• 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

cpwill said:
On the contrary. Not only does my place of work specifically demand what pants, undershirt, shirt, socks, hat, and shoes I wear on any given day, it demands that I shave my face every morning and maintain a certain length of hair. Furthermore, if I refuse to do these things not only do they retain the right to fire me, they retain the right to throw me in jail. Ditto for working on Sunday.



?
Click to expand...


Holy crap, Will, you're in the MILITARY.... whole different kettle of fish... :mrgreen:
 
Muddy Creek said:
So, is the woman saying she did not know what the dress code was before she accepted to the terms of the job? Or is she just trying to make this into one more lame "religious persecution" idea?

Seems to me, you work in the corporate world, you abide by the corporate world rules.
Click to expand...

According to the EEOC link, the girl was told during an interview, that she could wear long skirts, rather than the BK dress code pants, then when she went for orientation, she was told to leave.
 
lizzie said:
According to the EEOC link, the girl was told during an interview, that she could wear long skirts, rather than the BK dress code pants, then when she went for orientation, she was told to leave.
Click to expand...


Thanks. Man, am I embarrassed. Shoulda read the article.

Well, it would appear as though a manager would have interviewed her. Seems to be a leg to stand on here, then, doesn't it?
 
lizzie said:
According to the EEOC link, the girl was told during an interview, that she could wear long skirts, rather than the BK dress code pants, then when she went for orientation, she was told to leave.
Click to expand...

Then again, this sounds a bit like a set-up. She didn't mention the other employee, just that

But when she arrived for orientation, another store management told her that she could not wear a skirt "and that she had to leave the store," in spite of her explaining that there was a religious issue at stake,
Click to expand...

Seems as though this was a set-up again.
 
cpwill said:
You do not have the right to force others to give you things. This woman has no right to force BK to accommodate her religious beliefs. BK is not going to her house and restraining her from attending worship, praying as she pleases, or preaching as she pleases. They are simply saying that part of the job at Burger King is wearing pants, the woman is free to take or leave it as she pleases, and from that freedom of action that is left to her we can draw the conclusion that her liberties are not being infringed.



I agree. And I think that they should, or at the very least should go out of their way to apologize profusely and profoundly and offer one heckuva separation package. But Burger King has the right to be stupid, if they choose.



No, they are forcing them to choose between their conscience and taking a job that would require them to violate it. I am not upset that Chip-n-Dales refuses to hire me as a stripper simply because I would not take my clothes off in front of a woman other than my wife. Taking that job would require me to violate my conscience and so I do not seek it. And Chip-N-Dales would not be violating my rights if I did take that job and was then fired for refusing to perform. The action I object to is what they are paying me to do - for me to take their money and refuse to undertake the action is theft.



yes, yes, corporations are up in their corporate buildings being all corporationy, yes, I know. however the standard you are applying here is not about corporations, it is about whether or not an employee has the right to force their religious views upon the employer. Trade out "Burger King" with "Family Owned Restaurant", and the case you are trying to make here ceases to exist even though nothing has changed.



On the contrary. Not only does my place of work specifically demand what pants, undershirt, shirt, socks, hat, and shoes I wear on any given day, it demands that I shave my face every morning and maintain a certain length of hair. Furthermore, if I refuse to do these things not only do they retain the right to fire me, they retain the right to throw me in jail. Ditto for working on Sunday.



why would I seek to defy an organization for offering me a job that I will not take? haHAH-take that, megacorp! you think Chip-N-Dales is suffering because they have no cpwill on stage? am I suffering because I'm not up there?
Click to expand...
Title VII does not extend protection to military personnel
 
Muddy Creek said:
Thanks. Man, am I embarrassed. Shoulda read the article.

Well, it would appear as though a manager would have interviewed her. Seems to be a leg to stand on here, then, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

It seems that way on first glance, but I'm sure there will be difficulty proving the claims. This case could go either way, but based on the need for BK to prove that her wearing a long skirt would be undue duress on the company, I'm tending to think her case is pretty strong.
 
lizzie said:
It seems that way on first glance, but I'm sure there will be difficulty proving the claims. This case could go either way, but based on the need for BK to prove that her wearing a long skirt would be undue duress on the company, I'm tending to think her case is pretty strong.
Click to expand...

Oh yay!!! Perhaps she'll get all kinds of money, and then this will NEVER be a problem for her again. Everybody happy?
 
Goshin said:
Holy crap, Will, you're in the MILITARY.... whole different kettle of fish... :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

:) is it? Are my rights not being infringed?



:lol: help! help! I need a Union!


:( oh, wait, that's illegal too..... :lol:
 
ChrisL said:
Oh yay!!! Perhaps she'll get all kinds of money, and then this will NEVER be a problem for her again. Everybody happy?
Click to expand...

Either outcome doesn't make my day. As for the money, I'm not too concerned. What I am concerned about is whether or not justice is applied with regards to the actual law, and not PC'd into unobjectivity.
 
lizzie said:
It seems that way on first glance, but I'm sure there will be difficulty proving the claims. This case could go either way, but based on the need for BK to prove that her wearing a long skirt would be undue duress on the company, I'm tending to think her case is pretty strong.
Click to expand...

