53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
A Texas teenager is suing Burger King for religious discrimination, saying that the fast food giant fired her, a conservative Christian, for wearing a long skirt, rather than uniform pants, to work.
Related: Fast food employees dish about items you should never order
Ashanti McShan was a 17-year-old high school senior when she applied for a job as a cashier at the Grand Prairie Burger King in August 2010, according to the lawsuit filed on her behalf this week by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. During her interview McShan, who is a Pentacostal Christian, said that her religious beliefs forbid women to wear men's clothing, so she would need to be able to wear a long black skirt rather than the standard-issue uniform pants. The Burger King employee interviewing her "assured her that she could wear a skirt to work," the lawsuit says.
But when she arrived for orientation, another store management told her that she could not wear a skirt "and that she had to leave the store," in spite of her explaining that there was a religious issue at stake, according to the lawsuit.
"The result of the foregoing practices has been to deprive Ashanti McShan of equal employment opportunities because of her religious beliefs and observances as a Christian Pentecostal," the lawsuit states. The incident could be a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars religious discrimination in the workplace.
Related: Teaching kids about discrimination
"I've seen cases where an employer has denied a religion accommodation, and it's something where you could see how it could cause a problem," Equal Employment Opportunity Commission trial attorney Meaghan Shepard, who is representing McShan, told The Dallas Morning News. "The legal standard is 'undue hardship,' and in this instance it was a very simple request -- to be able to wear a long black skirt and not black pants -- and it was initially granted. And then she shows up at orientation, on time, and is then told by the manager to leave and that she couldn't wear a skirt. She was responsible, tried to get in touch with someone higher in the franchise, and they never responded to her. In our eyes, it was so clear-cut. She's a very sweet, articulate young lady who was just trying to work her senior year in high school."
The lawsuit seeks "appropriate back pay with prejudgement interest" for McShan, even though she was asked to leave the store before she started her first shift, as well as punitive damages and an injunction.
"Accommodating Ms. McShan's religious beliefs would have been simple and cost the company nothing," Shepard said in a statement. "Management's failure to comply with federal law deprived this teenage girl of the opportunity to work during her senior year of high school."
Pentacostal Christians believe in a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible. 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."
"We haven't come far enough in our respect of religious liberties at the workplace if we have employers saying that uniform policies trump a religious observance without articulation of any hardship posed by letting an employee 'hold the pickles' and 'hold the lettuce' while wearing a skirt," EEOC regional attorney Robert A. Canino said in a statement.
The franchisee that owns the Great Prairie Burger King, Fries Restaurant Management LLC, also owns about 10 other Burger King restaurants in Texas; they would not comment to Yahoo! Shine. "As a normal course of business, Burger King Corp. does not comment on personnel or legal matters related to its franchisees, who independently own and operate Burger King restaurants," Burger King Corp. told The Huffington Post in a statement.
http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/christian-woman-fired-burger-king-refusing-wear-pants-175600700.html
I work with burgers and hot grease, And i have to wear pants, if a fire started or my hair fell, causing contamination it would be disaterous.
Skirts are not an appropriate thing to wear while in a kitchen.
51344
Post by: BlapBlapBlap
Thing is, the interviewer probably didn't know a damn about kitchen safety. Skirts get caught on things, are far easier to lose track of than trousers, sweep along the floor, and are far easier to burn. You should never be wearing a full-length skirt in a kitchen environment, and regular skirts are still best avoided. The manager acted with the girl's and her colleagues health and safety in mind, rather than religious beliefs.
15076
Post by: fire4effekt
Except she applied for a Cashier job. And how are you determining the flowy-ness of said religous skirt?
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?
51344
Post by: BlapBlapBlap
The article quotes that 'she would need to be able to wear a long black skirt rather than the standard-issue uniform pants.'. Long skirts flow. And a cashier at a Burger King still has plenty of interaction with the food, and the skirt will pick up more waste and filth on the floor.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Palindrome wrote:Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?
It's a story because conservative Christians have decided it's a story.
5534
Post by: dogma
Wait, pants are now exclusively masculine clothing? Does she consider a bra a top?
49272
Post by: Testify
I can't help but feel this story would get a lot more interest if there were pictures of the 17 year old girl in question, wearing the skirt.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
BlapBlapBlap wrote:Thing is, the interviewer probably didn't know a damn about kitchen safety. Skirts get caught on things, are far easier to lose track of than trousers, sweep along the floor, and are far easier to burn. You should never be wearing a full-length skirt in a kitchen environment, and regular skirts are still best avoided. The manager acted with the girl's and her colleagues health and safety in mind, rather than religious beliefs.
I'm sure baby Jesus would have protect her from grease fires.
Yeah, this is not a story.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Palindrome wrote:Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?
If you are discriminated against in your workplace you have a right to complain. The problem here is that she's trying to claim that trousers are men clothing, even though women everywhere wear trousers on a regular basis and they are tailored for women. It's a pretty big stretch to claim you are being religiously discriminated against. As to why such a non-story enters the press, it's because some christian group has probably taken on her case to fund the suit and in particular bring publicity. In the UK, high profile cases such as the Nurse asked not to wear her crucifix necklace on duty, the foster parents who refused to tell gay kids in their care that homosexuality was acceptable and the B&B owners who wouldn't take bookings from gay people were all publicised and had their legal action supported by the same conservative group; the Christian Legal Centre. There are people with an agenda behind these promoting these cases, if you look hard enough.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Palindrome wrote:Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?
Because companies cannot have hiring policies that prevent people from practicing their religion (barring health and safety concerns).
Company policy might stop me from wearing a baseball cap but it cannot prevent Jews, Shiks, Mulims etc fromcovering their heads. If not companies would basically banning certain religions from working there.
This case will come down to whether or not BK could have made a reasonable accomodation and since it seems they did not try I'd bet they'll lose big.
27391
Post by: purplefood
 Kid_Kyoto wrote:Palindrome wrote:Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?
Because companies cannot have hiring policies that prevent people from practicing their religion (barring health and safety concerns).
Company policy might stop me from wearing a baseball cap but it cannot prevent Jews, Shiks, Mulims etc fromcovering their heads. If not companies would basically banning certain religions from working there.
This case will come down to whether or not BK could have made a reasonable accomodation and since it seems they did not try I'd bet they'll lose big.
I know they can't discriminate in the UK but AFAIK worker's rights in the US are next to non-existent...
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
 Howard A Treesong wrote:Palindrome wrote:Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?
If you are discriminated against in your workplace you have a right to complain. The problem here is that she's trying to claim that trousers are men clothing, even though women everywhere wear trousers on a regular basis and they are tailored for women.
But its not the role of government or Burger King to dictate how any religion should be practiced. Her faith says no trousers, only long skirts. Priests and lay people can debate that but the fact remains her belief and if the company can make a reasonable accommodation its required to by law whether we agree with her interpretation or not.
12313
Post by: Ouze
I think Burger King is probably going to settle before this ever see s a jury, since it's likely in their best interest to do so. As a cashier, I think it's likely they should have accommodated her. As a cook or something else, I'm not sure really.
39827
Post by: scarletsquig
Wow, the bible has some crazy stuff in it.
Every woman who has ever worn pants is an Abomination in the eyes of the Lord?
Well, nice knowing you, 95% of the female population, all going to hell.
Same goes for men wearing tight stockings as treatment for their Deep Vein Thrombosis. And of course, basically all TV/TS/crossdresser/drag queen/Scottish as well.
29408
Post by: Melissia
 dogma wrote:Wait, pants are now exclusively masculine clothing?
I think I can hear Virginia Woolf spinning in her grave.
27391
Post by: purplefood
 Melissia wrote: dogma wrote:Wait, pants are now exclusively masculine clothing?
I think I can hear Virginia Woolf spinning in her grave.
You must be pretty close to Virginia Woolf's grave to hear that...
29408
Post by: Melissia
No, it's over in Sussex IIRC.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Good hearing then...
29408
Post by: Melissia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turn_in_one's_grave
I dunno if the American idiom got carried over to you:
34419
Post by: 4oursword
I think he was being sarcastic?
29408
Post by: Melissia
He wasn't very clever if that was his intent 
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Howard A Treesong wrote:Palindrome wrote:Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?
If you are discriminated against in your workplace you have a right to complain. The problem here is that she's trying to claim that trousers are men clothing, even though women everywhere wear trousers on a regular basis and they are tailored for women.
But its not the role of government or Burger King to dictate how any religion should be practiced. Her faith says no trousers, only long skirts. Priests and lay people can debate that but the fact remains her belief and if the company can make a reasonable accommodation its required to by law whether we agree with her interpretation or not.
Where do you draw the line with that though? No doubt there are some very strange ideas from niche religious groups, do they have to be accommodated to? When do you decide that one demand is genuinely religious, and another is just their personal whim being dressed up?
27391
Post by: purplefood
Or you missed it
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Because companies cannot have hiring policies that prevent people from practicing their religion ( barring health and safety concerns).
Case closed m' lud.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Palindrome wrote: Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Because companies cannot have hiring policies that prevent people from practicing their religion ( barring health and safety concerns).
Case closed m' lud.
It has to be a reasonable concern, and I'm not sure how wearing a skirt creates such a scenario. It doesn't help that there are women (and some men, no need to not be inclusive here) that wear skirts while working at fast food restaurants as well as establishments that serve food as well. Add that to the hiring officer telling her it was ok and I think there is a good chance of a settlement on the way.
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
It's not discrimination to be asked to obey the same rules as every other employee. If your place of work has a not skirt or no necklace rule in place, it's probably got in place for a damn good reason. If you don't like it then feel free to find another job. Religious belief is not license to break the rules.
241
Post by: Ahtman
 LuciusAR wrote:It's not discrimination to be asked to obey the same rules as every other employee.
Of course it can be. You can create a wide range of completely illegal rules in the work place to discriminate against other folks. Company policy doesn't get to violate peoples civil rights just by virtue of being company policy.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
scarletsquig wrote:
Every woman who has ever worn pants is an Abomination in the eyes of the Lord?
27391
Post by: purplefood
Why do they have galleries of Sarah Palin photos?
What kind of websites have you been visiting CT?
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
 Ahtman wrote: LuciusAR wrote:It's not discrimination to be asked to obey the same rules as every other employee.
Of course it can be. You can create a wide range of completely illegal rules in the work place to discriminate against other folks.
True, christian conservative business owners have been doing it for ages...
51344
Post by: BlapBlapBlap
 purplefood wrote:Why do they have galleries of Sarah Palin photos?
What kind of websites have you been visiting CT?
More to the point, do you really want to ask him that?
27391
Post by: purplefood
 BlapBlapBlap wrote: purplefood wrote:Why do they have galleries of Sarah Palin photos?
What kind of websites have you been visiting CT?
More to the point, do you really want to ask him that?
I dunno...
Depends how creepy it is... or what kind of shock value it has...
29408
Post by: Melissia
 CT GAMER wrote: Ahtman wrote: LuciusAR wrote:It's not discrimination to be asked to obey the same rules as every other employee.
Of course it can be. You can create a wide range of completely illegal rules in the work place to discriminate against other folks.
True, christian conservative business owners have been doing it for ages...
Well yes, but how DARE you try to do that to a Christian. HOW DARE YOU. HOW!
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Howard A Treesong wrote: Kid_Kyoto wrote: Howard A Treesong wrote:Palindrome wrote:Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?
If you are discriminated against in your workplace you have a right to complain. The problem here is that she's trying to claim that trousers are men clothing, even though women everywhere wear trousers on a regular basis and they are tailored for women.
But its not the role of government or Burger King to dictate how any religion should be practiced. Her faith says no trousers, only long skirts. Priests and lay people can debate that but the fact remains her belief and if the company can make a reasonable accommodation its required to by law whether we agree with her interpretation or not.
Where do you draw the line with that though? No doubt there are some very strange ideas from niche religious groups, do they have to be accommodated to? When do you decide that one demand is genuinely religious, and another is just their personal whim being dressed up?
In the end that's up to courts and depends on everyone's willingness to pursue it rather than settle. 'Reasonable' is the legal standard but the U.S. generally errs on the side of religious freedom rather than employers or social norms, or even state laws. For example some Native American groups are immune to laws on hallusangenic mushrooms since it is a traditional part of their rites.
Which of course leads to things like the Church of Cannibis...
http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/drugs-inc/videos/the-church-of-cannabis/
I'm not sure if this has gone to court.
But for clothing? The precedents are very clear, as long as reasonable accommodations can be made and the belief is sincere (no claiming to be part of the Church of the Cowboys and asserting your right to wear a football jersey to work) people can wear traditional clothes or head coverings.
Automatically Appended Next Post: LuciusAR wrote:It's not discrimination to be asked to obey the same rules as every other employee. If your place of work has a not skirt or no necklace rule in place, it's probably got in place for a damn good reason. If you don't like it then feel free to find another job. Religious belief is not license to break the rules.
I don't know about the UK but US law says different.
The burden of proof is on the school/employer/organization that the rule is necessary for health and safety and that no accommodation can be made ie jewelery tucked in, skirts tight not loose, head scarves securely tied.
Otherwise I'd have no trouble writing rules that effectively mean 'no orthodox Jews, Muslim women or Shiks need apply'. With a bit more imagination I could keep our other ethnic/religious groups.
In Europe several countries have put restrictions on headscarves and face coverings targeting Muslims, in the US those would never fly.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
purplefood wrote:Why do they have galleries of Sarah Palin photos?
What kind of websites have you been visiting CT?
I suggest you check out the other Dakka OT thread in which people are going on and on about how "hot" Palin is.
Also based upon a quick google search you can see how apparently horny teabaggers (no pun intended) and republican creepers have a thing for her...
I wonder if they will still think so once they see this thread and realize that god thinks she is an abomination for wearing those sinful jeans...
50512
Post by: Jihadin
suggest you check out the other Dakka OT thread in which people are going on and on about how "hot" Palin is.
7926
Post by: youbedead
CT GAMER wrote: Ahtman wrote: LuciusAR wrote:It's not discrimination to be asked to obey the same rules as every other employee.
Of course it can be. You can create a wide range of completely illegal rules in the work place to discriminate against other folks.
True, christian conservative business owners have been doing it for ages...
Do you feel that this girl is in the right, if not do you also believe that a Christina fundamentalist can choose to not hire non-christians
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Melissia wrote: CT GAMER wrote: Ahtman wrote: LuciusAR wrote:It's not discrimination to be asked to obey the same rules as every other employee.
Of course it can be. You can create a wide range of completely illegal rules in the work place to discriminate against other folks.
True, christian conservative business owners have been doing it for ages...
Well yes, but how DARE you try to do that to a Christian. HOW DARE YOU. HOW!
Yes, the victim of discrimination cannot request lawful compensation because some other asses in a larger group she belongs to has been guilty of the same thing.
Similarly, how dare women sue for rape when they are responsible for 0.1% of rape cases. HOW DARE THEY!
[/logicfail]
5742
Post by: generalgrog
I just wanted to comment on the part about "Pentecostals believe wearing pants is a sin" I think the wording there was unfortunate because, as a pentecostal I do not believe in that doctrine. I wish they had said, SOME Pentecostals believe that.
Anyway... here is a good clip from the former Presiding Bishop (now deceased) of my pentecostal denomination, speaking on the issue of women wearing pants.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTDfN1JWsFw&feature=related
GG
29408
Post by: Melissia
 Kovnik Obama wrote:Yes, the victim of discrimination cannot request lawful compensation because some other asses in a larger group she belongs to has been guilty of the same thing. [ trolling removed]
Amusing, but stupid. My point wasn't about whether or not the woman was in her rights to do so. Only that it is rather hypocritical of Christian media to make a huge hubub about this given the various restrictions that many "Christian" companies put on their employees. The only reason that this got any serious levels of press is so that Christian media can try to create a sense of victimhood in its audience. Even though Christians are the majority and almost invariably are pushing their rules on everyone else, not the other way around.
51375
Post by: Inquisitor Ehrenstein
Sexism should not be given legal protection.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
 generalgrog wrote:I just wanted to comment on the part about "Pentecostals believe wearing pants is a sin" I think the wording there was unfortunate because, as a pentecostal I do not believe in that doctrine. I wish they had said, SOME Pentecostals believe that.
Anyway... here is a good clip from the former Presiding Bishop (now deceased) of my pentecostal denomination, speaking on the issue of women wearing pants.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTDfN1JWsFw&feature=related
GG
This is a very very good sermon.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Melissia wrote: Kovnik Obama wrote:Yes, the victim of discrimination cannot request lawful compensation because some other asses in a larger group she belongs to has been guilty of the same thing.
[ trolling removed]
Amusing, but stupid.
My point wasn't about whether or not the woman was in her rights to do so. Only that it is rather hypocritical of Christian media to make a huge hubub about this given the various restrictions that many "Christian" companies put on their employees. The only reason that this got any serious levels of press is so that Christian media can try to create a sense of victimhood in its audience. Even though Christians are the majority and almost invariably are pushing their rules on everyone else, not the other way around.
Shine.yahoo.com is a Christian media?
27391
Post by: purplefood
This isn't sexism...
It isn't discrimination either...
They didn't make the rules in order to target a religious or ethnic minority.
The rules are most likely there for safety.
It's imagined discrimination.
29408
Post by: Melissia
The sexism part refers to the religious beliefs, actually.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Well that makes a bit more sense...
That said religion is a bit weird but i guess it falls under freedom of belief or something like that...
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
The problem is the same as with muslim women who say they've chosen to wear the veil. Institutionnalized sexism like that is hard to counter, because your fighting the very person your claiming to help.
And you have to entertain the possibility that maybe, just maybe she did make a conscious choice to adopt a sexist practice.
27391
Post by: purplefood
Then she's pretty damn silly...
39768
Post by: Captain Fantastic
Wait, why are pants men's clothing? Can Pentecostal men wear women's clothing, like jeggings and uggz?
241
Post by: Ahtman
purplefood wrote:
It isn't discrimination either...
They didn't make the rules in order to target a religious or ethnic minority.
That isn't what discrimination means, and it is absolutely was discrimination. The question is whether it is legal discrimination.
50336
Post by: azazel the cat
Melissia wrote: dogma wrote:Wait, pants are now exclusively masculine clothing?
I think I can hear Virginia Woolf spinning in her grave.
I can hear her too; I think the noise is due to the incredible speed at which she spins lately. Personally, I think there's a lot of potential in a Virginia-Woolf-Spinning-In-Her-Grave-Clean-Energy-Turbine.
It is, after all, powered entirely by right-wing rhetoric.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
wtf Melissia?
Oddly, I'm down with that name.
5534
Post by: dogma
1: That this is an "issue" is mind boggling.
2: He's wrong, pants existed at the time.
3: "Pants" and "Pantaloons" trace back to Saint Pantaleon.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
Also, I had high hopes for this story when I saw the title.
They got crushed quickly.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Some people are suck with the new quote system.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
So this girl got in a flap because she couldn't wear the rag that the imaginary old man in the sky said she had to wear?
And this is news, how?
Also, the correct term is trousers.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
There are legitimate safety concerns as to why a company could require someone to wear pants in a kitchen. And yes, cashiers end up in the kitchen occasionally at fast food restaurants.
She will lose this one, as she should.
5534
Post by: dogma
 Monster Rain wrote: And yes, cashiers end up in the kitchen occasionally at fast food restaurants.
Let's be honest, in most fast food places there is no real delineation between kitchen and cashier zone.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
dogma wrote: Monster Rain wrote: And yes, cashiers end up in the kitchen occasionally at fast food restaurants.
Let's be honest, in most fast food places there is no real delineation between kitchen and cashier zone.
Very true.
I just wanted to keep it vague enough to not get bogged down by the OT Pedantry Brigade.  Not to mention the fact that nearly all of the QSRs I've ever seen would require movement through the kitchen to clock in, go on break, or to resupply items at the front of the house such as cups and napkins and whatnot.
5534
Post by: dogma
You missed the most important one: Fire Sauce.
50243
Post by: Castiel
 scarletsquig wrote:
Same goes for men wearing tight stockings as treatment for their Deep Vein Thrombosis. And of course, basically all TV/ TS/crossdresser/drag queen/ Scottish as well.
Actually the Kilt is traditionally masculine clothing. PS nice original joke. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilt
Wikipedia wrote:The kilt is a knee-length garment with pleats at the rear, originating in the traditional dress of men and boys in the Scottish Highlands of the 16th century. Since the 19th century it has become associated with the wider culture of Scotland in general, or with Celtic (and more specifically Gaelic) heritage even more broadly. It is most often made of woollen cloth in a tartan pattern.
11060
Post by: Phototoxin
 Seaward wrote:Palindrome wrote:Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?
It's a story because conservative Christians have decided it's a story.
Its a story because mainstream media thinks its ok to bash Christians. If she was a muslim no one would dare speak out.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Of course they would speak out. What are you smoking?
Americans love bashing Muslims. That's why many of us keep trying to label Obama a Muslim-- so they can bash him easier.
American media is different from British media.
33125
Post by: Seaward
 Phototoxin wrote:Its a story because mainstream media thinks its ok to bash Christians. If she was a muslim no one would dare speak out.
It always amuses me that Christians manage to be a persecuted minority in America whenever something they don't like happens, and an unquestionable majority with the right to have the country governed the way they want whenever an argument about issues even tangentially involves their religion.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
Melissia wrote:Of course they would speak out. What are you smoking?
Americans love bashing Muslims. That's why many of us keep trying to label Obama a Muslim-- so they can bash him easier.
American media is different from British media.
Now if she was Jewish then people would be less keen to poke fun at her.
1185
Post by: marv335
Another point, Long skirts are a trip hazard.
From a risk assessment point of view they are a no no in any environment where you have hot surfaces and tanks of boiling fat.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Anyone who has worked in fast food can tell you that you will get filthy and anything looser than pants will attract massive quantities of debris and be a hazard in a confined work space.
91
Post by: Hordini
purplefood wrote:
I know they can't discriminate in the UK but AFAIK worker's rights in the US are next to non-existent...
Well as far as you know is wrong. Worker's rights in the US may be different than in the UK, but they are far from non-existent.
Also, I've worked in the kitchen at a restaurant. It's true that at a fast food place she would have had to be back in the kitchen at some point most likely, but it wouldn't be where she was spending most of her time. And if the skirt she was going to wear is anything like what the skirts I see many Pentecostal girls wearing, it would be long, but wouldn't come anywhere close to touching the ground. Obviously we haven't seen a photo of the actual skirt, but I don't think wearing a long skirt that doesn't touch the ground as a cashier at a fast food restaurant would cause enough of a safety issue to not hire someone because of their religious practices. If she was applying to be a cook, that might be a different story, but not a cashier.
29408
Post by: Melissia
A cashier is effectively in the kitchen at all times in most fast food places.
51344
Post by: BlapBlapBlap
They all kind of merge into one sweaty, pustule-filled gem of working futility in motion...
34168
Post by: Amaya
Yep, a lot of have fast food places have the fryers right behind the register.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Yeah, When i worked a DQ the cashier(thankfully never me) would be the ones making the food icecream.
91
Post by: Hordini
Melissia wrote:A cashier is effectively in the kitchen at all times in most fast food places.
That's true, but in sit down restaurants, servers (some of which might wear skirts depending on the restaurant) come back into the kitchen area all the time as well, and some sit down restaurants even have open kitchens like fast food places do. A lot of fast food places, Burger King included, still have a bit of a separation between kitchen areas. The kitchen is open, yes, but the cashiers often stay towards the front, near the counter and away from the ovens and fryers.
I don't think it's a big deal. She would obviously have access to the kitchen and be in the back area, but if she's not frying or cooking things herself, I don't think it would be that big of an issue. Restaurants allow pregnant women to wear maternity clothes, which are a lot looser than regular uniforms and could theoretically get caught on something, but even regular pants and shirts can get caught on something. Could the skirt get caught on something? Yes, it could. But I don't think that's a good enough reason to fire her in a case that could easily be considered religious discrimination. Automatically Appended Next Post:  hotsauceman1 wrote:Yeah, When i worked a DQ the cashier(thankfully never me) would be the ones making the food icecream.
Making ice cream is totally different than cooking with fryers or hot ovens. I see even less reason why someone in a skirt couldn't prepare ice cream and thus be a cashier at a Dairy Queen.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Well I was the one in the back working the Fryers, if a ssecond person wasnt there(rarly there wasn't) the cashier would also be the frycook
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Melissia wrote:Of course they would speak out. What are you smoking?
Americans love bashing Muslims. That's why many of us keep trying to label Obama a Muslim-- so they can bash him easier.
American media is different from British media.
Yeah the American media isn't that different from the British media, there is clearly a pro-Christian leaning in both countries. Its not huge, but its obviously there. And I say this as someone who doesn't WANT to see a bias towards Christianity, and as a person with a vehement dislike for Islam, but lets be honest here.
Quite clearly the media favours the Big C over the big I, and there are plenty of papers and such with a very obvious Christian undercurrent.
Photo is just needlessly whinging like so many Religious people do about a witch hunt that just isn't going on, nobody is "bashing" Christianity, they just rightly ask questions when people use their beliefs and as excuse to talk gak or attempt to pas clearly unconstitutional rules and regulations against people who don't wish to share their personal belief system.
Islam gets a far harder time in the media then Christianity, and I WANT it to! But even I can admit what is such an obvious truth.
31953
Post by: nomsheep
I completely misunderstood the title. then i remembered that pants means something else entirely over the pond.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Can you tell me what it means over there?
664
Post by: Grimtuff
 nomsheep wrote:I completely misunderstood the title. then i remembered that pants means something else entirely over the pond.
What? You've never gone commando at work? It's quite liberating.
664
Post by: Grimtuff
Pants=underpants. 
91
Post by: Hordini
hotsauceman1 wrote:Well I was the one in the back working the Fryers, if a ssecond person wasnt there(rarly there wasn't) the cashier would also be the frycook
That doesn't mean that's what would be going on at the Burger King she was hired at. At this point that kind of thing would be speculation, but we know she was hired as a cashier and not a cook.
31953
Post by: nomsheep
 Grimtuff wrote: nomsheep wrote:I completely misunderstood the title. then i remembered that pants means something else entirely over the pond.
What? You've never gone commando at work? It's quite liberating.
I have considered it, but i dropped the idea after realizing I would need to start work.
Ot: she should have realized it was a safety risk, tis her fault really.
91
Post by: Hordini
nomsheep wrote:
Ot: she should have realized it was a safety risk, tis her fault really.
I really don't think it's as much as a safety risk as people are claiming. Obviously the person who hired her didn't think it would be an issue either.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
 Hordini wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Well I was the one in the back working the Fryers, if a ssecond person wasnt there(rarly there wasn't) the cashier would also be the frycook
That doesn't mean that's what would be going on at the Burger King she was hired at. At this point that kind of thing would be speculation, but we know she was hired as a cashier and not a cook.
You can see right INTO the kitchen at most burger kings. and I have seen many cashiers run back and forth from the kitchens.
5534
Post by: dogma
Can I wear a skirt while I work at Burger King?
51344
Post by: BlapBlapBlap
Hordini wrote: nomsheep wrote:
Ot: she should have realized it was a safety risk, tis her fault really.
I really don't think it's as much as a safety risk as people are claiming. Obviously the person who hired her didn't think it would be an issue either.
As I said earlier, the interviewer probably didn't know a damn about H&S.
31953
Post by: nomsheep
Hordini wrote: nomsheep wrote:
Ot: she should have realized it was a safety risk, tis her fault really.
I really don't think it's as much as a safety risk as people are claiming. Obviously the person who hired her didn't think it would be an issue either.
You can trip on it, others can trip on it, loose fabric can get trapped etc etc it's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
91
Post by: Hordini
hotsauceman1 wrote: Hordini wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Well I was the one in the back working the Fryers, if a ssecond person wasnt there(rarly there wasn't) the cashier would also be the frycook
That doesn't mean that's what would be going on at the Burger King she was hired at. At this point that kind of thing would be speculation, but we know she was hired as a cashier and not a cook.
You can see right INTO the kitchen at most burger kings. and I have seen many cashiers run back and forth from the kitchens.
And again, in other restaurants servers with skirts also go back into the kitchen all the time, open or not. It doesn't matter if the kitchen is open or not. What kind of shoes she wears is going to be more important in terms of safety than whether or not she's wearing pants or a skirt that doesn't come close to touching the ground. Automatically Appended Next Post: nomsheep wrote: Hordini wrote: nomsheep wrote:
Ot: she should have realized it was a safety risk, tis her fault really.
I really don't think it's as much as a safety risk as people are claiming. Obviously the person who hired her didn't think it would be an issue either.
You can trip on it, others can trip on it, loose fabric can get trapped etc etc it's a lawsuit waiting to happen.
You're not going to trip on it if it's not long enough to step on. You're assuming it's a skirt that's long enough to step on, and most Pentecostal women who wear skirts all the time don't wear skirts that long. Loose fabric can get caught on things with shirts, pants, and aprons too. Your shoelaces could come untied and you could trip that way. You could trip over your own feet. We can imagine possible accidents that can happen in a kitchen until we're blue in the face, that doesn't mean that it makes it okay for a restaurant to fire someone for a religious practice that could have easily accommodated.
31953
Post by: nomsheep
I got fired for not smiling. this is nothing.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
My boss often says that, Thats why he stuck me as a cook. Why Should I smile, Its not like its going ot make their soda taste any better.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Yes, but only if you claim it's for religious reasons.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
You don't have to be religious if your a Scotsman!
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
My Teacher who studied in scotland said they dont wear anything under that, is that true?
51344
Post by: BlapBlapBlap
Indeedly. Turn your eyes when they try ballet, or just make any sudden movements.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Matty..........you need to lay out in the sun more.....
21853
Post by: mattyrm
feth off that's not me mate, I just googled "cooking in a kilt"
91
Post by: Hordini
That doesn't have anything to do with religious discrimination though. This does.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
hotsauceman1 wrote:My Teacher who studied in scotland said they dont wear anything under that, is that true?
Yeah apparently its against the rules, not that I've worn one. But my Grandad said so and he was a jock, but I'm an Englishman, so a kilts just a skirt to me.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
She wasn't fired due to religious discrimination, though. The issue was with her clothing. The reason she wore it is completely beside the point.
55600
Post by: Kovnik Obama
As an aside, what's the Pentacostal position on short shorts? WHO DOESN'T LIKE SHORT SHORTS?!?
Also, can Dogma wear short shorts while working at BK?
50512
Post by: Jihadin
feth off that's not me mate, I just googled "cooking in a kilt"
Attempting to "delete" this post exchange from my mind.....
18698
Post by: kronk
Kovnik Obama wrote:As an aside, what's the Pentacostal position on short shorts? WHO DOESN'T LIKE SHORT SHORTS?!?
Pretty sure their position on short shorts would be negative. Very, very negative...
91
Post by: Hordini
Monster Rain wrote:She wasn't fired due to religious discrimination, though. The issue was with her clothing. The reason she wore it is completely beside the point.
Employers have to make reasonable accommodations for their employees' religious beliefs, which can involve clothing worn for religious reasons. They would have to prove that the clothing posed a health or safety risk, which I admit could be possible, but it depends on the type and length of the skirt and her duties as a cashier. We haven't seen a picture of the skirt she was actually wearing for work yet, have we? Without a photo, whether or not the skirt would realistically cause a safety issue for a cashier is just speculation.
34168
Post by: Amaya
If she is Pentacostal we can safely assume it would be a long flowing skirt and naturally a impediment to her duties.
91
Post by: Hordini
 Amaya wrote:If she is Pentacostal we can safely assume it would be a long flowing skirt and naturally a impediment to her duties.
No, we can't assume that. I've seen Pentecostal women wear skirts of a variety of different lengths. All were modest and none were miniskirts, but not all of them were flowing skirts that nearly touched the ground. I've seen a lot of them wearing 3/4 length skirts that weren't very flowing, and I think it would be harder to make an argument that that was a health and safety hazard, since plenty of servers at diners and other restaurants wear skirts of that length and go back into the kitchen area all the time.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Underpants.
Also slang for crud, as in that movie is really pants. Automatically Appended Next Post: Monster Rain wrote:She wasn't fired due to religious discrimination, though. The issue was with her clothing. The reason she wore it is completely beside the point.
It's not though, a restriction on religious practices is illegal under US law no matter what the reason (health and safety being among the few exceptions). Banning hats (for example) is fine, but employers have to make reasonable accommodations for religious head wear, whatever their rationale for the ban.
The burden of proof is on the company to show that no skirt could ever have worked for this job.
34252
Post by: Squigsquasher
If you can look convincing then yes.
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
There's only one reasonable solution that makes everyone happy: BK doesn't want her wearing the dress because it's a safety hazard (fair point), and she wants to wear the dress to observe religious reasons (equally fair point). How about we get this girl a tight skirt that hugs her legs all the way down to avoid snaring things, but stretches to allow movement. The customers get to appreciate it too because it will hug the tops of her legs as well. Everyone wins!
28228
Post by: Cheesecat
Everyone in the UK is pale.
50243
Post by: Castiel
hotsauceman1 wrote:My Teacher who studied in scotland said they dont wear anything under that, is that true?
Its because our cahonies are so big they don't fit in any form of underwear.
31953
Post by: nomsheep
I can vouch for this. It's because we only have one season. WET!
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Its because our cahonies are so big they don't fit in any form of underwear
Can see you all having trouble dating overthere.
50243
Post by: Castiel
 Jihadin wrote:Its because our cahonies are so big they don't fit in any form of underwear
Can see you all having trouble dating overthere.
Touche!
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Only if you've got the legs for it.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Something up when BK starts installing brass poles and advertising staying open 24/7.......
18698
Post by: kronk
Well, their food sucks (except for the chicken sandwich), so anything to get me into the store...
221
Post by: Frazzled
dogma wrote:Wait, pants are now exclusively masculine clothing?
To her religious group it does. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kid_Kyoto wrote:Palindrome wrote:Burger King have a dress code. This woman refused to obey the dress code and was fired. How is this a story?
Because companies cannot have hiring policies that prevent people from practicing their religion (barring health and safety concerns).
Company policy might stop me from wearing a baseball cap but it cannot prevent Jews, Shiks, Mulims etc fromcovering their heads. If not companies would basically banning certain religions from working there.
This case will come down to whether or not BK could have made a reasonable accomodation and since it seems they did not try I'd bet they'll lose big.
Your use of facts, logic, and the law have no place here! Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your dog appears to be possessed. Did you realize he was telling you to do things before or after you fixed him five pounds of burger?
5470
Post by: sebster
So as Ahtman and some others have pointed out, a policy can't be used to justify discriminatory behaviour unless that policy is based in real health and safety requirements. As such, this all turns on a question of fact - is a long dress really a health and safety concern in a working kitchen? It's a pretty good question, honestly, and even having done my time working at a fast food joint while I was at uni, I'm not sure I could guess the answer. Those places are pretty chaotic, but there isn't really much in the way of open fire or anything. Everyone wore jeans or shorts, but mostly that's because stuff is likely to get caught and ripped. And this being dakka that issue of fact is discussed by some, while others ignore it entirely and just people pile in to prove how this story proves Christians get special treatment/ are picked on by 'mainstream' society. None of which makes any sense but hey, gotta keep the fires of that culture war burning. Automatically Appended Next Post: generalgrog wrote:I just wanted to comment on the part about "Pentecostals believe wearing pants is a sin" I think the wording there was unfortunate because, as a pentecostal I do not believe in that doctrine. I wish they had said, SOME Pentecostals believe that.
Thankyou for the clarification. The implication that all Pentecostals believed that bothered me, but without knowing for sure myself I didn't want to correct it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kovnik Obama wrote:The problem is the same as with muslim women who say they've chosen to wear the veil. Institutionnalized sexism like that is hard to counter, because your fighting the very person your claiming to help.
And the reality is that in 'helping' such a person you're more likely than anything to just alienate them from society. Tell her she cannot wear her skirt in this job, and 99% of the time she'll keep wearing the skirt and just not work in that kind of position.
49775
Post by: DIDM
Radical Christian
funny how words change over the years eh?
 Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean come on, YOU WORK AT BURGER KING
quit thinking life is gonna be good and just get used to it sucking HARD
18471
Post by: Lord-Loss
I initally skimmed the article and assumed they meant hot pants "Fast food places in America make every employee wear hot pants, that's weird" I thought "why can't she just wear black trousers?".
I read the first page quite confused...
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Talked to my Boss(also a cok for 25+ years, working in a varity of kitchens) HE siad it is unacceptable to wear Skirts in a resturant. They are not fire retardent(they can burn faster, You can trip ver them(dangerous in a kitchen)
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
hotsauceman1 wrote:Talked to my Boss(also a cok for 25+ years, working in a varity of kitchens) HE siad it is unacceptable to wear Skirts in a resturant. They are not fire retardent(they can burn faster, You can trip ver them(dangerous in a kitchen)
Don't think we needed your personal opinion of your boss, Hotsauce
241
Post by: Ahtman
IF your boss was a cook and worked in kitchens it seems likely they never worked in fast food, but with actual food.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Right, fast food bosses would never deign to enter the kitchen in order to work at food. They only do that to look down on their underlings.
241
Post by: Ahtman
Melissia wrote:Right, fast food bosses would never deign to enter the kitchen in order to work at food. They only do that to look down on their underlings.
That doesn't even make any sense, which to be honest, isn't that shocking. Recognizing that being a cook at Ruth's Chris isn't the same as being the guy who puts a meat patty on a conveyor belt at Burger King doesn't exactly take a lot experience or consideration. I've known a lot of people that have worked at fast food and at restaurants but I've never known any of them to work as a cook at a fast food chain for 25 years. Someone in the food industry that long as a cook isn't working in fast food. Now there are managers that do, but they are referred to as managers, not cooks.
29408
Post by: Melissia
I was being facetious.
5182
Post by: SlaveToDorkness
I couldn't help but think of this...
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
And...part of me just died. Thank you for violating my eye sockets. Dorkness...you frighten me. Lol
30265
Post by: SoloFalcon1138
So, do you think they'd be suing as quickly if her skirt or her hair caused her to have an accident?
The real issue is which is more important to this kid: the job or the skirt.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Fulfilling her religious obligations is more important to her.
She worked at the service counter of Burger King not the kitchen, wearing a skirt was not unreasonable anyway.
I do not know if Burger King issues fire resistant clothing at all, but even if they did and insisted on that for health and safety, a reasonable request then fire resistant skirts can be purchased.
This did not appear to be the reason given anyway, just that there was a dress code, which doesn't overrule religious wear.
33125
Post by: Seaward
I have no comments on the legality of the case, but I do find it amusing that the sect considers women working outside the home to be just peachy, but the wearing of pants by them while doing it to be a sin.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I wonder how many people have bothered researching kitchen safety regulations before forming an opinion on this subject.
34168
Post by: Amaya
I didn't bother, I've worked in fast food and even pants will get caught on crap and my fething shoes and cuffs were filthy everyday.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
I avoided the fast food horror while in school and after school. Then my city sucked for jobs. Either work in the Purdue chicken processing plant or meaningless jobs...or be a streetside pharmacist. I choose Uncle Sam.
34168
Post by: Amaya
It's not that bad, but I got away with dipping/chewing at work and that makes everything better.
33160
Post by: Iur_tae_mont
When I worked in Fast Food, My manager wore a knee length skirt every other day, but then again, she was the manager. She can pretty much do what she wants as long as no customers complain.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ah your one of the few swallowers of dip. I only did dip when I can't smoke in vehicle. Only time I ever swallowed my wad is when that IED went off right outside my door. I posted that pic quite awhile back....hot crotch and swallowing dip...is not a good combo for me 
34168
Post by: Amaya
Nah, I usually worked in the back with access to a trash can that I used as a spittoon. I can swallow chewing tobacco for some reason, but gutting dip makes me instantly sick. Did that at a party once while very drunk and proceeded to projectile vomit right next to the door an hour or so later.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Ugh I know that feeling. The oher bad "feeling" is when I was hammered at party that was held after my first deployment. I picked up a beer that was half full being used as an ashtray....I became one with the coolness of the porcelian bowl.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Seaward wrote:I have no comments on the legality of the case, but I do find it amusing that the sect considers women working outside the home to be just peachy, but the wearing of pants by them while doing it to be a sin.
You misread the theology.
There is no ban on trousers, instead there is a 'suggestion' that women dress modestly, which in the context means dressing in a non-sexually flattering way, thus showing off curves by wearing trousers is discouraged. I use the words suggestion and discouraged as the New Testament dress code strictures are fairly loose, they are not core commands of the faith. Indeed there is freedom under Christ to ignore the strictures, it is merely suggested that one does not. This is how the Pentecostals would see it, other denomiations would look at the scriptures differently and place firmer and more specific restrictions.
29408
Post by: Melissia
 Orlanth wrote:She worked at the service counter of Burger King not the kitchen
There's not really a difference.
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, do you think they'd be suing as quickly if her skirt or her hair caused her to have an accident?
The real issue is which is more important to this kid: the job or the skirt.
Religious freedom, like free speech, means never having to choose between keeping your job and acting on your beliefs. 
The only question is whether or not BK could have made a reasonable accommodation. Automatically Appended Next Post:  Iur_tae_mont wrote:When I worked in Fast Food, My manager wore a knee length skirt every other day, but then again, she was the manager. She can pretty much do what she wants as long as no customers complain.
And I assume that all you survived without dying in a skirt-related inferno?
33125
Post by: Seaward
Orlanth wrote: Seaward wrote:I have no comments on the legality of the case, but I do find it amusing that the sect considers women working outside the home to be just peachy, but the wearing of pants by them while doing it to be a sin.
You misread the theology.
There is no ban on trousers, instead there is a 'suggestion' that women dress modestly, which in the context means dressing in a non-sexually flattering way, thus showing off curves by wearing trousers is discouraged. I use the words suggestion and discouraged as the New Testament dress code strictures are fairly loose, they are not core commands of the faith. Indeed there is freedom under Christ to ignore the strictures, it is merely suggested that one does not. This is how the Pentecostals would see it, other denomiations would look at the scriptures differently and place firmer and more specific restrictions.
That doesn't seem to be this particular brand of Pentecostals' view of the matter. If this could be simply solved by her wearing pants, her religious freedom would not be threatened.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Seaward wrote: Orlanth wrote: Seaward wrote:I have no comments on the legality of the case, but I do find it amusing that the sect considers women working outside the home to be just peachy, but the wearing of pants by them while doing it to be a sin.
You misread the theology.
There is no ban on trousers, instead there is a 'suggestion' that women dress modestly, which in the context means dressing in a non-sexually flattering way, thus showing off curves by wearing trousers is discouraged. I use the words suggestion and discouraged as the New Testament dress code strictures are fairly loose, they are not core commands of the faith. Indeed there is freedom under Christ to ignore the strictures, it is merely suggested that one does not. This is how the Pentecostals would see it, other denominations would look at the scriptures differently and place firmer and more specific restrictions.
That doesn't seem to be this particular brand of Pentecostals' view of the matter. If this could be simply solved by her wearing pants, her religious freedom would not be threatened.
Yes it would.
The law does not and should not distinguish between religious strictures someone must perform because of threat of divine disfavour or those someone may perform to be a better example of their faith. That would be adding legal weight to specific religious doctrines and would be unfair to all religions.
Standing in the way of either unnecessarily is interfering with religious freedom. In fact is wearing a hijab or not eating pork religious freedom at all, as the practitioner is not free but forced to comply. A religious stricture advising against trousers in order to dress modestly that can actually be overridden by several passages in the Bible referring to levity of action 'I do not sin, its the sin within me' is a genuine expression of freedom. If you force fed a Moslem bacon you are sinning not the Moslem, if you demand Pentecostal dresses immodestly according to her conscience she is still a Christian if she turns up for work in a slinky lingerie but is no longer honouring God in the way she presents herself.
I can respect her viewpoint, if she wore trousers she felt she would show off her curves and thus be dressing immodestly, she set high standards for herself. Its not an illogical point at which to make a stand, and such an attitude is scriptural. I can point to at least one New Testament scripture that supports her doctrine right away, and IIRC can find maybe two more with a search. Our pastors wife and several members of our church turned up in trousers frequently, it didn't bother them or anyone else, however their conscience might tell then not to do things that this girl does. I can think of one immediately: persuing lawsuits against people or organisations.
37231
Post by: d-usa
There was so much grease and dirt on my shoes and pants after working fast food, I would never want to wear anything that could expose skin.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Seaward wrote:I have no comments on the legality of the case, but I do find it amusing that the sect considers women working outside the home to be just peachy, but the wearing of pants by them while doing it to be a sin.
That was also my first thought.
33160
Post by: Iur_tae_mont
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iur_tae_mont wrote:When I worked in Fast Food, My manager wore a knee length skirt every other day, but then again, she was the manager. She can pretty much do what she wants as long as no customers complain.
And I assume that all you survived without dying in a skirt-related inferno?
Dying no. Some third degree burns, yes.
I'm kinda conflicted though. I can see where people are coming from with the safety hazard thing, because I remember in the guy portion of the dress code thing we couldn't wear baggy clothes( which was an absolute PITA for me. The work shirts they had all draped over me like a tent. They had to get some work shirts made for me.) but from personal experience, no one was killed due to my boss wearing a skirt. I didn't read the girl portion of the dress code, so I don't know if the skirt was against the rules or not, but it if was and something happened the Manager would have gotten in trouble. But I didn't work at BK. We need to see BK's dress code rules. If it says No skirts then the girl isn't going to win.
10920
Post by: Goliath
nomsheep wrote:
I can vouch for this. It's because we only have one season. WET!
A large proportion of Essex would disagree with you
That was a joke.
5534
Post by: dogma
And you're oversimplifying it.
Pentecostalism doesn't universally treat clothing prohibitions according to standards of modesty, much of it grounded in the governance of what is right and proper for each sex. This is most notable in Deuteronomy 22:5:
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
This, of course, isn't rigidly adhered to across all Pentecostal sects, but pretending that there is a single Pentecostal view of holiness requirements is simply incorrect. There is quite a bit of difference from denomination to denomination, and even from church to church. Automatically Appended Next Post: Orlanth wrote:
Standing in the way of either unnecessarily is interfering with religious freedom.
Religious freedom has always been interfered with to some degree, largely dealing with a reasonable standard of accommodation. We don't, for example, give people the freedom to break laws in the name of their religion. We also, speaking to matters of employment, don't consider it a violation of anti-discrimination law if a potential spokes model is not hired due to being of an inappropriate gender, or unwilling to wear the required attire for religious reasons; as the job hinges on both conditions.
33125
Post by: Seaward
Orlanth wrote:Yes it would.
The law does not and should not distinguish between religious strictures someone must perform because of threat of divine disfavour or those someone may perform to be a better example of their faith. That would be adding legal weight to specific religious doctrines and would be unfair to all religions.
Standing in the way of either unnecessarily is interfering with religious freedom. In fact is wearing a hijab or not eating pork religious freedom at all, as the practitioner is not free but forced to comply. A religious stricture advising against trousers in order to dress modestly that can actually be overridden by several passages in the Bible referring to levity of action 'I do not sin, its the sin within me' is a genuine expression of freedom. If you force fed a Moslem bacon you are sinning not the Moslem, if you demand Pentecostal dresses immodestly according to her conscience she is still a Christian if she turns up for work in a slinky lingerie but is no longer honouring God in the way she presents herself.
I can respect her viewpoint, if she wore trousers she felt she would show off her curves and thus be dressing immodestly, she set high standards for herself. Its not an illogical point at which to make a stand, and such an attitude is scriptural. I can point to at least one New Testament scripture that supports her doctrine right away, and IIRC can find maybe two more with a search. Our pastors wife and several members of our church turned up in trousers frequently, it didn't bother them or anyone else, however their conscience might tell then not to do things that this girl does. I can think of one immediately: persuing lawsuits against people or organisations.
To sum up: even if something isn't a rule of a given faith, we should still make accommodations for an individual's whim?
If I wanted to wear nothing but a bloodied cloth and show up to work with stage blood stigmata, lugging a cross, could I do that and expect protection? It's not a rule that I have to do it, of course, but I just want to.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Seaward makes a lot of sense.
She could also, you know, turn the other cheek if she takes this religion so seriously.
8617
Post by: Hulksmash
::sigh:::
Skirts have no place in a kitchen environment. It is a health/safety issue. Same as baggy or loose clothing. And the danger isnt' just to the person wearing those articles. Let's go over the list of reasons baggy clothes, loose hair, and skirts are generally a no go in a Fast Food environment:
-More flammable (not always the case but it generally is, and this can create much worse burns)
-Tend to get stuck on things
-Sanitary reasons for filth accumulating in them (health department in CA checks employees as well as the actual restraunt surfaces)
-Trip hazard for others (and this is one of the big ones. It's a liability issue)
And that's the easy list. I haven't worked in fast food since high school but I did work at starbucks within the last 5 years and they had the same rules. I bet if I sat down with someone still in either business the list would get longer.
Why is this girls interpretation of her religion more important than her safety and the safety of others in the work environment? And remember rules are in place to prevent accidents and injuries, no matter how rare those accidents or injuries are since it only takes one to cause a rather large lawsuit.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Seaward wrote:I have no comments on the legality of the case, but I do find it amusing that the sect considers women working outside the home to be just peachy, but the wearing of pants by them while doing it to be a sin.
This whole thread is just pants.
21313
Post by: Vulcan
hotsauceman1 wrote: work with burgers and hot grease, And i have to wear pants, if a fire started or my hair fell, causing contamination it would be disaterous.
Skirts are not an appropriate thing to wear while in a kitchen.
And yet, women have managed to do so for literally THOUSANDS of years with precious little incident. In kitchens with open bonfires instead of grills and stoves, no less.
And what do skirts have to do with your hair falling? Besides... long hair can be kept up under your hat. I know; I did it for more years than I care to think about.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Speaking form my own experience, overly baggy clothes and skirts are also frowned upon in a laboratory environment as well. especially skirts. You want as much of your skin covered as possible, and skirts cover less skin than pants do.  Vulcan wrote:And yet, women have managed to do so for literally THOUSANDS of years with precious little incident. In kitchens with open bonfires instead of grills and stoves, no less.
Tradition is, at best, a basis for an argument that is entirely devoid of substance. Just because people had done something stupid/silly/dangerous for a long time doesn't make it any less stupid/silly/dangerous. And actually... the kitchen is the place in the home where there are the most injuries, and where a house fire is far more likely to start, as well as for personal burns. I can find a link for this if you want, but I was hoping this was an obvious statement and that you'd realize that you made a false assertion.
21313
Post by: Vulcan
hotsauceman1 wrote:Talked to my Boss(also a cok for 25+ years, working in a varity of kitchens) HE siad it is unacceptable to wear Skirts in a resturant. They are not fire retardent(they can burn faster, You can trip ver them(dangerous in a kitchen)
Every Pentacostal girl I've worked with in restaurants wore a farly heavy skirt that was made from the same fabric as the uniform pants we had to wear. It was a fairly long skirt, not quite as long as the typical pair of women's pants, and no. where. near. floor length. It was also cut fairly close, not immodestly tight, but FAR from the wide, swirling mass you seem to assume. It was about as 'constricting' as a pair of loose, but not baggy, pants.
In short, perfectly safe attire for a kitchen. At least, the corporate-owned McDonalds I worked at thought so.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Talk to any proffesional Chef( i know a few of those) and they will tell you not to let those near the kitchen, they are dangerous.
514
Post by: Orlanth
dogma wrote:
And you're oversimplifying it.
Pentecostalism doesn't universally treat clothing prohibitions according to standards of modesty, much of it grounded in the governance of what is right and proper for each sex. This is most notable in Deuteronomy 22:5:
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
Old Testament law is largely bypassed in the New Testament, circumcision is used as the case study example but it refers to all the Law inlcuding the food laws whicvh were very strict in the Old Testament but relaxed in the New covenant. There are continued restrictions on cross dressing as a sexual fetish, coverred under the concept of the fruit of the spirit vs the fruit of the world; but wearing trousers doed not infer cross dressing of itself. If this individual or church disagrees that is also in keeping with New Testament ideology. The specific example give by Paul refers to vegetarianism, how one persons conscience prohibits them from eating meat, but not anothers. This concept follows on to a lot of moral issues including dress code and hairstyles, often in combination. Some apply the ideal of a 'covering for a womans head to mean her hair, other believe women should wear hats in church, others that woemn should not shave their heads (as in skinhead). the latter is most likely correct as the passage is included.
You see raw Christianity has only two formal rituals, baptism and communion, and very few doctrines due to salvation by grace. However it does allow mix and match doctrines according to individual concerns, Pentescostalism is quite close to this primitive model. Most denominations add more over time according to how they read the scriptures and in the case of Catholicism, older Protestant denominations and eastern Orthodox dependent on political requirements.
Pentecostalism is porportedly a newer denomination wherin in fact it is closer to the original, which might account for the more frequent experience of charismata than other denominations.
dogma wrote:
This, of course, isn't rigidly adhered to across all Pentecostal sects, but pretending that there is a single Pentecostal view of holiness requirements is simply incorrect. There is quite a bit of difference from denomination to denomination, and even from church to church.
Indeed this is so, which is why I made that very point.
However there are highlighted themes in Pentcostalism, inlcuding a heavier emphasis on the teachings of the New Testament over the Old than in mainstream Protestantism and Catholicism. While opinions vary the Bible doesnt, and taking the case in point the attitude of this person towards wearing trousers can be defended in New Testament scripture when read with a Pentecostal mindset.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Standing in the way of either unnecessarily is interfering with religious freedom.
Religious freedom has always been interfered with to some degree, largely dealing with a reasonable standard of accommodation. We don't, for example, give people the freedom to break laws in the name of their religion. We also, speaking to matters of employment, don't consider it a violation of anti-discrimination law if a potential spokes model is not hired due to being of an inappropriate gender, or unwilling to wear the required attire for religious reasons; as the job hinges on both conditions.
A reasonable standard of accommodation doesn't entail a blanket ban on skirts without reason. No reason was given other than it was 'policy', some on Dakka offered a health and safety concern regarding fire risk, however fire retardant skirts are available no less than fire retardant trousers. No other material reason was given here or by Burger King. As there are no reasonable grounds for the ban other than a blanket uniform policy then there are reasonable grounds for a religious exemption.
5610
Post by: Noisy_Marine
Damnit! When is my boss going to discriminate against me over something stupid so I can have MY PAYDAY!?
5534
Post by: dogma
Orlanth wrote:
Old Testament law is largely bypassed in the New Testament, circumcision is used as the case study example but it refers to all the Law inlcuding the food laws whicvh were very strict in the Old Testament but relaxed in the New covenant.
That's nice, but it isn't relevant to my point, which is that Pentecostalism doesn't universally adhere to the standard holiness that you described. Whether or not the evidence cited is from the OT or NT is largely irrelevant if there exist Pentecostals that grant them equal weight; which there are. This shouldn't be surprising as nothing in the NT contradicts that particular element of Deuteronomy, and several doctrines of theology hold that the New Covenant only supersedes the old where the two conflict.
Orlanth wrote:
There are continued restrictions on cross dressing as a sexual fetish, coverred under the concept of the fruit of the spirit vs the fruit of the world; but wearing trousers doed not infer cross dressing of itself.
You mean imply, not infer. A person certainly can infer that wearing trousers is a form of cross dressing, and cite the Old Testament as evidence, which several Pentecostal sects and churches do.
Orlanth wrote:
A reasonable standard of accommodation doesn't entail a blanket ban on skirts without reason.
A reasonable standard of accommodation doesn't in itself entail anything other than a reasonable standard of accommodation. The point is that what is and is not reasonable is established by the context in which the accommodation is to be made, which renders any blanket discussion of an inviolate sort of religious freedom meaningless.
Orlanth wrote:
No reason was given other than it was 'policy', some on Dakka offered a health and safety concern regarding fire risk, however fire retardant skirts are available no less than fire retardant trousers. No other material reason was given here or by Burger King. As there are no reasonable grounds for the ban other than a blanket uniform policy then there are reasonable grounds for a religious exemption.
That's an argument from silence. You're assuming that because no reasonable grounds for the ban were given that no reasonable grounds exist. If reasonable grounds for the ban are established, which Burger King will no doubt attempt to do provided no settlement is reached, there might not exist grounds for a religious exemption; depending on the court ruling.
514
Post by: Orlanth
dogma wrote: Orlanth wrote:
Old Testament law is largely bypassed in the New Testament, circumcision is used as the case study example but it refers to all the Law inlcuding the food laws whicvh were very strict in the Old Testament but relaxed in the New covenant.
That's nice, but it isn't relevant to my point, which is that Pentecostalism doesn't universally adhere to the standard holiness that you described.
Actually it does if its Biblical based Pentecostalism, its just that interpretation of what is proper differs according to individual or individual congregations consciences (read as - the pastors opinions) in accordance with Christian freedom.
dogma wrote:
. Whether or not the evidence cited is from the OT or NT is largely irrelevant if there exist Pentecostals that grant them equal weight; which there are. This shouldn't be surprising as nothing in the NT contradicts that particular element of Deuteronomy, and several doctrines of theology hold that the New Covenant only supersedes the old where the two conflict.
The New Testament doesnt contradict the Old, 'not a jot is removed from the Law' Matthew 5:18, but the new covenant in place grants freedom from the Law. The Epistles make this point repeatedly and Pentecostalism is more heavily based on epistolic teaching than other forms of Christianity.
it would be unusually to the point of being questionable if the epistles, especially the writings of Paul did not feature heavily in any Pentecostal churches doctrines, it wouldn't be Pentescostal if it didnt.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
There are continued restrictions on cross dressing as a sexual fetish, coverred under the concept of the fruit of the spirit vs the fruit of the world; but wearing trousers does not infer cross dressing of itself.
You mean imply, not infer. A person certainly can infer that wearing trousers is a form of cross dressing, and cite the Old Testament as evidence, which several Pentecostal sects and churches do.
We cannot say if this is or isn't the case here without reference to the particular church. If so then skirt wearing can be seen along the same lines as wearing a hijab, i.e a direct tenet of the faith.
If not it could be an expression of obedience to the principle that Christian women should dress in a manner that is not sexually expressive, a more loose lifestyle choice based on personal interpretation of religious ideology.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
No reason was given other than it was 'policy', some on Dakka offered a health and safety concern regarding fire risk, however fire retardant skirts are available no less than fire retardant trousers. No other material reason was given here or by Burger King. As there are no reasonable grounds for the ban other than a blanket uniform policy then there are reasonable grounds for a religious exemption.
That's an argument from silence. You're assuming that because no reasonable grounds for the ban were given that no reasonable grounds exist. If reasonable grounds for the ban are established, which Burger King will no doubt attempt to do provided no settlement is reached, there might not exist grounds for a religious exemption; depending on the court ruling.
Actually its an argument about reasonable accommodation. Saying 'no you cant and we wont say why' is not reasonable accommodation.
If Burger king now provide reasonable reasons for the ban then they should have done so prior to any disagreement that led to the plaintiff being dismissed. To provide reasons afterwards smacks of excuses and leaves open to suggest that discrimination was the prior cause of dismissal.because reasons for dismissal were only provided after the fact. Automatically Appended Next Post: Looked up the scripture that can be used as a reference guide in conjunction with or alternate to the Law in Deuteronomy.
1 Timothy 2:9 "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,"
The second half wont apply to a Burger King uniform, however wearing trousers may not be considered decent or modest.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Orlanth, you realize your arguments could be applied in defense of burkhas, right?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
This thread is so meta right now it's not even funny.
You know who you are!
5534
Post by: dogma
Orlanth wrote:
Actually it does if its Biblical based Pentecostalism, its just that interpretation of what is proper differs according to individual or individual congregations consciences (read as - the pastors opinions) in accordance with Christian freedom.
No it doesn't. Even "Biblical Pentecostalism" (There is no other kind.) varies in its interpretations of the relevant scripture, and the weight given to individual passages; even if they seem to speak to the contrary. This isn't a simple case of conscience, but of a difference in the application of each element of scripture that fundamentally alters the specificity of what is and is not proper.
Orlanth wrote:
The New Testament doesnt contradict the Old, 'not a jot is removed from the Law' Matthew 5:18, but the new covenant in place grants freedom from the Law. The Epistles make this point repeatedly and Pentecostalism is more heavily based on epistolic teaching than other forms of Christianity.
"Contradict" was poor choice of words, but the point of the two conflicting still stands regarding the administration of the law.
Orlanth wrote:
Actually its an argument about reasonable accommodation. Saying 'no you cant and we wont say why' is not reasonable accommodation.
No, its a fallacy of the sort called an argument from silence. You're implying that there is no reason for the blanket ban on non-uniform clothing because none was given, but Burger King is not obligated to give a reason outside a court of law; especially given that a legal challenge would likely have been mounted anyway.
Orlanth wrote:
If Burger king now provide reasonable reasons for the ban then they should have done so prior to any disagreement that led to the plaintiff being dismissed. To provide reasons afterwards smacks of excuses and leaves open to suggest that discrimination was the prior cause of dismissal.because reasons for dismissal were only provided after the fact.
The plaintiff cannot be dismissed without a lawsuit being filed. We do not know what stage the legal proceeding are presently at, nor do we know the position of franchise owners, as they have released no statement. We only know what low level franchise employees apparently said regarding the matter, which is essentially irrelevant given that they need only follow policy. Given this, the franchise owners need only make a case defending their policy, and showing consistent enforcement of it.
12313
Post by: Ouze
Man, there are a lot of people in this thread who really are not grasping the concept of "reasonable accomodation". Seriously, it's not that tough of an idea to get around.
No, that probably doesn't include wearing bloody rags to work. No, that doesn't mean that we should research kitchen safety regulations - that's for BK to do and present as evidence. You don't need to be an expert on that sort of minutiae to have an reasonable opinion (the jury, who decides what is reasonable when presented with evidence, certainly won't be!); and the whole thought that you do is ludicrous on it's face. It's like calling your cable company to complain the cable's out, and them telling you "well, did you ever build a cable company before? how could you know?" - some things are evident even to a reasonable layperson.
This is a completely legitimate case; one which I'm sure will likely be settled anyway. My speculation is that, should they not settle, BK will be able to show, via studies and testing done, that skirts present a workplace hazard in their environment and as such they cannot reasonably accommodate her request.
5742
Post by: generalgrog
Pentecostalism is quite diverse, ranging from very stayed, almost Baptist like worship, all the way through to the ones that dance with snakes....wikipedia article on it is pretty good... for anyone interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostalism#Statistics_and_denominations
GG
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
 Ouze wrote:Man, there are a lot of people in this thread who really are not grasping the concept of "reasonable accomodation". Seriously, it's not that tough of an idea to get around.
It seems to be at least as difficult to understand as the idea that long skirts aren't a good idea to wear in a professional kitchen and that BK's policies reflect this.
Ouze wrote:No, that doesn't mean that we should research kitchen safety regulations - that's for BK to do and present as evidence.
If there were a representative from BK participating in the thread, perhaps.
If you don't see the value in knowing what you are talking about before forming an opinion I suppose that's your business.
752
Post by: Polonius
This is a very meat and potatos type religious discrimination case. It will almost assuredly be settled (how much can the wages for a 17 year old casheir be?), but at the end of the day, it would just go to a jury to decide if the religious belief is sincere, and if the requested accomadation is reasonable.
Note that you don't have to show that the belief is reasonable, or that the reason to avoid the accomdation is sincere.
And "reasonable" always comes down to a jury, which for those of you that dont' know much about litigation means it will almost always result in a settlement (as juries are unpredictable).
The range of opinions in this thread is evidnece that the question of if it's reasonable to allow a skirt in fast food shows why nobody wants to take this to a jury.
33125
Post by: Seaward
 Polonius wrote:This is a very meat and potatos type religious discrimination case. It will almost assuredly be settled (how much can the wages for a 17 year old casheir be?), but at the end of the day, it would just go to a jury to decide if the religious belief is sincere, and if the requested accomadation is reasonable.
Note that you don't have to show that the belief is reasonable, or that the reason to avoid the accomdation is sincere.
And "reasonable" always comes down to a jury, which for those of you that dont' know much about litigation means it will almost always result in a settlement (as juries are unpredictable).
The range of opinions in this thread is evidnece that the question of if it's reasonable to allow a skirt in fast food shows why nobody wants to take this to a jury.
Do you have to show that the belief is sincere? I mean, I can make a lot of money extorting businesses as a Pastafarian, I think, so...
221
Post by: Frazzled
Polonius wrote:This is a very meat and potatos type religious discrimination case. It will almost assuredly be settled (how much can the wages for a 17 year old casheir be?), but at the end of the day, it would just go to a jury to decide if the religious belief is sincere, and if the requested accomadation is reasonable.
Note that you don't have to show that the belief is reasonable, or that the reason to avoid the accomdation is sincere.
And "reasonable" always comes down to a jury, which for those of you that dont' know much about litigation means it will almost always result in a settlement (as juries are unpredictable).
The range of opinions in this thread is evidnece that the question of if it's reasonable to allow a skirt in fast food shows why nobody wants to take this to a jury.
So she received money for her skirt.
This could be misinterpreted...
752
Post by: Polonius
Seaward wrote:[Do you have to show that the belief is sincere? I mean, I can make a lot of money extorting businesses as a Pastafarian, I think, so...
Of course, although it's more a case of "show my you mean it" that it is a matter of requiring speicifc factors.
So, something like circumcism for Jews, which is mandated in scripture, has been practiced for thousands of years, and continues to be practiced by nearly all members of that religion is clealry a sincere belief.
You have history, tradition, and continued practice. OTOH, a "pastafarian" would need to show that his beliefs are sincere, meaning that he practices them, that they govern his life, whatever. While this sets the bar higher for newer (or smaller) religions than for older, it's fundamentally based in the principle that while we want people to have free exercise of religion, we dont' want people being rude about it.
This is almost assuredly a sincere practice for the girl. Now, if BK can find facebook pictures of her in pants, that would strongly hurt her cause, because it's understood that asking somebody to accomodate your practice when you don't really follow it is pretty silly.
Edited by AgeOfEgos--language
29408
Post by: Melissia
Polonius wrote:it's fundamentally based in the principle that while we want people to have free exercise of religion, we dont' want people being dicks about it.
Well, unless they're Christians, in which case Rule Number 1
Edited by AgeOfEgos
91
Post by: Hordini
Melissia wrote: Polonius wrote:it's fundamentally based in the principle that while we want people to have free exercise of religion, we dont' want people being dicks about it.
Well, unless they're Christians, in which case Rule 1.
No, that doesn't make it okay to be rude about it.
Edited by AgeOfEgos--language
752
Post by: Polonius
Melissia wrote: Polonius wrote:it's fundamentally based in the principle that while we want people to have free exercise of religion, we dont' want people being rude about it.
Well, unless they're Christians, in which case Rule 1.
I know you're just trolling, but it's actually not becuase they are the majority. Rather, it's because nearly all cultural practices in the US are built around the assumption that people are some form of christian. From businesses being closed on Sundays to the Christmas holidy to fish sticks on Fridays, nearly everything in the West is built around people being Christian. It's actually hard to imagine a Lutheran, Catholic, or even Baptist being able to raise a religious discrimination complaint. The ones that happen tend to be from smaller sects or denominations.
514
Post by: Orlanth
Ouze wrote:
This is a completely legitimate case; one which I'm sure will likely be settled anyway. My speculation is that, should they not settle, BK will be able to show, via studies and testing done, that skirts present a workplace hazard in their environment and as such they cannot reasonably accommodate her request.
Not discriminating means having a reasons for any negative actions taken in advance of taking them. If actions specifically to the detriment of an employee are taken without a given reason then the plaintiffs council can argue that the reasons given in the court are not the reasons given for the action taken. If someone is penalised , especially if they are sacked a reason should have been stated. A company policy can only overrule a religious or minority cultural preference if the policy is shown to be reasonable rather than arbitrary.
An effective lawyer can imply BK's actions to mean 'be rid of her, we will think up a reason why later if we need to'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Orlanth wrote:
Actually it does if its Biblical based Pentecostalism, its just that interpretation of what is proper differs according to individual or individual congregations consciences (read as - the pastors opinions) in accordance with Christian freedom.
No it doesn't. Even "Biblical Pentecostalism" (There is no other kind.) varies in its interpretations of the relevant scripture, and the weight given to individual passages; even if they seem to speak to the contrary. This isn't a simple case of conscience, but of a difference in the application of each element of scripture that fundamentally alters the specificity of what is and is not proper.
This is another kind, because Pentecostalism is intentionally free of umbrella organisations it is not uncommon for a corrupted pastor to make things up as he goes along. Its freedom makes Pentecostalism alternastely both the best and worst of churches. Of course a Pentecostal church no longer following Biblical teaching isn't really Penetecostal, nor is it Christian, but such churches can and do exist and from the point of view of the law of the land are churches like any other.
As for difference in application, I think you are looking at it backward. Pentescostal 'doctrine' is founded on the freedom to act within one conscience because the Law has been put to death. Galatians 5 and Romans 6ff covers this.
So the apparent chaos of difference of application is in a very real way the doctrinal following of one specific and is an example of commonality rather than division, assuming Biblical principle is being followed. This is why I say that there is an overriding common doctrinal policy even when direct application so very widely differs.
dogma wrote:
"Contradict" was poor choice of words, but the point of the two conflicting still stands regarding the administration of the law.
Please explain what you mean by this. Conflicting i terms of Biblical Law, or conflicting in terms as how temporal (in this case US) legislation see the differences.
dogma wrote:
No, its a fallacy of the sort called an argument from silence. You're implying that there is no reason for the blanket ban on non-uniform clothing because none was given, but Burger King is not obligated to give a reason outside a court of law; especially given that a legal challenge would likely have been mounted anyway.
I may be misreading US law here, so you may be right; but AFAIK even in the US, where it is far easier to sack someone than in the UK you have to give good reason for doing so to the employee and the employee can go to the courts on the strength or lack thereof of reasoning behind the decision to dismiss.
dogma wrote:
The plaintiff cannot be dismissed without a lawsuit being filed. We do not know what stage the legal proceeding are presently at, nor do we know the position of franchise owners, as they have released no statement. We only know what low level franchise employees apparently said regarding the matter, which is essentially irrelevant given that they need only follow policy. Given this, the franchise owners need only make a case defending their policy, and showing consistent enforcement of it.
Consistent enforcement of policy is good enough in most cases, but in cases where religious, disability or minority rights are affected a reasonable attempt must be given to accommodate those differences.
Removing religion from it for a moment, can Burger King refuse to employee people in wheelchairs for example? They may have an exemption from equal opportunities legislation under safety grounds, but if they don't and they 'discriminate' they need to show good reason or face a dangerous lawsuit.
21313
Post by: Vulcan
hotsauceman1 wrote:Talk to any proffesional Chef( i know a few of those) and they will tell you not to let those near the kitchen, they are dangerous.
Oh, my mistake. I thought we were talking about Burger King and not a four-star restaurant with an actual Chef.
At any rate, a close-cut skirt made of flame-retardant material (and lets face it, pretty much all clothing is required to be fire-retardant anymore) is no worse than the loose-fitting pants I wear when I have to work in a restaurant. These are not floor-length skirts with a yard-long train made of woven match fuses, after all.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Vulcan wrote: hotsauceman1 wrote:Talk to any proffesional Chef( i know a few of those) and they will tell you not to let those near the kitchen, they are dangerous.
Oh, my mistake. I thought we were talking about Burger King and not a four-star restaurant with an actual Chef.
Product quality has no bearing on the internal configuration of a store. Anyone who has worked in fast food can attest to the fact that cashiers are not always up front and that even pants are more than capable of picking up residue and catching on objects. A skirt would just be a greater hassle.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Isn't Burger King kitchen in the same "space" as the cashier position?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Yes. The cashier is in the kitchen at all times.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
All fast food places are like that, you arent there for atmosphere, you are there for greasy diabetic food..
21313
Post by: Vulcan
THESE GIRLS DO NOT WEAR FLOOR LENGTH SKIRTS. I thought for sure I pointed that out earlier! So these skirts are NOT going to be sweeping stuff along on the floor; they are not going to be dragged through spilled oil or whatever, and they are not going to be stepped on by other people.
The skirts I saw, which were part of an OFFICIALLY PROVIDED UNIFORM (as in, they didn't buy the skirt and say 'I'm wearing this'; McD's provided them with the skirt just like they provided me with pants).
34168
Post by: Amaya
It depends on the individual store, but typically the space between the register and actual kitchen is very small or nonexistent. Automatically Appended Next Post: http://www.thriftlocator.com/?q=McDonalds_Japan_uniform
Well, I guess Japan is just better.
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
Frankly I'm not surprised at the Mcdonalds female uniform in Japan. Just look at Japanese girls school uniforms for gods sake
29408
Post by: Melissia
Yeah, Japan is a pretty fethed up place as it is, I'm not surprised at all.
34168
Post by: Amaya
Melissia wrote:Yeah, Japan is a pretty fethed up place as it is, I'm not surprised at all.
Wow, a post we can agree on.
37231
Post by: d-usa
97.3% of all the weird stuff on the internet comes from Japan.
27391
Post by: purplefood
I fixed that for you...
43578
Post by: A Town Called Malus
That is clearly an Ass, or Donkey if you will, not a pony
34168
Post by: Amaya
Don't go down the how weird is Japan road...you won't like where it leads.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
I might like where it leads.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Yellow Fever spreading
518
Post by: Kid_Kyoto
Melissia wrote:Yeah, Japan is a pretty fethed up place as it is, I'm not surprised at all.
By fethed up I assume you mean awesome!
I mean have you ever tried to buy used school girl panties in the US? It's hard! In Japan they have handy corner vending machines for all your used school girl panty needs.
51344
Post by: BlapBlapBlap
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Melissia wrote:Yeah, Japan is a pretty fethed up place as it is, I'm not surprised at all.
By fethed up I assume you mean awesome!
I mean have you ever tried to buy used school girl panties in the US? It's hard! In Japan they have handy corner vending machines for all your used school girl panty needs.
...
...
Anyway, shall we get back on topic? I would like to keep the tentacles away from this thread...
61627
Post by: KalashnikovMarine
This thread clearly needs more kilts! And an actual Dakkanaut this time.
I glassed the guy who took the photo immediately after this was taken.
As to the actual issue at hand I've worked at a couple different restraunts now and skirts have always been a no fly in the kitchen. Especially in fast food "the kitchen and front are one" set ups.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Black combat boots and OD green wool socks......anyone else catching this?
|
|
