The issue isnt one of "harm" though. If it were you might say what harm is it for me to go without a uniform at all? Answer: none. The fact is, virtually every company has a dress code and a code of conduct. If your religious beliefs forbid you from following the code of a particular company, that is NOT evidence of religious discrimination on the part of the company.Did ya figure out yet that there's a difference between "a dress code that is a necessary and functional part of the job, without which the job cannot be performed as required"...
...versus "a accomodation that WILL NOT affect the employee's ability to perform their job, nor impact the jobsite's ability to function normally?"
There is no harm in letting a Pentecostal woman wear a long skirt instead of pants at a frigging Burger King! If she wanted to wear a long skirt while serving as a firefighter that would be different...
For abortion yes. For pushing their religion on others, no.
Women have been cooking in skirts for thousands of years. I worked at a burger place too, and the cashier did not regularly enter the kitchen. But you want to argue over mindless bull**** technicalities because you have no case, no actual knowledge of the matter and no clear premise to base your hyperbole on. The employee was officially hired under the allowance that she could wear a skirt. And she even showed up with the correct color. I doubt you'd be working so hard at this had a black muslim been the one wearing the skirt.
Ahh, so every woman who wears a skirt to work is pushing their religion, aye?For abortion yes. For pushing their religion on others, no.
For abortion yes. For pushing their religion on others, no.
No not in my mind's eye in the eyes of the law and I have cited the law to you several times already. It is a legal compliance issue that BK must adhere to barring the qualified exemptions for which I have already explained and posted.
Its not. What is does do though is elevate one particular religious denomination over all others. The wackier the belief system, the more likely you are to not have to follow the same rules as everyone else.How is wearing a long skirt to work pushing religion on others?
BK accepted the girl, then rejected the girl. On what basis and where do you wish to hold her accountable?
There's a Muslim woman in my battalion. She wears the Hajib with her duty uniform; yes, this means in armor while out in the field.How is wearing a long skirt to work pushing religion on others?
Wearing a skirt is 'wacky'?Its not. What is does do though is elevate one particular religious denomination over all others. The wackier the belief system, the more likely you are to not have to follow the same rules as everyone else.
On what grounds did they accept her and then reject her?
Bold: How about the basis that she purposely applied for a job which she KNEW there was a dress code that did not coincide with her religious belief? Is she not responsible for that action?
So you're against the law? If so why? If not why? What is your reason for supporting this law which violates private individuals rights?
BK is a private business no doubt, however, they substantially effect commerce and have the requisite number of employees therefore fall must comply with Title VII. Moreover, as a private business that substantially effects commerce and has the requisite number of employees they must abide by these laws not withstanding their private dress code, in this instance. Indeed, if the issue were that the teenager needed to pray every hour and there was no substantial impact on the ability to perform her task then very few would have an issue with this situation and if BK would not allow her to pray it would be easier to find for the woman. She is not attempting to force her views, her values or her religion on BK she is seeking to have her rights protected in accordance to what BK is required to do.
The employee should prevail as a matter of law unless BK "demonstrates that they are unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business."
The relevant applicable law applicable to BK:
"TITLE 42 - THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 21 - CIVIL RIGHTS
SUBCHAPTER VI - EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
42 U.S.C. Section 2000e. Definitions
(b) The term “employer” means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year
(g) The term “commerce” means trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States; or between a State and any place outside thereof; or within the District of Columbia, or a possession of the United States; or between points in the same State but through a point outside thereof.
(h) The term “industry affecting commerce” means any activity, business, or industry in commerce or in which a labor dispute would hinder or obstruct commerce or the free flow of commerce and includes any activity or industry “affecting commerce” within the meaning of the Labor-*Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 [29 U.S.C. 401 et seq.], and further includes any governmental industry, business, or activity."
You have to comply with Equal Opportunity rules in hiring and promotions... one of which addresses religion.
"MY EMPLOYEE" is not the same thing as "MY DOG"!
No, believing that God gets angry at women who wears pants is wacky.Wearing a skirt is 'wacky'?
Have you ever seen the inside of an office building?
No, believing that God gets angry at women who wears pants is wacky.
Love the thread-jack attempt, not to many people will fall for it, though.I love the sudden sympathy for Old Testament Christians. Apparently anti-homosexual verses are out of favor but not ones that dictate fashion.
No, believing that God gets angry at women who wears pants is wacky.
I love the sudden sympathy for Old Testament Christians. Apparently anti-homosexual verses are out of favor but not ones that dictate fashion.
Did ya figure out yet that there's a difference between "a dress code that is a necessary and functional part of the job, without which the job cannot be performed as required"...
...versus "a accomodation that WILL NOT affect the employee's ability to perform their job, nor impact the jobsite's ability to function normally?"
There is no harm in letting a Pentecostal woman wear a long skirt instead of pants at a frigging Burger King! If she wanted to wear a long skirt while serving as a firefighter that would be different...
Yes it does. And it was meant to apply to those situations where the employer didn't hire someone, or fired someone due to religion. This is not what happened in this story. The orientation manager told the girl to go home because she was wearing a dress. Which was against company rules. Him telling her to go home had absolutely NOTHING to do with her religion. It had EVERYTHING to do with her wearing a dress when the company rule book has a specific dress code.
Why can't you get that through YOUR head?
Nor is "MY EMPLOYER" the same as "MY DOG"!
Holy hannah.... pushing her religion on others would be demanding that ALL female employees wear skirts.... not that she be allowed to fulfill a reasonable requirement of her religion without being fired for it.
Ahh, so every woman who wears a skirt to work is pushing their religion, aye?
How is wearing a long skirt to work pushing religion on others?
If a skirt is so intimidating to you, then just avoid BK.It is only pushing thier religion if 1: It is actually a part of a religion they believe in AND 2: the woman forces that employer to accomodate her.
Holy hannah.... pushing her religion on others would be demanding that ALL female employees wear skirts.... not that she be allowed to fulfill a reasonable requirement of her religion without being fired for it.
Since when is applying force always wrong?In this case it forces it upon the employer by making them accomodate for something that the employer obviously does not believe in. If you make someone follow or allow something which is against company policy, or even personal policy then you are applying force.
You are creating one fiction after another ....should you wish to continue further kindly stick to the issue at hand....
Individual rights are not being violated here. If, for example BK had 14 employees Title VII would not be applicable. I will painstakingly repost from post # 252 as these are the reasons why such a law is applicable to BK.
Hooters is quite possibly the worst example you could have pulled up for your argument.
Hooters begins it's business life by losing a 1.2mil lawsuit for copy-write infringement. Hooters has lost class-action lawsuits brought by it's employees (about 400 employees) not only for the appearance of their uniforms, but also for charging employees for the uniform, forcing employees to pay for customers who ditch, and not giving regular brakes as required by law. Hooters has also lost a few individual lawsuits for wrongful termination when they claimed waitresses were to fat, when the waitresses in question had actually lost weight in the months after being hired.
Hooters won a notable lawsuit when a few men claimed employment discrimination based on sex when Hooters wouldn't let them be wait staff. Hooters was able to demonstrate a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification, that a girls-only wait staff was essential to the business model and also demonstrating in court that allowing men would harm the business.
Hooters is a fine example of an abusive employer and their legal history bears this out.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?