• 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

IF they have to accommodate a Jew wearing a yarmulke or a Muslim woman wearing a hijab then they have to accommodate this woman wearing a skirt.

That is pretty much the case.
 
IF they have to accommodate a Jew wearing a yarmulke or a Muslim woman wearing a hijab then they have to accommodate this woman wearing a skirt.

I don't think they should have to support that either . . . if they have a dress code and uniforms. Unless they are singling someone out because of their religion and everyone is held to the same set of standards, it isn't religious discrimination IMO.
 
Only if Obama wins in November.

Seriously, wearing a skirt falls under "reasonable" accomodation, IMO. The only possible thing I can think why you shouldn't be able to wear a skirt is that the oil could potentially splatter up the skirt, causing a serious burn. That's unlikely (but I suppose it's possible).
The kind of spill which would have to occur for that to happen, is the kind of spill uniform pants aren't going to save you from anyway.
 
The kind of spill which would have to occur for that to happen, is the kind of spill uniform pants aren't going to save you from anyway.

Construction workers can't wear tank tops. That is against OSHA regulations.
 
The kind of spill which would have to occur for that to happen, is the kind of spill uniform pants aren't going to save you from anyway.

True enough, which is why I called it unlikely.
 
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?

Yeah, it's pretty dangerous to go down the road of deciding which beliefs are legitimate and which aren't.
 
I cannot express how much I disagree that businesses are on the same par with the government when it comes to the potential for oppressive abuses. Every interaction I have with private industry, including whether I work for someone or not, is completely voluntary. This is not so with the govt, besides, nobody is owed a job any where.


You have to work to live, unless you're independently wealthy or suck off the government tit. If we don't want people sucking off the government then maybe we should look at employer-employee relationships. The employer has most of the power, and "completely voluntary" hardly applies when they have you by the balls by controlling your income and ability to pay your bills. "Find another job" is no good when virtually ALL employers are engaging in behaviors towards their employees that can be characterized as oppressive.
 
Probably. :lol:

Then we'll have this debate when a member of the "First Church of Tank-top wearing Flying Spaghetti Monster Followers" gets a job in construction.
 
You have to work to live, unless you're independently wealthy or suck off the government tit. If we don't want people sucking off the government then maybe we should look at employer-employee relationships. The employer has most of the power, and "completely voluntary" hardly applies when they have you by the balls by controlling your income and ability to pay your bills. "Find another job" is no good when virtually ALL employers are engaging in behaviors towards their employees that can be characterized as oppressive.


Stop talking like that. People will think you're a Liberal.
 
Stop talking like that. People will think you're a Liberal.


A lot of people are under the mistaken impression that I am a conservative, because I am right-of-center on several issues that I am passionate about... but there is a reason why my "lean" says "Independent"... because that is exactly what I am. I stand where I stand and I don't depend on any party or ideology to tell me where that is. ;)
 
I will look for one later. LOL!
I'm one of those construction workers. Let me point you in the right direction: General requirements. - 1910.132

Construction workers routinely wear no shirt at all. I personally proffer the muscle shirt over the wife-beater. The employer has a wide range of discretion when it comes to things like a shirt. Many require only a company polo, while many others allow no shirt at all.

If a woman wanted to wear a skirt, there are certain jobs which she wouldn't be allowed to do because a skirt limits range-of-motion. These jobs would topically be things like framing where a lot of climbing is involved.

To the best of my knowledge BK doesn't require climbing.
 
Don't like it, go to some other country to have your business.
That is an odd thing for a soldier, supposedly in Afghanistan, to say about a free country. You understand your primary role is to protect the rights of the people, yes? Explain to me why I as an employer, must allow every backwards-ass religion to set the standards for my private business or go elsewhere. That is probably the most un-American, anti-liberty statement a person could make.

There is no anti-Pentecostal bigotry going one here. What there is is an absurd, stone age religious belief clashing with modern free enterprise, human liberty and property rights. Where a person should come down on that dispute should be obvious. To argue that those who defend individual rights should head elsewhere speaks poorly of your perspective.
 
So? Obviously the first EMPLOYEE who told her it was okay was mistaken. Mix-ups happen all the time.

Do you understand what the term "interview" means, and its significance in this case. The employee spoke offically for the company and allowed a variation. Therefore the EEOC has a case.
 
So none of the cashiers ever have to go through the kitchen?

I once worked at a Mc'Donalds before, a company that is run basically the same as BK from what I can tell and it was common for an employee to be trained in several positions besides the primary one that they were hired for. My wife did work at a BK so comparing experiances has shown me that this is true.

