• 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

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,299
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Christian Woman Fired from Burger King for Wearing Skirt Instead of Pants | Work + Money - Yahoo! Shine

A Texas teenager is suing Burger King forreligious discrimination, saying that the fast food giant fired her, a conservative Christian, for wearing a long skirt, rather than uniform pants, to work.

Related: Fast food employees dish about items you should never order

Ashanti McShan was a 17-year-old high school senior when she applied for a job as a cashier at the Grand Prairie Burger King in August 2010,according to the lawsuit filed on her behalf this week by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. During her interview McShan, who is a Pentacostal Christian, said that her religious beliefs forbid women to wear men's clothing, so she would need to be able to wear a long black skirt rather than the standard-issue uniform pants. The Burger King employee interviewing her "assured her that she could wear a skirt to work," the lawsuit says.

That the Equal Employment Opportunity is backing her is ridiculous.
 
I agree, but just for the sake of equality would you feel similarly if it was a Jew seeking to wear a yarmulke or a Muslim woman asking to wear a hijab?
 
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.
 
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 have family that are like this, it's rather annoying.

But this isn't any different than a muslim working wanting to wear a hijab, there's no reason she should have been fired over this.
 
I have family that are like this, it's rather annoying.
.

Yeah, I think they're overreacting and misinterpreting myself... but it's what they believe and it is very important to them.

It would be VERY little, if ANY, skin off BK's nose to just let her wear the skirt.
 
I agree, but just for the sake of equality would you feel similarly if it was a Jew seeking to wear a yarmulke or a Muslim woman asking to wear a hijab?

I am - not - religious. I don't honestly give two ****s what religion it is. Burger King has rules for its employees. She doesn't have to work there if she doesn't like their rules.
 
I am - not - religious. I don't honestly give two ****s what religion it is. Burger King has rules for its employees. She doesn't have to work there if she doesn't like their rules.


Fine. What if the rule was you have to shave your head? Or wear a company-issue jock strap that you share with other employees on different shifts (Disney issue once...)?

The employer is not always right. Businesses that employ workers are a cooperative effort; the employer has to have labor, the laborer has to have a job. Neither can make a penny without the other.

A little minor accomodation isn't much to ask.
 
I don't think it's ridiculous. Unless they have a dress code? They're interfering with her religious freedom. What? A liberal on the other end of a "freedom" argument?

What other end of the freedom argument? She has the freedom not to work at Burger King and Burger King has the freedom to not employ her if she doesn't want to abide by their dress code. Which they do have like every other chain out there.

Fine. What if the rule was you have to shave your head? Or wear a company-issue jock strap that you share with other employees on different shifts (Disney issue once...)?

The employer is not always right. Businesses that employ workers are a cooperative effort; the employer has to have labor, the laborer has to have a job. Neither can make a penny without the other.

A little minor accomodation isn't much to ask.

What if - what if - what if. The rules I'm dealing with are the ones that exist. They are the same for everyone who wants to work for Burger King.
 
I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for this sort of thing. If your religion forbids you from doing things, or wearing things related to a specific job, get another job. If you can't get another job, tough ****. It's your own damn fault, and there's no good reason an employer should have to change their own practices to support your religion. This case reminds me of the following:

Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs - ABC News
 
What other end of the freedom argument? She has the freedom not to work at Burger King and Burger King has the freedom to not employ her if she doesn't want to abide by their dress code. Which they do have like every other chain out there.



What if - what if - what if. The rules I'm dealing with are the ones that exist. They are the same for everyone who wants to work for Burger King.


Hat, I'm reasonably sure the only reason you're on the BK side of this issue is because it is religious in nature. If it was some other kind of personal liberty issue, I'm fairly sure you'd side with the employee.

I don't read minds, no, but I've been reading your posts for years now....
 
I honestly don't understand nonsense like this. I wear tattoos and have earrings. My bosses all know this. They chose to hire me KNOWING I have those things. If they had rejected me - I would have gone elsewhere. I'd still think they're assholes for judging me on the basis of those things but I wouldn't have sued them for something which was my choice. Now if this girl had been told to not work because of her religion - I'd agree. But she wasn't. She was told not to work because she did not abide by the dress code. Which has nothing to do with religion but professionalism - JUST like my earrings. If she had been fired for being white/black/green/gay/tall/fat etc, I'd be 100% behind her. But she wasn't. She was told not to work because she thought her religion exempted her from the rules everyone else has to follow. I can't say I feel sorry for her.
 
Hat, I'm reasonably sure the only reason you're on the BK side of this issue is because it is religious in nature. If it was some other kind of personal liberty issue, I'm fairly sure you'd side with the employee.

I don't read minds, no, but I've been reading your posts for years now....

I hate to do this, but if this was a muslim woman being fired for wearing a hijab I'm pretty sure this would be a VERY different thread.
 
No different than a muslim woman suing because she got fired for wearing a hijab, but something tells me she'll catch more flak because she's not one of those "exotic" religions.
 
I doubt accommodating the woman would hurt BK, particularly if she was assured by the person who hired her that her wardrobe wouldn't be a problem.

However, if I'm the CEO of Burger King, and I require a specific uniform code for all servers in all BK stores, I'd have some pretty harsh words for whoever informed her that the dress code could be ignored. The potential for setting precedent for future such employee demands would create some definite legal liability. Face it, there are lots of religious dress codes that a fast-food joint wouldn't want to accommodate... burkas, kirpans (shikh ceremonial daggers), turbans, robes, etc. ... so I quite frankly understand reluctance to set that precedent.

If one's religion requires dress codes or other rules... cannot touch non-kosher food or pork products, for example... that would make working at certain positions difficult, then folks have to understand that they may have their employment options limited by their religious beliefs. A nation-wide corporation has to look toward the legal ramafications of "making an exception", because once they do they may be forced into making everyone who asks an exception.
 
What other end of the freedom argument? She has the freedom not to work at Burger King and Burger King has the freedom to not employ her if she doesn't want to abide by their dress code. Which they do have like every other chain out there.

What if - what if - what if. The rules I'm dealing with are the ones that exist. They are the same for everyone who wants to work for Burger King.

Oops. I missed the "uniform pants" part. The fact that someone said, "It'll be okay," really doesn't enter into the discussion other than, "Well, I changed my mind." Does that mean if she were a LEO she'd be wearing a long skirt? A fireman? Forget it. She's wrong. "Sorry, sweetie, this job's not for you."

I agree with you. Forget I posted. :rofl
 
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.


Unless there are legitimate safety concerns. There is a lot of hot equipment in burger joints to bump against.
 
Unless there are legitimate safety concerns. There is a lot of hot equipment in burger joints to bump against.

Not much of a concern with a skirt that goes down to the ankles. :shrug:
 
Unless there are legitimate safety concerns. There is a lot of hot equipment in burger joints to bump against.

It seems to me that a long skirt would protect you from the same things as long pants. I could understand if a short skirt were the issue.
 
Unless there are legitimate safety concerns. There is a lot of hot equipment in burger joints to bump against.


Pentecostal women wear mid-calf to ankle-length skirts... full protection for the legs. I just don't see where it would be any skin off BK's nose to go with it.
 
I hate to do this, but if this was a muslim woman being fired for wearing a hijab I'm pretty sure this would be a VERY different thread.

And you'd be wrong - when I first joined the forum - I thought the hijab was mandatory - when I actually spoke to Muslim members of the forum, I found out it was a cultural thing. :shrug:
 
Oops. I missed the "uniform pants" part. The fact that someone said, "It'll be okay," really doesn't enter into the discussion other than, "Well, I changed my mind." Does that mean if she were a LEO she'd be wearing a long skirt? A fireman? Forget it. She's wrong. "Sorry, sweetie, this job's not for you."

I agree with you. Forget I posted. :rofl

Actually, it means everything, since it was the interviewer who told her that she could wear the skirt. That's not a small thing, the girl did everything right by telling her employer during the interview, and when the employer agreed to it a verbal contract was made.
 
Pretty clear cut case of unfair discrimination :shrug:

and if she really was told it wouldnt be an issue during her interview not only is it a homerun case its a grand slam.
 
Last edited:
Oops. I missed the "uniform pants" part. The fact that someone said, "It'll be okay," really doesn't enter into the discussion other than, "Well, I changed my mind." Does that mean if she were a LEO she'd be wearing a long skirt? A fireman? Forget it. She's wrong. "Sorry, sweetie, this job's not for you."

I agree with you. Forget I posted. :rofl


Policing in a long skirt would be hard, firefighting would be impossible..... but cooking and serving burgers in a long skirt is just totally a non-issue. It does not impede her ability to do this in any way.
 
Back
Top Bottom