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.

 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...

 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?

 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...

 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!

 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.

 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...

suggest you check out the other Dakka OT thread in which people are going on and on about how "hot" Palin is.

 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

 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]

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

 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.

Sexism should not be given legal protection.

 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.

 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?

 Inquisitor Ehrenstein wrote:
Sexism should not be given legal protection.

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.

The sexism part refers to the religious beliefs, actually.

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...

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.

Then she's pretty damn silly...

Wait, why are pants men's clothing? Can Pentecostal men wear women's clothing, like jeggings and uggz?

 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.

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.

wtf Melissia?

Oddly, I'm down with that name.

 generalgrog wrote:

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

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.

Also, I had high hopes for this story when I saw the title.

They got crushed quickly.

Some people are suck with the new quote system.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.