Starbucks sacks woman who refused to wear pride shirt

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
24,463
Reaction score
5,470
Points
215
She’s about to get a nice paycheck as she has every right to refuse wearing the shirt and Starbucks should’ve accommodated her views.
They did.
 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
24,463
Reaction score
5,470
Points
215
Company policy is not the same as private individual policy. She is no religious authority.
thats nonsense

the lib lie being offered here is that she attempted to convince other employees to not wear the shirt

but that did not happen according to the information provided
She called them out for doing so.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
48,164
Reaction score
9,269
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
That employee was "proselytizing" and raised an ethical concern.
The company proselytized to her first by telling her to wear the shirt

and she explained why to the KGB agent who called
Company policy is not the same as private individual policy. She is no religious authority.
A business cannot force its beliefs on others. A Christian company cannot force its social beliefs on an individual. Nor can a Starbucks force its social beliefs on an individual.
It is not about religious beliefs but about equality and equal protection of the laws.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
As an employer you are not allowed to discriminate against race, skin color, sexual preference or religion. Starbucks was forcing to do something she was not hired or required at the time she was hired. They are discriminating against her and singling her out. The question is what was her part and at this point the story is unclear.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,843
Reaction score
2,833
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
That employee was "proselytizing" and raised an ethical concern.
The company proselytized to her first by telling her to wear the shirt

and she explained why to the KGB agent who called
Company policy is not the same as private individual policy. She is no religious authority.
A business cannot force its beliefs on others. A Christian company cannot force its social beliefs on an individual. Nor can a Starbucks force its social beliefs on an individual.
It is not about religious beliefs but about equality and equal protection of the laws.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
As an employer you are not allowed to discriminate against race, skin color, sexual preference or religion. Starbucks was forcing to do something she was not hired or required at the time she was hired. They are discriminating against her and singling her out. The question is what was her part and at this point the story is unclear.
I agree to disagree. The subjective value of morals must be personal for an individual. Management policy was not illegal. Equality through equal protection of the laws is guaranteed in our several Constitutions.

She was proselytizing and management needed a good excuse. For comparison and contrast, that employee could have worked at some other store that day or out of site of customers for the duration.
 

DustyInfinity

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
2,610
Reaction score
1,280
Points
210
Location
Midwest
That employee was "proselytizing" and raised an ethical concern.
The company proselytized to her first by telling her to wear the shirt

and she explained why to the KGB agent who called
Company policy is not the same as private individual policy. She is no religious authority.
A business cannot force its beliefs on others. A Christian company cannot force its social beliefs on an individual. Nor can a Starbucks force its social beliefs on an individual.
It is not about religious beliefs but about equality and equal protection of the laws.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
As an employer you are not allowed to discriminate against race, skin color, sexual preference or religion. Starbucks was forcing to do something she was not hired or required at the time she was hired. They are discriminating against her and singling her out. The question is what was her part and at this point the story is unclear.
I agree to disagree. The subjective value of morals must be personal for an individual. Management policy was not illegal. Equality through equal protection of the laws is guaranteed in our several Constitutions.

She was proselytizing and management needed a good excuse. For comparison and contrast, that employee could have worked at some other store that day or out of site of customers for the duration.
I wish you would be as concerned with the squad, Kamala, and Maxine Waters as you are with Christians. Many subjective moral mandates are being crammed down everyone's throat. If you truly believe that morality must be up to the individual, you should probably speak out against your authoritarian pals.
 

BS Filter

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
15,449
Reaction score
5,139
Points
360

She is suing the coffee chain for her hurt snowflake feelings. How long is this nonsense going to drag on for before the forces of darkness learn to respect their fellow man.
Yeah I know the guys started it with forcing a baker to bake a cake.
 

Attachments

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
5,031
Reaction score
1,479
Points
140
Location
alaska, usa
She is suing the coffee chain for her hurt snowflake feelings. How long is this nonsense going to drag on for before the forces of darkness learn to respect their fellow man.
It's a coffee bar. Alcohol is not served at Starbucks. The Barista does not need to wear a "lezbo pride" shirt or otherwise humiliate herself for the entertainment of inveterate drunks who think they can sober up with a single-shot latte.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
62,843
Reaction score
2,833
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
That employee was "proselytizing" and raised an ethical concern.
The company proselytized to her first by telling her to wear the shirt

and she explained why to the KGB agent who called
Company policy is not the same as private individual policy. She is no religious authority.
A business cannot force its beliefs on others. A Christian company cannot force its social beliefs on an individual. Nor can a Starbucks force its social beliefs on an individual.
It is not about religious beliefs but about equality and equal protection of the laws.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
As an employer you are not allowed to discriminate against race, skin color, sexual preference or religion. Starbucks was forcing to do something she was not hired or required at the time she was hired. They are discriminating against her and singling her out. The question is what was her part and at this point the story is unclear.
I agree to disagree. The subjective value of morals must be personal for an individual. Management policy was not illegal. Equality through equal protection of the laws is guaranteed in our several Constitutions.

She was proselytizing and management needed a good excuse. For comparison and contrast, that employee could have worked at some other store that day or out of site of customers for the duration.
I wish you would be as concerned with the squad, Kamala, and Maxine Waters as you are with Christians. Many subjective moral mandates are being crammed down everyone's throat. If you truly believe that morality must be up to the individual, you should probably speak out against your authoritarian pals.
This is my official response:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 

Oz and the Orchestra

Platinum Member
Joined
May 25, 2020
Messages
1,969
Reaction score
977
Points
918
Location
Lake District England
You show us the actual quote that led to your rational line of reasoning.
She was fired for saying the word « Jesus » after the shirt incident not before
That is not the actual quote just your special pleading paraphrase.

She was trying to proselytize.
She should have adapted the t-shirt with large letters to read-

'Multinationals Should Pay The Same Taxes as Independents'.

Starbucks pays a fraction of the taxes in the UK that independents do.
 

Canon Shooter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
4,863
Reaction score
4,385
Points
1,938
As much as I hate to admit it, I'm going to side with Starbuck's on this one.

She was told she didn't have to wear one. That should've been the end of it. She would not be required to do anything, whatsoever, which would be in conflict with her religious beliefs.

But, the whole "everyone needs Jesus" shit is where she threw her neck on the block.

The reason she was fired is because she earned it...
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
48,164
Reaction score
9,269
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
That employee was "proselytizing" and raised an ethical concern.
The company proselytized to her first by telling her to wear the shirt

and she explained why to the KGB agent who called
Company policy is not the same as private individual policy. She is no religious authority.
A business cannot force its beliefs on others. A Christian company cannot force its social beliefs on an individual. Nor can a Starbucks force its social beliefs on an individual.
It is not about religious beliefs but about equality and equal protection of the laws.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
As an employer you are not allowed to discriminate against race, skin color, sexual preference or religion. Starbucks was forcing to do something she was not hired or required at the time she was hired. They are discriminating against her and singling her out. The question is what was her part and at this point the story is unclear.
I agree to disagree. The subjective value of morals must be personal for an individual. Management policy was not illegal. Equality through equal protection of the laws is guaranteed in our several Constitutions.

She was proselytizing and management needed a good excuse. For comparison and contrast, that employee could have worked at some other store that day or out of site of customers for the duration.
If she was proselytizing, I would agree, however that is Starbucks side. If they asked her to wear a shirt, and that was the reason for the firing, then the employer has no right and it has no relation to equal protection. The right of religious freedom is paramount in this case.
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
48,164
Reaction score
9,269
Points
2,070
Location
PNW
You show us the actual quote that led to your rational line of reasoning.
She was fired for saying the word « Jesus » after the shirt incident not before
That is not the actual quote just your special pleading paraphrase.

She was trying to proselytize.
She should have adapted the t-shirt with large letters to read-

'Multinationals Should Pay The Same Taxes as Independents'.

Starbucks pays a fraction of the taxes in the UK that independents do.
No one in the US cares what goes on in UK.
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
21,060
Reaction score
14,533
Points
1,365
But, the whole "everyone needs Jesus" shit is where she threw her neck on the block.
How could she tefuse to wear the shirt withput saying why?

they pushed her to use Liberish profanity by uttering “Jesus” and then fired her for saying it
 

Canon Shooter

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
4,863
Reaction score
4,385
Points
1,938
But, the whole "everyone needs Jesus" shit is where she threw her neck on the block.
How could she tefuse to wear the shirt withput saying why?
She did say why. She told them it went against her religious beliefs. As far as Starbuck's was concerned, that was the end of it. Had she then simply shut the fuck up and gone back to work, she'd probably still have her job.

She crossed the line, though, when she started with her proselytizing about how "everyone needs Jesus".

She didn't want to wear the shirt. She didn't have to wear the shirt.

Why push it?
 

Mac-7

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
21,060
Reaction score
14,533
Points
1,365
She did say why. She told them it went against her religious beliefs. As far as Starbuck's was concerned, that was the end of it. Had she then simply shut the fuck up and gone back to work, she'd probably still have her job.
Only Starbucks says that she was harassing employees by saying the word “Jesus”

my guess is the Karens and Pajama Boys with purple hair, rings in their noses and a mountain of student debt were pissed at her for not getting wit the program and they were talking it up
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top