Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Earth Times)   Pentecostal bus driver to sue New York Transit because they demand that she wear pants   (earthtimes.org ) divider line
    More: Weird  
•       •       •

8412 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 May 2007 at 4:29 PM (9 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



184 Comments   (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-05-31 07:36:08 PM  
So she was a nudist?
 
2007-05-31 07:36:14 PM  
strawbury78

Thank you for posting. For real. I seriously think your input changed the whole tone of the thread.

/not even remotely christian
//strongly believe in freddom of religion
///freedom of religion in the workplace issues can get complex
 
2007-05-31 07:46:53 PM  
ravenlore

Thank you :)
 
2007-05-31 07:55:25 PM  
Bart: Yeah, they ate all my socks. I had to wear Lisa's to school today.
Homer: How do you explain the culottes, boy?
Bart: Well I have to co-ordinate don't I?
 
2007-05-31 08:16:05 PM  
I believe that the law requires reasonable accommodation for someone's religious beliefs if those beliefs do not impair their ability to perform the job

Exactly. Wearing pants in not even remotely a bona fide requirement for driving a bus.

It's not, as some people have tried to claim, like a Jewish or Muslim employee applied to a pork processing plant and wanted the pork removed. In a case like that, the job is inherently incompatible with the religion. Completely different animal.
 
2007-05-31 08:45:11 PM  
"I have an interesting question....would an all knowing, all loving, infinite god really care if you wear pants? I'm not trying to troll, it just seems a bit odd."

No, it's a legitimate concern. Indeed, can God, in fact, make a pair of pants that will make His own ass look fat?
 
2007-05-31 08:50:26 PM  
Farking Pantacostal fundies.
 
2007-05-31 08:52:13 PM  
RocketRod: full-faced, burkha

burqua is the robe, niqab is the veil.

/you don't care


I used to, but I got over it.
 
2007-05-31 09:22:12 PM  
fark your stupid religion

/that is all.
//put on a goddamn pair of pants.
 
2007-05-31 09:40:50 PM  
Eh, as someone who hasn't worn a pair of pants in about 5 years, I can say that really as long as a skirt is not made tight-fitting or too short (or too long, I suppose -- like more than ankle length) I have never found any task I've been unable to do because of a skirt. I've jumped barbed wire fences and climbed trees and all kinds of stuff in evening gowns. I've even taken jobs in carpentry that involve working around power tools; unless I were to do something that would probably get a person in pants just as likely to be injured, like say climbing up on the table and squatting over the circular saw while using it, there's really no particular risk that's enhanced by a dress.
 
2007-05-31 09:41:56 PM  
Wow, a lot of hate flashbacks here.

I was raised Apostolic-Pentacostal. No pants, jewelry (outside of a engagement/wedding bands) or make-up for women. Uncut hair, skirts below the knee, no tank tops etc. The idea is complete modesty. Never understood why the guys had it so easy :) Anyways, wearing a skirt is not a driving hazard. The are plenty of services selling uniform skirts that work just as well as pants.

Beyond that, suing is stupid. If you took the job knowing about the dress code and decide to fight it, you lose. If this is something the city just decided to press for no reason, then they're stupid and asking for someone to complain.

/I have avoided skirts for 13 years so my husband thinks it's a treat when I wear one.
 
2007-05-31 09:50:32 PM  
I see the 'uniform is uniform' point of any company, but I don't see why they don't have a skirt option. I bet they did back in the '70s. If it's a new policy, that's kind of crap; if it was an old policy, before the woman was hired, she should have done the sensible thing as mentioned above thread.

However, I am as far from Christian as they come, and I wear skirts about 85% of the time. I've done everything in my ankle-length black skirt - so much, in fact, that I realized today it needs retiring. There isn't much I can't do in it, except maybe ride a horse, which I can't do anyway. In this same skirt, I've attended funerals, gone sledding (on a cafeteria tray), done archaeological fieldwork, and hosted museum talks. Drive a bus? That's nothing.
 
2007-05-31 10:13:35 PM  
Miss Cellania: Once, a man came to MY HOUSE (to buy something) and gave ME a lecture about how my soul would be condemned because I wear jeans.

Because we all know the Son of God spent a lot of time judging people based on what they wore.

/Friggin' idiots can't even get their own religion right.
//Thinks they may be in for a nasty shock when they get to the Pearly Gates.
 
2007-05-31 10:29:08 PM  
ElegantGoose

Um, what were you selling?

Houseplants. I have a green thumb reputation in the neighborhood. He needed some aloe vera.


ScottMpls

Were you wearing anything else? :)

As far as I recall, I was decently covered.
 
2007-05-31 10:33:50 PM  
Holy Ghost Headquarters Prayer Band Mission of New Beginning Deliverance Church

I know it's been mentioned a lot already...but this name just gives me so much pleasure. More pleasure than a name should.
 
2007-05-31 11:22:51 PM  
So there are religions out there that let women out of the kitchen? Where have this countries morals gone?
 
2007-06-01 12:09:40 AM  
If I can see up the drivers skirt, that is a hazard. Just like wearing a bikini in the office is a hazard. I will sue the bus company if I see some drivers hairy sweaty cooter believe you me.
 
2007-06-01 12:21:38 AM  
WholesomeWear: Keep it pent!®

/endured most of my teen years in a Pentecostal environment
//it didn't take
 
2007-06-01 12:59:37 AM  
jonny_q

Courts.

Unlike some of the other stupid things that courts do, that part, the interpretation of laws part, is actually their job.


When I asked who decides which rules we follow, I meant religious rules, not laws. The question is, how does an employer figure out what is or is not a legitimate and important rule of an employee's religion? If an employee of a particular faith claims that they must go against company policy because the policy is at odds with their religious beliefs, how does the employer verify that? Honestly, before reading this article, I couldn't tell you what a pentacostal is. I don't know anything about them, never mind what their rules may be. Am I supposed to research and then consult authorities on particular religions when an employee claims they must be exempt from a rule for religious reasons? It all just seems a little too open to error for me.

And to my original point, there are thousands of legitimate jobs- white collar, blue collar, office work, service industry, etc.- that have zero rules that would conflict with any religious beliefs. If you have strict religious beliefs that may exempt you from some jobs, that is your issue. Choose from the wide variety of jobs where your religion will not cause you to require special treatment.
 
2007-06-01 01:08:19 AM  
I don't see why she shouldn't be allowed to wear a skirt as part of the uniform. But geez, there has to be a line drawn somewhere with these nutjobs wanting special treatment for their sad-ass religions like the Target Muslims that won't handle bacon to ring them out.
 
2007-06-01 02:35:34 AM  
Several reason why skirts would be less desirable then pants in this job:

Skirts are harder to regulate. If she really did wear a big, billowy skirt she could get it stuck in the doors, or get it caught somewhere when she was moving around in an emergency, etc, so you'd have to regulate the amount of material the skirt could have.

But far more likely: If she wore a skirt that was too short (even if it was just above the knees) or made of a stiff material like denim, if she sat improperly, (with her legs too far apart, as she might have to do while driving) or the skirt rode up, or got under the bus to do maintenence work or had to bend over or something, she'd run the risk of exposing her underpants to children. Kids are shorter then adults, and they've got better peep lines. As an adult, I've seen people's underpants in skirts and it didn't kill me, but you know very well if even one kid reported home that they could see ms. so and so's underpants it's lawsuit city.

Now she may very want to wear a long skirt, but then you have to get into regulating the exact length of skirt women wear, figuring if the bus driver walks up the stairs ahead of the kids and they are below her plus the wind's blowing.....it jest gets too complicated. Better to say, all busdrivers just wear pants.
 
2007-06-01 05:26:04 AM  
Electrify: Anyways, I believe you have the right to wear your religious clothing on the job even if it is against uniform AS LONG as it doesn't violate any safety concerns.

So if I apply for a job as a priest, wearing tight fitting blue jean cut-offs and a torn up T-shirt, that's OK, and they should have no complaint because I don't violate safety regulations?

Nonsense. A church should not be forced to hire me for a job I can't/won't do, and the bus company shouldn't have to hire this girl to do a job that she isn't willing to do. She can find another job. It's a driving a bus job - not a big deal, unless you are a whiny biatch.

Maybe if they could have you sign a waiver that if your religious attire does get you injured, you cannot sue for damages.

Waivers mean almost nothing in court. Sign a waiver saying "I'm renting a canoe from these guys, to ride white water on a river I don't know, I don't know how to swim, but it's OK if I drown on the river, it's my fault"? Damn near useless.

kid_icarus: They interpret this scripture (among others) very strictly and literally. And since we come from a puritan background, "modest apparel" is considered by Pentecostal to be long, plain skirts like great great grandma used to wear.

The scripture doesn't say pants, it says modest. Pants are more modest. You want to hide your who-ha, then wear pants. You want to show it off, wear a short skirt and no panties. You want to biatch because you are too "modest" to wear pants? You are a slut who wants to show her legs, and maybe more, while looking for a lawsuit.

Proemas: The remote chance of the skirt getting in the way isn't enough, especially if she says that she could just drop it when needed.

She claims that wearing pants is immoral and against her religion. And you are pretending that she would just strip if her job required it? Bull shiat. Big time bull shiat.

Romeo_Santana: I don't see what the big fuss is here.

One word : lawsuit. Until the stupid biatch that doesn't want to do her job started talking lawsuite, none of this mattered. I hate wearing a suit and tie. But I don't take a job that I know will require me to wear that suit and tie and then start yelling "Lawsuit you asshole, I don't have to wear anything I don't want to!"

no I didn't RTFA...

Obviously. Idiots like you never do. You don't have the slightest idea of what is going on, and you do not want to know. You prefer to remain ignorant while screaming "You have to do it my way, because I Am Religious!". Idiot.

strawbury78: My Dad is a Pastor, dern good one at that...and he makes $0

Obviously, as a man of the lord, he doesn't have to pay any bills, buy food, or pay for your internet connection from his basement. That must be nice.

Any "pastor" who claims to have $0 income is a lying bastard. That includes your dad.

Free bonus hint : Mary wasn't really a virgin. She got knocked up like every other girl in history.

ElegantGoose: I don't see how it would stop me from doing light maintenance work, if I didn't care if it got a little soiled.

I don't see any reason that a tie and short hair would help me program computers. There are many companies that require short hair and ties. I won't cut my hair for them, I won't wear a tie. I could make up some nonsense "religion" reason, just like she did.

I'm not suing any of them. Taking a job with a dress code and refusing to follow the dress code, while screaming "my god says NO to that!" is nonsense. What if my religion said I should wear no clothes at all. Would you you hire me? No. Should I be able to sue you because you didn't kiss my naked ass? No.

jso2897: Though many here seem certain of the outcome, believe me - it could go either way, and has.

I, for one, don't claim to know that the law says. But I'm not a judge making a ruling, I'm a guy, who sees an idiot making threats to sue over nothing.

Bestbank Tiger: Wearing pants in not even remotely a bona fide requirement for driving a bus.

Wearing a tie is not a bona fide requirement for most jobs, but there are still a lot of jobs out there that require guys to do it as part of their dress code. You won't wear that tie? You don't get that job. The tie doesn't help, it's just a nuisance.

Wearing pants doesn't hurt her, it's just a bullshiat reason to sue instead of doing her job.
 
2007-06-01 05:36:45 AM  
Have any of ever been in a bank and had a female teller wearing full Muslim garb, complete with face covering? I have.

If I walked into a bank with my face covered, I'd be arrested.

People who complain about clothing requirements due to religious beliefs should look for another job.
 
2007-06-01 05:46:15 AM  
No one is forcing this stupid cow to become a bus driver. All the bus drivers where I live wear the same uniform, which includes pants. If you have a problem wearing the uniform, find another line of work.

That being said, I'm guessing she's basing her lawsuit on this..."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" (Deuteronomy 22:5)."

The interesting thing is that men of that era didn't wear pants, but clothing that looked more like robes.

www.puzzlehouse.com
 
2007-06-01 08:13:58 AM  
She can drive my bus in her underwear anytime she wants.
 
2007-06-01 10:13:35 AM  

Any "pastor" who claims to have $0 income is a lying bastard. That includes your dad.


Not true. There are a lot of smaller churches (particularly in rural areas) that are little more than 1-2 room buildings and a small congregation of 40-60. In these areas, like the one I grew up in, it's actually considered *extremely* taboo (if not down-right forbidden) for a pastor to accept any money from the church as compensation. In fact, most of these type "country churches" have no full or even part-time staff at all. The pastor is a guy who works a full-time job like everyone else (like strawbury78 said her father did) and he shows up at church on Sunday and preaches. It's strictly a volunteer position with little perks.

She never said her Dad had a $0 income. Just that the church didn't give him any money. I'm not necessarily defending religion or anything (I'm an atheist....and gay). But, I did grow up in such an area and it's simply inaccurate to say all pastors receive money and are bastards.
 
2007-06-01 10:30:38 AM  
Miss Cellania
ScottMpls
Were you wearing anything else? :)
As far as I recall, I was decently covered.


As far as your aloe-seeking customer recalls, you weren't...
 
2007-06-01 10:56:45 AM  
JuggleGeek,

Have you read any of this thread, or just those bits and pieces that you picked out for your little temper tantrum?
In the case of Strawbury78's comments, especially, you are way out of line.
 
2007-06-01 02:55:51 PM  
JuggleGeek Wow, dickhead much? Also, you don't apply for a job as a priest. You get ordained and then they tell you where you're going to serve - like the military.
 
2007-06-01 03:14:31 PM  
kid_icarus: It's strictly a volunteer position with little perks.

Little perks. Is that what they call it now?

euphonial: Have you read any of this thread, or just those bits and pieces that you picked out for your little temper tantrum?

In other words, you can't refute anything, but you didn't like what I said.

ChubbyTiger: JuggleGeek Wow, dickhead much? Also, you don't apply for a job as a priest. You get ordained and then they tell you where you're going to serve - like the military.

Suck cock much? Both the priests and the military in your example have to stick to their dress code.
 
2007-06-01 08:31:36 PM  
Dr. Buzzard's Original Savannah Band
/got nuthin'
 
2007-06-03 02:13:19 AM  
JuggleGeek

Dude, calm down. I said my Dad recieved $0 from the church and I clearly stated that both he and my mom work full time jobs. He doesn't need to the church to pay anything for him.

And the remark about paying for my internet from his basement? He pays none of my bills. I am a married woman. Yes indeedy, I have my own home. I have a husband who works, I work...we pay our own bills.

Your rant was very immature. Get your facts straight before condemning someone.

kthxs

/yes, I know this is 2 days late, but I had to speak up.
 
2007-06-03 02:17:45 AM  
Oh yeah, kid_icarus is right. We do live in a rural area with around 30-50 church-goers. It isn't commonplace here for Pastors to receive a salary. And our church doesn't have a staff..everyone that does something there (teachers, musicians, etc) are strictly volunteers. The only people to get paid is the cleaning lady and lawn mowing guy.
 
2007-06-04 10:31:41 AM  
JuggleGeek She claims that wearing pants is immoral and against her religion. And you are pretending that she would just strip if her job required it? Bull shiat. Big time bull shiat.

In a safety situation in which she, say, might have to save a life? Yeah, she just might. Quite a few of the move conservative religious types would hold life as more important that modesty (this ain't Saudi Arabia). For anything less than that, such as saying that she could not help someone onto or off of the bus because of an impairment that they have, she could point to an improperly equiped bus. A driver is not a replacement for a lift, and I still can't imagine a skirt getting in the way of that.

If the transit company can not point to a particular instance where pants are necessary to do the job, not a once in a billion type instance at that, and there are no other factors involved, like someone claiming the right to drive nude, then they have no standing. It would be like someone telling a Sikh that they can not wear their headdress because it blocks a passenger's view out the front window. "Just because we say so" ain't a valid reason to exclude someone who has a religious obligation.

If the company, and anyone arguing against her in this thread, can not give specific instances of enough weight, then game over.
 
Displayed 34 of 184 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report