• 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

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?

Again, that constitutionally protected right is about protection from the government. Not private citizens.
 
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.

Until corporate decides to put pork on the menu, then what?
 
Many Pentecostals believe it to be a VERY grevious offense against God for a women to wear pants, regardless of the reason why.

They should accomodate her on this. It's not a big deal for them, but it is huge to her.

I know they were Catholic back then, but isn't that one of the reasons they burned Joan of Arc at the stake?
 
Again, that constitutionally protected right is about protection from the government. Not private citizens.

False, business's can not discriminate against race, gender identity ,religion, sexual orientation, they can't have a sign outside that says "Blacks enter through the back", they'd be shut down faster than Steve Downie trying to deke around Nicklas Lidstrom.
 
I know they were Catholic back then, but isn't that one of the reasons they burned Joan of Arc at the stake?

That was the official reason, though the real reason was because she was kicking ass.
 
Until corporate decides to put pork on the menu, then what?
If an employee doesn't want to eat a Memphis Pulled Pork BBQ Sandwich or a bacon Sunday, then they just don't eat it.
 
That was the official reason, though the real reason was because she was kicking ass.

I've visited the place where they burned her at the stake in Rouen and the museum. It's awesome. Something about it, it's truly worth seeing.
 
I have shown several times now that this persons religion was not discriminated against. The person that told her to go home told her to go home BEFORE he even knew her religion. Kind of hard to discriminate against someone based on their religion when you don't even know thier religion.

Try again ....... I will refer you to the EEOC position statement I posted.



Yes you did avoid them. All that you have done is quoted law. You never once stated your opinion of that law. Nor have you provided an explanation of why you support the law if you do or why you don't support the law if you don't. Now I CAN assume that you fully support the law by your posting of it time after time. But you still have not given a valid reason as to why you support the law. I know you have basically stated that it is because the employer has too much power, which is subjective, but that is not a valid enough reason to deny the right of the employer to dictate their companies dress code and apply it to everyone regardless of race, religion, gender, or creed.

Even the Federal government has the ability to apply a rule/law so long as they apply that rule/law equally. Hell, they can even allow a religion to display thier religious display's so long as they allow ALL religions to do it..or not...as long as its all applied equally. Why shouldn't a private company be allowed the same thing?

Either you have cognitive problems or you simply wish to play games.
 
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.

Did you read what I wrote? I never claimed that it had to do with religion from BKs POV. And of course she is making this about religion. Because as I have already stated they are requiring her to violate her deeply held beliefs in order to work there. Basically allowing her to wear a skirt isnt going to hurt BK at all but not allowing her to wear a skirt is going to harm her.
 
False, business's can not discriminate against race, gender identity ,religion, sexual orientation, they can't have a sign outside that says "Blacks enter through the back", they'd be shut down faster than Steve Downie trying to deke around Nicklas Lidstrom.

I ll run my business as I please, if I dont want certain folks in it they aint getting in. They want to sue go for it. Its called the freedom of association.
 
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.

Company policy cannot violate a persons rights.
 
But will devout Muslim employees handle the food?
The prohibition is against eating pork, not handling pork. They can serve it, they can clean tables with remnants of pork left on them, they can take out the trash that has pork in it, hell they can even play football.

If they don't want to eat _____, they don't have to eat _____.
 
That was the official reason, though the real reason was because she was kicking ass.

I think that her visions may have had a little something to do with it.
 
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

But they didn't violate TITLE VII as she was fired for not conforming to the dress code before the guy knew about her religion. Is Title VII not suppose to stop discrimination of someones religion? How can there be discrimination if the one that did the firing had no clue as to her religious beliefs at the time he told her to go home? How can it be discrimination if the employee was just enforcing a companies decades old policy that was made because the employer saw that having a dress code was good for buisness? IE the policy was made with no regard to religion. There is absolutely no evidence that we have seen were this womans religion was discriminated against.
 
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.

The discussion between the parties is mere an aspect of this situation and speaks to conduct, and does not impact the Title VII situation which is the basis of the lawsuit filed by the EEOC. In fact they have not filed a complain based in breach of contract. So we could get that fiction off the table. It is about religion as far as the parties, the law and the US goverment is concerned.
 
I ll run my business as I please, if I dont want certain folks in it they aint getting in. They want to sue go for it. Its called the freedom of association.

And you'll lose. Have fun with that.
 
And honestly, y'all, this isn't about religion. It's about dress code and whether or not a interviewee was properly informed about a dress code requirement before being hired. Unless it is covered in writing it's down to two people and who said or didn't say what about wearing a dress.

I haven't read any statement where BK discussed religion with her. From what I understand she says she brought it up, but I have read anything where BK made any disparaging remarks about her religion.
 
I ll run my business as I please, if I dont want certain folks in it they aint getting in. They want to sue go for it. Its called the freedom of association.
You comply with federal and state law or you're fined and/or lose your bushiness license. Pretty simple concept.
 
You comply with federal and state law or you're fined and/or lose your bushiness license. Pretty simple concept.
I have been sued still do as I please. Just expensive somtimes. ;)
 
False, business's can not discriminate against race, gender identity ,religion, sexual orientation, they can't have a sign outside that says "Blacks enter through the back", they'd be shut down faster than Steve Downie trying to deke around Nicklas Lidstrom.

That is a law. Not a Constitutionally protected right.

Besides TITLE VII also states...to provide for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional violations of Title VII

There was no intentional violation here. I've shown that a dozen times over now.
 
I have been sued still do as I please. Just expensive somtimes. ;)

Actually what happens is they settle at the last minute because they know I wont back down. I have been to trial before on this type of thing. I have won and lost. I also testify on my behalf. Opposing council found out I aint easy. They now know it. They also know that I have very good lawyers. They also know I am stubborn bastard. With a jury its a crap shoot. So the last couple of times its been they just settle very reasonbly. Enough so that it doesnt make scense at all to fight, even on principle. Having a reputation as fighter is starting to pay off.:cool:
 
That is a law. Not a Constitutionally protected right.

Besides TITLE VII also states...to provide for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional violations of Title VII

There was no intentional violation here. I've shown that a dozen times over now.

They stated that they would be fine with it. Then they went back on their word, they were being assholes about a minor thing. Period.
 
I ll run my business as I please, if I dont want certain folks in it they aint getting in. They want to sue go for it. Its called the freedom of association.

Do you have deep pockets? If so, lawyers call you a payday.

Edit: Like a casino with slipper floors.
 
Back
Top Bottom