JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty 109 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DogGone

  Why are you putting contradictory statements in my mouth?

  I'm not trying to. You gave an example of making a reasonable accommodation for my friend with his beliefs about wireless radiation. Then you make an unqualified statement that people's religious superstitions shouldn't interfere with the job they are paid to do. I then asked if I understood you correctly. I gather I don't!

  I'm thinking now that the accommodation for my friend was so long as it didn't impact his work duties. So, in other words, unlike my examples you wouldn't accommodate any class or group in a way that would impact job duties. Am I understanding this correctly?
  

  Some people think that calling their unreasonable behaviour "religious" somehow gets a free pass. It doesn't.

  Totally agree. I don't consider a restaurant having a special arrangement for the preparation of a single side dish unreasonable behaviour, though.
  
• 

  DogGone

  I have never demanded anybody get fired. Straw man again.

  Yikes, you are right. My full apologies. Others have said that about this lady, you didn't. Very sorry.
  
• 

  cofty

  You keep talking about reasonable accommodation. Let's see what you mean by that.

  Earlier you said...

  You should not be forced to do something against your conscience. Forcing a JW to handle blood .. a Catholic to hand out birth control, ... is just wrong, in my opinion.

  This is a concrete example of where we disagree.

  A doctor or pharmacist who refuses to prescribe or dispense birth control is unacceptable. So is a JW who refuses to run to the lab and fetch blood while a casualty bleeds out in ER.

  Keep your religion/superstitions/personal opinions at home and do your job.
• 

  DogGone

  DOGGONE - I am curious, do you agree with these statements, now that they have been better formulated:

  • If, because of who they are, you object to someone's action, that is bigotry.

  • If, because of what they believe, you object to someone's action that is bigotry.

  COFTY - They are totally nonsensical questions and have no connection to anything I have said in this thread or elsewhere.

  Cofty, you have been patiently answering me. And I do appreciate it. I'm going to stop for the night after this post because I fear I'm trying your patience and, perhaps, that of Simon's.

  The questions flow from the principles I'm arguing for. If one wouldn't object to an action if it came from a disability, from a phobia, from a secular ethical stance, from a common superstition, from a wrong headed understanding of science, but one would object to the same action because it came from religion, that is intolerance (ie. bigotry).

  You say the critical point is that it was her choice. I thought we covered choice already. I say, that shouldn't make a difference. If we can make a reasonable accommodation, like having one dish on a menu prepared by another cook, then we should. It makes for a better society.
  

  Now, I think I read you as saying that you wouldn't vary this way. Fair enough, then the point I was making doesn't apply to you. You wouldn't apply the rule unevenly. That is why, way back, I was trying different scenarios to understand, not to try your patience.
  
• 

  cofty

  Good night
• 

  DogGone

  DogGone: I am curious, do you agree with these statements, now that they have been better formulated:
  
  If, because of who they are, you object to someone's action, that is bigotry.
  If, because of what they believe, you object to someone's action that is bigotry.
  
  Cofty: They are totally nonsensical questions and have no connection to anything I have said in this thread or elsewhere.
  .....
  DogGone: Ah, but the JW lady was making a choice.
  Cofty: Exactly. You hit the nail on the head and in the 5 paragraphs that follow you don't address it.
  

  I'm having difficulties understanding your application of tolerance. You seem to not want to engage the argument which is at the heart of the principle I'm arguing. As I've suggested before, we may not have enough common ground.
  

  - I find it reasonable to employ an allergic chef in a situation where there is only one side dish containing the allergen and another cook can make it instead
  - I find it reasonable to employ a religious person in a situation where there is only one side dish containing sanctioned food and another cook can make it instead
  
  If someone wouldn't accommodate in either case, then we have a difference of opinion on what is reasonable. If someone would in the former but would not the latter, then what have a difference of opinion on the principle of tolerance.
  

  If the reason given for the difference is that the former has choice whereas the latter does not, then we have identified the difference in principle about tolerance. Such tolerance isn't really tolerance. We would not be making a judgement about the reasonableness of the accommodation being requested, instead, we would be making a judgement about the reasonableness of the class/group making the request. Tolerance, the willingness to accept or endure the existence of opinions and behaviour we don't agree with, calls for us to reasonably accommodate those behaviours we don't agree with.
  

  Painting unreasonable scenarios doesn't excuse intolerance in reasonable scenarios. The disagreement isn't in the far extremes of death, murder, and mutilation, but in more reasonable scenarios, like a breakfast side.
  

  Varying the application of tolerance based on whether an individual has chosen to join that class or group (with all that entails) or whether they were forced to is a poor ethical system, in my opinion. As an example, tolerance of the actions of transgender individuals, like wearing a dress at work, shouldn't be determined by whether you think he/she is making a choice to dress as a women.

  My principle, if we can make reasonable accommodation we should. We should leave aside our opinions of the class or group making the request and not question if they have came to this class or group by choice or necessity. I believe that such a principle makes for the optimal society. I also believe that bigotry would have eroded much earlier for homosexuals.
• 

  DogGone

  You should not be forced to do something against your conscience. Forcing a JW to handle blood .. a Catholic to hand out birth control, ... is just wrong, in my opinion.

  This is a concrete example of where we disagree.

  Yes, in the same sentence I also mentioned an atheist forced to say "god bless you" or a Quaker forced to make munitions. You also pointed out forced wasn't the right word, and I agreed and then modified my statement based on your argumentation: "Bad wording on my part. I meant, no one should be required, on pain of losing employment, to do something which is against their conscience when reasonable accommodation can be made"

  A doctor or pharmacist who refuses to prescribe or dispense birth control is unacceptable. So is a JW who refuses to run to the lab and fetch blood while a casualty bleeds out in ER.

  Reasonable Accommodation includes any modification or adjustment to a job, system, or work environment, while not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, that is based on a need, whether religious, academic, ethical, cultural, physical or mental.
  

  On the JW blood scenario, it is not reasonable for someone to die because you couldn't do your job. There is no reasonable accommodation here. A JW should not be employed in such a scenario and, if they were, would be guilty of manslaughter.

  A doctor may be able to be accommodated. If they object to writing the prescription, but have an arrangement with another doctor at the clinic to quickly write it for them, that is, to me, reasonable. On the other hand, I wouldn't accept the doctor failing to accommodate the patient by refusing to provide a referral or an alternative method of receiving the service. I'd support a law requiring all clinics to have present, at all times, someone who can and will prescribe birth control. I wouldn't support firing a doctor for making an arrangement to have another doctor care for these prescriptions. I'd also hate to see us lose a great doctor because we wouldn't allow that accommodation.
  

  Same with a pharmacist. If they can accommodate us by having their assistant handle the birth control, we can accommodate the pharmacist. If the pharmacist is insistent that no such medication will leave his or her practice than reasonable accommodation can not be found.
  

  Keep your religion/superstitions/personal opinions at home and do your job.

  So, no tolerance, then?
  
• 

  SecretSlaveClass

  There was a case which relates to this a couple of years back.

  A Hasidic Jew applied to be a firefighter with the Goshen Fire Department. The GFD made it very clear that unless he shaved off his beard, he could not be a fireman as a beard would prevent a complete seal being formed with the respirator and the face. This would not only endanger the life of the applicant, but also his fellow firefighters as they would have to now risk their lives once he succumbed to smoke inhalation, not to mention the obvious risk to those being rescued if the applicant passed out while carrying an unconscious victim.

  The Hasidic community attempted to sue the GFD on grounds of religious discrimination which was obviously complete nonsense. Had it been an atheist with a beard the same rules would have applied - it had nothing to do with religious intolerance but everything to do with FD rules and above all, common sense. He chose to follow the rules of the Hasidic faith which clashed with the rules and regulations of the GFD. If your beliefs prevent you from complying with a given job description, you have no business applying for the job - it's a simple choice. But because his faith demanded he have a beard the Hasidic community saw it as an opportunity to cry foul and invoke the religious intolerance card.

  The over emotional crowd as usual allow their emotions to dictate their thought process instead of common sense. Tax payers money wasted in the drawn out process of court hearings over something which should have been a non-issue in the first place. I'm definitely with Simon and Cofty - if your beliefs are going to keep you from carrying out your job description stop making it about bigotry and others being at fault, common sense alone calls you out for what you are - a self entitled twit who thinks the world should step aside and make special concessions just for you because your views demand it. YOU are the one causing conflict and no one else.
• 

  cofty

  DogGone it would be really useful if you could be more succinct.

  we would be making a judgement about the reasonableness of the class/group making the request.

  It has absolutely nothing to do with membership of a group. People should be judged as individuals and expected to accept personal responsibility for their decisions.

  Not all catholics would refuse to prescribe birth control, not all Muslim women dress head-to-toe in black sacks and not all JWs refuse to cook black pudding. It is you not me who wants to lump people together into groups and treat them differently on that basis.
  

  It is cowardice for somebody to say, "my religion forbids me from prescribing birth control" or "my religion doesn't allow me to cook your breakfast". They should have the honesty to say, "I personally believe in a god who does not approve of me prescribing birth control" or "I believe Jehovah will be angry if I cook your black pudding".

  Religious people need to take personal ownership of their choices and stop passing the buck to the groups they identify with.

  Choices have consequences.
• 

  konceptual99

  Spot on Cofty. It's when people start having to properly justify their reasons for doing or not dong certain things that they actually can start evaluating the sensibilities of what those choices are.