• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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

JackFrost

Banned
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
3,471
Reaction score
513
Location
El Monte, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm not refusing to see anything. She was arbitrarily seeking to ignore the dress code of the employer. She voluntarily applied for a job which she knew had a dress code that did not conform to her religious beliefs. You refuse to acknowledge this fact. She expects the company to accomodate her religious beliefs. Other than a law...why should they have to?



From someone who did not have the authority to make such an accomodation. The right thing for him to have done is to confirm that it was OK to do such a thing from his superiors.



He was just enforcing BK policy. Should he really be condemned for that?
1. When does one first see a "dress code"? Not when she "applied for the job" like you stated:lol:
2. How did she "ignore" the dress code? Source?
3. There you go trying to remove a key piece of this puzzle again. IT IS A LAW and/or regulation. As a condition for BK to do business in the USA, they must attempt to follow it or face litigation.

What is your point in trying to say, "Well why can't they, if it was not a law?" That is the very point of this whole thing:lol:
 

JackFrost

Banned
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
3,471
Reaction score
513
Location
El Monte, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
So in otherwords you have nothing more than "its the law".
LOL what is your point? IT IS THE LAW. Are you trying to argue "what if's"? What if it was not a law BK has to follow? Do you not agree with it? Again, what is your point?
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
1. When does one first see a "dress code"? Not when she "applied for the job" like you stated:lol:
One would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to not know that BK has a dress code. Are you attempting to say that she didn't know about it beforehand?

2. How did she "ignore" the dress code? Source?
Where did I say that she "ignored" the dress code? Source?

3. There you go trying to remove a key piece of this puzzle again. IT IS A LAW and/or regulation. As a condition for BK to do business in the USA, they must attempt to follow it or face litigation.
And you keep avoiding my question. Let me try and phrase it in a different way. Why should this law be followed as it applies to this case? Just because it is "the law" is not a good enough reason.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
50,420
Reaction score
32,179
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not refusing to see anything. She was arbitrarily seeking to ignore the dress code of the employer.
nothing arbitrary about her actions. she was quite deliberate and appropriate in her actions. when she became aware that she would not be able to conform to the pants requirement due to her religion, she advised the burger king representative of her religious edict which prevented her from wearing slacks

She voluntarily applied for a job which she knew had a dress code that did not conform to her religious beliefs.
she certainly applied for the job of her own free will. no one has asserted that she did so while under duress. so, what point are you trying to make about it?
while it is very possible that she was aware of the dress code when she applied, there is nothing i have read which establishes that to be a fact
but either way, she understood her obligation to communicate the religious beliefs that would prevent her from wearing the standard issue pants. and she so advised the hiring authority, who extended to her the appropriate religious accommodation

You refuse to acknowledge this fact.
i will stipulate that she did apply for the job of her own free will
i cannot stipulate that she knew of the dress code. if you are able to document that she did, please proffer a cite to evidence it

She expects the company to accomodate her religious beliefs.
under title vii that is a reasonable expectation ... for one's religious needs to be reasonably accommodated in the work place. her expectation was not unreasonable

Other than a law...why should they have to?
other than the law, there is no other obligation
but then there is the legal obligation you appear to want to discount ... probably because its requirements absolutely obliterate your debate position
now, beyond the legal obligation, there is a sound business reason to want to accommodate an employee's religious views: it makes excellent business sense to hire and maintain employees who are not disgruntled by the employer's capricious and unreasonable work rules

From someone who did not have the authority to make such an accomodation.
what evidence do you have to prove that the same agent of burger king, who possessed the authority to hire her was also without the authority to sanction a reasonable religious accommodation. i am guessing none - but prove me wrong

The right thing for him to have done is to confirm that it was OK to do such a thing from his superiors.
which would first compel a showing that what he did was inconsistent with the expectation of those higher up the organizational chart. as burger king now knows, not providing a legally required religious accommodation can cause the company to have to defend its actions in court

He was just enforcing BK policy. Should he really be condemned for that?
then you are telling us that it is burger king's policy to refuse to subscribe to the law, title vii, and offer a reasonable accommodation due to one's religious practices? again, show us the proof that causes you to believe something so ridiculous on its face. i'm willing to bet you cannot do so
 

JackFrost

Banned
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
3,471
Reaction score
513
Location
El Monte, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
One would have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to not know that BK has a dress code. Are you attempting to say that she didn't know about it beforehand?



Where did I say that she "ignored" the dress code? Source?



And you keep avoiding my question. Let me try and phrase it in a different way. Why should this law be followed as it applies to this case? Just because it is "the law" is not a good enough reason.
1. During the application process, she did not know the specifics. So no, she did not know what the dress code was at that time. This is in reference to your statement, "she voluntarily applied knowing the dress code".

2. Originally Posted by Kal'Stang: I'm not refusing to see anything. She was arbitrarily seeking to ignore the dress code of the employer.

3. Your 1 million dollar question is: "Why should the law be followed?" AND, I can't use, "because it's the law.":lol:

Did I get that right? I don't know where to go with that one. Again, are you saying, IF it was NOT the law, should BK be able to send her home? In which case it will be a non-issue, since BK can do that without legal repercussions? Again, not avoiding the question, seeking clarification.
 

Sig

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
2,179
Reaction score
476
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
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?
Interesting question that brings us face to face with the ultimate reasoning behind the concept of separation of church and state. Ultimately, neither the Jew, nor the Muslim, nor the Christian should be allowed to claim discrimination under such circumstances, lest they open the door for eventual hypocrisy and further discrimination when religious customs of one group are obliged while those of another are not. What if the employee in question belonged to a Christian sect which believed that clothing was an affront to God and insisted that she be allowed to work in the nude?

"That's just ridiculous!"

Not really. Certainly not anymore ridiculous than a Muslim bank teller wearing a hijab that covers her face, since a great many non-Muslim customers would loathe having to conduct business with someone whose face was deliberately veiled in a manner similar to that of a bank robber.
 

Omgitsme

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
3,348
Reaction score
999
Location
Illinois
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
LOL what is your point? IT IS THE LAW. Are you trying to argue "what if's"? What if it was not a law BK has to follow? Do you not agree with it? Again, what is your point?
Actually it is a good point. Just because its a law doesnt make it right. Although I think in this case the law is right.
 

Aberration

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
BS and you know it.

One: My stance has nothing to do with her religion (or any other relgion for that matter). I could care less what her religion is. You'll note that unlike some other posters in this thread I haven't once said anything negative about her religion. So keep your bigotry comments to yourself.

Two: Twisting what I said does nothing for your arguement. Indeed all that it shows is that you cannot stand on your own two feet and argue this honestly.
Its not BS. Her skirt in no way effected her performance, nor did it present any hardship for BK. They had no reason to not accommodate her.

The only BS is thinking this was anything but discrimination.
 

Aberration

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And why shouldn't they be able to? Other than it being from a law.
Because discrimination based on religious grounds, just like on racial grounds, is ugly. We have no place for such discrimination and intolerance in a civil society
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
nothing arbitrary about her actions. she was quite deliberate and appropriate in her actions. when she became aware that she would not be able to conform to the pants requirement due to her religion, she advised the burger king representative of her religious edict which prevented her from wearing slacks
You're right, she was deliberate. Appropriate though? That is quite debateable. Would it have been appropriate for any other religion to ask for such accomodation? Inculding the ones that you think are ridiculous to bring up? IE Pastafarians? Its funny how this womans religion and what she asks for is perfectly fine because its based on a mainstream religion but if its one that isn't mainstream and generally accepted? It's "ridiculous" to bring up.

she certainly applied for the job of her own free will. no one has asserted that she did so while under duress. so, what point are you trying to make about it?
This should be obvious. If someone willingly goes into something knowing the requirements before hand then going in and then making a big fuss about those requirements is just plain selfish and smacks of arrogance.

while it is very possible that she was aware of the dress code when she applied, there is nothing i have read which establishes that to be a fact
Can we at least TRY to keep to reality here. Besides the fact that she brought it up in the interview should show you that she knew about the dress code.

but either way, she understood her obligation to communicate the religious beliefs that would prevent her from wearing the standard issue pants. and she so advised the hiring authority, who extended to her the appropriate religious accommodation
Bold: Which by itself shows that she knew about the dress code.

Rest: Who doesn't have the authority to change BK policy.

under title vii that is a reasonable expectation ... for one's religious needs to be reasonably accommodated in the work place. her expectation was not unreasonable
Did you ever consider that Title VII is unreasonable?

other than the law, there is no other obligation
but then there is the legal obligation you appear to want to discount ... probably because its requirements absolutely obliterate your debate position
Do you say the same thing when it comes to marijuana? If you just want to go by "because its the law" then that works perfectly well with your stance on the marijuana law. Funny how "its the law" works for something that you support but when it comes to something you don't support? ......

now, beyond the legal obligation, there is a sound business reason to want to accommodate an employee's religious views: it makes excellent business sense to hire and maintain employees who are not disgruntled by the employer's capricious and unreasonable work rules
And there is also sound buisness reason to want everyone to follow a dress code. Indeed by making an exception you can create disgruntled employees also. So this arguement holds no water. Especially when you consider the fact that if you didn't allow one employee to follow thier religious dress codes that would only be one disgruntled employee whereas if you let them then its possible that you would have multiple disgruntled employees.

what evidence do you have to prove that the same agent of burger king, who possessed the authority to hire her was also without the authority to sanction a reasonable religious accommodation. i am guessing none - but prove me wrong
The only ones that can change any companies policy are the owners. Everyone else has to follow them or ask THEM for exceptions. Duh.

which would first compel a showing that what he did was inconsistent with the expectation of those higher up the organizational chart. as burger king now knows, not providing a legally required religious accommodation can cause the company to have to defend its actions in court
So are you saying that an employee shouldn't ask thier employers permission to change or make an exception to a company policy?

then you are telling us that it is burger king's policy to refuse to subscribe to the law, title vii, and offer a reasonable accommodation due to one's religious practices? again, show us the proof that causes you to believe something so ridiculous on its face. i'm willing to bet you cannot do so
Never said that did I? In fact I would imagine that if things had gone through proper channels the first time around this thread wouldn't even exist.
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Its not BS. Her skirt in no way effected her performance, nor did it present any hardship for BK. They had no reason to not accommodate her.
Just because there is no reason to not accomodate her does not mean that they should...or HAVE to accomodate her.


The only BS is thinking this was anything but discrimination.
As has been pointed out many times already the orientation manager told her to go home before he knew anything about her religion. That alone shows that it had nothing to do with discrimination. Why are people so insistant to disregard this?
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Because discrimination based on religious grounds, just like on racial grounds, is ugly. We have no place for such discrimination and intolerance in a civil society
As has been pointed out many times already the orientation manager told her to go home before he knew anything about her religion. That alone shows that it had nothing to do with discrimination. Why are people so insistant to disregard this?

But in anycase your arguement is silly and totally ignores reality. But hey, tell me...what do you discriminate against? Nothing? Are you a Saint? Are you Jesus Christ Resurrected? No...that can't be as even he would discriminate.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
50,420
Reaction score
32,179
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
As has been pointed out many times already the orientation manager told her to go home before he knew anything about her religion. That alone shows that it had nothing to do with discrimination. Why are people so insistant to disregard this?
you are offering his high-handedness as a defense? that he failed to inquire whether she was wearing the dress because she had been afforded a reasonable religious accommodation by burger king is no defense

But in anycase your arguement is silly and totally ignores reality. But hey, tell me...what do you discriminate against? Nothing? Are you a Saint? Are you Jesus Christ Resurrected? No...that can't be as even he would discriminate.
what is silly are your weak attempts to pretend that there is no religious basis for this law suit when it is entirely driven by the faith practices of the hired burger king employee
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
32,652
Reaction score
21,534
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
What percentage of practising Christians include this piece of costume specific ritual?
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
you are offering his high-handedness as a defense? that he failed to inquire whether she was wearing the dress because she had been afforded a reasonable religious accommodation by burger king is no defense
Why should he have inquired? What is he suppose to be physicic? Is he suppose to be a lawyer? Know all the laws?

what is silly are your weak attempts to pretend that there is no religious basis for this law suit when it is entirely driven by the faith practices of the hired burger king employee
EXACTLY! It is entirely based on this persons religious faith. It is not based on what actually happened. What would you rather have? People going by their feelings? Or on what actually happened?
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What percentage of practising Christians include this piece of costume specific ritual?
Not sure why its relevent but...

There are over 279 million Pentecostals worldwide, and the movement is growing in many parts of the world, especially the global South. Since the 1960s, Pentecostalism has increasingly gained acceptance from other Christian traditions, and Pentecostal beliefs concerning Spirit baptism and spiritual gifts have been embraced by non-Pentecostal Christians in Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox churches through the Charismatic Movement. Together, Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity numbers over 500 million adherents.
Pentecostalism

Whether they ALL follow that particular dress code? No idea.
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
32,652
Reaction score
21,534
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I'm just curious, because I never heard of it before reading this thread. Is it a variation on the "cover women up to prevent mens' desires being inflamed" meme?
 

Aberration

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It is probably safe to assume it was explained to the manager when he first told her the skirt was unacceptable. Had it not though, it would have been had higher management decided to answer her calls. Instead they chose to break the laws.

Good day for America.
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
50,420
Reaction score
32,179
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
justabubba
nothing arbitrary about her actions. she was quite deliberate and appropriate in her actions. when she became aware that she would not be able to conform to the pants requirement due to her religion, she advised the burger king representative of her religious edict which prevented her from wearing slacks

kal'stang
You're right, she was deliberate. Appropriate though? That is quite debateable. Would it have been appropriate for any other religion to ask for such accomodation? Inculding the ones that you think are ridiculous to bring up? IE Pastafarians? Its funny how this womans religion and what she asks for is perfectly fine because its based on a mainstream religion but if its one that isn't mainstream and generally accepted? It's "ridiculous" to bring up.
the law provides for a reasonable accommodation based on one’s religious practices. doesn’t matter the religion. would have thought that was understood by the text of the Constitution previously posted

justabubba
she certainly applied for the job of her own free will. no one has asserted that she did so while under duress. so, what point are you trying to make about it?

kal'stang
This should be obvious. If someone willingly goes into something knowing the requirements before hand then going in and then making a big fuss about those requirements is just plain selfish and smacks of arrogance.
asserting one’s legal rights is found by you to be selfish and arrogant. your post smells of desperation due to such comments

justabubba
while it is very possible that she was aware of the dress code when she applied, there is nothing i have read which establishes that to be a fact

kal'stang
Can we at least TRY to keep to reality here. Besides the fact that she brought it up in the interview should show you that she knew about the dress code.
wait. how is it you know that SHE brought it up in the interview? why could the dress code requirement have not been something the burger king agent with hiring authority explained at the time of the hiring interview, which then would have caused her to explain her need for a religious accommodation. so, show us your documentation which will tell us it was the pentecost employee and not the burger king hiring agent who first raised the issue of the dress code

justabubba
but either way, she understood her obligation to communicate the religious beliefs that would prevent her from wearing the standard issue pants. and she so advised the hiring authority, who extended to her the appropriate religious accommodation

kal'stang
Bold: Which by itself shows that she knew about the dress code.
as above, why could she not have responded to the dress code issue once it was initially raised by the burger king hiring agent? show us that it was the pentecost who first broached that topic. until then, you’ve got nothing to prove that she knew in advance (not that it makes a difference, but only to place on exhibit the weakness of your debate position)

kal'stang
Rest: Who doesn't have the authority to change BK policy.
again. show us evidence that the person who has been given the authority to hire an employee is not also able to craft the terms of employment. Until you show that, you have nothing
i am willing to bet you have no understanding of the concept of implied authority. that is my basis of rebuttal if and when you should happen to show us evidence that the burger king hiring agent was not able to define the terms of the pentecost’s employment despite that he was obviously with the authority by burger king to effect the hire


justabubba
under title vii that is a reasonable expectation ... for one's religious needs to be reasonably accommodated in the work place. her expectation was not unreasonable

kal'stang
Did you ever consider that Title VII is unreasonable?
title vii is the law. if the law is found unreasonable then there is a process to change it. could you show us where that has been done or is being attempted. betting you can/will not be able to show that
next, will you also want me to prove that water is wet? your debate positions are getting more desperate with each post


justabubba
other than the law, there is no other obligation
but then there is the legal obligation you appear to want to discount ... probably because its requirements absolutely obliterate your debate position

kal'stang
Do you say the same thing when it comes to marijuana? If you just want to go by "because its the law" then that works perfectly well with your stance on the marijuana law. Funny how "its the law" works for something that you support but when it comes to something you don't support? ......
there is no difference. the law is enforced as it stands. not as how you or I might want it to be, instead. those of us who consume an illegal drug as subject to penalties for our failure to heed the law. just as burger king will be when the court finds that it failed to abide by the anti-discrimination law known as title vii

