Woman Fired For Eating 'Unclean' Meat

[forgethell]

What do YOU think?? My opinion is that Christians, and other pork-eaters, are covered by various rights acts, and that non-pork eaters will have to accommodate themselves. But I could be wrong. What's your opinion?


http://www.local6.com/money/3614199/detail.html

[Endangered Specie]

1. Proof that religious discrimination and stupididty..

is not limited to Christianity.

This is just as bad as a Christian company forbidding head scarfs and turbans.

[Union Thug]

2. Yet more religious stupidity, that's what i think.

I really hate religion. As I say, with respect to religion, the soviets had it right.

[The Stranger]

3. Is eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich a religious rite or

practice for Ms. Morales for which she is being discriminated against? (You know what? Call me crazy, but I doubt that it is.) And if it is not, then there are very serious questions about this story.

Anti-Muslim press is easy. Making this the Jerry Springer board would be a shame.

[forgethell]

10. NO, I don't think it

is a religious rite, but it is something that she is entitled to do. The bacon or ham may offend Muslims, but so what? Shouldn't their religion be kept as private as any body else's. Will she have to wear a veil in a couple of years because that's the "dress code"? How about renting an apartment and not being allowed to barbecue on the porch if she's doing butt or ribs?

[The Stranger]

55. I don't think any of these hypotheticals you present are at issue here.

The veil-wearing inicident arose out of people claiming it was their religious practice to wear them -- not someone being required to wear them. Are these hypotheticals coming from reality or some fear of Muslims taking over and forcing everyone to become like them?

[forgethell]

162. Gee,

haven't you heard of the slippery slope? My only point is that this poor woman is entitled to work withour having someone else's religious concerns foisted on her. Don't change the subject

[The Stranger]

179. I'm changing the subject?

What does someone in France wearing a turban in public have to do with a woman in Orlando eating a sandwich or someone barbecuing pork chops on their apartment balcony? The subject, recall, was whether it is protected religious expression to eat a BLT at work.

The slippery slope seems to be an irrational fear that Muslims and their religious eating restrictions are going to lead to the mass conversion of Americans or that Americans are going to be forced to live as Muslims who "hate us for our freedom."

This is the result of the mass media and the Bush Administration's intentionally creating fear of Muslims in the populace. And when scared and fearful people start attacking or hurting persons that look or act differently -- that's the slippery slope.

[PsychoDad]

246. Well said, Stranger.

"The slippery slope seems to be an irrational fear that Muslims and their religious eating restrictions are going to lead to the mass conversion of Americans or that Americans are going to be forced to live as Muslims who "hate us for our freedom."

[Hoping4Change]

268. The question is not whether its a religious right to eat a BLT,

the real question is to what degree can people be free from other people's irrationality. The foundation of most modern democracties is Liberalism. It is due to Liberalism that people enjoy freedom of religion. IMO that freedom doesn't include the right to impose religious tenets on others.

[coda]

62. Religious rite? Prolly not, but a good BLT

is a religious experience. :9

[Walt Starr]

67. Hmmm, eating ANYTHING is a religious rite, IMO

That's my religious belief, anyway.

[DoNotRefill]

68. Freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion.....

why should she have to follow muslim dietary rituals? The company is forcing muslim dietary habits on her, and fired her for violating them. They deserve to be judicially smacked.

[sangh0]

110. You should re-read the Constitution

It says nothing about "Freedom of religion". What it says prohibits the GOVERNMENT (not any private business) from ESTABLISHING a state religion.

[DoNotRefill]

121. And the Civil Right Act of 1964....

prohibits discrimination in the workplace based upon religion. Just like the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based upon religion. And YES, that applies to private actors, NOT just the Government.

[Baltimoreboy]

124. Based upon religion, not the lack thereof

She violated a work rule -- whether it's not pork or no wearing of orange -- it's still a work rule.

[DoNotRefill]

126. so if company policy says

"no blacks allowed", it's suddenly legal? If a company policy says "only people who sucessfully handle snakes as part of a pentecostal religious ceremony can work here", it's OK?

That's ridicuous. Company policy DOES NOT supercede Federal Civil Rights legislation.

[Baltimoreboy]

129. Race is specifically protected, eating bacon or sausage is not

I have worked places where obscenity is banned. A friend of mine now works at a place in Virginia that bans guns in the workplace even though they are entirely legal in VA.

Banning pork was a logical work rule to keep order and make employees happy.

[Longhorn79]

133. Religion is specifically protected also,

and religion is the reason she was axed. The employer could have gotten away with it if they just said, "We can't stand the smell of any pork product, so you're fired if you bring it in here." I understand this is kind of backwards since the employee was doing something forbidden in one religion rather than doing something encouraged in her own, but this country was literally founded by people who were persecuted for religious reasons, so I think the employer is gonna have to cut a hefty check real soon.

[Baltimoreboy]

148. It's not just the smell, it's the pork

It makes the entire area unclean.

I love bacon. Bacon, bacon, bacon! But it's not a religous requirement for me.

[Walt Starr]

134. Banning pork was a religious requirement

Sorry, your argument does not fly. This is a freedom issue plain and simple.

It's no different than requiring your workers to eat only Fish on Fridays during Lent. You are forcing your employee to participate in a religious practice which is against federal law.

Requiring crucifixes on each employees desk is the same thing as well.

[Baltimoreboy]

149. Not so, they are simply saying what you can't eat on THEIR premises

You can go out to eat if you wish.

[Walt Starr]

181. Wrongo, they are requiring participation in a religious practice

Sorry, but they cannot force me to have a crucifix on my desk while on their premises.

They can ban eating on the premises altogether, but cannot ban specific foods. If they ban eating, they must allow you time to eat away from the premises.

[DoNotRefill]

182. Interesting point.

They could get away with banning certain KINDS of food, for example, all meat. Veganism and vegetarianism are not related to religious doctrines generally, to my knowledge. But by singling out one kind of meat as "unclean" from a religious perspective, they ARE engaging in illegal religion-based discrimination.

[no name no slogan]

194. Actually, RE: veganism/vegetarianism...

Veganism and vegetarianism are not related to religious doctrines generally, to my knowledge.

Actually, some Hindu castes do not eat meat as part of their religion.

The Jainist (sp?) religion of India forbids not only the eating but the USE of ANY product made from an animal. As a result, all Jain followers are vegan-- and all are also pacifists.

BTW, Gandhi was partially raised in a Jain community, and it affected his philosophy greatly.

:)

[jmowreader]

223. There are other religions that prohibit meat

http://www.sikh-heritage.co.uk/movements/radhasoamis/The%20radhasoamis.htm

The Radha Soami Society Beas is considered by some in India to be a cult, but they have adherents. (There is also an American branch of this religion. They have two big clusters--one is in the New York area, the other in Florida. When they built their Study Center, they wanted to make it equally accessible to both clusters...so they bought 20 acres on US 301 South in Fayetteville.)

To join the Radha Soami Society, you must have practiced vegetarianism for two years.

[Ravy]

186. You are confusing forcing someone to do something against their will...

.. with forbidding someone to do something that is offensive to others.

There is a big difference.

Can they prohibit you from putting a crucifix on your desk? That is a better question. I think they probably could if they had reason to believe that the practice would be offensive to them, other employees, or customers. I bet they can prohibit a confederate flag being in your cubicle.

[Baltimoreboy]

190. No, they are requiring the absence of a non-religious item

Not the appearance of a religious one.

Your analogy sucks.

Why can't they ban specific foods? What constitutional right do I have to eat poptarts at work?

[DoNotRefill]

208. Are knives religious items?

eom

[PsychoDad]

216. They can be, yes.

Both Sikhs and Wiccans do use knives for religious reasons. In fact iirc, the dagger is a symbol of the Sikh faith.

[DoNotRefill]

217. So, would you agree...

that it would be discriminatory for an employer to ban an employee from bringing a knife to work, despite the fact that it's a weapon?

[PsychoDad]

221. No, I wouldn't

The employer is requesting that a given item not be brought, be that pork, alchohol, or a knife. They are making no attempt to encourage or discourage a religous practice outside of the workplace.

[DoNotRefill]

224. Hmmmmm...

you MIGHT have some problems there. IIRC, (and I haven't researched this, I just recall reading something about it a while back) schools had to grant exemptions to weapons policies for students whose religions required them to carry a ceremonial dagger at all times. And yes, there are some of those out there.

[Ravy]

249. Here is where your argument is wrong.

Perhaps your example is true, perhaps it isn't.

But I could see a much stronger case for the woman here if her religion REQUIRED her to eat pork. I haven't seen that.

My religion allows me to carry a knife, but does not require it. I don't have a religious right to carry a knife wherever I want to go, if the property owners object to me carrying it.

If my religion required me carrying a knife, there would be a conflict between my duty to carry the knife, and a property owner's wishes that no knives be on the property. If the property owner was an employer, they would have to make "reasonable accomodation" for it, based on my religious beliefs. It might be up to the courts then to decide if my carrying the knife was reasonable in this context.

That is not what this case is about. She does not have a religious requirement to eat pork. They evidently have a religious requirement to keep pork out of their presense.

[DoNotRefill]

261. So they're curtailing her liberty based upon their religion....

which is illegal.

[Ravy]

262. That is what they are doing.... it is not illegal.

Happens all the time. I can't get service at a restaurant if I am not wearing shoes. I can't go into some places without a tie. If they barred me service because I was black, or Jewish, I would have some recourse against them.

I can't go into some people's businesses if I am carrying an alcoholic beverage, others I can. They don't have to explain to me why they are prohibiting alcohol, as long as they don't discriminate against me for my race, religion, gender, etc. they can ban whatever they want, with or without any reason, even if whatever they ban is allowable under my religion.

[DoNotRefill]

263. You're wrong....

but nothing I can say will convince you. Once the judicial smackies are administered, will you believe me then?

[Ravy]

265. Yes, I will, unless the court rules...

.. that it was their failure to write down the policy and document the warnings that made the firing illegal. I don't believe they HAVE to do that in Florida, but that is the only thing that troubles me in this case. There seems to be a lack of documentation of the policy or warnings.

[DoNotRefill]

267. We shall see....

eom

[DoNotRefill]

138. gun possession generally don't qualify as a religious act

and the ability of private property owners to ban guns from their property has been codified here as part of the CCW law.

Banning pork is ONLY a logical work rule if you're treating one religious group differently than another religious group. That's illegal.

[PsychoDad]

140. So, eating pork is a religious act?

So the Muslims interfered with her religion by denying her the sacrement of eating pork for lunch?

So which faith is this a central tenent in?

Regardless, even if it were a religious rite, She could have gone off company property and engaged in her right to practice her religious act of pork eating. The Employer was prohibiting the posession of pork at the workplace, much as many other employers prohibit alchohol, drugs and many other things from the workplace.
Drinking wine may be part of the Catholic sacrement of communion, but I doubt many employers would allow you to drink wine at work. By not allowing you to imbibe wine are they violating your right to practice your religion? Of course not. They were not prohibiting her eating of pork, (and per your argument, practicing her religion) as she could have eaten it off of work property.

[DoNotRefill]

147. NOT eating pork is a religious act.

they are trying to force her to comply with a religious diet. That's a no-no.

[Baltimoreboy]

150. No they aren't

They are forbidding a product on their property, not her use of said product.

[forgethell]

163. It's still an unlawfu

imposition of their morals over her. As progrressives, I would think we would be against that.

[Baltimoreboy]

191. I am against unneeded legal intervention

And for religious tolerance, both of which are being skewered here.

None of her rights were violated. She doesn't NEED to eat bacon.

[DoNotRefill]

202. and nobody NEEDS to not be muslim.

that doesn't mean it's OK to discriminate against non-muslims in the work place.

[Baltimoreboy]

204. She wasn't discriminated against

She wasn't told she couldn't practice her religion, she was told she couldn't eat a BLT. That isn't protected by the Constitution.

[forgethell]

255. Well,

maybe, like me, she belongs to the Church of Barbecue or the Pork Fellowship. The employer needs to be 'sensitive' to the employee, not the other way around. Pork is legal; pork is healthy. The other employees need to get a grip and start practicing tolerance for other people, something they got no experience of in their home countries.

[Baltimoreboy]

266. Tolerance means accepting that others are different...

Not changing your own way of living. Their way of living prevents pork in THEIR business. She could always start her own and embrace pork.

My guess is she will get offered time as a pork spokesperson.

[DoNotRefill]

277. So, are you saying muslims can't go anyplace....

where they MIGHT run into pork residue?

That's ridiculous.

[PsychoDad]

282. In fact

Many Muslims avoid fast food restaraunts and non-halal restaraunts for that very reason.

[PsychoDad]

247. They didn't force her to follow dietary restrictions.

"why should she have to follow muslim dietary rituals"

They didn't force her to follow dietary restrictions

They didn't require her to fast during Ramadan. They didn't require all her food be Halal. They didn't tell her that many chewing gums contain pork enzymes as softner, and thus she couldn't bring in or use chewing gum. That many white breads contain an enzyme which here in america is made from human hair, and thus violates our prohibition against eating Humans or parts thereof. They did not force the dietary laws upon her.

They asked she not bring pork into the work place.

For 10 months she had no problem with the policy, then she decides, like many here seem to think, "Screw 'em, I have a right to do as I please, when I please, without regard to the feelings or rights of others. Be it in public or on private property".

And so, she carried a pork sandwich into work, knowing that it was extremely offensive to the culture and religion of Muslims that worked there. Big deal, right? Much the same as if an Employee of a Jewish owned business had brought a copy of Mien Kamph in to read for lunch, Or A white southerner decided to read hate filled KKK pamplets while at lunch with his black co-workers.

I'm sure everyone here would be quick to vocally defend their constitutional right to read what they will, and their right to political affilation. Rights much more protected by the Constitution than the eating of pork.

Or would you?

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Religious fundamentalism of all variety is incompatible with

US democracy.

[kodi]

144. hell, not just incompatable with democracy, with human reason itself

when faith collides with human reason in the common marketplace of ideas, toss the faith.

according to the logic of that idiot who fired the bacon eating woman, if his religion demanded that his employees smeared shit all over their bodies because his god told them to, he thinks that's just hunky dory.

[no name no slogan]

195. This is NOT "Religious Fundamentalism"-- it's a cultural issue

Pork is seen as unclean in many parts of the world-- most particularly in the Middle East. For example, Christians in the Middle East rarely if ever eat pork-- even in countries where they are the majority, like Lebanon.

The ban on pork was common in all three of the major Abrahamic religions (Judaism/Christianity/Islam) in their earliest practice. However, when Christianity went Rome-ward in the A.D. 200s, it "adjusted" itself to allow the consumption of pork, which was very prevalent in Europe.

I know of many 'non-religious' Muslims who, even though they are effectively agnostic, STILL do not eat pork-- mainly because they were raised to regard it as 'unclean', and unfit for human consumption.

Think of it this way: in certain Asian cultures, they eat dogmeat, catmeat, and even ratmeat. In our culture, we would NEVER consider eating these animals, unless it was our last resort.

Consequently, we have effectively banned the sale of dogs, cats and rats for meat. I'm not sure if it's illegal, but our cultural mores dictate that these are not food animals.

Just think of what would happen if you brought a dog sandwich to work, heated it up in the community microwave, and ate it in the lunchroom-- now you're getting close to how some of the Muslims would feel.

[eyesroll]

5. Does a private employer have the right to ban pork from their premesis?

I don't know. I do know that if I worked at a synagogue or a mosque, and possibly even a Jewish Community Center (i.e. a non-house-of-worship serving the Jewish community, or its equivalent for Muslims) they'd have every right to ban pork in the workplace -- because allowing pork would negate their right to keep their places kosher/halal. I also know that this company can legitimately ban pork products from its vending machines, or food-service counter if they had one.

But a communications company? I don't know.
...but if they didn't tell her, or they fired her for eating pork on her own property (or, say, outside during her lunch break), that would be religious discrimination.

In Wisconsin, it's illegal to fire someone based on their non-workplace consumption of legal products (I think that's there to protect the beer industry). But I'm still not sure if that applies to non-intoxicating food/drink in the cafeteria.

[HuckleB]

130. In a "right-to-work" state, I would imagine so.

Seems like employers in those states can do whatever they want, as long as it's not considered "abusive," and as long as it's in the company policies.

[Warpy]

6. Considering the prohibition against pork

is also a prohibition against touching pork or any item that has itself touched pork, I think I can understand why they'd ban it from company property.

I'm afraid I have to side with the religious folks on this one. This woman knew of the prohibition. Was she so stupid that she didn't know what foodstuffs came from pigs?

I have no use for relgion, myself, but I've seen it be a great comfort to other people. Tolerance for me is respecting the quirks of other people, and that includes religious ones.

[pennylane100]

11. I think you are wrong on this one

An employer (other than a religious institution, which this company is not) cannot impose its religious beliefs on its employees. They have no right to dictate to their employees about what they eat on Theo lunch breaks and cannot forbid bring pork to pork because eating it is against their religion.

This is still a free country and they have deserve to lose any lawsuits brought against them.

[Ravy]

24. I believe companies can enforce their beliefs on their employees...

...however, the Constitution prohibits the Government from doing so

[DoNotRefill]

71. Wrong. Companies CAN NOT enforce religious policies....

on employees, any more than they can enforce racist policies on employees. It's ILLEGAL discrimination for them to do so.

Did you people miss the Civil Rights Act or what?!?!?

[sangh0]

111. You are wrong

A non-profit group that advocates against abortion on religious grounds has no obligation to hire without regard to religion.

[QC]

118. Right--but that belief has to be central to their mission.

And we're not talking about the Society to Prohibit the Consumption of Pork here. We're talking about a communications company.

[DoNotRefill]

123. so, because there's a narrow exception to the rule...

the rule itself is generally not valid?

Fascinating...

In your example, a non-profit group advocating religion as their central mission has no obligation to hire without regard to religion.

In the example at hand, a for-profit group which provides telecommunications service as a NON-religious activity can fire people for not following religious tenets.

Your example isn't exactly on the four corners, is it....

[sangh0]

169. It's not a narrow exception

and every propogandist recognizes emotionally charged phrases like "narrow exception"

[DoNotRefill]

183. Does that exemption apply in this case?

After all, in this case, it's not a non-profit religious organization, it's a for-profit telecommunications firm, which has nothing to do with religion.

Do you SUPPORT the right of employers with strong religious beliefs to discriminate in employment practices based upon religious criteria? If you do, what kind of a progressive ARE you?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

184. What if an anti-abortion atheist shows up? (nt)

[LiberalFighter]

113. Companies can enforce their rules as long as they are reasonable and legal

They cannot enforce rules such as no smoking, no drinking that occur outside the workplace.

Here in Indiana the state court ruled that the company Best? could not fire an employee because they smoked tobacco products? after work hours. This was in the mid 1990's or so.

[Ediacara]

13. From what the article seems to imply though...

It isn't really a policy so much as a recommendation. She was "advised" of it, but aparently never received the policy as part of a new-hire package.

[forgethell]

16. But it should also

include not imposing their beliefs and morals on other people who do not share their concerns. Or don't you agree?

[BiggJawn]

20. You're right, it is a "great comfort"...

It allows other people to justify genocide, murder, war, and any number of other unpleasantries, all in the "name" of their "god", without personal responsibility...

I can't recall how many time I heard "Hey, don't get all mad at ME, it's in GAWD'S WORD, I'm just the messenger!"

(ADV) Read Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World". Make your kids read it, too.

[LeftyChristian]

102. Another comfort

is provided to OTHERS by organized religion. The church I belong to has clothing and food drives. The youth group volunteers at a soup kitchen. My parents volunteer twice a week at a thrift store which relies solely on donations from local churches and only charges enough to pay the rent, electricity, water and phone for the store.

Why must organized religion only be responsible for the atrocities that you mentioned above?

Oddly enough there are those of us who actually DO try to live by what Christ taught. But please feel free to trash it all.

[BiggJawn]

117. So when are you going to DO something...

..about the ones who've hijacked and perverted your religion?

Sorry, I realize there are those who live as Jesus taught, but you know what? you're in the minority, and it seems to be a damn small and very quiet minority.

"Why must organized religion only be responsible for the atrocities that you mentioned above?"

Uh, maybe because they've such a long history of it?

"But please feel free to trash it all."

Oh, please. I guess you never heard the phrase "if it don't apply, let it fly"? Oh, yes, I'm such a great perscutor of Christian people, aren't I? Just can't bring myself to ignore the bad things like you can.

[LeftyChristian]

161. Excellent

My denomination broke from the Catholic church during the renaissance for the exact things that you mentioned above...hijacking and perverting Christianity. So I should march on over to the Vatican and tell them what to do?

I'll do that right after you go to the freeper board and make suggestions on how they need to change their thinking. Make sure you point out all of the things that they are doing wrong. The world hates Americans because of shrub, WE are all Americans, so are we ALL responsible for the actions of the fright wing? Are the actions of this misadministration reflective of ALL Americans? No, so why should the actions of a few in organized religion fall on the shoulders of ALL Christians?

"Sorry, I realize there are those who live as Jesus taught, but you know what? you're in the minority, and it seems to be a damn small and very quiet minority."

What makes you think I am in the minority as far as Christians go? Is it because you have only read and watched those things which are negative about Christianity? All you have to do is go to a church and pick up a bulletin and read about all of the acitivities and volunterring oportunities available. Or just go to a church website if you can't stomach going to a church.

If all I did to get my information about politics was watch the news and read the newspaper I would never vote again. The negative stories about a few politicians far outweigh the good ones. Should I write off all politics because of that? There's much of Christianity that has changed since the Crusades and the Jerry Falwells of the Christian world only represent a crooked vocal minority.

"Oh, yes, I'm such a great perscutor of Christian people, aren't I? Just can't bring myself to ignore the bad things like you can."

Never did I call you a persecuter of Christians. That seems to be the lock step response here when someone paints the entire Christian religion with such a broad sweeping brush of negativity. My former boss is gay and was sick to death about the fact that society portrays ALL homosexuals as hedonistic circuit party boys. If you wouldn't want to sterotype homosexuals like that, why would you want to stereotype all Christians as "fundies" with the only mission to puritanize the heathens?

Never did I say ignore the bad things. You are ignoring the good things, but I guess you never heard the phrase "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater."

[Book Lover]

26. But the policy was never in writing

I understand the requirements to keep kosher (and different levels of kosher, too), but am pretty ignorant on how to keep halal, or even if it's the same idea. However, if the policy isn't written down and/or in an employee handbook, the employer's case is weakened. At any rate, in the U.S. no one can force you to follow their religion, and this falls into that category.

[DoNotRefill]

69. Whew. That's good to know. So when the Salvation Army....

fires people for not being Christian, it's OK, right? Right?

Your freedom of religion STOPS when you try to enforce your religious beliefs on OTHERS. Don't like pork? Don't eat it. Fire an employee for eating pork because it's against YOUR religion? Pay her.

[dflprincess]

168. Let's pretend the woman was Lutheran and her boss was Catholic

and she was fired for eating meat on Good Friday - would that be okay?

I'm sure we'd all be screaming if that were the case.

[no name no slogan]

196. If she was eating dog or rat, maybe

THAT'S the major difference. It's NOT a religious debate so much as a cultural clash.

Eating pork in many middle-eastern and Muslim cultures is like somebody in our culture eating a dog-- something which is common practice in many countries in the Far East. Even in predominantly Christian countries in the Middle-East like Lebanon, pork is rarely eaten outside the "cosmopolitan" big cities, where Euro influence is greater.

In this country, we don't eat cats or dogs or rats, because we consider their meat unfit for human consumption. Therefore, there's an unwritten 'ban' on this type of meat. Pork is regarded the same way by many Muslims and Jews. It's mere presense (the odor) can be enough to make some non-pork-eaters physically ill.

I can't sympathize with this woman. She was warned once for having pork in the workplace, yet she brought it in again. It's unfortunate, but the company can set these policies, legally.

[Violet_Crumble]

213. I've got no sympathy for her either...

She's most likely someone I wouldn't want to work with, given her complete lack of sensitivity for what offends others who work with her. If she hadn't been warned previously or been aware that pork is considered unclean in other cultures, I'd have some sympathy for her, but because she was made aware and then chose to push the envelope by comtinuing to eat pork on work premises, she gets none from me. If she had such a burning desire to eat a BLT, she could have gone out to eat one, so the posts in this thread complaining that they were punishing her for not being a Muslim are wrong. I just think she's a bit of an idiot who lacks the most basic sensitivity and tolerance for cultures and religions different to her own....

Violet...

[WyLoochka]

226. Oh Please, it is "sensitivity and tolerance"

for her culture and her religion - or lack thereof - that is the missing component here. Fer cryin' out loud she wasn't hired by a mosque - she was hired by a secular telecommunications company that just happened to be owned by some overbearing religious fanatics - which she probably wasn't informed of at the time. She was well within her rights to expect that she would be able to eat anything she damn well pleased - on premises, alongside the other employees.

What is idiotic, insensitive, intolerant and discrimnatory is for the owners of that telecommunications company to try to enforce rules that would be appropriate only within the confines of a mosque doing it's work as a religious institution but are entirely inappropriate in a secular business.

If one wants to run a secular business in the US, one will just have to get over being "offended" by what some of the employees will eat. It was way over the line to even register any response whatsoever to this BLT sandwich, let alone fire the woman for eating one.

The company will lose this case and rightfully so.

[Baltimoreboy]

227. "Overbearing religious fanatics?"

Just because they wanted to follow the tenets of their religion? Ever business makes rules. If you don't like them, don't fucking work there.

[Violet_Crumble]

231. Baltimoreboy...

As you may have noticed from our exchanges in the past, I don't agree with much of what you say. So congratulations from me on me being in agreement with you on this one, even though I suspect the path we take on reaching that agreement may be *wildly* divergent :)

Violet...

[Baltimoreboy]

234. I was rushed this morning

Otherwise I would have posted the same to your comment above.

Perhaps those who disagree with us here might note that.

[WyLoochka]

238. She was not stopping them

from following the tenets of their relgion. She was not trying to force them to eat pork. They were trying to force her to practice their religion in a secular work place.

And if, as the owner of a secular business, you want to enforce religious rules in the work place - don't fucking open a business in the United States of America, BBoy.

[Baltimoreboy]

271. Their tenets say they can't even touch it

and THAT she was forcing them to deal with.

Actually, businesses enforce all sorts of rules -- work hours, dress code -- even behavior. Guess what, this was part of required behavior. She was warned and she did it again.

[Violet_Crumble]

230. Overbearing religious fanatics?

Yep. Islam considers pork to be unclean, as does Judaism, and did Christianity at the start. Obviously Muslims and Jews who still consider it to be unclean are 'overbearing religious fanatics', right? :shrug:

What's idiotic, insensitive, and intolerant, is for someone AFTER being told that they're doing something other workers find offensive, is to continue to do so. Decent folk who had a shred of tolerance for cultures and beliefs other than their own would think about other folk than themselves. My employer is about as secular as they get, but if I were to offend other employees by sitting there saying or doing things that'd offend, say, Catholics, I'd be spoken to about it, and if I continued, there'd be disciplinary action taken, because after being informed that something is found offensive, continuing to do it proves that it's being done to be offensive....

If you think considering pork to be unclean is something that's kept solely to mosques, yr very mistaken. If you think people shouldn't even point out what offends them, again yr on the wrong track...

If these employers were 'overbearing religious fanatics', they would have been demanding all their employees were practicising Muslims, and they'd be insisting that there be prayer five times a day, and that each employee make a pilgrimage at least once in their life if they can afford it. All this employer was doing was asking this selfish woman to consider the feelings of other employees - something she chose not to do, and I've got no sympathy for her. Let her go find a job where she can sit and pork away all day long...

As for employers not having the right to dictate what or where in the workplace people can eat, I bet if you turned up to work with Puppy On A Skewer and sat in the toilets eating it, yr employer would have something to say. Continued toilet eating of Puppy On A Skewer after being asked not to do it may even end up getting you yr marching orders. Employers aren't being unreasonable by expecting their employees to consider that their actions may impact negatively on others and cause tensions in the workplace. Most people are capable of being considerate and in the situation of this woman who obviously couldn't curb her desire to eat pork in the lunchroom, they'd go outside and eat it. That way they're happy and they're not offending anyone...

After reading some of the responses in this thread, I've gotta express my outrage at those Muslims and Hindus soldiers in India that rebelled after the British supplied them with bullets soaked in pork brine or whatever it was. How dare they let their cultural and religious beliefs get in the way of a good Christian capitalist venture??

As an atheist who's very fond of secularism, some of the ignorance and outright hostility towards the cultural and religious beliefs of others is pretty disgusting and intolerant...

Violet...

[DoNotRefill]

232. Huh?

"As an atheist who's very fond of secularism, some of the ignorance and outright hostility towards the cultural and religious beliefs of others is pretty disgusting and intolerant..."

???

Did the woman go around threatening to touch them with her lunch? Did she try to make THEM eat her lunch? Did she slip pork-laced sugar into the coffee service, or grease the toilet seats with lard? No, she didn't. SHE showed religious tolerance for THEM, THEY didn't show tolerance for HER by trying to FORCE her to comply with THEIR religious law.

You're a self-avowed atheist, right? Let me ask you this. Suppose your employer was a religious fanatic, who declared that company policy required all employees to bow down on their knees, bow their heads, make the sign of the Cross, and remain silent for 90 seconds, so that those folks who wanted to pray could pray. Now suppose you didn't want to bow down and assume a prayer position, so your boss fired you for being unwilling to pray. You'd be pissed as hell, and rightfully so. And the CRA would mean that you could deliver judicial smackies to your former employer.

[Baltimoreboy]

235. I love the ridiculous analogies

The problem with pork is that it is in the workplace and to touch it makes Muslims unclean. That isn't bowing to a cross or saying a prayer, it's avoiding a substance others consider hazardous.

I wonder, if this was a guy who was allergic and the woman insisted on wearing dangerous perfume how many here would feel.

[DoNotRefill]

241. So what exatly are they doing poking their fingers in her lunch?

and if they were worried about her lunch contaminating their fridge, why not simply accomodate her by blowing a hundred bucks for a mini-fridge to store pork in?

[Baltimoreboy]

275. The pork would still enter the office and the lunch room

That means it would contaminate the whole building.

[DoNotRefill]

278. So, what you're saying is....

that muslims cannot go anyplace where there has been pork?

Would you care to document that assertion?

[JustJersey]

250. Similar Situation

For a time I worked in a Jewish Community Center -- which was, in fact, "owned" by several area conservative synagogs.

Those who ran the community center recognized that while the majority of the employees kept kosher, others, like me either were not jewish or did not keep kosher. Their solution: separate microwaves, eating utensils, etc. That way, if I wanted to nuke a sausage parm sandwich, I could while other could still maintain a strict kosher diet.

Even the orthodox jewish staff didn't have a problem with the solution.

The guy that runs the company does sound like a religious fanatic here.

[Violet_Crumble]

237. And a big huh back from me...

SHE showed religious tolerance for THEM, THEY didn't show tolerance for HER by trying to FORCE her to comply with THEIR religious law.

How on earth is someone showing religious tolerance by doing something that's offensive to those of another religion or culture?? And if they were trying to FORCE her to comply with THEIR religious law, they would have banned her eating pork altogether. All she was asked to do was not to bring it to the workplace, a pretty damn reasonable request. Now if she had some medical condition or religious belief where she MUST eat pork at work, I'd be seeing things a fair bit differently, but all it comes across as is some whining aimed failrly and squarely at demonising Muslims. Tell me, would you have been as strident in yr criticism if this had been a Jewish employer asking her to respect Jewish religious and cultural beliefs and not to do something that Jews find offensive?

Yes, I'm an atheist. Apparently a pretty wise one, too. Because I can tell the difference between being forced to carry out a religious requirement (as in yr example) and being asked to respect the beliefs of others and not offend them (as in the article that started this thread)...

Also, you appear to be calling those who find pork to be unclean and don't like people eating it in their home or their property to be 'religious fanatics'. Unless I'm mistaken, the belief that pork is unclean is a pretty much universal cultural thing amongst Muslims and Jews. I bet a lot who hold that belief may not even be actively religious. So how on earth does that make them 'religious fanatics'?

Is it so difficult to respect the fact that people do have different cultural and religious beliefs and to show some consideration of that if it's not infringing on yr own beliefs? And HAVING TO eat pork isn't part of any religion or culture, as far as I'm aware...



Violet...

[DoNotRefill]

240. heh...

"How on earth is someone showing religious tolerance by doing something that's offensive to those of another religion or culture??"

Tolerance implies letting other people do things you don't agree with. She didn't try to make them eat pork. They didn't show tolerance by forbidding her to do things they didn't like.

I see lots of things that offend me on a daily basis. Does that mean I have a right to tell people that they can't do things which offend me? Of course not. It's only if they cause me some actual harm that I can do something, because then their exercise of their rights has interfered with my exercise of my rights. There's no "right to be unoffended" in the Constitution...

Most Muslims and Jews don't freak out when other people do things prohibited by their religions. The ones who DO freak out and say "no, you can't do that because it offends my God" are the ones who are, in my book, religious fanatics. And that's what the company did.

[forgethell]

245. But in a

free society like America, we do not have to worry about offending other people's religious sensibilities. We do have to refrain from imposing our own beliefs, idiotic or not, on other people.

[Ravy]

251. You do on their property...

If your neighbor doesn't want alcohol brought into his house because God frowns upon it, it trumps any right you feel you have as an American citizen to drink a beer on his property.

In the workplace, there are laws in place where they must make reasonable allowances for your religious requirements. It might be up to the courts to decide what is reasonable or not.

The woman in this case, however, has no stated religious requirement to carry pork around, or to eat it. That is why many of us feel that the company is correct in this manner.

[forgethell]

285. I still say that they cannot

impose their religious beliefs on her in a non-religious place of employment. In their homes, yes. But, hey, the courts will decide.

[Spentastic]

236. On the other hand

I'm an atheist too and I think that if i were to spend my life ensuring that those with religious beliefs were not offended I'd be best off stacking up a big pile of wood and having a nice bonfire with me as the central feature.

This strikes me as the thin end of the wedge. How far should someone go to avoid offending the religous?

[DoNotRefill]

242. Better break out the Burquas....

wouldn't want to offend anybody.....

[PsychoDad]

248. Do we need the stereotypical slurs?

So ... Muslim equals Berqa? What a quaint stereotype. Maybe you have some about Blacks, Poles, Indians and Jews you would like to share?

I would guess not. Such slurs are normally not tollerated here. But these are muslims, and it's ok to use stereotypical and bigoted slurs against muslims. Quite fashonable in some circles.

Firstly, there is no mention in the story about berqas or even what the owners think about hijab. Secondly the berqa is a cultural dress found in some middle eastern / arabic countries. Muslims number about 2 billion worldwide, the second largest religion, and encompass a wide variety of dress and cultures. Berqa wearing arabs are a minority in the tapistry of Islam, but for some reason seem to be one of the favorite stereotypes, along with camel riding arabs, of unlearned bigots.

Please, the slurs do little to help your point, and only serve to belittle yourself.

[DoNotRefill]

260. Tad bit defensive, aren't you?

the point of my comment is that if we're not going to offend anybody, we have to work to not offend the most ignorant nutjob fundamentalists out there. That puts it right at the feet of the Taliban-type fundamentalist muslims, the ones who REQUIRE the wearing of Burquas by all women.

I think you have projection issues...

[WyLoochka]

243. Absolutely, the employers

are obviously overbearing, intolerant religious fanatics who will just have to get used to the fact that in the United States of America you don't get to force your religious rules on people in a secular workplace.

If they don't like that - they are free to go to another country somewhere which will tolerate that kind of overbearing fanaticism which seeks to control the behavior of others and set up business.

This religious eating bigotry does not fly here - for damn good reasons.

You seem to be hung up on mushy courtesy type issues, Violet. And one way to boot - what about the extreme discourtesy these bigots showed this woman? It is offensive in the extreme to be told what one can and cannot eat for lunch.

There is a woman in my office who is on a cabbage soup diet. The smell of the soup, after heating in the microwave, is offensive to several people. But they realize they have to put up with it for a few minutes and regard it as no big deal. The boss is not about to make a rule no cabbage soup because it offends a few, he'd tell people to grow up if they seriously complained, which they don't. He certainly wouldn't fire her.

In court the employers will not be able to demonstrate that the woman did actual harm to them in any way, shape or fashion by eating her BLT. What will be demonstrated is the extreme harm they did to her because she did not share their religious tenets. They fired her for it - fer crikey sake - in a lousy economy with limited job opportunities. Yes, very overbearing, fanatical thing to do.

[PsychoDad]

222. No...

I am a Muslim. If my employer was catholic and asked me to please not eat meat on friday at work. I would comply and bring a fish sandwich or perhaps raman noodles that one day a week.

If my employer was a Krishna, and asked that I not bring meat to work, I would comply. Peta with sprouts, a salad or a cheese sandwich would suffice for that one meal a day

I would do these things to show respect to the person and their beliefs. Somehow, altering one meal a day does not seem to far to go to show respect and tolerance for another's way. If for some reason I did have a problem, I should look for another place of employment.

[WyLoochka]

244. The Catholic and the Krishna

would be way out of line asking you to go along with their religious dietary restrictions. By even asking you to comply they would be showing you extreme disrespect.

You might be a weenie and comply but you would be surrendering your inalienable rights.

I will eat what I want to eat anywhere I want to eat it. And I will be deeply deeply "offended" and consider it very disrespectful to me if anyone asks me to change my eating choices because of their religion.

It is the employer who is intolerant and disrespectful in this case - not the woman.

[luaneryder]

7. Consider this alongside

Samaritan's Purse, a Franklin Graham venture headquartered in Boone, NC, requires a written Christian testimony, a Christian pastor's recommendation, a waiver giving the company the right to look into your financial matters at any time they deem appropriate and conduct daily mandatory prayer.

[northzax]

8. but Samaritan's Purse is a religious organisation

and therefore can make any regulations concerning religion that it wants to.

this other place is in serious shit for not bothering to write this policy down. This woman is a jerk for violating a known policy based in people's faith, but she will win her lawsuit.

[gatlingforme]

9. The implications are interesting. I do believe this is a constitutional

issue. I think the owners interpretation of the law is wrong. Plus if it was not in the contract I can safely say the owner will lose on this

[Khephra]

12. There's been moves to restrict the actions of people in

religious organizations, whether or not they're actually members and not just employees. But most of those cases have been Christian in nature. I do believe this may the first case I've heard of it happening with Muslims.

If Bush had gotten his full Faith-Based scheme up-and-going, we'd be seeing cases like this on a weekly basis. He wanted to open up the ability for religious faith-based groups to discriminate about those of other faiths, even though the money being spent came from the tax payers of this county.

[forgethell]

18. I have absolutely no problem with

faith-based organizations setting their own policies as to behavior. However, a for-profit emmployer shuld not be imposing it's beliefs on other people who do not share them. AS the motivation is purely religious, I think she should be able to eat what she likes. In a tolerant society, we must all give up something to keep the peace, so to speak.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

14. It's as the article says, un-American.

No one should be fired for their religious beliefs. She's a Christian, so she can eat pork. The Muslims there imposed their religious dogma on her and fired her, because she wouldn't comply. It's unconstitutional, pure and simple.

[northzax]

15. would you agree to that

if a store owned by a Jewish person closed on Saturdays and opened on Sundays instead? can you refuse to work on Sunday for non-religious reasons?

What if someone wanted to work in a Jewish run ad agency with a swastika tattoo? you have every right to have such an obscene tattoo, but could they fire you?

What if a worker in a catholic-owned bank hung a sign in his cubby equating the pope with the anti-christ?

whatever happened to common decency? pork is an abomination to Jews and Muslims, eating it in front of them, in a place where they might come into contact with it if highly offensive and insulting, I'd fire you just for being an asshole to your fellow employees.

[Nancy Waterman]

19. I think their food laws should be respected

It is their company, so you don't flagrantly bring something they deem unfit to the grounds. If a religious Jew owned a company and asked no one to bring any pork products onto the property, I would think that should be respected. To them, it is unlcean and offensive, and they own the place. He is not imposing his religion, he is imposing his own need to keep his own business "pure" by his standards. I think it is a gross violation of the owner's rights to force him to have pork products on his property. If he hired only Moslems, they would sue him for that too.

[pennylane100]

21. what if their religion also forbid women showing their faces

would it be okay to force the veil on women. Accomodating peoples religous beliefs should not be at the cost of one freedom, including the freedom to eat pizza for lunch.

The law in this country is perfectly clear about what an employer can and cannot do. Why is it a gross violation of the owner's rights to have him obey the law. Religion beliefs do not entitle him to act above the law.

[Baltimoreboy]

125. As always, you don't have to work there

So if the employer wants everyone in a bunny suit because they sell energizer batteries, then you wear it or you walk.

[PsychoDad]

135. She could have gone out...

And eaten her pizza or BLT off company property.

They did not force her to pray the 5 times a day that Muslims must, they did not require her to cover her head or follow a dress code. They did not require her to fast during Rammadan, pay zakat, or declare the Shahada, things that as a muslim one must do. They probably didn't force her to attend Friday sermon at a Mosque... They probably even had Christmas and Easter holiday leave.

There was no attempt to enforce or push their religion.

They only asked her to respect their beliefs by not eating pork on their property.

A request she chose to disregard.

If eating pork was so important to her, she should have found another job, one where she had the oppertunity to eat all the pork she desired.

[DoNotRefill]

137. so, can you give a NON-religious reason for the ban on pork?

eom

http://bushwhacked.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=4269

[PsychoDad]

139. Why would I have to?

As an employer I can enforce a company dress code. I can say no red shirts, as for some reason I consider red an unhealthy color and don't want it in the workplace. It could be for religious reasons of mine, or not, it doesn't matter... It's the dress code which I as the employer have decided upon.

So one day you wear a red shirt, so I take you aside and say to you, "look, we don't allow red shirts in the office", I don't have to give a reason why, it just is, "Please don't wear red again, or we will have to let you go".

So a week later you decide, "Screw you, I have a right to wear red, It's covered by freedom of speech", so you wear red. You come in, and I fire you for disregarding company policy.

That's what this is about. Disregarding company policy.

[DoNotRefill]

146. Sorry, I don't buy it.

and there's no way the courts will buy it, either.

