• 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 I recall correctly, KFC just rolled with the Hajib and made an 'official' uniform hajib as alternative head gear for Muslim women. It's red with the KFC logo on the front. So instead of spending a fortune fighting a lawsuit, they turned the situation into a product and made a profit off of it.
 
Omgitsme said:
This isnt about a simple article of clothing. Its about religious beliefs. And if you believe that wearing pants will upset god or whatever you really arnt going to wear pants. So to her wearing a skirt is the only option.

I dont believe an employer should be able to discriminate against whoever they want.
Click to expand...
Because an employer refuses to acknowledge an absurd belief is not evidence of discrimination. BK is not banning herfrom working there, they were willing to hire her so long as she abidedby their rules. She couldnt so she is gone. That is not discrimination, that is life.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Nor are the employers rights any less valid just because they are employers.
Click to expand...

When you become an employer there are certain government guidelines that you must follow, and you must respect your employee's rights.
 
Fletch said:
Because an employer refuses to acknowledge an absurd belief is not evidence of discrimination. BK is not banning herfrom working there, they were willing to hire her so long as she abidedby their rules. She couldnt so she is gone. That is not discrimination, that is life.
Click to expand...
This behavior is why the mods had to create a separate forum for genuine religious discussions.
 
Fletch said:
Because an employer refuses to acknowledge an absurd belief is not evidence of discrimination. BK is not banning herfrom working there, they were willing to hire her so long as she abidedby their rules. She couldnt so she is gone. That is not discrimination, that is life.
Click to expand...

To her it isnt an absurd belief. And you are right BK isnt banning her from working there. However they are requiring that she violate her religious beliefs in order to work there.
 
Jerry said:
That's not it at all.

The owner still sets the uniform even while they have to make small exceptions. The owner still tells the Pentecost employee what length, color, material and general appearance the skirt has to meet, just as they do for the Hajib today. Based on my experience ordering my own pants for fast-food in highschool, the employer can even require that you order from a certain catalog at your own expense (you wouldn't believe the quantity of alternative approved uniform pieces KFC has). A Muslim KFC employee had the right to wear the Hajib, but it has to be a solid color with no writing, of either red, blue or white, couldn't cover the face, had to be tucked into the collar, and couldn't otherwise dangle or get in the way.

Just because a pregnant employee has the right to un-tuck the uniform shirt, doesn't mean the employer lost the ability to set the uniform. An amputee can pin up the pant leg, doesn't mean the employer can't still require uniform pants. An employee on oxygen and has to have a tank doesn't mean the employer can't prohibit writing or flair on the tank or it's carrier.

We say "small exception to the rule", and you respond with "complete and total loss of control". You're being hysterical. The only thing the employer needs to give on is allowing a skirt. Everything else stays well within the employer's control.
Click to expand...

And why can't the employer be allowed to state whether their employees wear pants while at work or not? Religion is not a good enough excuse as they have a right to not be forced to accomodate someone else's religion.
 
ChrisL said:
Maybe BK should terminate the employee who first told this woman it was okay for not knowing they have a dress code. Who knows? Maybe he wasn't even paying attention to her, and was just like "yeah, yeah, that's fine." A "verbal" contract could be pretty ambiguous. That's why you should always have agreements written in clear legal terms.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The entire thing is going to come down to who said what. Her rights to dress code were protected PRIOR to being employed. BKs corporated dress code policy were protected PRIOR to her being employed.

1. She has the right to dress how every she feels she is compelled to dress for religious purposes.

2. BK has the right to refuse people work who cannot respond corporate dress codes.

The argument is not about who had what right PRIOR to hire. The argument is about who did or did not agree to those rights at the point of interview/hire.

What was she told?
When?
Who told her?
Is there written documentation of what was relayed to her by BK management?
Is there a published dress code that would address wearing of pants?
Was it provided to her in the interview and did she acknowledge that she had read the and agreed to the dress code?
Was the interviewer qualified to interview and relay corporate policies?
Was the BK trainer negligent in his communication with the employee?

It really is not about religion.
 
Fletch said:
Really? And when another female employee sees this girl wearing a skirt and asks to wear a skirt as well, how do they say no without discriminating against her?.
Click to expand...
Ask for documentation proving that wearing a skirt is a "deeply held religious belief". As soon as that employee can produce the documentation, she can wear the skirt.
 
Jerry said:
This behavior is why the mods had to create a separate forum for genuine religious discussions.
Click to expand...
What, am I not allowed to call an absurd religious belief an absurd religious belief?
Hold on. God just called. Even He thinks its stupid.
 
Your Star said:
Yes it is, you know the right to religious freedom.
Click to expand...

The right to religious freedom as is stated in our Constitution applies to the federal government. Not to private individuals or companies. Remember, the BoR was to be applied to the government, not the citizens.
 
Omgitsme said:
This isnt about a simple article of clothing. Its about religious beliefs. And if you believe that wearing pants will upset god or whatever you really arnt going to wear pants. So to her wearing a skirt is the only option.

I dont believe an employer should be able to discriminate against whoever they want.
Click to expand...

To the girl it is about religion. To the BK employee that told her to go home it was about company policy and had nothing to do with religion. That difference should really be noted.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And why can't the employer be allowed to state whether their employees wear pants while at work or not? Religion is not a good enough excuse as they have a right to not be forced to accomodate someone else's religion.
Click to expand...
As per federal law, religion is a good enough excuse. That you don't care for religion per-se and/or this particular belief, is irrelevant. The law is what the law is and it's not about to be changed anytime soon. If you're going to operate a business in America you have to allow certain things even if you don't like them.

The alternative is to either move to another country or not be in business at all. Your choice.
 
Jerry said:
Ask for documentation proving that wearing a skirt is a "deeply held religious belief". As soon as that employee can produce the documentation, she can wear the skirt.
Click to expand...

Documentation??? Now you are just being silly.
 
Kal'Stang said:
To the girl it is about religion. To the BK employee that told her to go home it was about company policy and had nothing to do with religion. That difference should really be noted.
Click to expand...

Yes I get that difference. However they are still requiring her to violate a deeply held religious belief in order to work there. And the only thing they have to do to accommodate her is allow her to wear a skirt.
 
Omgitsme said:
Yes I get that difference. However they are still requiring her to violate a deeply held religious belief in order to work there. And the only thing they have to do to accommodate her is allow her to wear a skirt.
Click to expand...

This is the key, it is not a major deviation from the dress code, the company can dictate what type of skirt, what color, how long etc. They're just being dicks.
 
Your Star said:
When you become an employer there are certain government guidelines that you must follow, and you must respect your employee's rights.
Click to expand...

I'm actually surprised about your stance on this Your Star. I really don't mean to be personal here but are you not discriminated against and prevented from doing something by the government? Why should an employer be discriminated against just because they are an employer?
 
muciti said:
theere is a question of harm. the chain reaction it could set off. we also do not know what took place in the interview other than her claims. Furthermore they did not let her wear a skirt for a while then changed their mind. She was told no at her first attempt to wear a skirt to work.
Click to expand...

You appear to be engaged in contrarian positioning-arguing for the sake of arguing
 
Omgitsme said:
To her it isnt an absurd belief. And you are right BK isnt banning her from working there. However they are requiring that she violate her religious beliefs in order to work there.
Click to expand...

No they're not. They requiring that she wear the employee uniform like everyone else does. It has nothing to do with her religion from BK's POV. The one making this about religion is this girl...and those supporting her.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I'm actually surprised about your stance on this Your Star. I really don't mean to be personal here but are you not discriminated against and prevented from doing something by the government? Why should an employer be discriminated against just because they are an employer?
Click to expand...

How would they be discriminated against if they had to let her wear a simple skirt because of her constitutionally protected right to practice her religion?
 
Goshin said:
They have a right not to be discriminated against in hiring because of their religion.
Click to expand...

true and I will try to set out my position again

IN AN IDEAL WORLD free of the expansion of the commerce clause by FDR and his minions, an EMPLOYER should have the absolute right to hire or fire whom he pleases

IN an IDEAL world religions would not be idiotic to decree that ladies pants are "menswear"-as I noted in medieval europe fashionable young men wore what basically is the same thing our fashionable young women wear-mini skirts and tights. and the factory environment of WWII made trousers the standard for the women making weapons of war while the men were fighting the Nazis and the Rising Sun.

BUT since we DO have TITLE VII and since that is the LAW OF THE LAND (whether I like it or not) and as an attorney who has handled over ONE HUNDRED TITLE VII cases including several federal jury trials of REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION I can tell you it is my belief BK violated Title VII
 
Jerry said:
As per federal law, religion is a good enough excuse. That you don't care for religion per-se and/or this particular belief, is irrelevant. The law is what the law is and it's not about to be changed anytime soon. If you're going to operate a business in America you have to allow certain things even if you don't like them.

The alternative is to either move to another country or not be in business at all. Your choice.
Click to expand...

Or to appeal to common sense and get that law removed. Particularly since it could violate someone else's religious belief. And remember, according to the BoR the government may make no law regarding religion. That includes protections for that religion.

You seem to conviently forget these things.
 
When Ross Perot created EDS, the dress code required employees to wear a white button-down shirt every day. Not pale blue, not light beige, white. Every day. If you didn't want to wear one, you didn't hire on at EDS. Even today there are organizations that strongly encourage women to wear dresses and skirts rather than pants and also high heels.

If you aren't willing to comply with a company's policy, don't work for that company. It has the right to set its own standards and create its own corporate culture.
 
ChrisL said:
I believe in God, but I don't think God cares whether or not I wear pants or a skirt.
Click to expand...

He might if you have legs like Maria Sharapova
 
Omgitsme said:
Yes I get that difference. However they are still requiring her to violate a deeply held religious belief in order to work there. And the only thing they have to do to accommodate her is allow her to wear a skirt.
Click to expand...

You've got it backwards. She is requiring them to violate thier company policy to accomodate her religious belief. She is the one that applied for the job. They did not ask her to. As the supplicant she must abide by thier conditions. Not the other way around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom