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 ...
In the Hobby Lobby case the government was trying to force the company to violate those religious values, which is an obvious 1st Amendment issue. In this case, you have Starbucks trying to force the employee to violate her religious values. If you want to compare the two cases, you would have the government and Starbucks in the same role, and Hobby Lobby and the barista in the same role - and you should get the same outcome, a ruling for the barista.
good! i don’t know what the hell they are proud of anyhow.
So you are saying Starbucks also perverted a Christmas song?
In honor of the new tagline, it may be entertaining to watch the first 45 seconds of this video:
The Animal Politics of Our Farm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmQicGsk610
Private business requires employee to wear a “uniform”.
Pride is spitting in the face of the Almighty, which is what they are doing.
And I guess they had to shorten homosexual or pederast, and thought “happy” goes along with pride; so “gay” it was.
“Core values” - that’s a rotten core.
I suspect that the courts will hold that there is a difference here. Court decisions are often based on ‘tests’ designed to suss out subtle differences and arrive at a conclusion. If Ford Motor Company were to require all it’s workers to wear “Biden for President” buttons on their everyday uniform the court would throw that out immediately. The same will go for Starbuck’s using their employees to temporarily virtue signal to their customers.
Hello...ACLU? *sound of an echo in an empty room*
I agree with many FReepers here that in a truly free society, a company should be able to do as they wish as far as their employees. But when “discrimination” rules are put in place selectively, make the left play by their own rules.
This was not the official uniform that she agreed to wear when she signed on.
Starbucks as a publicly traded company has limits on what they can force their employees to do. Especially when it comes to forcing an employee to violate their religious beliefs. This is a title six violation under the civil rights act.
Many of the people supporting Starbucks’ corporate autonomy would flip out if, for example, Chik-Fil-A had employees wearing t-shirts with Gospel verses, or “All Lives Matter”.
They are too busy twiddling their hypocritical thumbs as they await to sue some business forcing their employees to wear a pro-Second Amendment shirt as they are greeting customers.
“inclusion and diversity” are mutually contradictory terms.
#27, well stated friend.
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.