It's very simple. The company ADMITS they fired her because of her bringing pork. They've said that they object to pork for religious reasons, that religion is the BASIS of their policy. Just as you can't discriminate against one religion (for example, allow christmas decorations but forbid Menorahs, or allow employees to wear Christian symbols, but not allow muslims or jews to wear symbols of their religion) unless you discriminate against ALL religions (for example, saying "no religious holiday symbols at all" is OK) you can't say "Islamic diet is OK, but Christian diet isn't".

Here's another example. Suppose there's a company policy that says "whistleblowing is against company policy". Also suppose that the company is violating overtime laws. Let's say that an employee contacts the Dept. of Labor about the overtime violations, the company finds out about it, and then fires the employee for violating the whistleblower policy. Then let's say they offer as their defense that they didn't fire the employee for going to the Dept. of Labor, they fired the employee for violating company policy. What result?

What happened to this woman is retribution for violating what the company held to be appropriate religious beliefs. They're going to get SMACKED, and rightfully so.

[PsychoDad]

220. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

I suspect a great deal of how the court decides will be based upon weither Fla is a right to work state or not.

[DoNotRefill]

225. It has nothing to do with right to work....

BTW, I'll wager an "internet bucket of beer" (which is non-alcoholic since it doesn't really exist) on the outcome....It'll either be settled out of court in the employee's favor, or if the company is stupid enough to let it come to trial, they'll lose on the merits.

[DemBones DemBones]

141. Do you know for a fact that she could have left the property for lunch?

Many employers don't allow that.

[PsychoDad]

142. That's a good point.

In such a case, I think perhaps the company may have done more to accomodate her and others. I don't think they had to, I think they could have.

On the other hand, couldn't the poor woman have abstained from pork for 8 hours and then had all she wanted when she got home? Accomidation is a two way street. I think perhaps both sides could have done more, The company, if not making accomodations for non Halal food should have had the company policy in writing and she could have skiped pork for lunch.

[pop goes the weasel]

57. your examples

are of illegal acts under a different provision of the law, that forbids the creation of a hostile work environment. Regardless of the ownership of the business, swastikas and anti-Catholic sloganeering would be considered grounds for discipline, if not termination.

[DoNotRefill]

74. Common decency?

Why not take your example out of the religious, and put it into the race category.

Suppose most employees of a company are white supremacists. How DARE a black person work there, and come into the lunch room where their presence will offend the others. </sarcasm>

You see the problem?

It's ILLEGAL to descriminate against people based upon race, religion, national origin, and other codified protected classes. No ifs, ands, buts, or maybes. This company violated the woman's civil rights, PERIOD. They will be smacked for it.

For another example, suppose they fired her for refusing to say a prayer when sitting down for lunch. Don't you get it???

[customerserviceguy]

158. There have been some interesting arguments on this thread

Substituting race in this case doesn't seem right to me. A person is ALWAYS a member of their race, even when they're asleep. Yes, this woman is also always a Christian, but the eating of pork is NOT a religious practice.

Let's substitute sexuality for this instead. In a jurisdiction that provides for full protection of employees regardless of sexual orientation or expression, an employer can still have a rule prohibiting sexual behavior on company property (provided the worker doesn't have a home on the said property), and we'd find it quite reasonable. Also, if a person was in the process of changing their perceived gender, they might have to a new dress code fully and immediately, once they announce their decision to conform to the other gender identity.

[DoNotRefill]

229. It doesn't matter.

Yes, a person is always the same race. Yes, a person can change religions. But under CRA, it doesn't matter. There's no distinction made between the two.

Let's look at your sexual orientation analogy. In order for it to be as accurate as possible, there would have to be a policy allowing, say, heterosexual sex on the property, but NOT allowing homosexual sex on the property. If sexual orientation is a protected class, can you see where the problem comes in with that rule? The company could say "no sex period", and it would probably pass muster. But they can't say "no homosexual sex" while allowing heterosexual sex to take place.

[FormerOstrich]

17. When I lived in Utah

sometimes it was damn hard to find coffee or tea. However, I was never fired for bringing my own.

Personally, I see it as the same issue. I don't see how they can prohibit someone from consuming pork at their workplace (assuming that having any food items were allowed).

One of the companies I worked for in Utah was being sued for religious discrimination. One day the corporate Vice President was in town. Several of us were gathering for a meeting with the VP. The topic of the suit came up. One of the managers (a bishop Ric) carried on at length about he just didn't understand how anyone could say that. He took it a little further by saying that this division had grown so fast that they didn't even know who was Mormon and who wasn't anymore.

Another one of the managers (also a bishop Ric) realized how lame it was all sounding. With a perfect deadpan face he contributed. "Yep, we don't know who is Mormon or who isn't anymore...we just know which ones drink coffee".

Unfortunately, I was taking a big gulp of my coffee at the time. I nearly spit it across the conference room table when I started laughing so hard. Yes, I am glad they didn't fire those who drank coffee.

[Ravy]

22. Think of this in relation to a smoking ban, and you will see that

the company was right in their actions.

They should have had the policy written down, however. But still, not everything has to be written down to be a fireable offense.

[forgethell]

23. A smoking ban is not done for religious reasons

so the analogy is false.

[Ravy]

25. The reason doesn't matter.

The Constitution guarantees against government interference.

If my religious practice was to cut the entrails out of a live chicken and eat it for lunch, I would not think I was guaranteed the right to do it anywhere I choose.

[forgethell]

27. On the other hand,

we CANNOT be allowed to force our views on other people. Otherwise the "fundies" could ;enforce laws against obscenity, or buying and selling on Sunday ("blue laws"). or hell, even everybody's favorite sport, adultery.

[Ravy]

31. You are confusing government action with private actions...

Most workplaces ban obscenity now.
Many businesses choose to close on Sunday.
Adultry is banned in many workplaces, particularly if you want to perform it on the lunch room counter.

If the "fundies" set up a church on your front lawn and started preaching the gospel, would you have a right to tell them to get off of your property. That is what is at issue here.

So, unless you want "fundies" to be able to do whatever they want on any private property they want, you had better support the right of these business owners to ban whatever behavior they find objectionable in their business.

[forgethell]

33. I don't think that I am

OK, try this: the woman pulls out her picture of Jesus at lunch time and puts it on her desk. Then she prays and reads the Bible publically during her lunch. She doesn't try to evangelize her co-workers, she just practices her religion. Is this allowed? keep in mind that many public schools now have a special place for Muslim students to pray 5 times a day.

Personally, and this is NOT religious prejudice, but personal taste, I find it offensive to see so many butts, even if covered, at one time. Buyt do I try to interfere, no. It's not my business, whether they do it for Islamic reasons or some kind of kinky fun,d oesn't matter

[Ravy]

58. Again, you are confusing public with private...

What public schools do is of no bearing to this argument. That is a government function, this is not. Do you think the government should mandate that you put a personal place for Muslims to pray in your house?

Whether or not the woman in your example is going against the wishes of the business owner determines what is allowed.

You are also forgetting that Muslims consider pork unclean, and do not want to be around it. She is infringing on their right to a clean envorinment. You may consider fecal matter unclean, and not want it in your lunchroom, or in your yard. People have strange beliefs about such things, sometimes.

What I am saying, is that if we allow the government to dictate that we are to allow that which violates our personal tastes on our own property, then we have given up our own freedom.

Burning a flag is constitutionally protected. You do not have a constitutional right to do it on my property, or in my house without my permission or blessing. I don't want the government saying that you do.

[forgethell]

72. But there are some

people, private employers, who think, for instance, that gays are sinfula nd going to hell, or they don't want to hire women who are pregangt, or who live "immoral" lives. That is private, and yet we have laws against it.

So no, I don't think I am confusing anything. Christians are not allowed to pray in public schools, very often even by themselves, despite numerous court rulings that this is OK. So a government entity puts aside a spot for Muslims to pray, and let them skip class to do it.

The government has passed numerous laws limiting the "employment-at-will" doctrine. In addition to union contracts, there are numerous civil rights laws that affect private employers.

Maybe this woman doesn't even like Muslims, and eats pork to flip them the bird. I doubt it; pork is its own excuse for eating. But if so, doesn't this come under "freedom of expression"??

If muslims are going to be in this land, they are going to be offended about a lot of things. There is no constitutinal right NOT to be offended.

[Ravy]

136. Well,...

I believe employers could have a policy prohibiting gays from kissing or holding hands at work, as long as the policy applies to all employees and not just gays. I believe they could have a policy from someone acting "immorally" at work, and that employers can enumerate what those immoralities are if they wish. I don't know about the pregnancy thing, but if a woman GOT PREGNANT AT WORK, it would probably be grounds for termination. *grin*

As far as freedom of expression, that is another constitutional thing affecting government but not private property. You do not have the right of free speech in the middle of theater during a movie, for instance. A company could prohibit flipping the bird or other rude gestures in their workplace. They could prohibit burning or desecration of the flag, which is also protected by the Constitution. They can prohibit poor hygiene.

I am sure that these Muslims *are* offended by lots that they see in this land. We should not try to force those offending practices into their workplace if they are trying to steer clear of it.

All that said, pork *is* its own excuse for eating. Agreed, and nice line.

[hughee99]

40. Almost anything can be "offensive" to someone

If a corperate owner decided that it was offensive for a man to not have a beard, or to not wear a turbin, or wear brown shoes, then they have every right to fire them? If I, as a non-muslim, were to have lunch in the middle of the day during the muslim fasting period, many would consider that offensive. Should I be fired for this? I can see where a religious institution could implement their beliefs on their workers, and I don't have an issue with it. After all, the people who work for a religious organization are representatives of that group, and should adhere to their values and it can directly impact the success or influence of that group. This would also be true of a PETA worker having a burger at lunch, because it can reflect poorly on the company and more importantly, affect the goals of the organization. But for a telecom company to do this? An employee having pork at lunch doesn't affect the reputation of the company, and doesn't even conflict with any official, stated company policy.

[Ravy]

60. Many corporations have a dress code, and rules about facial hair...

... so the answer to your first question is yes, they do.

Your second question is a bit more difficult since you don't say what the owner's wishes are. If they (the owners) say that you cannot have lunch during that fasting period at work, that you must leave the premises to eat, then yes, you can (and should) be fired for violating their wishes.

This is the equivalent of saying that I can walk into your kitchen and spit on your table and you have no right to throw me out of your house. It is not so much the act of eating pork, but forcing them to eat around pork, which they consider unclean, that is offensive.

[hughee99]

63. It is not the same

You have no right to enter my house uninvited (trespassing). An employee has every right to enter the building they work in, and if the building has a cafeteria, to have lunch there. If you walk into my house, I can throw you out regardless of whether you spit on my table or wash my dishes.

[Ravy]

66. Let me restate slightly then....

If you invited me into your house before I committed an act that was offensive to you, I am not guilty of trespassing. Then do I have a "right" to spit on your kitchen table?

