DogGone

Joined

• started 3 topics
• posted 193 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by DogGone

• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  DogGone

  Haha, well that makes one of us. Cheers.
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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?
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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?
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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?
  
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
  
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.
  
• 
  109

  JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  sainsbury's has been forced to apologise after its jehovah's witness chef refused to serve a customer black pudding with his full english breakfast.alan mackay was stunned when he was told he could not enjoy the staple, made up of animal fat, blood and oatmeal, with his meal at the branch in arnold, nottingham.after receiving his incomplete dish the former police officer was told the black pudding would not be served because it was against the religious beliefs of the chef to do so....

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  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.