Posted on 11/20/2020 7:29:03 AM PST by rickmichaels
A former Starbucks Corp barista in New Jersey sued the coffee chain on Thursday, claiming she was fired illegally because she did not want to wear a “PRIDE” T-shirt, which she said conflicted with her religious beliefs.
Betsy Fresse said her August 2019 dismissal from a Glen Ridge, New Jersey store, near her Newark home, for allegedly violating Starbucks’ “core values” amounted to illegal religious discrimination under federal civil rights law.
The Seattle-based chain’s website says Starbucks values “creating a culture of warmth and belonging,” and is committed to respecting inclusion and diversity.
According to the complaint, Starbucks violated that commitment by trying to “exclude and silence Mrs. Fresse whose religious beliefs it deemed undesirable.”
Fresse is seeking unspecified damages.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Mike Judge, who played the restaurant manager, also wrote & directed “Office Space”
btw, thanks again for linking that GREAT real Michael Bolton “outtake” video.
People are also not getting promoted because they don’t adequately support the company’s LGBT efforts.
What if it said “We support homosexual sex” and that violates her religious beliefs? Now, if it was a sex-toy store, this could go down differently. But it’s a coffee shop.
Or how about “Biden for President”?
The rainbow flag is exclusive, it isn’t inclusive. They have pulled in everyone that is NOT monogamous cisgender heterosexual.
Asexual? They claim them in their numbers.
Neuter? same
so even people who don’t have sex are considered part of the “57”.
But the biological norm are marginalized and excluded and there is a whole lot of anti-Christian hate speech from this crowd.
That Ford mechanic’s uniform said “FORD”...OK...
The Starbucks uniform did NOT say Starbucks...It said Pride...Two different things...
Starbucks violated it’s own policies of “inclusion” by disallowing including her religious beliefs and violated “diversity” by disallowing her difference in opinion...
This is no different than a college disciplining a student for not agreeing with a professor...
Pride? In anal sex? In AIDS, in hepatitis?
“Private business requires employee to wear a “uniform”. Employee refuses. Employee terminated. No different from a Ford dealer requiring mechanics to wear work clothes with a “Ford” emblem, or a bank requiring men to wear suits with ties.”
That argument only works if you could also argue that the company could force Jews to wear a swastika, or blacks to wear a Klan hood, or force gays to wear a shirt with a Scripture condemning homosexuality, assuming that none of the above have any relationship to the job. I think we all know that the government would rule against a company trying to enforce any of those rules.
Let’s keep in mind that this is very different from a religious school or organization requiring employees to live by and support the teachings of the religion. One of the primary functions of a religious organization is to support and promote the teachings of the religion in every aspect of their work. The function of Starbucks is to sell coffee, and there is no way that supporting “pride” is an essential element of performing that function. I can see prohibiting someone from wearing something that would condemn homosexuality while on the job, but to force someone to wear something that violates their religious beliefs when it has no reasonable connection to their ability to do the job will not pass Constitutional muster.
By the way, this kind of activism is just one more reason I won’t go to Starbucks...
Which is honestly maddening. It is already bad enough when one cannot express an individual independent opinion, BUT it is thought policing out of Nineteen Eighty Four when they now tell us what TO DO! If she was actively against gays, I may understand why a company may have the right to say she shouldn’t work there. Maybe. But to now say she HAS to show support? A bridge too far IMO.
Starbucks wants to create an atmosphere of warmth and belonging? The times I have bought a Starbucks coffee and actually drank it there, the only feeling of warmth and belonging I got was if the room temperature suited me and the chair was comfortable. I didn’t get any vibe at all from the baristas, who simply poured and served my coffee, which is what I wanted them to do.
The PC message outfits are to make Starbucks feel good about itself. As typical leftists, though, they insist on conformity and that everyone feel the same as they do. Not exactly an atmosphere of warmth and belonging.
The last time i remember the word gay used properly was in the theme song for The Flintstones
“....and we’ll have a gay old time”
I’m proud to be straight.
It’s OK to be white.
(I just know I’m going to show up on the short list for the Office of Truth and Reconciliation.)
What? Now we don our gay apparell...
If the courts were actually consistent when it comes to the rights of businesses, then I might be inclined to agree with you, but as usual, the Left has one set of rules for those people and messages it agrees with and another set for those it doesn’t. This lady has every right to use the system as it presently exists to fight this.
I honestly can’t understand why this Starbucks story is even the subject of a court case. I could have told the terminated employee that Starbucks is a radical, politically driven, sh!t company even if they DIDN'T make her wear a stupid rainbow shirt.
LOL!
Anybody out there who still, foolishly, thinks this is a country that allows free speech?
How many of their muslim employees did they force to wear the shirt. If any of them objected, did starbucks fire them?
A Starbucks shirt is a uniform. A shirt promoting deviant and unbiblical behavior is not a uniform.
Muslims and Sihk’s have won similar lawsuits allowing beards and turbans. This is no different
She could have taken a permanent marker and wrote “Christian” above the word “PRIDE.”
My question is why are people still shopping there. I have made my mocha for the last 10 years. A good machine runs about $400 to $500, it pays for itself in one year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.