Posts by DogGone

109

JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty in

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....

DogGone

It's really simple. Objecting to who somebody is = bigotry. Objecting to what somebody does is not.

We certainly disagree here, Cofty. I'll go with the dictionary definition and not the Cofty definition. It is why I gave the example of the gay pride parade (what someone does) over who they are (gay). Objecting to a gay pride parade is often bigotry, intolerance arising from the dislike of a group. It is not what you are objecting to, but why you are objecting that makes it bigotry. You can object to a parade because you hate the garbage, certainly not bigotry. If you object to a parade because you wish the gays would leave their gayness at home, well that is certainly bigotry.

The attempts to limit accusations of directed bigotry, first to what someone is versus what they choose to be, and now to who someone is and not what they do, are not supported by any dictionary I've consulted.

Those who want to wear a head covering like a turbin, a kippah, or a hijab do so.

Yes but when you go to work your employer decides.

Well, that is begging the question. Where I live, that is certainly not so.

109

JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty in

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....

DogGone

No, it's when the religious are told that they cannot impose their lifestyle on other people's. It is rarely secularists that are refusing to serve someone or do something. It's always inevitably the religious.

I don't get the leap from someone asking another person to cook a portion of a meal to them imposing their lifestyle on other people. Someone wearing a gay pride flag is not imposing their lifestyle. Nor is someone wearing a hijab or choosing not to eat bacon. So long as they are not campaigning for laws or restrictions on others, I fail to see the leap.

Wearing a hijab is not imposing a lifestyle on someone. Insisting that you cannot wear a hijab and still work for the government is imposing a lifestyle on others.

This JW wasn't trying to make a law forcing this off the menu for everyone.

No, just not provide that part of the menu - same result. Same as someone refusing to issue marriage licenses for gay people.

An East Indian or a secular vegetarian not serving me a steak is not the same as making a law against steak. In either case, true, I don't have a steak. But moments later I can go to another restaurant to get a steak. Surely you see how that is very different.

No, and that is the point. Why does the choice of religion make any form of discrimination OK?

Hello, Straw Man. It doesn't; discrimination is not OK. You cannot refuse to serve a marriage license because the couple is inter-racial, gay, or enjoy blood meal. That is discrimination. That choice is discriminating against a class of people. Please help me understand how the case in question is discrimination? Everything else that follows on this point is knocking down straw.

To me is a sign that you can say some of the right words to suit your argument but you may not really live and feel them.

A bit ad hominem. It means that I have rebelled, somewhat, against the liberal education I was raised with. Some of that has been thanks to this forum and points you and Cofty have raised to me before.

We owe non of our freedoms to religion. We took so long to grant so many because religion was used to excuse bigotry time and time and time again.

You confuse Freedom of Religion with freedoms owed to religion... or you are not reading what I am writing. After the long turmoil from the religious wars various laws on Religious Tolerance and Freedom of Conscience rose to end the madness between Catholics and Protestants. An agreement to live, side by side, with differences in belief and practice, but with tolerance, arose in fits and starts. This Freedom was the incubator for freedom of thought, divergent opinion, and divergent practice and led to a secular Europe. It is hard to imagine Europe today had not this fundamental freedom arose. It is part of our western tradition. When I said it was an early right and laid the ground for future rights I was being accurate.

... your further argument about whether it is contrived, a mandate from a central body, or a personal conviction is beside the point.

Bigotry, an intolerance toward those who have views or practices that are different, does not magically cease to be bigotry depending on whether the object comes to those views and practices by choice or through genetic necessity. Cofty said that "people chose their superstitions they don't choose their homosexuality" You stated that the "Big difference" is that sexuality is who you are whereas religion is a "coat you wear". You both brought up the issue of choice as being central and then you accuse me of trying to distract attention by addressing it. Well shucks.

Firing someone for not doing their job is totally OK. Asking for someone to be fired for not doing their job is totally OK. Doesn't matter if the reason is religious or not. But, elevating this little misunderstanding to some imposition of religion upon society, an agenda to impose one's religion on others, discrimination against all lovers of blood, that's bigotry. Saying that religion should be left at home, that's bigotry. It is just not reasonable.

"I don't like religious people having their superstitions inconvenience me" / "OMG, I can't believe how bigoted you are!" / "Well they chose to be religious and believe in a fairy tale" / "Oh, that's OK then, carry on".

109

JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty in

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....

DogGone

Ms. JW chef will always refuse to serve him.

What evidence do you have that she refused to serve him? If she refused to serve people who eat blood, that would be discrimination. If she actually asked someone else to prepare one portion of the meal, as per a previous employment arrangement, that would not be.

Please people, it really could be just a simple misunderstanding. The call for her termination is such an overreaction.

For the record, Simon, you do not have a right to bacon, but I wouldn't mind an amendment:

The quality of breakfast being necessary to the sustenance of the state, the right of the people to bacon shall not be infringed.

109

JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty in

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....

DogGone

If I believe uncovered women are an affront to god (trust me, I don't) then how can that be reconciled with someone else's freedom to be uncovered? (please, be my guest).

Those who want to wear a head covering like a turbin, a kippah, or a hijab do so. Those who do not, don't. Those who do should not force others to, likewise, do. Those who do not shouldn't force others to, likewise, do not. I can't understand the challenge. It is only when either religious fundamentalism or secularism are forced on the unwilling that the need to reconcile anything arises.
This JW wasn't trying to make a law forcing this off the menu for everyone. She wasn't even fired and then suing saying it was religious persecution. The story is that she asked someone else to care for it. It is the employer's right to fire her if they don't find this a reasonable accommodation. The peanut gallery calling for her termination are being bigots. That is my view.

The big difference is that your sexuality is who you are. You cannot change it.

That same point was raised by Cofty. I simply cannot understand it. I know it was, for reasons passing understanding, important to some people to find out that homosexuality is genetic. I never understood in the slightest why it should matter. Why not respect accommodate and love someone regardless of whether it is a choice or not? I mean, really, if it were a choice would that make it OK to have homophobia? Of course not. Can you imagine if someone pointed out the reason why you don't discriminate against black people is because they had no choice? Like they are flawed, but what the heck, it isn't like the could choose it.
Homosexuality, race, religion, politics, and gender are all part of the great mosaic of society. But I would say that, raised and indoctrinated as a Canadian.
Freedom of religion was an early right in the long march of human rights, not far behind property rights. Having laid the ground work for many rights which have come after, the notion to throw it away is repugnant to me.
Cofty asked me why I equate the bigotry. They are opposite sides of the same coin to me, the dislike of the other. Especially when it comes in contact with or in any way inconveniences someone. Even when it doesn't, man oh man people get upset. How does an RCMP member wearing a turbin inconvenience a single person? And yet, man oh man, it was a huge debate years ago.
I know many of my fellow atheists and strong agnostics advocate for a secular public place, for the repression of religious superstition. To me those are dangerous, regressive, and foolish ideas. They are born of the same intolerance for different ideas and lifestyles (whether chosen or inherited).

109

JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty in

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....

DogGone

Average Joe, I read the situation the same as you do. And reading his response, it seems he refused to eat the meal and left in a huff. Why? Because he wanted blood pudding? Well, no... because he went home and ate a couple hours later and he doesn't have it at home. He got in a huff because someone else's beliefs inconvenienced him.

Had they run out of blood pudding I'm sure he would have been disappointed but reasonable. Had he been told the lady who makes it had to go to the hospital, sorry it isn't available today, he would have dealt with it, I'm sure. So, my take is that it isn't even the fact he was inconvenienced... it was that someone's religion dared inconvenience him.

To me, he is an absolute tool and a symptom of a problem.

109

JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty in

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....

DogGone

GreatTeacher, I completely agree with what you wrote. I'm not sure what the job description was or what employment arrangement was made for this JW lady, but if that was the requirement and agreement, I agree. The fact the employer defended the employee makes me think there is more than we know about the relationship and understanding here, but I really don't know.

109

JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty in

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....

DogGone

Cofty, that last post is a non-sequitur. How is that equating superstition with sexuality? It is equating the bigotry - the statement they should leave it at home. I heard it a hundred times about gay pride parades. "I don't care if they are gay, but get it out of my face, leave it at home". Bigotry is bigotry. That is what I'm equating

109

JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty in

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....

DogGone

I wasn't equating religious superstitions with phobias and sexuality, I was asking you if you would accommodate those differently than religious superstitions. You could say, "yes, I would, completely different". You could say "no, people should keep these things out of the public square".

I was equating bigotry against religion with bigotry against sexuality or gender identity. That is because, bigotry is, by definition, intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself. I find the question of tolerance and accommodation at the heart of this discussion and the kind of society we want to live in.

Moving from phobias and sexuality and back to the more analogous region of ideas and beliefs, what about situations like my friend and his wifi nuttiness?

I appreciate your pointing out the specific part of my post you were disagreeing with. 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.

The history of Quakers in WWI and WWII and the issues around alternative service and munitions manufacturing are well documented. Apparently an atheist airman in Nevada was going to lose his job unless he said the oath "so help me God". Nevertheless, it is tedious to dig up examples for a thought experiment.

You do say that people aren't forced to take these jobs, and that is a fair point. What about forcing someone who has a job, on pain of job loss, to do something that can otherwise be reasonably accommodated?

109

JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty in

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....

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.

11

Walking Fish - evolution or adaptation?

by Earnest in

a recent article in nature reports on a fish that has a pelvic girdle with features associated with terrestrial vertebrates.. discuss..

DogGone

Was there no competition to be the "first" common ancestor?

Perhaps, but something won and it proliferated so much that the record shows a single tree. You are talking here about the actual origin of life, right? Because early on there are plenty of phyla that got lopped off. That is, plenty of early life patterns that did not win the competition.