justabubba
now, beyond the legal obligation, there is a sound business reason to want to accommodate an employee's religious views: it makes excellent business sense to hire and maintain employees who are not disgruntled by the employer's capricious and unreasonable work rules

kal'stang
And there is also sound buisness reason to want everyone to follow a dress code. Indeed by making an exception you can create disgruntled employees also. So this arguement holds no water. Especially when you consider the fact that if you didn't allow one employee to follow thier religious dress codes that would only be one disgruntled employee whereas if you let them then its possible that you would have multiple disgruntled employees.
back when title vii was passed, there were large numbers of people who insisted they would not work beside people of color. title vii was passed – and enforced – making a lot of people disgruntled
if forced to choose between disgruntled employees, who resent the accommodation, and the law requiring an accommodation, the law must prevail. but I was attempting to show that making an employee feel welcome and wanted would be a good thing for an employer; sorry that was lost on you


justabubba
what evidence do you have to prove that the same agent of burger king, who possessed the authority to hire her was also without the authority to sanction a reasonable religious accommodation. i am guessing none - but prove me wrong

kal'stang
The only ones that can change any companies policy are the owners. Everyone else has to follow them or ask THEM for exceptions. Duh.
not true. it happens every day that a non-owner modifies business practices/policies
if you want me to explain in detail why i am right on this matter and you are so wrong, create another thread and i will join you there to prove my position


justabubba
which would first compel a showing that what he did was inconsistent with the expectation of those higher up the organizational chart. as burger king now knows, not providing a legally required religious accommodation can cause the company to have to defend its actions in court

kal'stang
So are you saying that an employee shouldn't ask thier employers permission to change or make an exception to a company policy?
i am saying an employee has an obligation to take actions in their employer’s best interests
if given the choice between making a reasonable religious accommodation under the law as provided by title vii or not doing so and placing the employer in a lawsuit, the hiring employee got it right. especially when recognizing there may very well have been an implied authority, such as telling the new hire that she could wear a long skirt instead of the standard issue pants


justabubba
then you are telling us that it is burger king's policy to refuse to subscribe to the law, title vii, and offer a reasonable accommodation due to one's religious practices? again, show us the proof that causes you to believe something so ridiculous on its face. i'm willing to bet you cannot do so

kal'stang
Never said that did I? In fact I would imagine that if things had gone through proper channels the first time around this thread wouldn't even exist.
then you do recognize that burger king policy would be to subscribe to the laws, including title vii, making it appropriate to take actions consistent with the provisions of title vii and offering a reasonable religious accommodation. which begs the question: why the hell are you arguing a position which is wrong under the law?
 

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm just curious, because I never heard of it before reading this thread. Is it a variation on the "cover women up to prevent mens' desires being inflamed" meme?
They no doubt will not portray it as such but it does derive from old world mentality so the answer would probably be yes.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
90,930
Reaction score
19,548
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
No she didn't have equal access and opportunity. They sent her home because of her religious observance. An observance that in no way caused BK any hardship in any manner.

Might as well let people send workers home for being black.
A very liberal debate method... accusations. Pretty pathetic.
 

Bodhisattva

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
90,930
Reaction score
19,548
Location
New Zealand
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
They no doubt will not portray it as such but it does derive from old world mentality so the answer would probably be yes.
Slippery Slope but where does it stop? Prayer mats for Muslims or Burkhas? Poisenous snakes for the religious cults?

A dress code that is reasonable and fair in now way hinders anybody's rights. This whole argument is absolutely stupid. Those making it out to be discrimination and oppression are off their rocker.
 

00timh

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
1,318
Reaction score
516
Location
upstate NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The owner does not get to make all the rules and the reason is we live in a society. No business can operate in a vacuum which does not receive benefits from a society.
Fundamental disagreement here. I say the owner of a private business does get to make the rules. There is no obligation to society. (other than to provide a safe business that does not intentionall harm or deceive people... we leave that up to the government to do) But as for dress code and what people they wish to serve and all, let them do what they want to do. If the rules are so restrictive no one wants to work there, the business goes down. If the service sucks and the business caters to so few that there is not enough people to make a profit, the business goes down. If YOU do not like the rules and the business, just don't go there and do any business with them.
 
Top Bottom