JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty 109 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DogGone

  Hi, Cofty, sorry for the delay, I've been slammed.

  I will try to be more succinct.

  I'm not lumping people into groups, the opposite. The accommodation should be judged on its own weight, and not by reference to any group. That was the point.

  How does judging the reasonableness of the individual rather than the reasonableness of the request actually work in practice?

  Is the individual less reasonable or worthy of accommodation if they use "my religion" as shorthand for "my personal convictions"? Why? How is that cowardly?
• 

  cofty

  I'm not lumping people into groups, the opposite. - DogGone

  Compare and contrast.

  "Forcing ... a Catholic to hand out birth control, or a Quaker to manufacture munitions is just wrong, in my opinion."

  ..
  "If the reason given for the difference is that the former has choice whereas the latter does not, then ...we would be making a judgement about the reasonableness of the class/group making the request."

  I explained the difference in my last post...

  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.

  Therefore it is a non sequitur for a doctor to say "I can't prescribe you birth control because I am a catholic" or for a chef to claim "I can't cook black pudding because I am a JW"

  The doctor and the chef are intelligent adults who make personal choices to believe irrational things about the world - choices that are not shared by other intelligent adults who belong to the same groups.

  What they really mean is "I have chosen to hold certain beliefs about the world that prevent me from doing my job".

  That is significantly different from somebody who says "I have a disability and need you to help me do my job".

  One is reasonable the other is self obsessed.
• 

  DogGone

  Strange, I used the indefinite article (a Catholic) and argued that we should judge based on the reasonableness of the request and NOT the reasonableness of the group, but then you claim I'm lumping them into groups; at the same time you seem to illustrate my point by judging the individual's decision by the lack of conformity within their group.

  You are right, though, that whenever anyone says "I can't because I'm a ___" they are really meaning "I won't". Not sure who was arguing otherwise and I don't see how this shows cowardice. It is common language. "I can't, I'm a Christian". "I can't, I'm vegan". It would be unnecessarily particular to correct them, their meaning is readily understood.

  I'm not sure I understand how the conformity (or lack thereof) of the group matters. Unless, of course, you were lumping them together and judging them as a group.

  The folks who "won't" for whatever reason, the ones making a choice, how do you choose what to accommodate and what not to accommodate?
• 

  cofty

  You have been asserting that religious objections to carrying out aspects of a job are just as valid and worthy of accommodation as disabilities, even though one involves personal choice and the other doesn't.

  How do you defend this position?
• 

  DogGone

  Hi Cofty,

  I wouldn't say "just as valid and worthy" as I wouldn't even say all objections arising from disabilities are "just as valid and worthy" as all others. The reasonable accommodation test will determine if the request is "valid" or "worthy", which is a much broader subject. I have a much higher standard for undue burden for requests which arise from personal choice than from those that don't.

  But, that isn't the goal post here, we aren't arguing about degrees of tolerance or the application of tests for reasonableness in different scenarios. Arguments from extremes are an unnecessary distraction. The disagreement is about whether reasonable accommodation should happen at all for personal religious objections to carrying out aspects of a job.

  If I understand you correctly, you have said that people should keep their religion / superstitions / personal views at home and do their job. I have been asserting that religious (and ethical/moral) objections to carrying out aspects of a job are worthy of reasonable accommodation, as are disabilities.

  Simply put, I don't want to live in a society where, for example, doctor's who have sincerely held objections to euthanasia or forced sterilization (insert current medical ethical debate here) will be fired if they don't conform to the current political or moral consensus. Therefore, I can't support the idea that people should leave their personal views at home and just do their jobs. After all, one day it could be my sincerely held personal view that is at odds with current consensus, and I don't want to be fired if I can propose a reasonable accommodation that causes no undue burden.
• 

  cofty

  Compare and contrast.

  Arguments from extremes are an unnecessary distraction. - DogGone

  I don't want to live in a society where, for example, doctor's who have sincerely held objections to euthanasia or forced sterilization will be fired if they don't conform - DogGone

  What could possibly be more extreme?

  I think I am losing interest in this conversation. You are making up your position on the hoof.
• 

  DogGone

  You make a fair point about my use of extremes. But the original context was a breakfast side. C'est la vie.

  Indeed, we haven't made any progress in this conversation. I can't understand your position any more than you can mine.

  All the best, Cofty.
• 

  cofty

  I understand your position DogGone. I just disagree with it.

  Best wishes.
• 

  DogGone

  Haha, well that makes one of us. Cheers.
• 

  jhine

  Somewhere. , several pages back l think , it was stated that no one would be forced to do a job that they didn't want to do for any reason .

  Well l have had chance to chat to someone l know who works for the DWP ( Department of Works and Pensions ) . She is based in our local job centre , so working with those looking for work and claiming Jobseekers Allowance . She said that because of new rules the situation COULD arise where a person was told to accept a particular job or lose benefits .

  While it would be nice to think of everyone being able to choose employment that suits them the reality is that may not be possible .

  Jan