Not me. Corporations outdo religion in this corporate state. She had the option to NOT wear her skirt and accept her job. She doesn't say she mentioned what the first man told her. She opts for the religious freedom comment, which does not apply in this case. BK is not stopping her from practicing her religion. She has that right. She just can't wear her religious garb at work and must abide by the rules of the corporation. Think the Supreme Court will side AGAINST corporations?
 
Connery said:
Title VII does not extend protection to military personnel
Click to expand...

we weren't discussing the law we were discussing the conflict of rights. the law I agree should be applied, my problem is that the law is an abuse of our liberties.
 
ChrisL said:
Oh yay!!! Perhaps she'll get all kinds of money, and then this will NEVER be a problem for her again. Everybody happy?
Click to expand...



Not money, but a lot of political gain on it? "They are taking away my religious freedom" surfaces at every election now since 1980.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Not me. Corporations outdo religion in this corporate state. She had the option to NOT wear her skirt and accept her job. She doesn't say she mentioned what the first man told her. She opts for the religious freedom comment, which does not apply in this case. BK is not stopping her from practicing her religion. She has that right. She just can't wear her religious garb at work and must abide by the rules of the corporation. Think the Supreme Court will side AGAINST corporations?
Click to expand...

This isn't about practicing her religion. It's about whether not BK is obligated to accomodate her dress, regarding her religious belief.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Not money, but a lot of political gain on it? "They are taking away my religious freedom" surfaces at every election now since 1980.
Click to expand...

I get the feeling the girl is looking for a payday. I don't know how much this would effect anything politically, but what do I know?
 
lizzie said:
This isn't about practicing her religion. It's about whether not BK is obligated to accomodate her dress, regarding her religious belief.
Click to expand...

What? Can't have it both ways. The first amendment says no one can interfere with a person's religious freedom. This woman has NOT Had her religious freedom removed. She can practice her religion.

As to the "religious beliefs", she can have that, too. She can wear her skirts. She cannot however, supersede the rules of the corporation and DEMAND that she be allowed to wear her religious icons at work.
 
ChrisL said:
I get the feeling the girl is looking for a payday. I don't know how much this would effect anything politically, but what do I know?
Click to expand...

Probably a great deal more than I.
 
Muddy Creek said:
What? Can't have it both ways. The first amendment says no one can interfere with a person's religious freedom. This woman has NOT Had her religious freedom removed. She can practice her religion.

As to the "religious beliefs", she can have that, too. She can wear her skirts. She cannot however, supersede the rules of the corporation and DEMAND that she be allowed to wear her religious icons at work.
Click to expand...

But this case is not about whether or not she can practice her religion.
 
cpwill said:
:) is it? Are my rights not being infringed?



:lol: help! help! I need a Union!


:( oh, wait, that's illegal too..... :lol:
Click to expand...

Well obviously that means all unions should be illegal. We should all live under martial law (aka, Military). Maybe we should also just have one generalissimo at the top.
 
cpwill said:
:) is it? Are my rights not being infringed?



:lol: help! help! I need a Union!


:( oh, wait, that's illegal too..... :lol:
Click to expand...

Oh, come on bud, you know full well that when you swore the oath and signed on the dotted line, your life belonged to Uncle Sam and it is a whole different thing from civilian employement.
 
ChrisL said:
Oh yay!!! Perhaps she'll get all kinds of money, and then this will NEVER be a problem for her again. Everybody happy?
Click to expand...

Why are those opposed to this woman religious observance and the EEOC"s lawsuit so hard bitten if this woman gets some monetary award. It will not be much in back wages and she will be taxed like anyone for punitive damages or emotional distress. This woman and everyone else has a Constitutionally protected right in freedom of religion and Title VII merely insures that without breaching the Establishment clause. Hypothetically, if the reverse happened where BK was forcing this woman to wear a "habit" or a male to get circumcised in order to work because BK observed one religion or another The same people would be citing these constitutional guarantees.
 
lizzie said:
But this case is not about whether or not she can practice her religion.
Click to expand...

She says it is

"The result of the foregoing practices has been to deprive Ashanti McShan of equal employment opportunities because of her religious beliefs and observances as a Christian Pentecostal
Click to expand...
 
cpwill said:
we weren't discussing the law we were discussing the conflict of rights. the law I agree should be applied, my problem is that the law is an abuse of our liberties.
Click to expand...

For those that fall under the responsibility to comply with Title VII and for those who are protected by Title VII those right are insured and there is no abuse whatsoever.
 
Connery said:
Why are those opposed to this woman religious observance and the EEOC"s lawsuit so hard bitten if this woman gets some monetary award. It will not be much in back wages and she will be taxed like anyone for punitive damages or emotional distress. This woman and everyone else has a Constitutionally protected right in freedom of religion and Title VII merely insures that without breaching the Establishment clause. Hypothetically, if the reverse happened where BK was forcing this woman to wear a "habit" or a male to get circumcised in order to work because BK observed one religion or another The same people would be citing these constitutional guarantees.
Click to expand...

Where has her religious freedoms been abolished?

And what back wages? She left during orientation, which I think is the START of employment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom