Fired for not wearing a Pride Shirt.

[JohnDB]

Starbucks barista says she was fired for refusing to wear Pride shirt

In her wrongful termination suit, Betsy Fresse said wearing a shirt in support of the LGBTQ community would be a “contradiction to her religious beliefs.”

 

[gaara4158]

Starbucks barista says she was fired for refusing to wear Pride shirt

In her wrongful termination suit, Betsy Fresse said wearing a shirt in support of the LGBTQ community would be a “contradiction to her religious beliefs.”

Good. Companies shouldn’t be required to employ bigots. From the article:

“According to her notice of separation, when she was handed a Pride shirt — which Starbucks maintains employees were not required to wear — Fresse said she didn’t want to wear it and that her co-workers “need Jesus.””

 

[98cwitr]

Good. Companies shouldn’t be required to employ bigots. From the article:

“According to her notice of separation, when she was handed a Pride shirt — which Starbucks maintains employees were not required to wear — Fresse said she didn’t want to wear it and that her co-workers “need Jesus.””

Hmmm...that seems like a slippery slope.

 

[gaara4158]

Hmmm...that seems like a slippery slope.

Only if you’re a bigot.

 

[section9+1]

What did she do wrong?

 

[gaara4158]

What did she do wrong?

Management deemed her attitudes incompatible with the company’s core values.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm looking closely at three statements:

Then, on Aug. 22, 2019, Fresse was notified she was being terminated because “her comportment was not in compliance with Starbucks’ core values.” According to her notice of separation, when she was handed a Pride shirt — which Starbucks maintains employees were not required to wear — Fresse said she didn’t want to wear it and that her co-workers “need Jesus.”

In her suit, Fresse claimed that “all people need Jesus” and that Christians are called “to express in word and deeds Christ’s love for everyone.” She maintains she served all her customers with respect and “holds no enmity toward individuals who ascribe to the LGBTQ lifestyle.” She made some co-workers aware of her religious beliefs regarding sexuality, however, “upon specific inquiry," according to the suit.

A Starbucks spokesperson told NBC News that Fresse’s claims are “without merit” and that the company is prepared to present its case in court. “Starbucks does not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, religion or sexual orientation,” the spokesperson said in an email. The spokesperson added that, other than Starbucks’ trademark green apron, “no part of our dress code requires partners to wear any approved items that they have not personally selected.”

This is going to boil down to: What exactly did Fresse say that day, and how did she say it?

 

[Kentonio]

This is going to boil down to: What exactly did Fresse say that day, and how did she say it?

Yeah, it seems likely it wasn't her refusal to wear it that was the issue.

 

[bèlla]

I know someone who worked at Starbucks during that period. She’s a believer and never mentioned this. We have multiple stores in our neighborhood. I’ve never seen an employee wearing a shirt that wasn’t their uniform. Nor have I encountered them in different attire on Pride Day.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[section9+1]

Management deemed her attitudes incompatible with the company’s core values.

So she transgressed the company's values. I suppose I can see that. Her values were contradictory enough to get her fired. I get it. There's some legitimacy in that. But then people in places that do not endorse gay values should be able to fire any employees that do even regardless of whether they are gay or not. Firing straight people who support gays sounds just as legitimate.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

It's just Starbucks. You can get another bad job anywhere.

 

[Arcangl86]

So she transgressed the company's values. I suppose I can see that. Her values were contradictory enough to get her fired. I get it. There's some legitimacy in that. But then people in places that do not endorse gay values should be able to fire any employees that do even regardless of whether they are gay or not. Firing straight people who support gays sounds just as legitimate.

Well it sounds more like there was issues with her proselytizing her coworkers.

 

[trunks2k]

So she transgressed the company's values. I suppose I can see that. Her values were contradictory enough to get her fired. I get it. There's some legitimacy in that. But then people in places that do not endorse gay values should be able to fire any employees that do even regardless of whether they are gay or not. Firing straight people who support gays sounds just as legitimate.

IMO, that would depend on exactly what they do. If they go around telling other co-workers that they need to support gay rights, then you might have a comparable situation, at least according to Starbucks' version of the story. According to them, it wasn't about her not wanting to wear the shirt, it was about what she said to her coworkers.

 

[section9+1]

Well it sounds more like there was issues with her proselytizing her coworkers.

OK. Did someone take her aside and tell her that what she was doing was unacceptable? Did she get a chance to reform her behavior? There's no law that says people deserve a chance to change, but if I got fired without a chance to repair my mistakes, I'd shake the dust of that place off my feet and figure I'd been done a favor.

 

[trunks2k]

OK. Did someone take her aside and tell her that what she was doing was unacceptable? Did she get a chance to reform her behavior?

I dunno. I dunno what the real story is. According to her, it's because she didn't want to wear the shirt. According to Starbucks, it was because of things she said after being offered the shirt which was not required to be worn in the first place. I dunno if they had past issues with her, whether they tried to talk with her and found her unreceptive, or just figured her behavior was egregious enough and she was easily replaceable and just got rid of her right away. Doesn't really matter though, because as you said, they are under no obligation to give second chances.

 

[98cwitr]

Only if you’re a bigot.

Per the definition, everyone is bigoted toward something. In this case, Starbucks is arguably bigoted against her religious beliefs.


Definition of bigotry
1 : obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices : the state of mind of a bigot overcoming his own bigotry
2 : acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigotry


All bigotry is is bias plus intolerance. The reciprocal of this would be forcing atheist employees to say a prayer every morning at a coffee shop owned by a person of faith. Neither policy is inline with America's core values. Let's take those to heart, rather than shaming others.

 

[gaara4158]

So she transgressed the company's values. I suppose I can see that. Her values were contradictory enough to get her fired. I get it. There's some legitimacy in that. But then people in places that do not endorse gay values should be able to fire any employees that do even regardless of whether they are gay or not. Firing straight people who support gays sounds just as legitimate.

LGBT people are a protected class. Those intolerant of them are not.

 

[public hermit]

That post was probably in bad taste. Deleted.

 

[Kenny'sID]

“According to her notice of separation, when she was handed a Pride shirt — which Starbucks maintains employees were not required to wear — Fresse said she didn’t want to wear it and that her co-workers “need Jesus.””

So? What is the problem with her reply...exactly?

Maybe you should get Jesus too?

 

[98cwitr]

LGBT people are a protected class. Those intolerant of them are not.

Religion is too.