• 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


I don't think "clothing" should be a constitutional guarantee when it comes to employment. If the employer has a dress code, there is usually a good reason for it. I don't think business just have dress codes and buy uniforms for their employees for the fun of it. IMO, a business should not have to cater to a person's religious beliefs in this way, and if they have a dress code, everyone should have to follow it (unless there are medical reasons), or find another job. I'm sorry, but I don't feel sorry for her. I just don't. :shrug:
 
She says it is

Okay. You still aren't getting it, apparently.

She is Pentecostal, which is a sect of Christianity. Based on her religion, she believes that women should not wear pants. She is not going to work, BK or otherwise, to practice her religion, but she does want to observe what she thinks is proper attire based on her religion.
 
Does BK have a requirement that pants must be worn? All I've found so far is their non-skid shoes requirement.
 
Where has her religious freedoms been abolished?

And what back wages? She left during orientation, which I think is the START of employment.

I have cited this case, the facts, the press release by the EEOC, the law, the damage award, the investigative process required by law of the EEOC and the right and responsibilities of the parties during the investigative process in numerous posts. I respectfully request that you search my posts herein should you wish to gather that information and discuss my position.
 
For those that fall under the responsibility to comply with Title VII and for those who are protected by Title VII those right are insured and there is no abuse whatsoever.



I wondered about this. Seems they have lost this in the past and now want to resurrect it again. Pat Robertson and the ACLJ hard at work.

ACLU Letter on the Harmful Effect of S. 893, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, on Critical Personal and Civil Rights | American Civil Liberties Union


My apologies if this is too much information.

Seems as though this dog is going to get another day.

This does seem interesting, but it's from the ACLJ site and not sure how accurate it is

Religious Expression in the Workplace | American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ

 

Don't need to. I went to the ACLU and the ACLJ site and found what I needed. Seems I worked the shortcuts.
 
Does BK have a requirement that pants must be worn? All I've found so far is their non-skid shoes requirement.

Same here. That is all I've been able to find on multiple google searches.
 

If BK was not required to comply with Title VII this would not have been an issue; many businesses are not required to. The wearing of the clothing is a religious obsernace within the meaning of Title VII and is a protected activity.

Regardless of how the observer fells about this person and her activity is a non-issue.
 
What is Burger King uniform colors

 
It seems like a clear violation of the law to me, unless they can show undue hardship.

The equal employment law itself is, of course, an illegitimate infringement on the rights of private businesses. Absurd results like this are the inevitable consequence of such unjust laws.
 
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?
 

No, she isn't. Pentecostals (and even some Baptists) believe that women should not wear pants of any kind.
 
Thanks. Man, am I embarrassed. Shoulda read the article.

Well, it would appear as though a manager would have interviewed her. Seems to be a leg to stand on here, then, doesn't it?

That's exactly the point I made, that she was told specifically by a manager, representing the company, that she could wear a skirt. This really isn't about religious accomodationism, it's about management telling a potential employee that she could violate the dress code and hiring her knowing full well she was going to. You can't tell a person something, then turn around and tell them something else and go "ha ha, fooled you!"
 

The BoR's only applies to the government, not the citizens of the government. The fact that they made a law (Title VII) regarding religion is actually against the Constitution.

And No, I would not be citing the Constitutional guarantee's because again, the BoR only applies to the Government. Not the citizens.
 
I get the feeling the girl is looking for a payday. I don't know how much this would effect anything politically, but what do I know?

Oh, she'll get a certain amount and her lawyers will take a majority of it. The only one getting a payday here is the law firm.
 
Don't know for sure. But here is a precedent I did find.

Pentecostal woman wins fight to not wear pants uniform - USATODAY.com


Hey, if I declare myself to be a nudist and that is my religion, think it'll pass muster on this Title VII deal at BK?
 
The first amendment says no one can interfere with a person's religious freedom.

It says nothing of the sort. It says *CONGRESS* will make no laws, last I checked, Burger King was not Congress.
 
Just because she says it is doesn't mean that it is.



I'm pretty sure that the rest of the story validates my point that she said it was and it's turning out to be just that.
 
It says nothing of the sort. It says *CONGRESS* will make no laws, last I checked, Burger King was not Congress.

Right....and those are based on the laws under Title VII with regard to discrimination.
 
Right....and those are based on the laws under Title VII with regard to discrimination.

I was responding to something that specifically said the First Amendment.
 
Does BK have a requirement that pants must be worn? All I've found so far is their non-skid shoes requirement.

Every BK franchise may be a bit different.

I tend to think that wearing a skirt is not an unreasonable accomodation. It's not like she's a Hindu and has religious objections to cooking or serving beef. That would be unreasonable given that beef is BK's core business.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…