COMMENTARY: Christian Woman Fired from Burger King for Wearing Skirt Instead of Pants
I wonder when Atheists are going to catch on that if they argue that Atheism is a form of religion, they they could cite discrimination against their religion where religious people are allowed to wear their clothing while atheists are forced to conform to regular attire.
The reason why Atheism counts as a religion, in my opinion, is because it's a "belief" in "No God." It's the opinion that "No God" created the Universe. "No God" is still a type of God.
It's like saying that "you're of the opinion that you have no opinion." Having no opinion is still a type of opinion. Think about it. "You are of the OPINION that you have no opinion."
When you say "I believe that I do not believe in anything," you still believe in something. You are of the belief you have no belief. That's still a belief.
It's like people criticizing others who criticize. When you criticize people who criticize, you're one of them because you become someone who criticizes.
It's like hating people who hate people. You're one of them because you're hating and engaging in the same behavior.
It's like creating a law making it illegal to stop. Trying to enforce a law where it's illegal to stop people from doing things makes you guilty of the very law you're trying to uphold. You're trying to stop the people from stopping others. The act of stopping makes you a stopper just like them.
That's why the whole Pro-Life argument strikes me as funny.
You "conceive" a child. You "conceive" an idea. Abort means to stop. If an idea is like a child, then aborting a child is like aborting an idea.
Therefore, "aborting abortion" is aborting the idea of aborting.
However, if Pro-Lifers make it illegal to abort, then it means you can't abort an idea. Abortion is an idea. It's the idea of aborting. If you outlaw aborting, then it means you can't "abort aborting" because aborting as an idea (child) should also be allowed to exist or has a right to exist. The idea of abortion should be allowed to live and not get exterminated or snuffed out.
Every time Pro-Lifer waves that flag to abort (stop) abortion, it's silly. Any time you make a law where others aren't allowed to do something but the ones who made the law are excluded from that law, that's a double standard.
For example this post is an idea. It has a right to exist. To delete is to abort it or put a stop to it is an intellectual abortion. You "seed" an idea in people. Pro-Lifers, not wanting anyone else to read this post, are attempting to abort the process of "seeding" this concept into someone else's "fertile mind."
A person who understands this post would have a fertile mind and understand what I just said. It's the ignorant people whose minds are "not fertile" or "incompatible" where the seeds planted in the mind can't grow.
When Pro-Lifers who hate this interpretation attempt to "stop" or "abort" it from spreading to other people who hear about this idea, that's an attempt at "intellectual abortion." The mind is like an ovum. You "fertilze" the mind by "seeding" it with ideas.
"Conceive" means "to give birth to."
When I pass on this idea and seed it in your mind, I've just fertilized your mind with an idea. It will blossom or grow because it has been "seeded" in your mind. Notice the procreation theme.
Do you want to know why male art collectors are gay?
Is because art is masculine. It's projecting "outward." You're basically hanging a penis on the wall. So when males who are around art all the time "take in" or "absorb" what the painting or sculpture of art "says to them," they're nurturing the FEMININE aspect.
That's why they go gay.
Why do you think women always complain that the most sensitive guys turn out to be gay? It's because LISTENING is "receiving" and they're taking in. They're good listeners because they have spent years cultivating their feminine side. That's why women will have their "gay male friend" they hang out with.
To be male is to GIVE. To be female is to RECEIVE.
The most stubborn males are known to be terrible listeners because they only GIVE. They don't receive. They don't listen. They're hard-headed and have thick skulls. Nothing gets through to that brain of theirs because they're being male.
I am so tired of listening this argument about abortion between 2 sides that don't fully understand what they're arguing about.
People may think I'm just talking in circles, but they should read the "Phantom Tollbooth" by Norton Juster. It's where the King of Numbers and the King of Letters couldn't agree on anything. Milo pointed out there is one thing that they can agree on. "They agree to disagree."
No matter what the King of Numbers says, you can count on the King of Letters will disagree.
If you look at the black and white symbol for Yin and Yang, there's a dot of the opposite color smack dab in the center of the main color. There's White Dot in the center of the deepest Black. There's a Black Dot in the center of the deepest White.
So when you hear me say that Pro-Lifers don't have a valid argument because protecting all ideas and all living means you also have to defend "not aborting the idea o abortion." If the Pro-Lifers and religion represent White, "aborting abortion" is that Black Dot.
Conversely, abortionists symbolizing the Black color that do have the power to abort abortion or the ability to abort would be that White Dot in the Yin-Yang Symbol.
Forgetting the whole abortion debate, Pro-Lifers don't seem to fully understand the idea of conception or conceiving things. They keep arguing about the "right to life." Everyone has a right to life.
Life is seeded into things. I don't remember my Bible Studies from Catholic School, but I do remember the term "seeds of evil." Seeds of evil will sprout or grow.
Are Pro-Lifers sure they want to argue "right to life" with no ability to abort or apply abortion to the seeds of evil? If the Spawn of Satan was about to conceived, are Pro-Lifers sure they want to argue Right to Life and not abort the child of Satan about to be born?
Sure, it's a hypothetical scenario that could never happen in real life, but I sincerely doubt Pro-Lifers have thought about that.
http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/christian-woman-fired-burger-king-refusing-wear-pants-175600700.html
=======================================
Christian Woman Fired from Burger King for Wearing Skirt Instead of Pants
By Lylah M. Alphonse, Senior Editor, Yahoo! Shine | Work + Money - 3 hours ago
A Grand Prairie, Texas, Burger King is being sued for religious discrimination after a Christian teen wasn't allowed …
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 couse 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