Switch Theme:

Girl Fired for refusing to wear pants is suing burger king  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/29 16:28:10


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.

Seaward makes a lot of sense.

She could also, you know, turn the other cheek if she takes this religion so seriously.

Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis






Home Base: Prosper, TX (Dallas)

::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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/29 16:58:48


Best Painted (2015 Adepticon 40k Champs)

They Shall Know Fear - Adepticon 40k TT Champion (2012 & 2013) & 40k TT Best Sport (2014), 40k TT Best Tactician (2015 & 2016) 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 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.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/29 17:29:37


CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

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.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2012/08/29 17:34:42


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=27644

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 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.

CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






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.

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

 dogma wrote:
 Orlanth wrote:

You misread the theology.


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.

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Chosen Marine Riding a Fiend






The sink.

Damnit! When is my boss going to discriminate against me over something stupid so I can have MY PAYDAY!?
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 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.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/30 01:29:25


n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw






Orlanth, you realize your arguments could be applied in defense of burkhas, right?

Read my story at:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/515293.page#5420356



 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.

This thread is so meta right now it's not even funny.

You know who you are!

Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. 
   
Made in us
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges




United States

 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.

Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

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.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/30 05:41:25


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






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
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Mesopotamia. The Kingdom Where we Secretly Reign.

 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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/30 15:04:28


Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate. 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

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.
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 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...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/30 15:26:06


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 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...

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/30 18:43:34


 
   
Made in us
Consigned to the Grim Darkness





USA

 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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/30 17:24:09


The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
The Main Man






Beast Coast

 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

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/08/30 18:41:13


   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/30 18:59:40


 
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

 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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/08/30 18:56:42


n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/08/31 20:40:22


CHAOS! PANIC! DISORDER!
My job here is done. 
   
Made in us
Nasty Nob on Warbike with Klaw






 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.


Read my story at:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/515293.page#5420356



 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Isn't Burger King kitchen in the same "space" as the cashier position?

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: