JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty 109 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DogGone

  Because a person's irrational superstitions should not affect the rest of society.

  The test I used was "reasonable accommodation", in my opinion an excellent development in Common Law. Since the issue at question is trivial, I'm gathering you don't want irrational superstitions to affect society in even the tiniest of ways. Is that a fair statement?

  Leaving aside the determination of what is "irrational", it is a very regressive stand to take. It is the same argument fundamentalists have made about homosexuals, Catholics, the transgender, the mentally handicapped, Jews, etc.
  

  I don't want to live in a society where people have to leave parts of themselves at home no matter how trivial the affect to Society. There are plenty of irrational superstitions out there. There are plenty of things that were once viewed as sicknesses or superstitions that society has come to embrace. A society that sets upon itself to make a determination and suppress even reasonable accommodation presents a greater danger than a society which simply allows people to be wrong, so long as they are not unreasonably affecting society or others.
  

  The question is too vague. What other questions do you have in mind?

  I know we share a distaste for religious superstition. But, reasonable accommodation applies to other spheres of thought and action. I was wondering, if your uncompromising stance applies only to religiously derived actions or to other ethical systems and actions.
  

  One of my staff has an irrational fear of Halloween figurines. I have seen her in tears when a scary doll was near her desk. I think it is a reasonable accommodation to ask others to help with Halloween decorations and to ensure they don't have anything near her desk or that will surprise her where she works in our office. If she worked for a retailer, I would hope they would be sensitive to her. Would you agree?
  

  My mother has, what I consider, an irrational view of the sanctity of animals. I do not eat foie gras in front of her for this reason. If she worked in a restaurant she would ask someone else to prepare it. It bothers her that much. Just one item on the menu, she isn't a vegan. Should she leave her concern for the treatment of animals at home and not affect the rest of society?
  

  A really good friend of mine reads too many questionable internet blogs. He has determined that radio waves are unhealthy for his family. No wireless devices in his home. I've tried to point out the EMR coming from our sun, but he is convinced we are all being killed. He might ask to work at a spot as far away from a wireless access point as practical. Is this the sort of irrational superstition that should not affect the rest of society?

  Not to go ten rounds on a bunch of scenarios, I was merely wondering if you wish all irrational requests suppressed so they don't affect society or only those arising from religion.
  
• 

  cofty

  Since the issue at question is trivial, I'm gathering you don't want irrational superstitions to affect society in even the tiniest of ways. Is that a fair statement?

  No.

  If you work at a supermarket cafe cooking all-day breakfasts it is not trivial to refuse to cook part of the menu.

  It is the same argument fundamentalists have made about homosexuals, Catholics, the transgender, the mentally handicapped, Jews, etc.

  How strange that you should say that since it is actually the precise opposite.

  My argument is that fundies should not be allowed to discriminate against others while hiding behind the excuse of religion.

  I don't want to live in a society where people have to leave parts of themselves at home no matter how trivial the affect to Society.

  I didn't mention trivial, you did. However I do want to live in a society where religion gets no special privileges. Secular societies where people are free to believe anything they want at home or in church work well.

  You are falsely portraying me as unreasonable or uncompromising even in trivial details. This is a straw man.

  
  
• 

  freddo

  In the Old Testament couldn't the Israelites sell an unbled carcass to a non-Israelite unbeliever?

  Deut. 14 v 21
• 

  cofty

  Only if it was found already dead.
• 

  freddo

  Well it would have already been dead by the time it got to the JW chef.
• 

  DogGone

  I apologize if I have misrepresented your view. I asked if that was how you felt since your statement was unqualified. I admit, I don't understand.

  We have a difference of opinion on the triviality of a side dish at an all-day breakfast, fair enough.

  My statement was that "Society works because we tolerate differences in each other and allow reasonable accommodation for differences. Asking another to perform the task is reasonable." When you replied that "I could not disagree more. If you get paid to do a job do it. Keep religion at home where it belongs." I read that you disagreed with the concept of reasonable accommodation, I did not read it as meaning that you find this specific accommodation unreasonable. I'm sorry for misreading you.
  

  Frankly, though, the statement "keep religion at home where it belongs" is bigoted. You don't want society to tolerate the bigotry of others, I get that. But, why fight bigotry with bigotry? People were once told to keep their "gayness" or their "transgender" at home. In Canada we recently had a federal election that turned, in part, on whether Quebec should ban religious head coverings from government employees... leave it at home, the critics said. Among those critics were many "fundies" who are discriminating against others based on religion, just one that is not theirs.
  

  Your argument surprises me, do you feel the case in question is an example of discrimination? How so?
  

  You are falsely portraying me as unreasonable or uncompromising even in trivial details. This is a straw man.

  I was not meaning to portray, I was trying to ask and, even though immodest, to attempt to enlighten and broaden your perspective on the subject. I'm sorry it came across as a straw man. At this point, I don't know where you draw the line on what is reasonable or trivial and where you would be willing to have society compromise. I retract any insinuation I have made about where you fall on these matters, other than that fullfulling a work requirement to personally prepare a given breakfast side is a non-trivial matter.
  
• 

  Simon

  Put like that, it is a little more understandable. The dub asked someone else to do it.. Instead they ran out to the customer and told him to go away ...

  I don't know, I think corporates always try and put a different spin on things after they have messed up to try and paint things as a misunderstanding instead of a snafu.

  There was one a few days ago where some corporate lawyers threatened a guy who published software packages over trademark of their name (BS). He removed the packages. Turns out they were used in lots of software which then all broke. They then tried to make out they weren't threatening him because suddenly there was a lot of negative publicity in their direction.

  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/23/npm_left_pad_chaos/

  https://medium.com/@azerbike/i-ve-just-liberated-my-modules-9045c06be67c#.a4ohbzdp7
  

  I'm sure some things are mis-reported but I'm also skeptical of some of the attempts that companies do to try and dig themselves out of holes.

  As for the chef, idiotic. If she can't or won't cook what is on the menu then she shouldn't be there. No different to some other religion refusing to cook bacon - get another job, my right to bacons supersedes anyone else's religious convictions.

  I think that's something we can all agree on.
• 

  cofty

  DogGone - Why are you equating religiously based superstitions with sexuality and phobias?

  Here is your post I disagreed with.

  You should not be forced to do something against your conscience. Forcing an atheist who works at a funeral home to say "God bless you, I will pray for you" or forcing a JW to handle blood, a Catholic to hand out birth control, or a Quaker to manufacture munitions is just wrong

  Nobody is forced to do a job that includes tasks that conflict with their conscience.

  If you can find an example of a Quaker who was forced to work in a munitions factory or an undertaker who orders his employees to repeat religious platitudes I would be fascinated to know more.
• 

  cofty

  In Canada we recently had a federal election that turned, in part, on whether Quebec should ban religious head coverings from government employees... leave it at home, the critics said. Among those critics were many "fundies" who are discriminating against others based on religion, just one that is not theirs.

  Which is a very good argument for a totally secular public square. Treat all religions the same. Keep it at home or in church.
• 

  jwleaks