Women have been cooking in skirts for thousands of years. I worked at a burger place too, and the cashier did not regularly enter the kitchen. But you want to argue over mindless bull**** technicalities because you have no case, no actual knowledge of the matter and no clear premise to base your hyperbole on. The employee was officially hired under the allowance that she could wear a skirt. And she even showed up with the correct color. I doubt you'd be working so hard at this had a black muslim been the one wearing the skirt.
 
A lot of people are under the mistaken impression that I am a conservative, because I am right-of-center on several issues that I am passionate about... but there is a reason why my "lean" says "Independent"... because that is exactly what I am. I stand where I stand and I don't depend on any party or ideology to tell me where that is. ;)

Of course you do Goshin, don't pretend to be above the rest of us supposed idiots who have an ideology. I find that insulting.
 
Of course you do Goshin, don't pretend to be above the rest of us supposed idiots who have an idiology. I find that insulting.


I'm sorry you feel insulted, bud, but that isn't my fault if you chose to take it that way. I called no one an idiot and said nothing about being above anyone.

What I said was that I am what I am and I stand where I stand. I am not married to conservatism or liberalism or any other "ism" necessarily. If you choose to find that insulting I choose to find your response baffling.

I've said before that I am a mostly-right-leaning centrist who tends not to believe that extremes of any sort result in generally positive outcomes. If in doubt, I tend to favor individual rights over collective or group interests. If you want to say I have an ideology, well there it is.
 
Last edited:
Women have been cooking in skirts for thousands of years. I worked at a burger place too, and the cashier did not regularly enter the kitchen. But you want to argue over mindless bull**** technicalities because you have no case, no actual knowledge of the matter and no clear premise to base your hyperbole on. The employee was officially hired under the allowance that she could wear a skirt. And she even showed up with the correct color. I doubt you'd be working so hard at this had a black muslim been the one wearing the skirt.
That is the employees contention, but we have no way of knowing whether or not that was true. Personally, I find it hard to believe that a manager in charge of hiring people would be confused about uniform policy, but BK hasnt figured out how to serve a hot hamburger so anything is possible. But the main point here is whether or not a company has the right to institute its own dress code. Or whether it must accommodate every nonsensical religious belief any prospective employee walks through the door with. Requiring women to wear pants while working is not an unusual requirement. Women wear pants all the time--womens pants. So if this girl has some moronic objection to wearing mens pants, she can wear womens pants.
 
That is an odd thing for a soldier, supposedly in Afghanistan, to say about a free country.
I'm arguing that employers should make reasonable accommodation for religious practices, and you think this is unusual for a US soldier to say?

You understand your primary role is to protect the rights of the people, yes?

Interesting that you mention that, because I use a gun while performing that roll and private business owners don't want me carrying a gun, either. I can sport a loaded belt-fed weapon everywhere I go but the shower for an entire year, but as soon as I'm in your precious little hut oh noes I'm a hazard!

What a total load of bull****! If anything, I should be given some kind of special license to own and carry any kind of fully automatic weapon since I actually have documented structured training and experience with them.

News-flash: If I had criminal intent I wouldn't need to enter your business at all because your office is within effective range of my AR if not my SpringfieldXD. Your cute little policy won't save you from a damn thing.

Explain to me why I as an employer, must allow every backwards-ass religion to set the standards for my private business or go elsewhere. That is probably the most un-American, anti-liberty statement a person could make.

Certainly:
If you fire an employee just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, they are going to win a wrongful-termination claim against you and draw unemployment off of you:
Wrongful Termination of At Will Employment

The Civil Rights Act in 1964 extended anti-discrimination protections to employees, whose employment could no longer be terminated for reasons such as their race, gender, skin color, religion, or national origin. Additional legal protections now exist to deter certain forms of age discrimination. Following the creation of these anti-discrimination laws, it became possible for employees to argue that their terminations were "pretextual" - that is, although their employers were citing lawful reasons to terminate their employment, their employers were actually motivated by unlawful discriminatory motives.

~snip~

Some states will permit an "at will" employee to bring a lawsuit on the basis that the employer violated an implied covenant of "good faith and fair dealing" in association with the termination decision. In such states, even with an at-will employee, the employer must extend some degree of fairness in the decision to terminate employment.

******
If you remove a customer just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, you will be cited by the State for braking Public Accommodation codes.

For example:
South Dakota Code 20-13-23

20-13-23. Public accommodations--Unfair or discriminatory practices. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any person engaged in the provision of public accommodations because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, or national origin, to fail or refuse to provide to any person access to the use of and benefit from the services and facilities of such public accommodations; or to accord adverse, unlawful, or unequal treatment to any person with respect to the availability of such services and facilities, the price or other consideration therefor, the scope and equality thereof, or the terms and conditions under which the same are made available, including terms and conditions relating to credit, payment, warranties, delivery, installation, and repair.

When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom