• 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

muciti said:
i absolutely agree with this. No reason they couldnt. But they should not be legally obligated. Thats where the problem is
Click to expand...
The problem is they hired her. If they had turned her away at the interview it may be a different issue, but they hired her.
 
I'm going to have to walk away from this before I lose my temper.

I'm very passionate about this subject, because I have seen FAR too many people abused by their employer, and feel like they had to just "take it" because they feared they could not find another job that would pay adequately. I've had to comfort too many crying female employees who'd been badly mistreated by their boss to find this at all amusing. I've seen too many people fired, losing their livelihood, for total bull**** that amounted to "didn't kiss the boss' ass nicely enough", who spent months or in some cases YEARS trying to find a decent job in the aftermath.

I guess some of you have been lucky not to have to deal with crap like this, but if you haven't seen it I'm telling you it is everywhere these days.

No one should be allowed to abuse, mistreat or trample the rights of a citizen just because they are an employer.

On that note, g'nite.
 
Kal'Stang said:
As with anything else in the Rights debate it depends on what right is being "violated" and whether the other persons rights supersede the other persons rights or not.
Click to expand...

IMHO individual rights supersede a business's rights. OTOH if an actress (and basically a cashier at a BK is an actress) refuses to wear a costume there is no reason for them to be there. It would ruin the show.
 
muciti said:
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?
Click to expand...


Just because you believe religion is bull**** doesn't mean you get to dictate what others believe, or how they practice their beliefs if they are doing you no harm.
 
For goodness sake, they're asking her to wear pants.
 
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...

It being trivial or not is irrelevent. (and subjective)

So, if I get a job at a church and it was "SO IMPORTANT that, in my mind it is something I'm are not allowed to compromise on" that I wear a satanic symbol pin on my shirt should the church be able to fire me or not?
 
Kal'Stang said:
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.
Click to expand...

Here, you go. This is interesting as a matter of background.

I would add that it settles nothing for either side in the religious rights at work argument.
 
Goshin said:
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.
Click to expand...
:rwbdonkey

Yeah..

It is their property and so they can remove you from it and tell you to never come back for no reason what so ever. Why? Because its their property. Are they hurting you financially? Perhaps. Is it violating your rights? No. Is it the governments job to make sure we never get hurt financially? No. Do you have a case legally? Perhaps. Should you? No.
 
Last edited:
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...

Jerry - you gain weight man? Your face looks fuller. You look good bro.

-----

And they could allow it - but that would mean changing their dress code. Which they shouldn't have to do in order to accomodate 1 zealot.
 
Goshin said:
I'm going to have to walk away from this before I lose my temper.

I'm very passionate about this subject, because I have seen FAR too many people abused by their employer, and feel like they had to just "take it" because they feared they could not find another job that would pay adequately. I've had to comfort too many crying female employees who'd been badly mistreated by their boss to find this at all amusing. I've seen too many people fired, losing their livelihood, for total bull**** that amounted to "didn't kiss the boss' ass nicely enough", who spent months or in some cases YEARS trying to find a decent job in the aftermath.

I guess some of you have been lucky not to have to deal with crap like this, but if you haven't seen it I'm telling you it is everywhere these days.

No one should be allowed to abuse, mistreat or trample the rights of a citizen just because they are an employer.

On that note, g'nite.
Click to expand...

I live in a right to work state to (Idaho). I've been on the recieving end of what you describe. Yet I still believe the way I do.
 
I think both sides take these issues way too far. The ones who are offended by every single religious symbol they see, and the ones who constantly whine about perceived injustices to their religious freedom. It's just getting way out of hand lately IMO.
 
Goshin said:
Just because you believe religion is bull**** doesn't mean you get to dictate what others believe, or how they practice their beliefs if they are doing you no harm.
Click to expand...

exactly my point. when you push something like this into law you are forced to honor kavoozle too. So you would then have to honor the orange hair.

My point is that there is no harm in BK allowing her to wear her skirt. No harm, no foul.

HOWEVER there is harm in the government dictating dress codes. Again you cannot pick and choose which beliefs you honor. This easily could lead to businesses having one dress code for christians, one for mormons, one for jews, one for muslims, one for athiests, one for kavoozle's followers, ect ect ANd what then.. We have separate but equal dress codes? and what if the jews start thinking the muslims get preferential treatment and so on and so forth. There would be no end if we allow the government to dictate businesses decisions such as dress code.
 
Goshin said:
I'm going to have to walk away from this before I lose my temper.

