Christian woman suing Burger King for not letting her wear a skirt. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Christian woman suing Burger King for not letting her wear a skirt.


Altaris
08-25-2012, 08:13
Can I make up a religion too....claim it says I have to wear shorts and a tshirt at all times and then claim religious discrimination when people don't let me?


http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/christian-woman-fired-burger-king-refusing-wear-pants-175600700.html

steveksux
08-25-2012, 08:30
Not a lawyer, but I see no reason allowing her to wear a skirt would not be considered a reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs.

She should win the suit.

Randy

Altaris
08-25-2012, 08:46
Not a lawyer, but I see no reason allowing her to wear a skirt would not be considered a reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs.

She should win the suit.

Randy

So every random employee should be able to dictate to the employer what their dress code should be?

NMG26
08-25-2012, 08:59
Deuteronomy 22:5 specifically states: "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."




.

AlexHassin
08-25-2012, 09:02
Deuteronomy 22:5 specifically states: "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."




.


considering that male and female cloths very across culture and time this one must get confuseing. it is your cultures male and female dress or is it western, or is it biblical israli or roman dress?

steveksux
08-25-2012, 09:25
So every random employee should be able to dictate to the employer what their dress code should be?What's unreasonable about women wearing a skirt?

Assless chaps would be a different issue.

You think employers should be able to ban yarmulkes too?

Randy

High-Gear
08-25-2012, 09:27
Deuteronomy 22:5 specifically states: "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."




.

It also says eating shellfish, and bacon, and wearing clothes of mixed fibers are an abomination. The bible also says she should kill her children for being disobediant. Does she take those verses literally? Or is she an a'la carte christian?

Syclone538
08-25-2012, 09:31
The gov shouldn't force anyone to employ anyone that they don't want to.

Altaris
08-25-2012, 09:46
What's unreasonable about women wearing a skirt?

Assless chaps would be a different issue.

You think employers should be able to ban yarmulkes too?

Randy

If it is not part of their dress code. The employers dress code is up the employer. They shouldn't be forced to change the rules they make up for their business, because some fiction book from a few thousand years ago says something different.

427
08-25-2012, 10:02
Employer dress codes are there for a reason. To have employees look uniform or safety. Would it be wise to have someone working in a machine shop wear a burka?

As someone who worked in fast food in high school, I'd rather wear the employer supplied uniform rather than ruin my own clothes.

G26S239
08-25-2012, 10:04
Deuteronomy 22:5 specifically states: "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."




.
In case it has escaped your notice women commonly wear pants in this century in the USA. http://www.oldnavy.com/products/womens-pants.jsp

This kind of crap is wrong when a ditzy muzzie wants to wear a hijab while working at Disneyland too.

brokenprism
08-25-2012, 10:32
Paul scolds believers for taking each other to suit and asks them "Why not rather take wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?" Granted this is an 'in-house' matter, but he also commands followers of Jesus to be content in whatever state they find themselves in, to 'obey those in authority' and to be good 'slaves' of and for Christ [this extends to the employer/employee relationship] as an example of obedience and as a statement against acts of rebellion, which is the knot we're supposed to be untying in our characters. She doesn't really have a doctrinal leg to stand on. On the other hand, she's also a citizen of this of this country and has the same right to be annoying as anyone else.

High-Gear
08-25-2012, 11:05
Paul scolds believers for taking each other to suit and asks them "Why not rather take wrong? Why not rather be defrauded?" Granted this is an 'in-house' matter, but he also commands followers of Jesus to be content in whatever state they find themselves in, to 'obey those in authority' and to be good 'slaves' of and for Christ [this extends to the employer/employee relationship] as an example of obedience and as a statement against acts of rebellion, which is the knot we're supposed to be untying in our characters. She doesn't really have a doctrinal leg to stand on. On the other hand, she's also a citizen of this of this country and has the same right to be annoying as anyone else.

This slave morality is what Neitzche and Ayn Rand were against. Can't say I completely disagree with them on this point.

Woofie
08-25-2012, 13:08
Hope she wins. I also hope BK gives that store manager some training before he costs them more money.

Kingarthurhk
08-25-2012, 13:26
It also says eating shellfish, and bacon, and wearing clothes of mixed fibers are an abomination. The bible also says she should kill her children for being disobediant. Does she take those verses literally? Or is she an a'la carte christian?

And employers shouldn't force their employees to eat bacon or shellfish either.

A skirt is a reasonable acomodation. It is modest, and she is attempting to be modest. A simple thing really.

Kingarthurhk
08-25-2012, 13:28
Employer dress codes are there for a reason. To have employees look uniform or safety. Would it be wise to have someone working in a machine shop wear a burka?

As someone who worked in fast food in high school, I'd rather wear the employer supplied uniform rather than ruin my own clothes.

This is slinging burgers, a skirt used to be the uniform of the day for ladies.

steveksux
08-25-2012, 14:14
If it is not part of their dress code. The employers dress code is up the employer. They shouldn't be forced to change the rules they make up for their business, because some fiction book from a few thousand years ago says something different.Luckily you don't make the rules.

We have something called religious freedom here in the US. People have the right to believe in fiction books from thousands of years ago, and are not to be discriminated against for housing and employment when only reasonable accommodations are required to satisfy the tenets of their religious faith.

Randy

steveksux
08-25-2012, 14:15
Employer dress codes are there for a reason. To have employees look uniform or safety. Would it be wise to have someone working in a machine shop wear a burka?

As someone who worked in fast food in high school, I'd rather wear the employer supplied uniform rather than ruin my own clothes.Burka in machine shop is dangerous, as is any loose fitting clothing that can get hung up in machines.

Nice try, but try to make sense next time. Is the word "reasonable", or "accommodation" tripping you up?

Randy

G26S239
08-25-2012, 15:30
This http://www.facebook.com/ashanti.mcshan does not appear to mind wearing pants. I wonder just how many Ashant Mcshan's there are within 17 miles of Grand Prairie Texas?

cs133atom
08-25-2012, 15:48
The problem with discussing Bible verses with idiots is that it is a waste of time. Actually take the time to learn before spouting ridiculous conjecture then debate may be worthwhile.

G26S239
08-25-2012, 15:59
The problem with discussing Bible verses with idiots is that it is a waste of time. Actually take the time to learn before spouting ridiculous conjecture and debate may be worthwhile.
Do you mean the idiots that agree with your interpretation of the bible? Or the idiots that agree with the young lady suing Burger King? Or someone else?

cs133atom
08-25-2012, 16:12
Do you mean the idiots that agree with your interpretation of the bible? Or the idiots that agree with the young lady suing Burger King? Or someone else?

Interpretation? There is ONE Bible.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" —2nd Timothy 3:16

Wherein We Find That Our Sovereign God Has Kept
His Holy Word Pure And Free From The Vicious
Attempts Of Apostate "Scholars" To Defile
And Destroy It.

NMG26
08-25-2012, 16:15
In case it has escaped your notice women commonly wear pants in this century in the USA. http://www.oldnavy.com/products/womens-pants.jsp

This kind of crap is wrong when a ditzy muzzie wants to wear a hijab while working at Disneyland too.


Don't tell me. Tell her. I quoted the article. That is what she believes.

She should not have to choose between God hating her and a job. The job she was hired for, and they told her that the skirt would be alright. Then someone in a higher positions said no way.

The way the verse reads God hates woman who wear pants and men that wear dresses.

She believes that. It is part of her religion. She has been discriminated against.





.

G26S239
08-25-2012, 16:28
Interpretation? There is ONE Bible.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" —2nd Timothy 3:16

Wherein We Find That Our Sovereign God Has Kept
His Holy Word Pure And Free From The Vicious
Attempts Of Apostate "Scholars" To Defile
And Destroy It.

One Bible? Vulgate, King James, Ferrar Fenton, New Living Translation, Holman Christian Standard and how many others? That passage in Deuteronomy does not dictate that females Shall Not wear pants. Furthermore Pentacostals sometimes like to prove their faith by handling pit vipers. Do you agree with that practice? Or do you agree with Jesus saying "Thou shall not tempt thy lord" to old scratch and apply that lesson to suicidally stupid snake handlers?

G26S239
08-25-2012, 16:36
Don't tell me. Tell her. I quoted the article. That is what she believes.

She should not have to choose between God hating her and a job. The job she was hired for, and they told her that the skirt would be alright. Then someone in a higher positions said no way.

The way the verse reads God hates woman who wear pants and men that wear dresses.

She believes that. It is part of her religion. She has been discriminated against.





.Snake handling, as in playing with pit vipers, is part of her religion as well. In spite of what Jesus told Satan in Matthew 4:7.

steveksux
08-25-2012, 16:36
One Bible? Vulgate, King James, Ferrar Fenton, New Living Translation, Holman Christian Standard and how many others? That passage in Deuteronomy does not dictate that females Shall Not wear pants. Furthermore Pentacostals sometimes like to prove their faith by handling pit vipers. Do you agree with that practice?
Not at Burger King, she'll have to leave the serpents at home... :tongueout::rofl: or do it in the parking lot on her break...

Randy

G26S239
08-25-2012, 16:40
Not at Burger King, she'll have to leave the serpents at home... :tongueout::rofl: or do it in the parking lot on her break...

Randy

Good point. :supergrin:

steveksux
08-25-2012, 16:43
Good point. :supergrin:

Skirt? Reasonable accommodation.

Handling serpents? Not so much... :rofl:

Randy

Walt_NC
08-25-2012, 16:44
Snake handling, as in playing with pit vipers, is part of her religion as well. In spite of what Jesus told Satan in Matthew 4:7.

Ha. Mark 16:17-18 always got a chuckle out of me, especially after that Pastor in West Virginia got killed while handling a rattlesnake. I think his name was Mark Woddard or something like that. The verse doesn't say that the snakes have to be poisonous. As near as I can tell, any old garter snake will do.

cs133atom
08-25-2012, 16:58
Ha. Mark 16:17-18 always got a chuckle out of me, especially after that Pastor in West Virginia got killed while handling a rattlesnake. I think his name was Mark Woddard or something like that. The verse doesn't say that the snakes have to be poisonous. As near as I can tell, any old garter snake will do.

Again, idiots that have NO CLEAR understanding of the WORD. Some preachers have greatly misunderstood the Bible, when Mark 16:18 states... “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” These were sign gifts given ONLY to the Apostles. This is clearly evidenced by the FACT that Paul couldn't heal his friend Timothy (1st Timothy 5:23), nor could he heal Trophimus (2nd Timothy 4:20).

It is also further evidenced by the FACT that not one preacher alive today can empty out the local hospital of sick people. We know from James 5:15 that God DOES still heal the sick in response to prayers of faith, but no one has a gift of healing today.

“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies... And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.” —2nd Peter 1,3

brokenprism
08-25-2012, 16:59
This escaped me earlier, but someone brought up the word 'modesty.' Assuming she doesn't wear pants anywhere else for any other reason, and this is a decision she makes for modesty's sake -- to not outline her form below the waist for public consumption -- then good for her. More likely, it is a case of agitation for agitation's sake; like atheists who agitate to have the 10 commandments removed from public spaces when it would be easier, cheaper, and simpler to simply look away if they're offended.

G26S239
08-25-2012, 18:03
Ha. Mark 16:17-18 always got a chuckle out of me, especially after that Pastor in West Virginia got killed while handling a rattlesnake. I think his name was Mark Woddard or something like that. The verse doesn't say that the snakes have to be poisonous. As near as I can tell, any old garter snake will do.
I agree, handling Garter snakes makes more sense. :supergrin::wavey:

High-Gear
08-25-2012, 18:07
Again, idiots that have NO CLEAR understanding of the WORD. Some preachers have greatly misunderstood the Bible, when Mark 16:18 states... “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” These were sign gifts given ONLY to the Apostles. This is clearly evidenced by the FACT that Paul couldn't heal his friend Timothy (1st Timothy 5:23), nor could he heal Trophimus (2nd Timothy 4:20).

It is also further evidenced by the FACT that not one preacher alive today can empty out the local hospital of sick people. We know from James 5:15 that God DOES still heal the sick in response to prayers of faith, but no one has a gift of healing today.

“But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies... And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.” —2nd Peter 1,3

God heals the sick because of prayer...just never an amputee or burn victim or downs syndrome child? :dunno: Huh. Maybe God hates amputees?

High-Gear
08-25-2012, 18:14
The problem with discussing Bible verses with idiots is that it is a waste of time. Actually take the time to learn before spouting ridiculous conjecture then debate may be worthwhile.

The problem with discussing religion with zealots is they are not especially reasonable.

Kingarthurhk
08-25-2012, 18:27
Ha. Mark 16:17-18 always got a chuckle out of me, especially after that Pastor in West Virginia got killed while handling a rattlesnake. I think his name was Mark Woddard or something like that. The verse doesn't say that the snakes have to be poisonous. As near as I can tell, any old garter snake will do.

I guess he never heard of harmeneutics.

Matthew 4:7, "Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test."

Brucev
08-25-2012, 18:54
Her position regarding wearing a dress and not wearing pants reflects a valid traditional understanding held by some Christian denominations. The management of that particular Burger King will handle the next similar situation in accordance with the law. In this case, the young lady will get a paycheck. Her lawyer will get a paycheck. BK and the management of this restaurant will write the checks. Good.

427
08-25-2012, 20:03
This is slinging burgers, a skirt used to be the uniform of the day for ladies.
Used to be, not anymore. I've never seen a woman wearing a dress while working at fast food joint. Have you?

Burka in machine shop is dangerous, as is any loose fitting clothing that can get hung up in machines.

Nice try, but try to make sense next time. Is the word "reasonable", or "accommodation" tripping you up?

Randy

She can either wear the required employer supplied uniform or she can find work elsewhere. I don't understand what's so unreasonable about that.

I worked at a place that told me I could wear their uniforms or I could find a job someplace else. I wore the PPE, I just refused to wear the shirt. I didn't wear the whole uniform because I thought I was special and the rules didn't apply to me. Long story short, I got canned. Know what I did? I found another job and moved on w/my life.

If she wants to be able to wear whatever she wants and doesn't want to be hassled for her beliefs, she should start her own business and be her own boss. She won't answer to anybody.

That's what I did.

And yes, I know what discrimination is. I'm a so-called minority. There's too many crybabies in this world.

NMG26
08-25-2012, 20:18
Snake handling, as in playing with pit vipers, is part of her religion as well. In spite of what Jesus told Satan in Matthew 4:7.


It really does not have anything to do with anyone else's interpretation of the Bible but her and her religious body.




.

RWBlue
08-25-2012, 20:23
Burka in machine shop is dangerous, as is any loose fitting clothing that can get hung up in machines.

Nice try, but try to make sense next time. Is the word "reasonable", or "accommodation" tripping you up?

Randy

How about a Burka at BK?

G26S239
08-25-2012, 20:25
It really does not have anything to do with anyone else's interpretation of the Bible but her and her religious body.




.

She can take her religious views where they fit in. Just like crap with muslims not wanting to ring up pork for a customer. Let them work at a halal market. People wear FRCs at refineries and can't have beards. That leaves out Pentacostals like her and Sikhs. Too damn bad. Commercial enterprises should not have to change their practices to fit anyone's superstitions.

Dennisr1977
08-25-2012, 20:30
Used to be, not anymore. I've never seen a woman wearing a dress while working at fast food joint. Have you?



She can either wear the required employer supplied uniform or she can find work elsewhere. I don't understand what's so unreasonable about that.

I worked at a place that told me I could wear their uniforms or I could find a job someplace else. I wore the PPE, I just refused to wear the shirt. I didn't wear the whole uniform because I thought I was special and the rules didn't apply to me. Long story short, I got canned. Know what I did? I found another job and moved on w/my life.

If she wants to be able to wear whatever she wants and doesn't want to be hassled for her beliefs, she should start her own business and be her own boss. She won't answer to anybody.

That's what I did.

And yes, I know what discrimination is. I'm a so-called minority. There's too many crybabies in this world.


I agree. It's funny how republicans want small government, and private business rights, but they think this lady should be able to sue and win because she didn't want to wear the assigned uniform.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

NMG26
08-25-2012, 20:40
She can take her religious views where they fit in. Just like crap with muslims not wanting to ring up pork for a customer. Let them work at a halal market. People wear FRCs at refineries and can't have beards. That leaves out Pentacostals like her and Sikhs. Too damn bad. Commercial enterprises should not have to change their practices to fit anyone's superstitions.

I agree. They hired her though, with the understanding she could wear the skirt, then they reneged. Do you think that is ok? Or are we talking about something other then religious discrimination in that case?




.

427
08-25-2012, 20:55
I agree. They hired her though, with the understanding she could wear the skirt, then they reneged. Do you think that is ok? Or are we talking about something other then religious discrimination in that case?




.

She says an employee interviewing her gave her an OK and a manager at orientation said no. Was the employee authorized by management to give her the OK?

And if the employee giving the interview denies giving her the OK, it becomes he said she said. What proof does she have to support her claim that she had the OK? Her word? BK having other female employees wearing dresses for religious reasons instead of the required uniform? Did she get anything in writing? Yeah, good luck with all that!

Kingarthurhk
08-25-2012, 21:02
Used to be, not anymore. I've never seen a woman wearing a dress while working at fast food joint. Have you?

Plaids, but that is beside the point.



She can either wear the required employer supplied uniform or she can find work elsewhere. I don't understand what's so unreasonable about that.

Interesting. Since Vatican II, I have seen nuns wearing long skirts and shirts. Though, I have also see the black and white habits as well. I guess the habits didn't wear the Vatican II aproved habits, so they should be kicked out of the Catholic Church?


I worked at a place that told me I could wear their uniforms or I could find a job someplace else. I wore the PPE, I just refused to wear the shirt. I didn't wear the whole uniform because I thought I was special and the rules didn't apply to me. Long story short, I got canned. Know what I did? I found another job and moved on w/my life.

Okay, if I am your employer. As part of your required uniform I insist you wear a shirt that either says, "Atheists are Right!" Or "Martin Luther a True Reformer" or you are terminated. Would that be okay?


If she wants to be able to wear whatever she wants and doesn't want to be hassled for her beliefs, she should start her own business and be her own boss. She won't answer to anybody.

That's what I did.

And yes, I know what discrimination is. I'm a so-called minority. There's too many crybabies in this world.

Please elaborate.

G26S239
08-25-2012, 21:15
I agree. They hired her though, with the understanding she could wear the skirt, then they reneged. Do you think that is ok? Or are we talking about something other then religious discrimination in that case?




.
If that is what she was told during the interview the interviewer clearly dropped the ball. However not getting a job is not the end of the world. Most people have interviewed for more jobs than they have gotten. Staying on this for two years after the initial interview for a minimum wage starter job looks like she is just going for a free payday.

IMO her religious practices are of no more value than tattoos are to someone who really likes tattoos (disclaimer - I have tattoos) or someone who wants to yammer all day about politics, gay rights or legalizing pot. Those are all variations of how people may choose to exercise their 1st amendment rights. They are also things that can and will cause people to lose or not get a job depending on what the employer deems acceptable conduct on the job. In most jobs it pays to not put your worldview or pet peeve front and center, especially when dealing with the public.

Woofie
08-25-2012, 21:24
Used to be, not anymore. I've never seen a woman wearing a dress while working at fast food joint. Have you?


Several

427
08-25-2012, 21:31
Plaids, but that is beside the point.




Interesting. Since Vatican II, I have seen nuns wearing long skirts and shirts. Though, I have also see the black and white habits as well. I guess the habits didn't wear the Vatican II aproved habits, so they should be kicked out of the Catholic Church? You've seen nuns wearing habits while working at fast food joints?
We are talking about private employers, not a religious institution.




Okay, if I am your employer. As part of your required uniform I insist you wear a shirt that either says, "Atheists are Right!" Or "Martin Luther a True Reformer" or you are terminated. Would that be okay? Given my defiant nature, it wouldn't be the first time i've done something like this, but I'd tell you (in this scenario) to get effed, walk off the job and move on with my life. But that's just me.

Seriously, what's stopping me from not accepting terms of employment and either walking off or not accepting your job offer in the first place? I have a choice, don't I? No one is forcing me to accept the terms, right?



Please elaborate.

I and other people of native american, (indian, whatever PC term you want) heritage were singled at both Catholic School and APS for special remedial education programs for no other reason than heritage. There weren't any other whites, or hispanics (I'm also half hispanic) in those classes. The implication was that we weren't as smart. I can claim jobs, benefits and religious exceptions for no other reason than heritage. That's discrimination, it is not? I don't like it and will not comply.

I'm no different than anybody else other than the way I look and have a year round tan. Since I was a youngster all I've asked is to be accepted for my merits as a person rather than my heritage and the way I look. I don't think I'm asking for much.

427
08-25-2012, 21:42
Several

Really? You've seen women wearing dresses instead of the uniform pants at fast food joints? Where? I've never seen or remember any in the South West US, but that doesn't mean anything. Where have you seen them at? Was it a national chain restaurant?

NMG26
08-25-2012, 21:42
She says an employee interviewing her gave her an OK and a manager at orientation said no. Was the employee authorized by management to give her the OK?

And if the employee giving the interview denies giving her the OK, it becomes he said she said. What proof does she have to support her claim that she had the OK? Her word? BK having other female employees wearing dresses for religious reasons instead of the required uniform? Did she get anything in writing? Yeah, good luck with all that!

Good point.

He said she said makes the news............but maybe not so much in court.

Still, some lawyer latched on to it.

NMG26
08-25-2012, 21:46
If that is what she was told during the interview the interviewer clearly dropped the ball. However not getting a job is not the end of the world. Most people have interviewed for more jobs than they have gotten. Staying on this for two years after the initial interview for a minimum wage starter job looks like she is just going for a free payday.

IMO her religious practices are of no more value than tattoos are to someone who really likes tattoos (disclaimer - I have tattoos) or someone who wants to yammer all day about politics, gay rights or legalizing pot. Those are all variations of how people may choose to exercise their 1st amendment rights. They are also things that can and will cause people to lose or not get a job depending on what the employer deems acceptable conduct on the job. In most jobs it pays to not put your worldview or pet peeve front and center, especially when dealing with the public.

True enough. I work with a young engineer that always wears long sleeves. I never asked but I figure he has sleeves under those sleeves.

.

427
08-25-2012, 21:49
True enough. I work with a young engineer that always wears long sleeves. I never asked but I figure he has sleeves under those sleeves.

.

Maybe he's hiding tracks? <--- I'm kidding.

steveksux
08-25-2012, 23:29
Used to be, not anymore. I've never seen a woman wearing a dress while working at fast food joint. Have you?



She can either wear the required employer supplied uniform or she can find work elsewhere. I don't understand what's so unreasonable about that.

I worked at a place that told me I could wear their uniforms or I could find a job someplace else. I wore the PPE, I just refused to wear the shirt. I didn't wear the whole uniform because I thought I was special and the rules didn't apply to me. Long story short, I got canned. Know what I did? I found another job and moved on w/my life.

If she wants to be able to wear whatever she wants and doesn't want to be hassled for her beliefs, she should start her own business and be her own boss. She won't answer to anybody.

That's what I did.

And yes, I know what discrimination is. I'm a so-called minority. There's too many crybabies in this world.

What makes you think your situation applies in this case? You didn't have a religious objection, you just didn't like the shirt. You got canned. That's how it works.

She's entitled to reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs. That's the law. It's pretty simple concept, and I would have thought common knowledge.

Religious Accommodation/Dress & Grooming Policies
Unless it would be an undue hardship on the employer's operation of its business, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices. This applies not only to schedule changes or leave for religious observances, but also to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons. These might include, for example, wearing particular head coverings or other religious dress (such as a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim headscarf), or wearing certain hairstyles or facial hair (such as Rastafarian dreadlocks or Sikh uncut hair and beard). It also includes an employee's observance of a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (such as pants or miniskirts). (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm)

Now if you live in a fantasy world where you make up the rules as you go along, that's a separate issue. Can't help you there.

