- Joined
- Sep 29, 2007
- Messages
- 29,262
- Reaction score
- 10,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I am also a proud member of the Magical Panties religion. :2razz:
I go commando!
I am also a proud member of the Magical Panties religion. :2razz:
I go commando!
Which I wrote. Then, during the process of thought and discussion, it swelled into Title VII and went from there. Discussions are truly remarkable ways of uncovering more and more information.
I am also a proud member of the Magical Panties religion.
Well, I wear magical panties, but I just don't divulge that to my employer.
:mrgreen: Can I see?? :lamo
You all left it out there. I couldnt help myself. Resistance was futile.
Ohhhhhhhh I got Star Trek quote in!!!:2dance:
Accomodating is something that should be left to the individual businesses discretion not mandated by law.
BK will probably go with the safety issues. A skirt is just not appropriate attire for working in a fast food restaurant. I've worn long skirts before, and they are either constricting where you can't stretch your legs apart very far or they are flowing and loose. Both of these situations could pose a danger in an industrial-type kitchen.
So the wedding rings that you got due to a religious ceremony are acceptable but not wedding rings used in front of a judge?
Yes it is an all or nothing deal. All laws are suppose to be applied equally to the demographics that they are aimed at. If a law prevents a buisness from discriminating against religious things so long as it does not interfere with buisness then it includes ALL religions. You cannot pick and choose which religion the law applies to. That in itself is discrimination. It would be awefully stupid to have a law to prevent discrimination when the law itself discriminates against the very thing that it is suppose to help prevent discrimination from wouldn't you say?
I read the article again, and then I read a couple of other articles about it, and no where does it state that according to her religion she has to wear "skirt." It simply states she has to wear "women's" clothes, and women's pants would fall under the description of "women's" clothes, and I do believe that Burger King would have given her a pair of women's pants to wear; therefore, BK is NOT making her wear men's clothing. So, is she making up her own rules here?
So, I guess that means we'll have to let the Pastafarians wear their spaghetti strainer hats too. Nice. Why would a business even bother with a dress code when they have to make all kinds of silly exceptions?
So now you are against someone practicing their religious beliefs? :rofl
I don't give a damn about religious beliefs, I think anyone who believes in imaginary friends is an idiot. Personally, I'm defending her only because she was granted a specific exception by an individual in power. It has nothing to do with religion, I'd be supporting someone who wanted to wear a clown nose and got permission for that by the hiring manager.
This really isn't a matter of religious freedom, it's a matter of granted permission in the hiring agreement.
I worked in a restaurant with a pentacostal lady and she never got hurt wearing her skirt. :shrug:
You are now being obtuse. A skirt is not a "silly exception". I'm not surprised you don't understand what reasonable means.
No, she isn't making up her own rules. Her demonination of religion makes up the rules. For Pentacostal women, women's pants are a no-no.
No, she isn't making up her own rules. Her demonination of religion makes up the rules. For Pentacostal women, women's pants are a no-no.
Companies have a right to have a dress code.
Employees who choose to work there agree to accept that dress code.
Except for those who think they are "special" or something, and then apparently it's okay to bend rules and file frivolous lawsuits. I looked into this religion a bit. Sounds like it can be pretty oppressive to women.
wow, that was intolerant
that someone who insists on following the edicts of her church, someone who obey's the law of G_d as she understands them to be, is 'special'
different, maybe. special, only in the positive sense
We kind of agree, except that I think freedom allows her to choose that religion even if it is oppressive.Except for those who think they are "special" or something, and then apparently it's okay to bend rules and file frivolous lawsuits. I looked into this religion a bit. Sounds like it can be pretty oppressive to women.
We kind of agree, except that I think freedom allows her to choose that religion even if it is oppressive.
My point is that if we force a company to make an exception for her, where are the boundaries?
easy answerWe kind of agree, except that I think freedom allows her to choose that religion even if it is oppressive.
My point is that if we force a company to make an exception for her, where are the boundaries?