lizzie
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 28,580
- Reaction score
- 31,554
- Location
- between two worlds
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I still think that BK could work the angle of employee safety because of the fact that a skirt CAN be considered a hazard in this type of setting.
Well, I suppose that is what will be resolved with the lawsuit.
Should businesses be required to accommodate ALL religions? If you say yes then that includes the church of body modification.
Church of Body Modification
View attachment 67133167
Yes, that's just like wearing a long skirt.
Would having piercings and visible tattoos interfere with taking orders, and pushing buttons on a cash register?
Why is it ok to make allowances for some religions, and not others?
She could trip in a long skirt and get hurt, which would set the business up for a lawsuit.A piercing could fall out and into someone's food.
There is nothing unsettling to customers about a long skirt. Using your skull as a pincushion is a different story.
She could trip in a long skirt and get hurt, which would set the business up for a lawsuit.
Either you support making businesses make accommodations for religious beliefs, or you don't. If you do support it, then that means ALL religions.
What would reasonable be? The ability to do the job? If so piercings would have no effect.Nice false dichotomy.
I support reasonable accommodations.
What would reasonable be? The ability to do the job? If so piercings would have no effect.
Nice false dichotomy.
I support reasonable accommodations.
No effect? If they sneeze they could put someone's eye out! :lol:
If you ignore the fact that facial piercings are against food safety code and will be found unsettling to customers, then yeah, it's just like a long skirt, :lol:
Reasonable is not having an effect on food safety or the guest's experience.
Piercings with captive beads are less likely to fall off than regular earrings.
The whole point is that you can't pick and choose which religions you want the government to make laws to protect, and also which religions should be protected by business practices. It really is an all or nothing thing.
It is not an all or nothing thing.
You do realize that accommodations have always been made for religion right? While rings are not acceptable to wear in food service, they will accommodate for wedding bands. No one makes you wash the ashes off your forehead on Ash Wednesday.
Accomodating is something that should be left to the individual businesses discretion not mandated by law.
Well, it's a bit too late for that, because in the 60's, the feds decided that they should dictate employments laws regarding discrimination in hiring practices.
I dont see how this would qualify under those laws. I believe those laws exist for good reason and I believe do belong. Refusing to hire someone because of their religion or race ect is wrong, however expecting that they comply with your pre existing rules is not quite the same to me.
Title VII of the 1964 civil rights act (amended), says that businesses must make reasonable accomodations for employees, based on the individual's religious beliefs, unless those accomodations cause an undue burden to the employer.
I'm not saying I agree with it entirely, because if I were hiring people, I'd rather have the option to hire whomever I wanted, with whatever rules I wanted, but legally, I could not do that.
A piercing could fall out and into someone's food.
There is nothing unsettling to customers about a long skirt. Using your skull as a pincushion is a different story.
REASONABLE is what makes this law ****ty. What I deem reasonable, you, or anyone else can vary. Making an exception for attire could make other employees want that same exception and then you lose your uniform all together. I happen to think that is unreasonable. I hate laws that are subject to interpretation for this very reason. Laws should be clear.
Burger King is doing to this woman what MOST large corporate employers (much of the labor marketplace now) are doing: attempting to enforce a level of conformity without regard for individual rights like, in this case, freedom of religion.
BK could accomodate this woman's deeply held beliefs with a MINOR accomodation that would not impair her ability to do her job or the site's ability to function.
When enough employers do this, they're forcing people to choose between important issues of conscience and being able to work and pay their bills.
Corporations trend together in terms of many of the requirements they lay on employees. Many of these are based on liability and insurance; others are based on generic templates for corporate structure like this ICS 9001 thing. As time goes by and more and more employers end up as part of this megacorporate conglomerate structure, more and more of them will be laying on the employee requirements that trample individuality indiscriminately. Employees will have fewer and fewer options to "just go work elsewhere", when almost everywhere else is laying the same requirements on them.
Your ox may not be being gored today
but let this case go and others like it and one day it WILL be your ox who is getting gored by an organization too large and powerful for you to defy alone.
It is not an all or nothing thing.
You do realize that accommodations have always been made for religion right? While rings are not acceptable to wear in food service, they will accommodate for wedding bands. No one makes you wash the ashes off your forehead on Ash Wednesday.
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?