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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Can you tell me what it means over there?

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.

 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?

 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.