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

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

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

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

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 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

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

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.

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 ordered a steak and all I got was a plate of onion rings because not only was the chef a veggie but she refused to cook meat for others to eat, I would object. Whether her reasons were religious or not would make no difference.

Very fair point. And if you learned that the vegetarian had asked another person to make the steak and they misunderstood, would you still demand they be fired?

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.

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

People should not allow their religious superstitions to interfere with the job they are getting paid to perform.

Wow, that took a lot to get to. You finally answered the question from the first page. Yes, you are a reasonable person and make reasonable accommodation for people including superstitions. No, you would not make reasonable accommodation for religious superstitions.

Do I understand you correctly, Cofty?

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, in my thought experiment with the vegetarian there would be only one meat dish. Are you honestly trying to understand me or are you just parsing my words for any hole to poke?

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

C - If you object to what somebody does because of what they are or what they believe, that is bigotry.
I did address it.
In Syria Muslims throw homosexuals from tall buildings because they believe that Allah requires them to do so.
I object.
Does this make me a bigot?

No, I already answered this, perhaps you missed a post.

If you object to what someone does because of:

what they are OR
what they believe

that is bigotry.

You seem to be reading this statement as hinging on the actions of the person arising from what they are or what they believe rather than the modifier being on the subject (YOU). That is, you are reading it this way:

If you object to:

what someone does because of what they are OR
what someone does because of what they believe

that is bigotry.

Taking that reading then, yes, it is patently false and absurd. I can appreciate seizing on an ambiguous modifier; but my many examples and refutations make plain my meaning, to modify the subject (you) not the object (someone).

Perhaps you have read what I have written and are being intentionally pedantic. If so, here is the same point with the modifier moved to ensure a misreading is not made:

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.

I apologize that my writing was not more careful. It is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that I have employed an ambiguous modifier. Nevertheless, I really can't believe you didn't get my meaning after I addressed it the first time.

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,
I most certainly did not accuse you of bigotry from your OP. Please go back and read the first page. The word isn't even there. I responded to another post. My exact statement was this:

Frankly, though, the statement "keep religion at home where it belongs" is bigoted.

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

Since my argument about point C is coming across as pedantic rather than essential it might be worth recapping why I find this to be an distinction for this discussion.

A severe sufferer of peanut allergies should not work at a Vietnamese restaurant. There is no reasonable accommodation in my opinion. One could, though, imagine such a person employed at a restaurant where there was an understanding they make everything but the one peanut dish on the menu. Perhaps a customer loves that dish and comes in for it. The chef tells another staff member that they have an allergy and asks them to make it instead. The staff member misunderstands and tells the customer they can't have the dish because the chef has a peanut allergy. It hits the papers and so on.

Now, we could imagine people saying that if you can't make the full menu you shouldn't have the job, fire that person. I get that, even if I view it as a massive overreaction to a trivial issue. If people started spouting off about how this peanut allergy guy was pushing his allergy on other people denying them their right to peanuts, that they were sick and tired of these peanut allergy people affecting society and they should ensure their allergies don't bother anyone else.... well, most people would view that as pretty intolerant. At least I would.

Ah, but the JW lady was making a choice.

Yes, true. But then let's agree that the central issue is not the right to a side dish. The issue is not about discriminating against the non-peanut allergic, the issue is not about an anti-peanut agenda being forced on others, and the issue is not about the inconvenience itself. The salient detail is that the issue arises from a religious conviction rather than something else. Even in an identical situation we may tolerate one class or group differently from another.

A similar thought experiment can be repeated with a vegetarian and a single meat dish, a person with a phobia about lobster handling a single seafood dish, or even a single dish requiring a microwave treatment and my friend and his view on wireless waves, etc. I suspect we will find even more people who find this intolerable. They might say, "Take your vegetarian agenda, your lobster phobia, your irrational EMR fear and leave them the heck at home."

But they weren't, in this scenario. They merely asked someone else to make the dish and it was misunderstood. Why can't we be reasonable and tolerant of each others in these matters even if we strongly disagree? We want people to tolerate us, after all.

This is why, at the beginning on page one, I asked Cofty if he was against reasonable accommodation in general or just when it came to religion. If, in the exact same situation, we are willing to accommodate certain groups but not others, then we are showing we have more tolerance for some groups than others. If it is belonging to a group that makes the action objectionable and not the event itself we have to look and see if there might be some intolerance at play. If we would not have gotten up in arms about a vegetation in the exact same misunderstanding scenario than perhaps we have an intolerance toward religion and toward people who are religious.

PS - I feel that had I used the word intolerance instead of the synonym bigotry we might not have gotten bogged down in definitions.