“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...
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.
#27, well stated friend.