Here in the real world, we have certain Constitutional protections regarding religion and the practice thereof.

Randy

steveksux
08-25-2012, 23:34
How about a Burka at BK?I don't know offhand, hadn't thought of that. How about a hijab (head scarf)?

What's your objection to the burka? Do you have a rationale in mind that makes that an unreasonable accommodation? I'm not seeing a safety or health issue.

Randy

Kingarthurhk
08-25-2012, 23:48
You've seen nuns wearing habits while working at fast food joints?
We are talking about private employers, not a religious institution.

They are still employed by the Catholic Church.



Given my defiant nature, it wouldn't be the first time i've done something like this, but I'd tell you (in this scenario) to get effed, walk off the job and move on with my life. But that's just me.

Seriously, what's stopping me from not accepting terms of employment and either walking off or not accepting your job offer in the first place? I have a choice, don't I? No one is forcing me to accept the terms, right?

I suppose, but it would be unreasonable to do that to someone and then declare it is a term of employment.


I and other people of native american, (indian, whatever PC term you want) heritage were singled at both Catholic School and APS for special remedial education programs for no other reason than heritage. There weren't any other whites, or hispanics (I'm also half hispanic) in those classes. The implication was that we weren't as smart. I can claim jobs, benefits and religious exceptions for no other reason than heritage. That's discrimination, it is not? I don't like it and will not comply.

I'm no different than anybody else other than the way I look and have a year round tan. Since I was a youngster all I've asked is to be accepted for my merits as a person rather than my heritage and the way I look. I don't think I'm asking for much.

This part makes complete sense to me.

427
08-26-2012, 00:14
What makes you think your situation applies in this case? You didn't have a religious objection, you just didn't like the shirt. You got canned. That's how it works. Yeah, that is how it works. Being the only non-white person there I could've claimed discrimination. I could've claimed hostile work environment through intimidation and innuendo. I could've claimed all sorts of things, went to the media and have the company settle with me rather than go through a costly case. Boo freaking Hoo.

She's entitled to reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs. That's the law. It's pretty simple concept, and I would have thought common knowledge.


Religious Accommodation/Dress & Grooming Policies
Unless it would be an undue hardship on the employer's operation of its business, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices. This applies not only to schedule changes or leave for religious observances, but also to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons. These might include, for example, wearing particular head coverings or other religious dress (such as a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim headscarf), or wearing certain hairstyles or facial hair (such as Rastafarian dreadlocks or Sikh uncut hair and beard). It also includes an employee's observance of a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (such as pants or miniskirts). (http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm)

Define "reasonable."

What you think is reasonable, I may not.

Say she applied at hooters, should she be exempted from their uniform policy and allowed to wear a long skirt because of her religious convictions? Is that a reasonable demand of hooters on her part?



Now if you live in a fantasy world where you make up the rules as you go along, that's a separate issue. Can't help you there.

Here in the real world, we have certain Constitutional protections regarding religion and the practice thereof.

Randy

The Constitution grants me freedom from religion.

JEEPX
08-26-2012, 00:20
Luckily you don't make the rules.

We have something called religious freedom here in the US. People have the right to believe in fiction books from thousands of years ago, and are not to be discriminated against for housing and employment when only reasonable accommodations are required to satisfy the tenets of their religious faith.

Randy

Religion of any sort should be kept out of the workplace.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

427
08-26-2012, 00:33
They are still employed by the Catholic Church. Yeah and the nuns are there by choice. And the Church chooses to employ them.




I suppose, but it would be unreasonable to do that to someone and then declare it is a term of employment.Employers make changes and demand things (not just religious) that some employees find unreasonable. They can either deal with it or find other employment. Life (hopefully) goes on.



This part makes complete sense to me.At least we can agree on something!:wavey:

Woofie
08-26-2012, 08:07
Really? You've seen women wearing dresses instead of the uniform pants at fast food joints? Where? I've never seen or remember any in the South West US, but that doesn't mean anything. Where have you seen them at? Was it a national chain restaurant?

Yeah. I even knew one of them personally. She worked at Burger King, even.

Long skirts, not dresses.

steveksux
08-26-2012, 08:53
Yeah, that is how it works. Being the only non-white person there I could've claimed discrimination. I could've claimed hostile work environment through intimidation and innuendo. I could've claimed all sorts of things, went to the media and have the company settle with me rather than go through a costly case. Boo freaking Hoo.
And you would have been utterly without any legal basis to do so. Again, that is a completely different scenario.
Define "reasonable."

What you think is reasonable, I may not. I don't care what you think, you're obviously unreasonable. It doesn't matter what I think is reasonable.

What IS reasonable, is exactly what I quoted from the EEOC website, which specifically mentions women refusing to wear pants due to religious reasons as an example of a reasonable accommodation. I think expecting people to be able to read is reasonable too.

In this case I define reasonable as exactly what the law says reasonable is. If you don't think that's reasonable, too bad. :dunno:
Don't like it, lobby to have the laws changed.

The Constitution grants me freedom from religion.Nobody's forcing you to wear a skirt. Allowing someone else to follow their religion doesn't force you to participate. You have a problem with Jewish men wearing a yarmulke to work? Do you think that forces you to be Jewish?
:upeyes: Good grief, mind your own business, let others mind theirs, and get a clue. :faint:
Randy

Kingarthurhk
08-26-2012, 09:04
Let's take this to the next level. I fully believe in religious liberty and accomodation in the work place. If any of you have dealt with me here long enough, you know that.

So, for those that do not believe in religious accoomodation the work place, I want to get your feel on this possible scenario:

What if your employer told you that if you wanted to maintain your job, you must attend and join a specific religion; whatever that might be.

steveksux
08-26-2012, 10:11
Let's take this to the next level. I fully believe in religious liberty and accomodation in the work place. If any of you have dealt with me here long enough, you know that.

So, for those that do not believe in religious accoomodation the work place, I want to get your feel on this possible scenario:

What if your employer told you that if you wanted to maintain your job, you must attend and join a specific religion; whatever that might be.I'd ask that he put it in writing and go straight to a lawyer.

Randy

Syclone538
08-26-2012, 10:39
Let's take this to the next level. I fully believe in religious liberty and accomodation in the work place. If any of you have dealt with me here long enough, you know that.

So, for those that do not believe in religious accoomodation the work place, I want to get your feel on this possible scenario:

What if your employer told you that if you wanted to maintain your job, you must attend and join a specific religion; whatever that might be.

The initiation of force is wrong. Placing conditions on continued employment is not force. Forcing someone to employ you when they have decided they don't want to is. Everyone should be free to hire or fire anyone they want for any reason.

pmcjury
08-26-2012, 12:23
The Constitution grants me freedom from religion.

Where does the constitution grant you freedom from religion? As far as I know it protects your freedom of religion. There is a big difference

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

Kingarthurhk
08-26-2012, 12:41
The initiation of force is wrong. Placing conditions on continued employment is not force. Forcing someone to employ you when they have decided they don't want to is. Everyone should be free to hire or fire anyone they want for any reason.

Okay, your boss is say a Unitarian. He calls you into his office and says, "Joe, this is a Unitarian office. If you want to continue working here with me, you will attend Unitarian services with me every Sunday and embrace a Deist perspective in your life. It's either abandon your religion and join ours, or hit the road."

Now, who exactly is using force?

Altaris
08-26-2012, 13:06
Okay, your boss is say a Unitarian. He calls you into his office and says, "Joe, this is a Unitarian office. If you want to continue working here with me, you will attend Unitarian services with me every Sunday and embrace a Deist perspective in your life. It's either abandon your religion and join ours, or hit the road."

Now, who exactly is using force?

As a sales guy I personally see that as no different then your boss coming to you saying, "Joe, we have this great new product for you to sell. I need you to attend weekly training classes on the new product. I know you had been selling other items, but you are going to sell this new one now."
I may hate that new product and think it is garbage, but if my boss says we need to sell it, then that is what we need to do.
My 3 choices are:
1) Embrace the direction of our sales team and learn about and sell the new product.
2) Complain about the change and how you don't like it, but suffer and fake your way through the training and attempt to sell something you don't like.
3) Say forget this, and go find a new job selling the products you know and like.

This is a very fluid business world. Companies change their methods, their strategies, their dress codes, their rules all of the time to meet whatever it is they feel that they need to do at the time. You can give input to the employer, but at the end of the day, it is Their company, and Their rules. You can either go along with the changes, or move out of the way and find something else.

Kingarthurhk
08-26-2012, 17:09
As a sales guy I personally see that as no different then your boss coming to you saying, "Joe, we have this great new product for you to sell. I need you to attend weekly training classes on the new product. I know you had been selling other items, but you are going to sell this new one now."
I may hate that new product and think it is garbage, but if my boss says we need to sell it, then that is what we need to do.
My 3 choices are:
1) Embrace the direction of our sales team and learn about and sell the new product.
2) Complain about the change and how you don't like it, but suffer and fake your way through the training and attempt to sell something you don't like.
3) Say forget this, and go find a new job selling the products you know and like.

This is a very fluid business world. Companies change their methods, their strategies, their dress codes, their rules all of the time to meet whatever it is they feel that they need to do at the time. You can give input to the employer, but at the end of the day, it is Their company, and Their rules. You can either go along with the changes, or move out of the way and find something else.

Selling a substandard product poduced by your company is completely different than your boss telling you, "[Whatever your real name is], I hear you're an Atheist. We are not an Atheist company, and Atheism has no place here. Either you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, become a Baptist, and you and and your family attend Sunday services every week with me at our church or you're fired."

And you don't see a problem with that?

427
08-26-2012, 20:16
And you would have been utterly without any legal basis to do so. Again, that is a completely different scenario.
Are you a lawyer?
I don't care what you think, you're obviously unreasonable. It doesn't matter what I think is reasonable.You care what I think. That's why you're giving me all this attitude and being condescending toward me. :rofl:

What IS reasonable, is exactly what I quoted from the EEOC website, which specifically mentions women refusing to wear pants due to religious reasons as an example of a reasonable accommodation. I think expecting people to be able to read is reasonable too.

In this case I define reasonable as exactly what the law says reasonable is. If you don't think that's reasonable, too bad.
Don't like it, lobby to have the laws changed.
Or they don't get hired. :rofl:

Nobody's forcing you to wear a skirt. Allowing someone else to follow their religion doesn't force you to participate.
You have a problem with Jewish men wearing a yarmulke to work? Do you think that forces you to be Jewish? If I have to cater to thier beliefs, I'm being forced to participate.
If I as an employer have to exempt someone from following rules because of thier beliefs, I'm being forced to participate in their beliefs.
:upeyes: Good grief, mind your own business, let others mind theirs, and get a clue.
Randy
Mind my own business!? We are just having a discussion. An online forum discussion. It's not real.

Take a Midol or something and chill out! :rofl::crying::upeyes:

Where does the constitution grant you freedom from religion? As far as I know it protects your freedom of religion. There is a big difference

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

I protects me from being forced to be a member of a religion.

Phaze5ive
08-26-2012, 20:32
This is about as stupid as a Muslim suing to wear a burqa. In fact, the burqa excuse is probably a more legit excuse.

Kingarthurhk
08-26-2012, 20:38
This is about as stupid as a Muslim suing to wear a burqa. In fact, the burqa excuse is probably a more legit excuse.

They are the same actually. It is no different than Sikhs who are required to wear turbons.

Brasso
08-26-2012, 20:56
It's no more arbitrary than telling a man they have to shave their beard. Why not have a policy requiring one to shave their eyebrows? Or their arms and legs? It's just as arbitrary. Or do some of you actually believe that your employer can come into the office one day and decide that everyone who works there has to shave their eyebrows or be fired, and that that would be OK? Making someone wear or not wear something that has no effect on the performance of their job or the financial position of the company is a violation of basic human rights.

Geko45
08-26-2012, 20:59
Or they don't get hired. :rofl:

Wait, your solution to avoiding a hostile work environment is to employ discriminatory hiring practices? Thank god (pun intended) we live in a republic and not a democracy.

:upeyes:

Oh, and the next time one of you theists asks us (atheists) why we come here and argue against you all the time, this is why. It is quite clear that most (not all) of you would impose your beliefs on us if allowed the authority.

427
08-26-2012, 21:18
Wait, your solution to avoiding a hostile work environment is to employ discriminatory hiring practices? Thank god (pun intended) we live in a republic and not a democracy.

I didn't say I'd do it so don't get all but hurt with me. In the case if the OP, BK did it.

Employers practice discriminatory hiring practices like affirmative action and hiring quotas.

Oh, and the next time one of you theists asks us (atheists) why we come here and argue against you all the time, this is why. It is quite clear that most (not all) of you would impose your beliefs on us if allowed the authority.

What are you talking about? I'm not religious.

I love causing hate and discontent! Religious types are pist and now atheists! Love it!!!:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

GLOCK17DB9
08-26-2012, 21:19
no shoes no skirt no service!:whistling:

Syclone538
08-26-2012, 21:24
Okay, your boss is say a Unitarian. He calls you into his office and says, "Joe, this is a Unitarian office. If you want to continue working here with me, you will attend Unitarian services with me every Sunday and embrace a Deist perspective in your life. It's either abandon your religion and join ours, or hit the road."

Now, who exactly is using force?

:dunno:

Nobody.

Syclone538
08-26-2012, 21:25
It's no more arbitrary than telling a man they have to shave their beard. Why not have a policy requiring one to shave their eyebrows? Or their arms and legs? It's just as arbitrary. Or do some of you actually believe that your employer can come into the office one day and decide that everyone who works there has to shave their eyebrows or be fired, and that that would be OK?
...

Yes.

...
Making someone wear or not wear something that has no effect on the performance of their job or the financial position of the company is a violation of basic human rights.

:faint:


But it's not making them do it, they can quit. Employment is a voluntary exchange of a service for money. Why do you want to change that?

steveksux
08-26-2012, 21:30
Are you a lawyer? No, however I can read links.
You care what I think. That's why you're giving me all this attitude and being condescending toward me. :rofl:Reading comprehension is not your forte.


Or they don't get hired. :rofl:Seeing as how that is against the law in that case, they then get to win a lawsuit against the company.

If I as an employer have to exempt someone from following rules because of thier beliefs, I'm being forced to participate in their beliefs.
:upeyes: You're not the one that will be wearing the skirt, so no, you aren't participating.

Mind my own business!? We are just having a discussion. An online forum discussion. It's not real.

Take a Midol or something and chill out! :rofl::crying::upeyes:
You're really not good at reading are you? Having a discussion involves the other party being able to understand simple english. This is apparently not a discussion. The reference is to mind your own business, and let people follow their religion.
I protects me from being forced to be a member of a religion.Nobody's forcing you to be a member of any religion. You can't be that dense. I smell a troll.

Randy

Geko45
08-26-2012, 21:33
What are you talking about? I'm not religious.

Alright, then how about stating your position clearly? Should employers be required to make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs (or the lack thereof) and not employ discriminatory hiring practices as the law currently mandates or not?

High-Gear
08-26-2012, 21:39
Why does religious belief get some special treatment, while other superstitions don't?

Heck, a private employer can control not only what you do at work, but what you do outside of work. Here is a court of appeals case upholding the firing of a police officer for wearing an earring OFF-DUTY!

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/903/903.F2d.510.89-1435.html

I guess he should have claimed it was a part of his religious attire!

I'm a Pastafarian, and my religious attire is Pirate Regalia. Everyone knows Pirates wear earrings, righht? Therefore I must wear an earring, scarf, and eyepatch at work! Or at least I have to be allowed to wear a collinder as my religious headwear!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14135523

How many of you fellow religious types will stand with me until all pastafarians can wear strainers in the workplace?

427
08-26-2012, 21:44
No, however I can read links.
Reading comprehension is not your forte. I didn't think you were a lawyer.
Seeing as how that is against the law in that case, they then get to win a lawsuit against the company.You 're not a lawyer so how would you know?

You're not the one that will be wearing the skirt, so no, you aren't participating. I would have to deal with thier nonsense.
You're really not good at reading are you? Having a discussion involves the other party being able to understand simple english. This is apparently not a discussion. Yeah, it is. You're responding to me while pretending to have self righteous indignation.


The reference is to mind your own business, and let people follow their religion. They can do that. Nothing is stopping them. I'm certainly not.
Nobody's forcing you to be a member of any religion. You can't be that dense. see above.


I smell a troll.

Randy
Ahh, the old "I'll label them a "troll" if I don't agree"!

If it makes you feel better, call me what you want. Feel better?

steveksux
08-26-2012, 21:54
I didn't think you were a lawyer.
You 're not a lawyer so how would you know?

I would have to deal with thier nonsense.
Yeah, it is. You're responding to me while pretending to have self righteous indignation.

They can do that. Nothing is stopping them. I'm certainly not.
see above.


Ahh, the old "I'll label them a "troll" if I don't agree"!

If it makes you feel better, call me what you want. Feel better?
So are you or are you not able to read? Do you comprehend that the wearing of a skirt is a legal accommodation that employers are required to make for those whose religion forbids women wearing pants?

It was in the link provided. Just checking.

Randy

kenpoprofessor
08-26-2012, 21:56
What I can't believe is just how many people here think the government should somehow "regulate" religious freedom in the workplace of a "PRIVATE" business. It's none of their business, and it's certainly not practical.

If a person wants to hire or fire someone for their religious views or lack thereof, it should be the employers perogative to do so, period. We are not forced to be employed by anyone, no should we say they are using "force" when they decide to change the rules of the workplace.

Get over it already with the whole "you need to respect my beliefs" already would ya folks.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Syclone538
08-26-2012, 22:00
What I can't believe is just how many people here think the government should somehow "regulate" religious freedom in the workplace of a "PRIVATE" business. It's none of their business, and it's certainly not practical.

If a person wants to hire or fire someone for their religious views or lack thereof, it should be the employers perogative to do so, period. We are not forced to be employed by anyone, no should we say they are using "force" when they decide to change the rules of the workplace.

Get over it already with the whole "you need to respect my beliefs" already would ya folks.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

I was starting to think I was the only one here who wants a free market.

427
08-26-2012, 22:08
Alright, then how about stating your position clearly? Should employers be required to make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs (or the lack thereof) and not employ discriminatory hiring practices as the law currently mandates or not?

Here's the way I look at it:

If I want to be hired by a particular employer and get a paycheck, I have agree to the terms/conditions of the employment regardless of my beliefs. If not, I can find employment elsewhere. If they change the terms, I walk. I don't won't go crying to court.
I've done it before. It's not that effing hard!!!

I'm so glad I work for myself. I don't have to deal with this generation of whiny, unprepared, crybaby "workers" and their entitlement mentality - and I'm a GenXer!

427
08-26-2012, 22:13
So are you or are you not able to read? Do you comprehend that the wearing of a skirt is a legal accommodation that employers are required to make for those whose religion forbids women wearing pants?

It was in the link provided. Just checking.

Randy

:upeyes:

427
08-26-2012, 22:15
I was starting to think I was the only one here who wants a free market.

I also want a free market, but too many regulations from special and protected classes won't allow it.

steveksux
08-26-2012, 22:33
:upeyes:

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfmReligious Discrimination & Reasonable Accommodation
The law requires an employer or other covered entity to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs or practices, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business. This means an employer may be required to make reasonable adjustments to the work environment that will allow an employee to practice his or her religion.

Examples of some common religious accommodations include flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and modifications to workplace policies or practices.

Religious Accommodation/Dress & Grooming Policies
Unless it would be an undue hardship on the employer's operation of its business, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices. This applies not only to schedule changes or leave for religious observances, but also to such things as dress or grooming practices that an employee has for religious reasons. These might include, for example, wearing particular head coverings or other religious dress (such as a Jewish yarmulke or a Muslim headscarf), or wearing certain hairstyles or facial hair (such as Rastafarian dreadlocks or Sikh uncut hair and beard). It also includes an employee's observance of a religious prohibition against wearing certain garments (such as pants or miniskirts).

Here you go again. Have a trusted friend read it to you if need be.

That's the great thing about religious freedom. It applies to everyone, not just employers. Got to love America.

Employers don't get to be tinpot dictators.
Randy

High-Gear
08-26-2012, 22:37
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

Here you go again. Have a trusted friend read it to you if need be.

That's the great thing about religious freedom. It applies to everyone, not just employers. Got to love America.

Employers don't get to be tinpot dictators.
Randy

Sweet! I'm going to wear a collinder on my head to work tomorrow! Won't the bosses be suprised!

427
08-26-2012, 22:47
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

Here you go again. Have a trusted friend read it to you if need be.

That's the great thing about religious freedom. It applies to everyone, not just employers. Got to love America.

Employers don't get to be tinpot dictators.
Randy

I love the condescending, sanctimonious, self righteous attitude. Makes you appear to be so superior. :rofl:

Should a strip club accommodate the religious request of a woman who wants to work as a cashier, not a stripper and not wear the uniform of a skimpy top and mini skirt? How about if she wants to wear a Burka? Should the employer be forced to make the accommodation?

Or do you think they simply won't hire her? (I'll bet she'll be told that she's "not what they're looking for".)

Is her religious request reasonable? She might think so, the potential employer might not. Can she sue for religious discrimination? What is reasonable? Tell us.

Tell me how that law applies here.

Bring on the attitude, son!

Syclone538
08-26-2012, 22:48
...

Employers don't get to be tinpot dictators.
Randy

Of course not, you can choose to leave their property.

Kingarthurhk
08-27-2012, 04:49
What I can't believe is just how many people here think the government should somehow "regulate" religious freedom in the workplace of a "PRIVATE" business. It's none of their business, and it's certainly not practical.

If a person wants to hire or fire someone for their religious views or lack thereof, it should be the employers perogative to do so, period. We are not forced to be employed by anyone, no should we say they are using "force" when they decide to change the rules of the workplace.

Get over it already with the whole "you need to respect my beliefs" already would ya folks.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Get over the Civil Rights Act of 1964 then? Okay, should you be allowed to hire only one partcular race to the exclusion of all others? Or only single women with a particular bust size?

Kingarthurhk
08-27-2012, 04:52
Yes.



:faint:


But it's not making them do it, they can quit. Employment is a voluntary exchange of a service for money. Why do you want to change that?

The last definion sounds a lot like prostitution.

happyguy
08-27-2012, 05:08
This is about as stupid as a Muslim suing to wear a burqa. In fact, the burqa excuse is probably a more legit excuse.

Yes, Islam is much more legitimate than Christianity. :upeyes:

Regards,
Happyguy :)

engineer151515
08-27-2012, 05:12
The last definion sounds a lot like prostitution.

Not really.

Alabama is a "work at will" State.

You can be fired. I can quit. No reason required but can't violate Federal anti-discrimination laws.

Had this Burger King been in Alabama, they could have agreed to the skirt and let her go the next week. Period. Totally legal.

Kingarthurhk
08-27-2012, 05:41
Not really.

Alabama is a "work at will" State.

You can be fired. I can quit. No reason required but can't violate Federal anti-discrimination laws.

Had this Burger King been in Alabama, they could have agreed to the skirt and let her go the next week. Period. Totally legal.

We're not talking about union labor. If she were let go because of discrimination, it would be the same problem.

engineer151515
08-27-2012, 05:55
We're not talking about union labor. If she were let go because of discrimination, it would be the same problem.

I'm not talking about union labor either.

Altaris
08-27-2012, 07:00
I was starting to think I was the only one here who wants a free market.

That is basically what I was trying to get at with my last post as well.

Syclone538
08-27-2012, 08:41
Get over the Civil Rights Act of 1964 then? Okay, should you be allowed to hire only one partcular race to the exclusion of all others? Or only single women with a particular bust size?

Yes.

The last definion sounds a lot like prostitution.

Ok. Just don't forget the voluntary part.