Aggie Jurist said:

---

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, and religion. An employer has an obligation to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious beliefs, even if it involves altering uniform requirements.

---

Thank you for the post. Starbucks was wrong according to the law and intent of the law in my opinion.

In this thread, friends, are a bunch of posters that didn't read the article.

Nothing in the article indicates that she was fired for refusing to wear the shirt, or that anyone even tried to pressure her to wear the shirt.

The article says the termination notice claimed that she said to her coworkers that they "need Jesus" when the shirts were handed out.

Again, nobody has claimed that she was being forced to wear the shirt or be fired. She was fired for a comment that she made.

The argument here should be whether or not it was okay for her to be fired for telling her coworkers that they need Jesus.

waitwhat? said:

---

In this thread, friends, are a bunch of posters that didn't read the article.

Nothing in the article indicates that she was fired for refusing to wear the shirt, or that anyone even tried to pressure her to wear the shirt.

The article says the termination notice claimed that she said to her coworkers that they "need Jesus" when the shirts were handed out.

Again, nobody has claimed that she was being forced to wear the shirt or be fired. She was fired for a comment that she made.

The argument here should be whether or not it was okay for her to be fired for telling her coworkers that they need Jesus.

---

That's how it reads. So, the question then becomes why is it ok for employees to openly push one political issue as part of their official uniform but it's not ok to say what she said?

YouBet said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

In this thread, friends, are a bunch of posters that didn't read the article.

Nothing in the article indicates that she was fired for refusing to wear the shirt, or that anyone even tried to pressure her to wear the shirt.

The article says the termination notice claimed that she said to her coworkers that they "need Jesus" when the shirts were handed out.

Again, nobody has claimed that she was being forced to wear the shirt or be fired. She was fired for a comment that she made.

The argument here should be whether or not it was okay for her to be fired for telling her coworkers that they need Jesus.

---

That's how it reads. So, the question then becomes why is it ok for employees to openly push one political issue as part of their official uniform but it's not ok to say what she said?

---

Because it's their business. I keep my thoughts to myself at work when my company is pushing other-word-for-transmission issues. Maybe she should have kept her thoughts to herself, too.

It's not an ideal world but it's the world we live in.

waitwhat? said:

---

YouBet said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

In this thread, friends, are a bunch of posters that didn't read the article.

Nothing in the article indicates that she was fired for refusing to wear the shirt, or that anyone even tried to pressure her to wear the shirt.

The article says the termination notice claimed that she said to her coworkers that they "need Jesus" when the shirts were handed out.

Again, nobody has claimed that she was being forced to wear the shirt or be fired. She was fired for a comment that she made.

The argument here should be whether or not it was okay for her to be fired for telling her coworkers that they need Jesus.

---

That's how it reads. So, the question then becomes why is it ok for employees to openly push one political issue as part of their official uniform but it's not ok to say what she said?

---

Because it's their business. I keep my thoughts to myself at work when my company is pushing other-word-for-transmission issues. Maybe she should have kept her thoughts to herself, too.

It's not an ideal world but it's the world we live in.

---

I asked last night if there might be more to this. something along the lines of the shirts even being allowed

Tanya 93 said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

YouBet said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

In this thread, friends, are a bunch of posters that didn't read the article.

Nothing in the article indicates that she was fired for refusing to wear the shirt, or that anyone even tried to pressure her to wear the shirt.

The article says the termination notice claimed that she said to her coworkers that they "need Jesus" when the shirts were handed out.

Again, nobody has claimed that she was being forced to wear the shirt or be fired. She was fired for a comment that she made.

The argument here should be whether or not it was okay for her to be fired for telling her coworkers that they need Jesus.

---

That's how it reads. So, the question then becomes why is it ok for employees to openly push one political issue as part of their official uniform but it's not ok to say what she said?

---

Because it's their business. I keep my thoughts to myself at work when my company is pushing other-word-for-transmission issues. Maybe she should have kept her thoughts to herself, too.

It's not an ideal world but it's the world we live in.

---

I asked last night if there might be more to this. something along the lines of the shirts even being allowed

---

Well if only you had read the article, Tanya.

waitwhat? said:

---

In this thread, friends, are a bunch of posters that didn't read the article.

Nothing in the article indicates that she was fired for refusing to wear the shirt, or that anyone even tried to pressure her to wear the shirt.

The article says the termination notice claimed that she said to her coworkers that they "need Jesus" when the shirts were handed out.

Again, nobody has claimed that she was being forced to wear the shirt or be fired. She was fired for a comment that she made.

The argument here should be whether or not it was okay for her to be fired for telling her coworkers that they need Jesus.

---

I agree with you. Based on the article it seems like she might have been the one passing judgment.

Gumby said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

In this thread, friends, are a bunch of posters that didn't read the article.

Nothing in the article indicates that she was fired for refusing to wear the shirt, or that anyone even tried to pressure her to wear the shirt.

The article says the termination notice claimed that she said to her coworkers that they "need Jesus" when the shirts were handed out.

Again, nobody has claimed that she was being forced to wear the shirt or be fired. She was fired for a comment that she made.

The argument here should be whether or not it was okay for her to be fired for telling her coworkers that they need Jesus.

---

I agree with you. Based on the article it seems like she might have been the one passing judgment.

---

She didn't pass judgment: she simply did not want to be forced to wear the Pride shirt and thus passively acquiesce to an ideology she rejects on constitutionally protected religious grounds. Her "Need Jesus" remarks were likewise a general statement of the condition of mankind. Any judgment perceived by Starbucks management in that statement that it violates their "core values" is telling enough.

Imagine it was a Christmas shirt and a Muslim employee said "You all need Allah in your lives".

HoustonAggie37713 said:

---

Incredible. Liberals are disgusting.

---

Can't be said enough.

UTExan said:

---

Gumby said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

In this thread, friends, are a bunch of posters that didn't read the article.

Nothing in the article indicates that she was fired for refusing to wear the shirt, or that anyone even tried to pressure her to wear the shirt.

The article says the termination notice claimed that she said to her coworkers that they "need Jesus" when the shirts were handed out.

Again, nobody has claimed that she was being forced to wear the shirt or be fired. She was fired for a comment that she made.

The argument here should be whether or not it was okay for her to be fired for telling her coworkers that they need Jesus.

---

I agree with you. Based on the article it seems like she might have been the one passing judgment.

---

She didn't pass judgment: she simply did not want to be forced to wear the Pride shirt and thus passively acquiesce to an ideology she rejects on constitutionally protected religious grounds. Her "Need Jesus" remarks were likewise a general statement of the condition of mankind. Any judgment perceived by Starbucks management in that statement that it violates their "core values" is telling enough.

---

Just so I am clear, you are stating that saying, "You need Jesus" is not a religious statement. Further, you are stating that she did not violate the religious rights of those working with her when she openly, at work, stated, "You need Jesus".

So, do you believe she was discriminating against her co-workers for their beliefs, or not? If not, why do you believe she is being discriminated against?

I've never worked at Starbucks, so I don't know exactly what they expect of their employees. But where I work, we have a Company Code of Conduct and a dress code for employees at the office. They got rules there.

Evangelizing other employees or clients at the office is not permitted. I'm pretty sure if I decided to start advising other people there that "You need Jesus, the Torah, Allah or Krishna", I wouldn't be working there much longer.

I'll wear a pride shirt for anyone who asks as long as they wear a NRA shirt in return to support my belief in 2A.

Gumby said:

---

Imagine it was a Christmas shirt and a Muslim employee said "You all need Allah in your lives".

---

That's fine. It's an opinion, not a mandate.

She was fired for not wearing the shirt.

Get back to us when an NFL player is fired for NOT kneeling. Then your comparison will make sense.

Damn straight!!!

Gunny456 said:

---

She was fired for not wearing the shirt..

---

The article does not say this.

waitwhat? said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

She was fired for not wearing the shirt..

---

The article does not say this.

---

No. Her belief in Jesus violated Starbucks core values.

Gumby said:

---

Imagine it was a Christmas shirt and a Muslim employee said "You all need Allah in your lives".

---

So imagine her not being fired? OK then.

UTExan said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Gunny456 said:

---

She was fired for not wearing the shirt..

---

The article does not say this.

---

No. Her belief in Jesus violated Starbucks core values.

---

despite the fact she always got Sundays off and week nights for church and its activities?

Starbucks has different claims.

Right now I do not believe it is because she believes in Jesus.
I don't think she was quiet about others wearing Pride shirts.

Starbucks does not allow BLM clothing or masks.
I bet she might have been encouraged by some to wear it, but she is the one making the claim fer firing was due to not wearing a shirt.
There is nothing wrong with waiting to see if Jesus was the reason or if it was her behavior.

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

Starbucks is wrong from this, there's no argument, no justification of it.

Welcome Christians, to every pagan, LGBT person, atheist, and non Christian persons life, especially in the south. Try not playing the victim card quite so hard, its not that convincing.

---

You poor victim tell us your tale of woe and how society just doesn't accept your special snowflake existence

---

Christians, especially on this forum, making fun of people being "snowflakes", are the cast iron pot calling a stainless steel kettle black. I have never seen a group of more triggered and victimized group...

---

You must be tired from all the mental gymnastics

UTExan said:

---

Gumby said:

---

Imagine it was a Christmas shirt and a Muslim employee said "You all need Allah in your lives".

---

That's fine. It's an opinion, not a mandate.

---

I agree. I'm guessing there is more to this story though.