- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Again, that constitutionally protected right is about protection from the government. Not private citizens.
How would they be discriminated against if they had to let her wear a simple skirt because of her constitutionally protected right to practice her religion?
If I recall correctly, KFC just rolled with the Hajib and made an 'official' uniform hajib as alternative head gear for Muslim women. It's red with the KFC logo on the front. So instead of spending a fortune fighting a lawsuit, they turned the situation into a product and made a profit off of it.
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.
Again, that constitutionally protected right is about protection from the government. Not private citizens.
I know they were Catholic back then, but isn't that one of the reasons they burned Joan of Arc at the stake?
If an employee doesn't want to eat a Memphis Pulled Pork BBQ Sandwich or a bacon Sunday, then they just don't eat it.Until corporate decides to put pork on the menu, then what?
That was the official reason, though the real reason was because she was kicking ass.
I have shown several times now that this persons religion was not discriminated against. The person that told her to go home told her to go home BEFORE he even knew her religion. Kind of hard to discriminate against someone based on their religion when you don't even know thier religion.
Yes you did avoid them. All that you have done is quoted law. You never once stated your opinion of that law. Nor have you provided an explanation of why you support the law if you do or why you don't support the law if you don't. Now I CAN assume that you fully support the law by your posting of it time after time. But you still have not given a valid reason as to why you support the law. I know you have basically stated that it is because the employer has too much power, which is subjective, but that is not a valid enough reason to deny the right of the employer to dictate their companies dress code and apply it to everyone regardless of race, religion, gender, or creed.
Even the Federal government has the ability to apply a rule/law so long as they apply that rule/law equally. Hell, they can even allow a religion to display thier religious display's so long as they allow ALL religions to do it..or not...as long as its all applied equally. Why shouldn't a private company be allowed the same thing?
No they're not. They requiring that she wear the employee uniform like everyone else does. It has nothing to do with her religion from BK's POV. The one making this about religion is this girl...and those supporting her.
If an employee doesn't want to eat a Memphis Pulled Pork BBQ Sandwich or a bacon Sunday, then they just don't eat it.
False, business's can not discriminate against race, gender identity ,religion, sexual orientation, they can't have a sign outside that says "Blacks enter through the back", they'd be shut down faster than Steve Downie trying to deke around Nicklas Lidstrom.
You've got it backwards. She is requiring them to violate thier company policy to accomodate her religious belief. She is the one that applied for the job. They did not ask her to. As the supplicant she must abide by thier conditions. Not the other way around.
The prohibition is against eating pork, not handling pork. They can serve it, they can clean tables with remnants of pork left on them, they can take out the trash that has pork in it, hell they can even play football.But will devout Muslim employees handle the food?
That was the official reason, though the real reason was because she was kicking ass.
true and I will try to set out my position again
IN AN IDEAL WORLD free of the expansion of the commerce clause by FDR and his minions, an EMPLOYER should have the absolute right to hire or fire whom he pleases
IN an IDEAL world religions would not be idiotic to decree that ladies pants are "menswear"-as I noted in medieval europe fashionable young men wore what basically is the same thing our fashionable young women wear-mini skirts and tights. and the factory environment of WWII made trousers the standard for the women making weapons of war while the men were fighting the Nazis and the Rising Sun.
BUT since we DO have TITLE VII and since that is the LAW OF THE LAND (whether I like it or not) and as an attorney who has handled over ONE HUNDRED TITLE VII cases including several federal jury trials of REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION I can tell you it is my belief BK violated Title VII
Until corporate decides to put pork on the menu, then what?
Exactly. The entire thing is going to come down to who said what. Her rights to dress code were protected PRIOR to being employed. BKs corporated dress code policy were protected PRIOR to her being employed.
1. She has the right to dress how every she feels she is compelled to dress for religious purposes.
2. BK has the right to refuse people work who cannot respond corporate dress codes.
The argument is not about who had what right PRIOR to hire. The argument is about who did or did not agree to those rights at the point of interview/hire.
What was she told?
When?
Who told her?
Is there written documentation of what was relayed to her by BK management?
Is there a published dress code that would address wearing of pants?
Was it provided to her in the interview and did she acknowledge that she had read the and agreed to the dress code?
Was the interviewer qualified to interview and relay corporate policies?
Was the BK trainer negligent in his communication with the employee?
It really is not about religion.
I ll run my business as I please, if I dont want certain folks in it they aint getting in. They want to sue go for it. Its called the freedom of association.
You comply with federal and state law or you're fined and/or lose your bushiness license. Pretty simple concept.I ll run my business as I please, if I dont want certain folks in it they aint getting in. They want to sue go for it. Its called the freedom of association.
I have been sued still do as I please. Just expensive somtimes.You comply with federal and state law or you're fined and/or lose your bushiness license. Pretty simple concept.
False, business's can not discriminate against race, gender identity ,religion, sexual orientation, they can't have a sign outside that says "Blacks enter through the back", they'd be shut down faster than Steve Downie trying to deke around Nicklas Lidstrom.
I have been sued still do as I please. Just expensive somtimes.
That is a law. Not a Constitutionally protected right.
Besides TITLE VII also states...to provide for the recovery of compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional violations of Title VII
There was no intentional violation here. I've shown that a dozen times over now.
I ll run my business as I please, if I dont want certain folks in it they aint getting in. They want to sue go for it. Its called the freedom of association.
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?