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.

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...

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)

 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

IF your boss was a cook and worked in kitchens it seems likely they never worked in fast food, but with actual food.

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.

 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.

I was being facetious.

I couldn't help but think of this...

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I couldn't help but think of this...

And...part of me just died. Thank you for violating my eye sockets. Dorkness...you frighten me. Lol

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.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

The real issue is which is more important to this kid: the job or the skirt.

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.

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.

I wonder how many people have bothered researching kitchen safety regulations before forming an opinion on this subject.

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.

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.

It's not that bad, but I got away with dipping/chewing at work and that makes everything better.

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.

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

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.

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.

 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.

 Orlanth wrote:
She worked at the service counter of Burger King not the kitchen

There's not really a difference.

 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?

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 nomsheep wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Matty..........you need to lay out in the sun more.....

Everyone in the UK is pale.

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.

 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

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.