I'm very passionate about this subject, because I have seen FAR too many people abused by their employer, and feel like they had to just "take it" because they feared they could not find another job that would pay adequately. I've had to comfort too many crying female employees who'd been badly mistreated by their boss to find this at all amusing. I've seen too many people fired, losing their livelihood, for total bull**** that amounted to "didn't kiss the boss' ass nicely enough", who spent months or in some cases YEARS trying to find a decent job in the aftermath.

I guess some of you have been lucky not to have to deal with crap like this, but if you haven't seen it I'm telling you it is everywhere these days.

No one should be allowed to abuse, mistreat or trample the rights of a citizen just because they are an employer.

On that note, g'nite.
Click to expand...

I have seen some pretty loaded bull**** in my time, but it's NOT a right violation. Chill the **** out.
 
I think employers should be able to ban whatever clothing and/or jewelry they choose, and they can require mohawks and Spaghetti ornaments if they want. Clown shoes required and no cross allowed? Sounds reasonable to me, whatevs; not my business.
 
Goshin said:
A whole lotta moms wore long skirts in the kitchen cooking for centuries, and I dont recall ever hearing that it was a safety hazard as opposed to pants.
Click to expand...

I've never heard anything either. But I've also not actually thought about this at all until this thread. I do know that in the '70's, nurses wearing pants was a huge debate that was won on practicalities.
 
ChrisL said:
For goodness sake, they're asking her to wear pants.
Click to expand...

which is against her religious beliefs
and she sought and received a reasonable accommodation - allowing her to wear a skirt, instead
and altho she was reasonably accommodated, the employer thereafter rescinded the accommodation


if this woman had been hired, and she explained to the person with hiring AUTHORITY, that she had a physical limitation which prevented her from lifting more than 20 pounds
and the employer accommodated her medical need, that employer could not later compel her to lift more than 20 pounds in the course of fulfilling her job requirements


these are reasonable accommodations that the employers have entered into
if the accommodations required of the (prospective) employee are such that the employer finds that they are unreasonable, then the employer should not agree to them


this woman's case is made stronger because the BK representative possessing hiring authority authorized the religious accommodation
but, if she were not hired because she required an apparel accommodation for religious reasons, one which BK insisted they could not approve, the pentacost would still have a case of employment discrimination based on her religion, until BK could show that her necessary accommodation was not one that BK would find reasonable
 
I think it's just crazy to have to make these kinds of accommodations at work or school. A business cannot be expected to accommodate everybody. Nobody can do that. It is impossible, and lines have to be drawn.
 
ChrisL said:
I think it's just crazy to have to make these kinds of accommodations at work or school. A business cannot be expected to accommodate everybody. Nobody can do that. It is impossible, and lines have to be drawn.
Click to expand...

I still say If you are going to work somewhere then check if they line up with your beliefs to begin with. How is this even hard?
 
Risky Thicket said:
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.
Click to expand...

I see a common thread with these two precepts and religion. Section 307 of the ADA serves the purpose of preventing government interference with religion. Title VII preserves the free exercise of religion and does not run counter to the Establishment clause as it limits applicability of Title VII to certain situations and requirements.
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

The way I view the issue is that there are actually two arguments being made:

1. Religious workplace accommodation - the employee in question's position.

2. Corporate policy - in this instance, dress code.

Truthfully, I don't think most people here or in the general public care one way or the other if a fast food worker is wearing a long dress and/or if it was for religious reasons. I don't eat fast food, but when I did, I don't ever recall looking at a worker's pants or dress. Who looks to see what they have on? In terms of pants or dress, who really cares? I don't.

On the BK side, I can see where a dress could be a safety issue.

I could also see where the franchisee and/or BK may not really give a rat's ass about this particular issue, but looking at the broader picture, they don't want to set a precedent.

Religious fundamentalists - all religions have a fundie fringe - are ripping the world apart. Pick a country. It's certainly happening here in the U.S. If you are BK do where do you want to draw the line? I don't know. But, maybe BK has decided to try to draw the line here, with the case in the OP.
 
Why are people stating an alleged verbal contract as fact?
 
Hatuey said:
Why are people stating an alleged verbal contract as fact?
Click to expand...

my speculation is that the EEOC investigation determined that the oral contract was made
the person with hiring authority may well have acknowledged his oral agreement to the uniform modification to accommodate the new hire's religious needs
 
Hatuey said:
Why are people stating an alleged verbal contract as fact?
Click to expand...

Facts are to be proved to a fact finder (Judge or jury ) at trial. The acquiescence of religious dress by BK has been investigated by the EEOC; if it was found to be nonexistent it would not have been asserted as fact by the EEOC in their press release I posted previously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom