• 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:
I can understand the point you are trying to make here, where it would be easier for an employer to mistreat an employee because he or she might be desperate for a job and not in a position to just quit. Still though, I don't think it gets much worse than BK as far as pay rates go, and this does not negate the fact that if an employee is unhappy with his job, he or she can quit. Of course, I do think that employers should be held to standards too, but I still think this particular case is completely bogus, this girl probably does not NEED a job as she is a teenager and lives with her parents, she was most likely misinformed by another employee who was obviously unfamiliar with the dress code, BK has uniforms that are standard for everybody, and I think she just wants a payday. IMO, the employer should not have to cater to anybody's religious quirks.
Click to expand...


If the "religious quirk" is something that isn't going to prevent the employee from doing their job, or impair the job site's ability to function and do business, then making a MINOR accomodation to let the employee fulfill their deeply held beliefs is every bit as reasonable as letting an employee with foot problems wear orthotic shoes instead of company-issue shoes. To the person who holds such a belief, honoring the moral requirements of their religion is very important.

I have no problem with a Sihk or a Muslim wearing a turban while they hand me fries and a burger. I have no problem with a Jew handing me my change while wearing a yamulka. Why the hell is this woman wanting to wear a long skirt a big deal?
 
Goshin said:
If the "religious quirk" is something that isn't going to prevent the employee from doing their job, or impair the job site's ability to function and do business, then making a MINOR accomodation to let the employee fulfill their deeply held beliefs is every bit as reasonable as letting an employee with foot problems wear orthotic shoes instead of company-issue shoes. To the person who holds such a belief, honoring the moral requirements of their religion is very important.

I have no problem with a Sihk or a Muslim wearing a turban while they hand me fries and a burger. I have no problem with a Jew handing me my change while wearing a yamulka. Why the hell is this woman wanting to wear a long skirt a big deal?
Click to expand...


Should BK have to accommodate a Hindu's belief system?

/devils advocate
 
Goshin said:
If the "religious quirk" is something that isn't going to prevent the employee from doing their job, or impair the job site's ability to function and do business, then making a MINOR accomodation to let the employee fulfill their deeply held beliefs is every bit as reasonable as letting an employee with foot problems wear orthotic shoes instead of company-issue shoes. To the person who holds such a belief, honoring the moral requirements of their religion is very important.

I have no problem with a Sihk or a Muslim wearing a turban while they hand me fries and a burger. I have no problem with a Jew handing me my change while wearing a yamulka. Why the hell is this woman wanting to wear a long skirt a big deal?
Click to expand...

This is true, but I still think it is unreasonable to make a business accommodate for everybody's religious beliefs. Therefore, they should have to accommodate for NONE of them, unless they so choose. Personally, I couldn't care less who serves me my food or how they are dressed, as long as they are wearing clothing. I am coming at this strictly from the position that it is unfair to expect the business to accommodate for everyone, and they should have the option to say no religious apparel, jewelry, etc. at the workplace. That way, nobody can be angry, nobody can file lawsuits, etc. And orthopedic shoes and things like that are medical necessities. Apples and oranges. :)
 
Kal'Stang said:
Gender Identity is either genetic or chemical. It is not a belief system. It is simply how you are. As such the two are not equivalent. One is chosen, the other is not. Religion is a belief system, something you can choose. I can understand having to make accomodations for such things as genetics, disorders, handicaps etc etc. But why should an employer have to make an accomodation for something which a person chooses to believe?



I've yet to see a contract that can't override a persons rights. The only times the courts ever null a contract is when one party or another breaks that contract or requires that the person do something illegal, such as having a citizen kill/rape a person (extreme example but you get the drift) or the person was tricked/forced into the contract. The reason that the contracts can override a persons rights is because they agreed to the terms and conditions set forth in that contract. They voluntarily wave their rights.

Now when you first get hired onto a job you are generally required to abide by a set of rules, most buisnesses make you sign the company rule handbook (or paper saying that you agree to follow that rulebook) before you start working now a days, your agreement to abide by those rules is a contract, be it a verbal contract or written. Now in this case I happen to know that BK does make you sign such a thing so there is probably evidence that she did sign it. And I would bet 100 dollars that no exceptions were noted down in that handbook which means she is still obligated to follow that rule book.

IMO the girl may have standing to sue the guy that hired her for something or other because he was in the wrong, but BK? Thier dress code for normal employee's is applied universally with no discrimination. They should not be sued for non-discrimination.
Click to expand...

I can choose not to transition.. I would never be truly happy if I didnt so there isnt realistically be much of a choice. Same goes for her. She can choose to wear pants but if she does she believes she is going to anger god so she isnt going to make that choice.

Im sorry but the law isnt on your side here. Employees still have rights that cannot be signed away on a contract.

Religious Accommodation in the Workplace - Religious Freedom Resources

Religious Accommodation

What is a “reasonable accommodation”?
A reasonable accommodation is one that eliminates the employee's conflict between his religious practices and work requirements and that does not cause an undue hardship for the employer.

Requested accommodations vary - an employee may need a particular day off each year for a religious holiday; or to refrain from work every week on his or her Sabbath; or to wear religious garb; or to have a place to pray. An employer must try to arrange to allow the employee to meet these religious obligations.

May an employee wear religious garb or symbols to work?
Employers must attempt to accommodate employees who, for religious reasons, must maintain a particular physical appearance or manner of dress in keeping with the tenets of their religion. Again, accommodation is required only if it can be made without undue hardship to the employer. When it comes to religious apparel, typically only safety concerns constitute undue hardship.

Oh and if you dont like that link for some reason here is a different one.

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
 
Last edited:
Spring99 said:
What would your thoughts be if this was a store owned by a Muslim and the owner required all women employees to wear a hijab and dress below their knees?
Click to expand...
I can tell you what I think of this... That it is fine. It's the owner and he gets to make the rules. If someone really wants to work there, and they can accept the dress code then go for it. If they do not want to have to dress that way, then find employment where they can dress the way they want to.
 
00timh said:
I can tell you what I think of this... That it is fine. It's the owner and he gets to make the rules. If someone really wants to work there, and they can accept the dress code then go for it. If they do not want to have to dress that way, then find employment where they can dress the way they want to.
Click to expand...

The owner does not get to make all the rules and the reason is we live in a society. No business can operate in a vacuum which does not receive benefits from a society.
 
ChrisL said:
But what if the manager made a mistake or was not familiar with the rules? Why does BK have to support something that an employee erroneously told another potential employee?
Click to expand...

It's BK's job to make sure their hiring managers do know the rules. If not, that's BK's fault.
 
Fletch said:
I did read the link. And her beliefs are moronic
Click to expand...

That's true, they are, but that doesn't change the fact that she was told specifically that she could wear a skirt. Now, it's no longer religious accomodation, it's BK's policy, as explanied by a supposedly knowledgeable employee.
 
Cephus said:
It's BK's job to make sure their hiring managers do know the rules. If not, that's BK's fault.
Click to expand...

Maybe he or she was just a bad employee? You can give some people all the training in the world, and they still suck at their job.
 
This is why businesses should be able to say no religious things in the workplace. That takes care of the whole problem. If someone doesn't like that, they can apply to a place that is better suited for their religious expressions.
 
winston53660 said:
Should BK have to accommodate a Hindu's belief system?

/devils advocate
Click to expand...

No, nor should they have to accommodate this woman's beliefs, they should have told her during the interview that she had to follow the dress code. They didn't. That's the difference.
 
ChrisL said:
Maybe he or she was just a bad employee? You can give some people all the training in the world, and they still suck at their job.
Click to expand...

Then you don't put them in a position of authority. Stop trying to make excuses, they screwed up, they have to deal with it.
 
Cephus said:
Then you don't put them in a position of authority. Stop trying to make excuses, they screwed up, they have to deal with it.
Click to expand...

How would they know until the employee messes up, like what apparently happened in this situation?
 
ChrisL said:
How would they know until the employee messes up, like what apparently happened in this situation?
Click to expand...

Then you deal with that employee, but they were still acting from a position of authority that you put them into and they still speak for your company.
 
Cephus said:
Then you deal with that employee, but they were still acting from a position of authority that you put them into and they still speak for your company.
Click to expand...

When she showed up for orientation, they sent her home and told her to put pants on because that is the dress code, and if the employee was in ERROR, then he or she is not speaking for the company because they are wrong. Just because an employee gives out information that isn't true about his company doesn't mean the company has to back it up.
 
Cephus said:
And I would agree with you, right up until that manager told her that they would. Once they said that, it's no longer a special accommodation, it's a hiring agreement, just like agreeing that someone doesn't have to work on Tuesdays if they have school.
Click to expand...

Except that the the person who hired her does not set company policy. As such he could not make such a promise. The employee should be fired.
 
Omgitsme said:
I can choose not to transition.. I would never be truly happy if I didnt so there isnt realistically be much of a choice. Same goes for her. She can choose to wear pants but if she does she believes she is going to anger god so she isnt going to make that choice.
Click to expand...

There is a big big difference between a chemical imbalance or genetic coding that makes you feel things and thinking that god is going to be angry with you just because you wear pants. As ChrisL said, apples and oranges.

Omgitsme said:
Im sorry but the law isnt on your side here.
Click to expand...

Is the the ONLY arguement you have? "The law is against it so it must be bad!" Can you not give me any other reason? Laws can be wrong. Our history has shown that.

Omgitsme said:
Employees still have rights that cannot be signed away on a contract.
Click to expand...

Tell that to our soldiers.
 
Cephus said:
Then you deal with that employee, but they were still acting from a position of authority that you put them into and they still speak for your company.
Click to expand...

But this employee does not have the authority to change company policy. Just because you put someone in charge of some people does not mean that you put them in charge of your policy.
 
Lovebug said:
She shows her face for identification purposes, the isn't hindering anyone. What's the problem? If the woman were Muslim, BK et al would have fallen over themselves to accommodate her.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and all of these accommodations are made possible because of law suits. Businesses should have the same right as government to separate religion from their workplaces.
 
Kal'Stang said:
There is a big big difference between a chemical imbalance or genetic coding that makes you feel things and thinking that god is going to be angry with you just because you wear pants. As ChrisL said, apples and oranges.



Is the the ONLY arguement you have? "The law is against it so it must be bad!" Can you not give me any other reason? Laws can be wrong. Our history has shown that.



Tell that to our soldiers.
Click to expand...

Either way its what she believes to be true and both living as the opposite sex and religious beliefs are a choice. Your argument is that the employer has the right to dictate how someone dresses. So why wouldnt you believe that they have the right to dictate how someone who is gender non-conforming dresses? After all I voluntarily applied for the job and can always find another one that allows to to dress as I please right?

No thats not my only argument. However you claimed that and employee can sign away their rights and I showed that they legally cant nor do I believe that they should be able to. Ive made my reasoning perfectly clear.

Military is completely different. Apples and oranges right?
 
Omgitsme said:
Either way its what she believes to be true and both living as the opposite sex and religious beliefs are a choice. Your argument is that the employer has the right to dictate how someone dresses. So why wouldnt you believe that they have the right to dictate how someone who is gender non-conforming dresses? After all I voluntarily applied for the job and can always find another one that allows to to dress as I please right?

No thats not my only argument. However you claimed that and employee can sign away their rights and I showed that they legally cant nor do I believe that they should be able to. Ive made my reasoning perfectly clear.

Military is completely different. Apples and oranges right?
Click to expand...

As long as they dress appropriately according to the dress code, it shouldn't be a problem. The dress code covers both men and women, so whichever gender one chooses to live as. That is apples and oranges too.
 
ChrisL said:
As long as they dress appropriately according to the dress code, it shouldn't be a problem. The dress code covers both men and women, so whichever gender one chooses to live as. That is apples and oranges too.
Click to expand...

Im talking about someone who is still legally male and is pre-op. If there wernt laws in place protecting gender identity an employer could easily use the same arguments being made against the woman in the OP to make them dress as a male. However I dont want to hijack this thread or anything and make it about a different topic.
 
Omgitsme said:
Im talking about someone who is still legally male and is pre-op. If there wernt laws in place protecting gender identity an employer could easily use the same arguments being made against the woman in the OP to make them dress as a male. However I dont want to hijack this thread or anything and make it about a different topic.
Click to expand...

Preop, postop. Still, that's totally different than wearing religious items in the workplace, but you're right about it being off topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom