wear the company shoes, I have to wear orthotic shoes because of a MEDICAL condition".
Second, it has to be proveable... as in, check to see if her version of Pentecostal actually requires women to wear skirts on pain of severe judgement... yes.... check to see if the guy with the shoes has a doctor that will confirm he must wear his non-dress-code orthotic shoes for a medical condition...
Thirdly, make it plain this is an allowed EXCEPTION to the general rules made for a specific reason, not a discarding of the rules and a free-for-all where everyone can claim "Arkvoozle came to me in a dream last night and told me I must always wear this fake orange hair, or the Illuminati will assassinate me" and similar bull****.
 
Goshin said:
They have a right not to be discriminated against in hiring because of their religion.
Click to expand...

A bogus claim made in the 1964 bill to be sure.
 
muciti said:
thansk for providing this. I still beleive discarding their dress code could be detrimental to their business. Making this exception basically gives anyone the right to dress how they want anywhere they want and strips employers of the right to have uniforms or dress codes.
Click to expand...
This story is such bull**** on both sides.

You don't sue because a given place won't let you wear a skirt, and the business could very, very easily just allow long black skirts.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So you don't see the difference between...

40hr workweek
Child labor laws
Sexual harassment
OSHA

and

Demanding an employer accomodate some religions dress code?
Click to expand...
Employers have to accommodate the Hajib, so why not a skirt? How is the employer harmed?
 
cpwill said:
no it wasn't and largely no they didn't. in fact, the higher wages of the 1930's is one of the reasons we had such higher unemployment.



slaves can't leave. employers should be as free to fire for any reason as employees are free to quit. that's called free trade.
Click to expand...


it's also called kiss the boss' ass or he can fire you for nothing. I live in a "right to work state" so I know firsthand. An employer can typically fire an employee and not suffer any great or lasting financial harm... but when an employee is fired they typically just lost most or ALL of their income, they may or may not be able find another job or draw unemployment, so they might lose their house, their transportation...

The employer->employee relationship is one where the EMPLOYER has almost all the power... it HAS to be regulated to prevent abuse by the more powerful entity in the relationship.

Protecting the weak from the strong is the essence of government. The strong don't NEED protection, they protect themselves... but we can't all be strong in EVERY aspect of life all the time.
 
Jerry said:
This story is such bull**** on both sides.

You don't sue because a given place won't let you wear a skirt, and the business could very, very easily just allow long black skirts.
Click to expand...

i absolutely agree with this. No reason they couldnt. But they should not be legally obligated. Thats where the problem is
 
Goshin said:
They have a right not to be discriminated against in hiring because of their religion.
Click to expand...

Because of thier religion you are right. But one can discriminate against the type of clothing worn regardless of the reasons that the person claims is the reason that they want to wear that clothing. And it is plain as day that she was fired because the orientation instructor did not want her to wear a dress and at first had no clue that she wore one because of religious reasons.
 
Kal'Stang said:
So you don't see the difference between...

40hr workweek
Child labor laws
Sexual harassment
OSHA

and

Demanding an employer accomodate some religions dress code?
Click to expand...

If the religious dress code is something that, to the person involved is SO IMPORTANT that, in their mind it is something they are not allowed to compromise on, and it will not adversely effect their ability to perform the job or the jobsites ability to function, then yes it should be accomodated if possible.

This is a trivial accomodation. Trivial.
 
Connery said:
I have set forth the law in a previous post
Click to expand...

As an aside, I find this whole argument somewhat ironic. Places of worship and in some cases organizations functioning under the auspices of recognized religions are exempt from civil rights laws such as the Americans With Disabilities Act.
 
Goshin said:
It doesn't have to be all or nothing. It doens't have to be thrown out.

Accomodation is allowing certain exceptions for certain specific and important reasons.
First, it has to be an IMPORTANT reason... like "i have to wear a skirt for religious reasons"... OR "I can't wear the company shoes, I have to wear orthotic shoes because of a MEDICAL condition".
Second, it has to be proveable... as in, check to see if her version of Pentecostal actually requires women to wear skirts on pain of severe judgement... yes.... check to see if the guy with the shoes has a doctor that will confirm he must wear his non-dress-code orthotic shoes for a medical condition...
Thirdly, make it plain this is an allowed EXCEPTION to the general rules made for a specific reason, not a discarding of the rules and a free-for-all where everyone can claim "Arkvoozle came to me in a dream last night and told me I must always wear this fake orange hair, or the Illuminati will assassinate me" and similar bull****.
Click to expand...

which would almost make sense but to some (not me) religion is bull**** similar toarkvoozle telling you a hair color. how do you pick and choose which beliefs to honor?
 
Goshin said:
If the religious dress code is something that, to the person involved is SO IMPORTANT that, in their mind it is something they are not allowed to compromise on, and it will not adversely effect their ability to perform the job or the jobsites ability to function, then yes it should be accomodated if possible.

This is a trivial accomodation. Trivial.
Click to expand...

the cowboy hat and akvoozle's orange hair would be trivial as well.
 
Jerry said:
Employers have to accommodate the Hajib, so why not a skirt? How is the employer harmed?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any court say that employers have to accomodate the Hajib. And if they have their dumb***** for saying so. In all the cases that I have seen regarding Hijab's the employers willingly cooperated with the person. Particularly after a media frenzy.
 
In my mind, she shouldn't have taken the job when she knew there was a dress code. Everyone knows that BK employees (all fast food chain employees, among many other employers) were uniforms. Now if she had a crucifix around her neck, and they told her she couldn't wear it, I think THAT would qualify as religious discrimination (unless she worked around some type of machinery that would make it dangerous), but a dress code a lot of times is for safety purposes. Certain clothing is not practical for some jobs. I really think some people just like to file law suits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom