Bodecea
82
Make the men wear kilts. They’d look better anyways.
1 Like
“I had a woman come into my office screaming at me about this being discriminatory against women.”
I totally don’t understand the idea that fairness towards women is expressed by letting them wear whatever they want. Companies have minimum standards for dress at work for a reason.
When I worked for a V A outpatient clinic, all employees, male or female, needed reasonable length fingernails for us to even keep our accreditation. Patients were going there for everything from blood draws to administration of chemotherapy.
When I got my car serviced when body piercing was pretty new, the manager didn’t care what his 100% male staff poked & pierced themselves with if they left the jewelry at home. He couldn’t have the liability of an employee getting caught by an eyebrow ring while performing automotive maintenance & repairs 
Seems if there are any clothing standards at all in place, someone, usually female, is crying discrimination. It’s ridiculous.
mobulis
84
But the body piercing is based on something reasonable, safety. What is the reason to have women wear a dress as opposed to pants?
The Deuteronomy verse about women not wearing men’s clothing is interpreted by the Christian funeral home operator as women should be in skirts, not trousers.
It’s his enterprise & he has the right to set a dress code. Am so not seeing what is so awful about a maxi skirt on a job that by it’s very nature involves formal dress.
mobulis
86
See now if the job requires a certain dress code that’s fine, but not pandering to religion.
What you’ve done here is here is move the goal posts.
I read about this case, and it’s rather despicable that the department of justice would DEFEND somebody’s right to discriminate.
It’s a pretty open and shut case for me. The 1964 civil rights act protects against discrimination (and segregation) based on sex. The court of appeals used a 1989 discrimination case as a template for their ruling. Basically in 1989, a woman worked as a lawyer for a law firm. The other partners refused to promote her to partnership because she didn’t conform to what a lady looks like. In the case of the Stephens vs. Detroit funeral home, the employer fired Mrs. Stephens because she refused to wear male clothing. As in, the funeral home designated clothing requirements based on genitalia. That’s obvious discrimination based on sex.
Just think, if the employer said only black people can wear white, and only white people can wear black, that would be an obvious flag for racial discrimination. Nobody would defend the employer But because the woman was trans, it’s okay to discriminate against her.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, besides you have negative thoughts about transgender folks.
By all means Mrs. Stephens was a highly productive worker. She received glowing reviews every year and got annual pay raises.
All what we’re talking about is somebody switching from wearing men’s clothing to women’s clothing. Nobody is getting harassed. The quality of work is not being impacted.
The Funeral home would have been in better position, if they said you can wear a suit or a skirt to work. This way no distinction is made based on sex.
What would also work is if they say, “you identify as a man, you wear a suit. You identify as a woman, you wear a dress”. This way employees can choose which avenue they want.
The religious argument is complete and utter B.S. The bible says absolutely nothing about people whose brains and sex organs are different from one another.
If kilts are the dress code for men, only men willing to wear kilts need apply. Imagine the Scottish Highland band performing with a few members who take the attitude that they should be able to wear whatever they like. It’s a ridiculous argument to claim their employer has no right to impose a dress code.
1 Like
That is not the argument. The argument here is that you cannot discriminated based on sex. You cannot say people with penises have to wear X and people with vaginas have to wear Y. You have to give people a choice on whether which attire they want to wear.
This is no different than the 1989 discrimination case, where a woman was refused a promotion because she refused to wear lady clothing.
It’s all about control of women. These kitty cat men hate strong, intelligent women. Not only that, we govern by the US Constitution, NOT the ■■■■■■■ bible.
That was a stupid ruling, then. Courts are fallible.
Don’t like the dress code? Don’t apply.
Check your First and 14th Amendments.
I will put you down for being okay forcing people to wear burka.
Neither of those have anything to do workplace dress codes.
Don’t like the dress code? Don’t apply and definitely don’t hire on.
2 Likes
There are limit to what you can enforce by “Dress Code”.
The Bible does say, obey those in authority over you, unless they want you to sin. How is requiring women to wear a dress requiring her to sin?
1 Like