[hughee99]

98. Thats a better question, but still

I believe that spitting is universally accepted as inappropriate behavior (even in sports) which is ironic because I chew tobacco, but not in public because it isn't acceptable. I do not believe that eating pork is considered unclean universally. If you walked into my house eating a BLT, I don't think that would bother me. In any case, the rule against pork at this company can only be for 2 reasons. Either it is religious, or it is not religious but arbitrary. If it is religious, then it can be argued that the company is imposing a religious beliefs on its employees. If it is arbitrary, then lawyers will question why in a court battle. Unlike the religious argument, the company can not then claim that pork is unclean, or they will have to demonstrate that. They may have to argue that this "interferes with work" (which would be a tough case to make without religion). As has been said before, a company can impose a dress code under the "interferes with work" much easier, but to impose an arbitrary rule such as this and then fire an employee for it will probably cause a good deal of legal trouble for them regardless of whether she was informed of the rule or not. Again, I'm not SURE that the company is in the wrong here, but I don't think they'll be able to prove that they were in the right. In the end, they will end up writing a check and changing this policy to either drop it, or more likely make an employee sign an agreement when they start working.

[Ravy]

103. "Universally accepted as inappropriate" is the key...

*grin*.

In the muslim world, I think pork would fit that description. The same with alcohol in the Christian world. They don't want to be around the stuff, and shouldn't be forced to.

They should make an employee sign an agreement to follow company policies and have the policy written down, to be sure.

[DoNotRefill]

105. So it'd be OK....

for a company run by fundie christians to have a policy requiring all employees to be a certain sect of christian, and to obey those religious laws inherent with that sect?

I don't FUCKING THINK SO.

[Ravy]

107. Nope.

But it would be okay for them to have a policy saying you couldn't wear clothing or jewelry showing an upside down crusifix, or alcohol, or to prohibit profanity.

For someone pretending to be a lawyer, you are being a bit dense in confusing her being fired for her beliefs rather than for her actions.

[DoNotRefill]

109. buh-bye...

FOAD

[PsychoDad]

155. I think some of them do.

I think mentioned here in the thread that there is a christian company that requires a signed confession of faith.

They have a right not to hire me if I will not abide by their policies

And I have a right not to work for them.

[DoNotRefill]

156. If that's the case...

the company in question better be involved in some kind of religious work.

You CAN NOT discriminate on who you hire based upon religion, unless that religion is the core thing your company does.

[DoNotRefill]

76. Ravy, you're 100% wrong.

the Civil Rights Act applies to EVERYBODY, not just the government. That's why people can't refuse to hire minorities because it would upset people. Discrimination based upon race and religion are prohibited, regardless of if it's private or not.

It's not government interference, it's the government creaing a more level playing field.

[Ravy]

80. How is this discrimination?

They fired her for continually doing something that they considered unclean.

Religious freedom does not guarantee you to do whatever your religion allows in places where it is not welcome.

Her argument is the same argument that fundamentalist Christians use to put Nativity Scenes on the courthouse square.

These business owners do not want to be around pork, and they should not be made to by anyone, especially the government.

I have worked in places that don't allow popcorn to be popped in the cafeteria. I have worked in places that have banned smoking (before the government took up the cause). I have worked in places that do not allow facial hair. I have worked in places that don't allow a radio. I have worked in places that don't allow you to consume or bring alcohol on the premises.

How is this different?

[DoNotRefill]

84. It's very simple.

their reason for banning pork at the workplace is entirely religious in nature. She was fired for violating a company policy based upon religion. The Civil Rights Act PROHIBITS discrimination based upon religious reasons. By firing her for eating pork, they violated her civil rights.

White Supremacists don't like being around minorities. So can a White Supremacist employer refuse to hire minorities? Of course not. It violates the civil rights of the minorities. Government actor, private actor, it simply doesn't matter.

[Ravy]

88. I believe you are misapplying the law...

not that you may not be right, the law is funny sometimes.

I believe that companies can ban someone from having a Christmas tree or a menorah in their private workspace, much less a shared workspace with other employees. I believe they can forbid you to wear jewelry, perhaps even religious jewelry. They can ban pornography, whatever THEY consider that to be, even if they do it based on their religious beliefs.

I think you are stretching the law in this case.

[DoNotRefill]

92. pornography is creating a hostile workplace....

and the law is very simple. An employer CAN NOT MANDATE that religious beliefs are part of corporate policy, PERIOD.

This woman was fired for not adhering to the religious diet of Islam in the workplace. It's a CLEAR violation of the Civil Rights Act. She can't be fired for that, any more than she could be fired for failure to pray 5 times a day.

[Ravy]

96. There is where you are wrong.

She was not fired for not adhering to a religious diet of Islam in the workplace.

She was fired for violating a company policy against bringing a substance that they believe unclean into the workplace and exposing others to it.

They did not tell her what to believe. They did not tell her what to practice, she could have eaten her sandwich off of the premises and been fine. She was told that they don't want to come into contact with pork and to keep it away from them, and she repeatedly failed to do so.

[DoNotRefill]

97. But WHY was the company policy there?

It was there because of the religious beliefs of the owner. You CAN NOT SAY that "religious discrimination is company policy", and then fire somebody for violating that company policy and say it wasn't religious discrimination.

This woman's failure to adhere to Islamic dietary law was the reason she was fired. It's as clear-cut a case of religious discrimination as I've ever seen, and I've read a LOT of caselaw.

Where did you go to law school that you didn't learn this stuff???

[Ravy]

101. You are mistating the article...

it was not her failure to adhere to Islamic dietary law. It was her failure to adhere to a company policy that forbid bringing a substance to work. Whether it is alcohol that the fundamentalist Christians would object to, or pork that Muslims would object to, should not matter.

I did not go to law school.

So, point me to some caselaw in your next post.

[DoNotRefill]

104. Look, I'm not going to argue with you....

since you've admitted to not having the basic education necessary for an intellegent, informed conversation on this.

Sufficed to say, it's a violation of Federal Law (the Civil Rights Act of 1964) to discriminate against somebody for religious reasons in the workplace.

This woman didn't adhere to a company policy which was ENTIRELY based upon the religious beliefs of the employer. She was fired for it. The company WILL be found liable.

The company's conduct is no more acceptable than a company run by fundie christians refusing to hire a jew because "jews are christ-killers", and being around "christ killers" makes the fundie christians uncomfortable. Either way, it's a civil rights violation.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ravy]

112. If you talked to me like your last three posts in my workplace,

I would fire you on the spot. I am a bit suprised that the moderators here are allowing it, but what the heck. We *aren't* in my workplace.

If you think Muslims having to eat in an employee lunchroom after someone has sat there and eaten something they believe is unclean, to carry out the trash that maybe has her greasy napkin, or pieces of uneaten pizza in it that they can come into contact with is freedom FROM her religion, then you just have a different view of the world than I do. Good luck with yours!

[sangh0]

114. DNR is posting very unlawyerly remarks

DNR has confused the Constitution's prohibition against the ESTABLISHMENT of a state religion with "Freedom of religion", a phrase not found in the Constitution.

DNR has also confused an act (bringing an "unclean" meat to work) with religion. While many non-lawyers may think "there's no difference", any lawyer who got their law degree from somewhere other than a Cracker Jacks box should know better

[Ravy]

116. I agree, but the mods obviously see it the other way around. :-( (n/t)

[DoNotRefill]

119. Gee, Sangha....

so you're saying that an employer can establish a "Company religion", and fire all employees who fail to comply with the religious tenets?

Because that's what the company did here.

[Baltimoreboy]

128. That's not true

They established company policies about something that would offend workers and likely customers as well. She was warned about said policy and violated it again. She was fired.

[DoNotRefill]

132. Customers in the lunch room???

What article did YOU read????

[Baltimoreboy]

151. Every place I've ever worked customers can enter the building

If custoemrs, like the bosses, are offended by pork then there is yet another reason to keep it off premises.

All this pork talk is making me hungry.

[DoNotRefill]

152. So, how often do customers go into a telecommunication center...

much less the employee break room?

Where you worked, customers were allowed into "employees only" areas?

[Baltimoreboy]

153. Big clients do tours of companies they deal with fairly often

Sure, the little folks like me don't go in. Heavy hitters do. And what is an employee's only area? Surely you have had people tour your office...

[DoNotRefill]

157. nope...

if I catch somebody in my office who I have not specifically invited in, they're going to jail or worse. If I catch a client in my storeroom, they're not going to be my client any longer. And we have separate bathrooms, too...one for clients, one for employees. "Authorized personnel only" means EXACTLY that. And no, we don't give tours. There are areas clients can go, and areas they can't.

[Baltimoreboy]

159. What about "tours" didn't you grasp

Those are set up by management or sales/marketing people. They are done to show how good the operation is.

If you don't do tours, you don't do B2B.

[sangh0]

170. Breaking News

DNR did not set this company's policy, so what he would do is irrelevant, as any lawyer ought to know.


The FACT is, and as a lawyer DNR should know that FACTS are important, no one here seems to know if the company in question had a policy prohibiting customers from entering it's lunchroom or any other part of it's workplace.

[DoNotRefill]

185. the facts that we know:

1. The company fired the woman for eating a BLT.
2. The company policy was based upon enforcement of religious dogma.
3. CRA '64 generally outlaws employment discrimination based upon religion.

End of story.

[Baltimoreboy]

192. The company policy

The key words. She was informed about the company policy. She was warned. She broke the rule. She was fired.

All weep on cue.

I worked at a company that used to forbid capris pants for women. It was part of the dress code. Had you worn said pants, you would have been warned. Then, a second time, you would have been fired.

And in Maryland, you could have been fired right away in any case.

[DoNotRefill]

200. last time I checked....

wearing capri pants wasn't proteced as a civil right.

[Ravy]

203. Last time I checked,

carrying around pork wasn't a civil right either.

[Djinn]

154. right

"Look, I'm not going to argue with you.... since you've admitted to not having the basic education necessary for an intellegent, informed conversation on this."

So if you havn't been to law school you can't possibly have an informed opinion on this? presumably you wont be posting in any threads about misogyny, abortion, medical issues, environmental issues, religious issues (did you take theology?)

Bad argument.

I can see both sides to this, clearly this companys policies were based on a belief that pork is unclean, stemming from their religious beliefs. It ISN'T the same as the example you provide in your post though - they never refused to hire people, they just had rules to abide by whilst in the workplace.

She was not fired for not keeping to Islamic laws but rather for going aginst company policy and like others have said companies can make laws against swearing, haircuts, piercings, tatoos etc.

Personally I think she should win a discrimination case, I'm an atheist and not overly sympathetic to any religious tenets (laws in various western countries against pornography, prostitution, trading at Easter etc etc are based on religious practices too) but I think you make some unsubstantiated claims and comparisons on this thread

[DoNotRefill]

160. She WILL win the civil rights claim...

because what they did was blatantly illegal, just as it would be illegal for a "christian" company to fire an atheist for failing to take part in a company christmas play/party that was religiously themed.

Companies surely CAN make policies against tattoos, swearing, haircuts, piercings, et cetera. What they CAN NOT DISCRIMINATE based upon are things like religion, skin color, national origin, et cetera. These are EXPLICITLY set out and codified in CRA '64. THE ABILITY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A NON-PROTECTED CLASS DOES NOT TRANSLATE INTO THE ABILITY TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST A PROTECTED CLASS.

There are a few areas where prohibited discrimination MAY be legal. For example, a non-profit corporation engaged in religious duties, or, and I'm not joking, in cases like "Hooters", where the employment of young, supposedly attractive women wearing skimpy clothing is supposed to be a large part of how a company stays in business (it sure isn't the wings).

Jesus FUCKING Christ, didn't you people learn ANYTHING in school??? Illegal discrimination BAD!!!

[Djinn]

187. "Jesus fucking Christ"

didn't you learn to READ in school? I said that I agreed with you that this was discrimination I just disagreed that it was as cut and dried as "we wont hire Jews" which was an example you used. This company may claim that a large part of their business is in dealing with Islamic customers - again I still think they'er wrong and on the wrong side of the legislation but I also know there's often a wee bit more to the story than is provided in the "news". I also thought it highly presumptuous (not to mention patronising and arrogant) of you to state that without a law degree you couldn't have an opinion on this - that was a stupid argument.

[DoNotRefill]

201. you can have an opinion on anything....

but a guy with a 4th grade education who has spent his time pumping gas for a living and hasn't read anything but USA Today isn't going to be terribly credible when explaining his theory on the space-time continuum to a bunch of rocket scientists.

[Djinn]

205. but what you stated was that

one needed to have been to law school "an intellegent, informed conversation on this." that's clearly untrue and something few lawyers (as opposed to law students who tend to be a tad more superior until they start working) I know would agree with - atleast they never tell me that they can't have an informed conversation with me re the law because I havn't been to law school, much the same as I don't think they can't have an intelligent an informed conversation about the media.

I've seen your posts in abortion type threads yet I don't beleive that you a (a) someone with a womb (b) an obstetrician or (c) a philosopher, yet you still have intelligent and valid arguments to make.

[DoNotRefill]

218. Abortion is slightly less esoteric than the CRA '64...

Almost everybody knows the basics about abortion. But if I start ranting on about the "NFA '34" and how it's the last "Jim Crow" law on the books, odds are excellent that you're simply not going to have the foggiest clue about what I'm referring to. You probably will get the "Jim Crow" part if you're reasonably well versed in American history from the early to mid 20th Century, but as for the rest, it's an obscure law, that only a handful of Americans really know squat about.

Look at some of the responses in this thread. There are people here who don't understand the legal difference between a company rule banning pornography on company property, or a company policy banning culottes as part of a dress code, and a company policy banning a religious group, or forcing all employees to comply with a certain religion. That's not conducive to intelligent, informed conversation, that's shit-kickingly ignorant, and I don't have the time or the inclination to try and educate and eliminate every RW trollish attitude that I run into here.

If somebody is actually just ignorant, I can see spending a moment to try to educate them. That's not what we're dealing with here WRT some posters.

[Djinn]

276. most people know SFA about abortion

"Almost everybody knows the basics about abortion"

I'm not sure what "basics" you're talking about but very few people know the percentages of late term, what is actually involved in various methods of abortion etc.

BTW - you know there are lawyers on this thread who disagree with your interpretation here?

Also this company did not force "all employees to comply with a certain religion" if so they could have fired this woman for not wearing the hijab or not praying 5 times during the day.

No-one is disputing that to sack someone for not complying with a certain religion would be blatantly against the law, they are arguing that this woman can claim that is the case.

[DoNotRefill]

279. If all lawyers agreed...

nothing would ever need to be litigated, would it?

In 11 days I go to court for a trial where a lawyer for the defendant corporation says that a corporation owned and controlled, and largely financed by public bodies is NOT subject to FOIA because some corporations give them money in exchange for advertizing. They're going to be smacked either way, since they cannot sustain their position without committing documentable perjury, and their lawyer doesn't see it coming. Their attorney is also trying to quash outstanding subpoenas, and is going to have about as much luck with that as Bush is going to have in November.

Lawyers say and do the damndest things. Why? Because they're paid advocates. That's what they do.

[Djinn]

280. exactly

and if the law was as black and white as you tend to imply in some of your posts we wouldn't really need them. The point I'm making is that it's highly spurious for you to suggest that the reason someone would disagree with you on this is because they don't have a law degree.

[DoNotRefill]

281. if you read the posts of the person I made that comment to....

you'll most likely conclude that the person in question is (best case scenario) completely clueless.

I'm not going to violate board rules and accuse anybody of being a troll or a masquerading Freeper.

[Ravy]

171. Actually, I knew I had him when he indicated he was a lawyer...

I grew up on a small farm in the Midwest. What do lawyers know about pork?

*huge grin*

[forgethell]

87. It different in that

a religious commandment is being imposed upon her, one that she does not follow. It would be different if someone were allergic to pork fumes or something, but this is religious discrimation, pure and simple. Either the Civil Rights Act applies to everybody, or it shouldn't apply to any body. Don't you agree? If not, then who would you except??

[Ravy]

93. This isn't different because...

it is close to your example of pork fumes. Being around it and in possible contact with it is against their wishes. They did not forbid her from touching pork, or eating pork, they forbid her from bringing pork around them.

Apparently Muslims don't want to be in contact with pork. The policy did not affect eating pork, she could have eaten pork at a nearby restaurant and apparently been okay. The policy was to ban pork on the premises, since they do not want to be in contact with it.

I don't believe you have the right to do anything you consider legal anywhere you want to do it. I would not want to give the fundamentalist Christians the right to do whatever they want on my private property against my wishes. They furnished her with a place to work, they gave her a second chance when she violated the policy, then they terminated her when she repeated the offense. I think she will have a hard time claiming religious discrimination.

BTW, I am Christian, and I *love* pork. But if I was not allowed to bring it to work, I would not do so.

[ProfessorGAC]

166. I Don't Get This

People are trying to parse things to death here. Like Sangh0, who is parsing the consitutional phrasing rather than intent.

The civil rights law is abundantly clear. Discrimination or termination for reasons of religion is illegal and forbidden. It is simple logic, and an undeniable matter of law that a company policy based upon religion cannot be held under that law. Incorporating a company policy based upon religion makes those outside that religion either forced to adhere, even if only at work, to the tenets of that religion, or be terminated due to their lack of those adeherences.

Like i said, simple logic dictates that this is a violation of the CRA of '64. They could ask. They could accommodate by providing a different location. They could BEG that she not eat pork at work. But, the policy, and the resultant termination is an obviousex post facto case of discrimination due to a difference in religious beliefs.

Everything else is semantic football.
The Professor

[Ravy]

167. Here is the difference in what they did and what you are claiming.

their policy was to ACCOMODATE the religion of some of their workers, and their boss.

The were not asking her to practice a particular religion, or they would have banned their employees from ever eating pork. Period.

Their policy was "Don't bring pork on the premises".

Would a workplace owned by blacks be allowed to ban employees from wearing a confederate flag on their shirt or hang one in their cubicle? I believe they have that right. To take your tact on this argument, it would be racial discrimination to do so.

I want to protect the right for Christians to ban alcohol in their workplace (if they want to), and for blacks to ban confederate flags (if they want to), for ANY business owner to be able to ban items where workers in the workplace find objectionable to have in their proximity.

This company hire Christians. There is no discrimination in the hiring, apparently. There is no indication that this company would not also fire Muslims who brought pork to work in violation of their policy, so it doesn't appear to be religious discrimination either.

Of course, we don't know all the facts, but I believe that the plaintiff would have to show that there was a pattern of discrimination against non-Muslims, but that wasn't indicated in the article.

Telling all employees that they are prohibited from actions that might normally be allowed outside of the workplace is not discrimination.

[ProfessorGAC]

172. Your Example Is The Definition of Parsing

Sorry, but that doesn't fly for me. The policy is based upon religious befief. It does not take a leap of logic to conclude that any such policy is prima facie discriminatory.
The Professor

[Ravy]

173. Banning a confederate flag is based on a racial belief...

So are you saying companies do not have the right to prohibit employees from hanging one in their cubicle?

[ProfessorGAC]

174. If You Could Show Me Where I Said That, I'd Happily Retract

That's your hypothetical, and i chose to ignore it, because it's a nonsequitur.

The part of the law that covers the flag example is that which obligates the employer to prevent the formation of a hostile workplace.

Other people's dietary habits do not, prima facie, create a hostile work environment. You're comparing two different aspects of the CRA.

I won't make any effort to draws parallels between grapefruits and wagons.

This case is apropos the establishment of a company policy based upon the owners' religious beliefs. That effectively creates a hostile work environment for those of differing beliefs. Hence, it's prima facie (ON IT'S FACE) discriminatory.

For further reference, consult Smith & Roberson's "Business Law", edited by Mann & Roberts, published by West Publishing.
The Professor

[Ravy]

175. I understand the tack you are taking now...

so let me pose a different question.

Would you consider that bringing a substance to work that the owners and other employees considered unclean and objected to being in contact with as contributing to a hostile work environment for them?

Sorry, I didn't understand that you didn't consider the example I was posing as being apples to apples, which is why I re-asked it. I understand your explaination as to why you think it is different.

[ProfessorGAC]

176. No, I Don't Think It Does

The employer, by law, is required to prevent the formation of a hostile work environment. The employees are not inversely obligated to the owners for that action.

The COMPANY and it's controlling interest parties are responsible for enforcing all aspects of the CRA, for the express protection of the rights of it's employees. (Same reference book.)

So, while your new example is now a sound comparison, the responsibilities, per the law, of employer v. employee are not reciprocal.

Again, the same law book is the reference.
The Professor

[Ravy]

177. Well, in this case...

... the employers instituted a policy to prevent the prohibited substance from coming onto their premises. And fired someone for repeatedly violating that policy.

I don't think anyone will claim that the owners failed in their responsibility to provide a workplace that was free from unclean and objectionable material(to them and perhaps other employees and customers).

[ProfessorGAC]

178. Let's Just Leave It At That

You're back to parsing the words rather than the intent of the law. The employer is not in a position to make anyone do something because of an inherent belief of the employer or controlling interests. There is no medical basis for the "uncleanness" of bacon. There is no scientific basis that the presence of bacon would make some people so uncomfortable as to reduce productivity.

Also, there is the simple fact that the employers ADMITTED they did it because of their own religious beliefs. A direct reading of the statutes tells me they are toast in a legal challenge to this termination.

We disagree, but nice talking to ya, though.
The Professor

[Orangepeel]

180. maybe the law is an ass

:shrug:

naturally, people will disagree, including lawyers, judges and certainly members of a jury if this case should ever get to court.

The intent of the law is to prohibit discrimination based on religion, but the question of whether or not this is a case of discrimination based on religion isn't as clear cut as some on the thread seem to believe. In a court of law, there would be a whole lot of parsing.

Mississippi Liberal in post #165 seems to know what he/she is talking about.

[metasphere]

207. What does "unclean" mean here?

except a codeword for religiously unacceptable?

I'm sure the BLT sandwich she ate wasn't rancid, or been dropped on the floor.

Saying the employer felt it was "unclean" just tries to sidestep the issue that the objection is based on religious beliefs.

[Ravy]

209. That is where this is getting all out of kelter...

It doesn't matter what reason the owners found pork objectionable. It could have been religious, cultural, or maybe they sold pork futures short or simply didn't like the smell.

It did not violate any religious, ethnic, gender, or racial right of hers to ban it from the premises.

Someone else on this thread had a great example of someone bringing a dog meat sandwich to work, heating it in the company microwave, and eating it in a shared lunchroom. It does not violate anyone's ethnic rights to ban dog meat in the workplace, even though their ethnic background may be of a culture where eating dog meat is not considered offensive or "unclean".

[Hoping4Change]

189. Muslims are prevented only from eating pork they aren't

prevented from being near pork. Whoever came up with the ban is a fundie control freak.

[Ravy]

198. I can't claim to know...

.. but perhaps some fundamentalists Muslims are. There are other people on this thread that are saying that. I don't personally know if it is true or not.

But, fundie control freak or not, he *is* the boss and if he banned the substance from the workplace I would not question it if I wanted to work there.

[Hoping4Change]

199. At what point would you question a boss? A boss is not a

omnipotent god that can run roughshod over people. People need to question authority otherwise it will become a nation of mindless spineless robots the sort that were found in Nazi Germany who put people in ovens because that is what the boss told them to do.

[Ravy]

210. To answer your question, I suppose that...

... I would question a boss if he asked me to do anything illegal, or if the boss was violating my rights.

But I know my rights don't allow me to do anything my religion (or maybe my lack of religion) allows, any time or place that I want. I am sure you can think of some examples of things your religion allows you to do that you would not do in a work place.

[Hoping4Change]

253. I don't have a "religion" and want the right to be free from

supersitious impostions that others hold. I am a vegetarian. What if my eating habits were founded on Jainism which forbids consumption of all meat, does that mean that my beliefs, should I be boss, trump all others?

[Ravy]

254. If you make that a company policy, yes, it does.

No one has the "right" to eat meat on your property. Since no one has the right to eat meat any place of their choosing, one cannot possibly violate that right by restricting the action. The right does not exist.

Try buying a lunch in Wendy's sacks and taking it to your local McDonalds to eat. They may allow you to eat it there, or they may ask you to leave. It is their property and their choice.

[Hoping4Change]

257. Well you should find out. The Koran only forbids eating,

arguments against being near pork is Sharia law and we all know how enlightened Sharia is. Not. Its all just fanatical idiotic hogwash.

[Ravy]

264. I agree that it seems a bit fanatical, but that doesn't change the fact

that you have no right to go onto their private property and bring pork near them.

They are not violating your religious rights by prohibiting something your religion allows from their premises. If it is something your religion REQUIRES, they must make a reasonable accomodation for it, I believe. I don't believe that is the case in the article.

[Hoping4Change]

256. It is not her who is making a religious justification for her BLT.

The examples ypu cite are based of health concerns. The ban on pork is simply the impositon of religious tenet, actually a fanatical interpretation of a tenet.

[Ravy]

272. Exactly!!!

She is not making a religious justification for her BLT, so they are not violating her rights by prohibiting it on the premises.

[Hoping4Change]

274. You post 80 says thre opposite to what you just wrote. You say

"Religious freedom does not guarantee you to do whatever your religion allows in places where it is not welcome."


You make this statement in reference to her! The irony is that you by making this statement are condemning the business you are so intent on defendng.

[hughee99]

35. Second hand pork?

The smoking ban, as far as I can tell, was put in place because of the harmful effects of second hand smoke. While some people may find pork products offensive, there is no study that I'm aware of that shows that pork products can cause health issues to those who are near someone who is ingesting it, so the analogy is a poor one. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter whether the decision to ban pork was based on religion or not, the company simply doesn't have the right to impose a dietary code on its workers. If I owned a company, and was disgusted by potatoes, or lettuce, could I make an unwritten rule that those products could not be consumed on company property (no salad, french fries, or potato chips)?

[playahata1]

51. The reasons for the prohibition of pork have to do with the time

in which the Koran was written. With all due respect to Islam, however, I believe that these reasons are obsolete: if there are any parasites (trichinosis) in pork, they can now be killed when the cooking temperature reaches (I think) 140 degrees. Modern cooking methods were, of course, not in place at the time Islam was founded, hence the prohibition.

It is all a matter of being in step with the times. One could say the same for Jewish dietary laws. The Koran, the Torah, and the Bible were written during a specific time, in a specific place. The authors could not have anticipated all the scientific advances that made food safer. The question is, therefore: why adhere to rules and laws that are anachronistic?

[forgethell]

73. I don't know, I think that you may be right

about the practical reasons. However, the religious reason is that God forbade it.

[no name no slogan]

197. People still get trichinosis today

It is still somewhat common today in many areas, but it's not widely reported because people don't die from it anymore.

Incidentally, the Christian "ban" on pork probably happened sometime in the 3rd century, around the time of the Council of Nicaea (sp?). Since most of the "new" Christians were pagan and not Jewish, the pork ban was lifted.

[Ravy]

61. Yes, second hand pork :-)....

many businesses had smoking bans long before the government started banning the practice. The government used the second-hand smoke reason, but businesses are under no obligation to provide reasons.

Many businesses now prohibit the consumption of alcohol on their premises and use of smokeless tobacco. They can restrict about anything, because it is private property.

[hughee99]

75. Some muslims find

women in the workplace offensive. Would it be within their rights to only employ men? I don't want to seem that I'm arguing just to argue, I see your point, and I do agree with it somewhat. A private company should be allowed to set standards for their office environment (within reason). Though I wouldn't think that a telecom company would be allowed to declare its dress code as "no clothing allowed". However, there have just been too many cases where the government (local, state or federal) has stepped in and TOLD companies what they can and can't do for me to believe that this company is going to be able to buck that trend. I have a feeling she'll get a big settlement and that the company will not go to court on this. In either case, I'm sure their policy will change. Either it will be dropped as a policy, or more likely become official, written policy that employees will have to sign on to at the time of hire.

[Ravy]

99. And I see your point too...

I guess what really ticks me off in this case is that we are allowing the government to define some "line" for us, and I don't trust the current people we have in government to do that in some sort of rational way.

If the lady felt that strongly about eating pork, she should have respected her employers wishes or simply moved on. There is CLEARLY a line somewher that could be crossed on religious beliefs where it would be discrimination, your sex discrimination example was one of them. What is not clear is where that line should be drawn.

But in your case, the woman wanting a job cannot change her sex to become less offensive to them. This lady had the choice of not doing the act they deemed offensive, yet she chose to do it despite their policy.

It would have been enough for me if a co-worker had asked me not to bring something to work that was offensive for him/her to come into contact with. We need to be more tolerant of the beliefs of others.

[Ilsa]

28. I like that this case is coming up, but for other reasons:

People in the US are used to accepting Christian discrimination, not Islamic. I hope this will open their eyes to the fact that some things need to remain secular, including work and school.

I usually use the argument that I am opposed to school prayer because I don't want my kids praying in accordance to Islamic or other religions. This usually sparks a conversation about how quickly Islam is growing in the US, and maintaining secularity is the only way to manage diverse groups working together.

[Bowline]

29. She wasn't fired for eating pork....

She was fired for violating company policy. Direct quote from the article: "Local 6 News obtained the termination letter that states she was fired for refusing to comply with company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises."

As a private company they can make such a policy and it is not discrimination. As long as the employee was informed that this was company policy it was up to her to comply if she wanted to keep her job. It's not different from company policies that allow one to be fired for failing to come to work on time, dress appropriately for the job, or failing to perform to expected standards.

[Mithras61]

30. True, but the problem remains that the policy was...

an unwritten one. Since that is the case, it can effectively be said to be a reccommendation, not a policy (and yes, I DID have to sign for a book stating that, among other things, I could be fired for failing to show up on time, or for appearing for work while intoxicated).

Edited for spelling

[Doctor Smith]

32. Who says policies have to be written?

Suppose I told an employee that they are not to bring sauerkraut onto the premises, because the smell bothers customers. If they do it anyway, I am perfectly within my rights to fire them, even though I never wrote it down.

[Mithras61]

34. I agree, but the lawsuit is based on...

the policy being unwritten, at which point it becomes a matter of her word against his about whether or not she was told, unless it was specifically witnessed by other employees. Also, at what point did this policy go into effect? Is it spelled out in the policy that violating it will result in firing? I'm not on her side or on his, but I can tell you that firings over unwritten policies are considered highly suspect by most authorities.

[northzax]

37. ahh, but if you read the article

she appears to stipulate that she was, in fact, told.

[Mithras61]

38. I know.

I'm not claiming she'll win, just that the lawsuit says that the firing was illegal because the policy was unwritten.

[Book Lover]

79. Otherwise they can be altered without notification

and that creates the "Gotcha!" scenario. Same reason Hammurabi had his laws engraved for all to see; so everybody knew what the rules were. And if you fired someone for bringing in a strongly-scented food, you would not be doing so on the basis of your religion.

[DoNotRefill]

77. Sorry, dude, it's religious discrimination....

and they're going to be smacked for it. It doesn't matter if it was written or not, if it's an at will state or not, you CAN NOT DISCRIMINATE based upon adherence or refusal to adhere to religiously-driven policies, regardless of if it is written policy or not.

[0007]

36. This is LBN?

[forgethell]

41. Yes n/t

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

39. Now I've heard it all

Fired for eating a BLT. I hope she sues the hell out of those fundie dipshits.

[DrWeird]

42. Fine with me.

She broke company policy and created a hostile work environment for other employees.

[Tight_rope]

91. Yeah...many may have died....due to her "incompetent"!

Come on it's just food...not a hand gun....or worst...she didn't send off hundreds of thousands of people to go kill thousands of other people.

[DrWeird]

127. Hey, nobody will die...

if I go to work with really bad BO, cutoff jeans, and a "Big Johnson" wifebeater. But there's these things called dress codes, and the policy in question is pretty much the same thing.

[Orangepeel]

43. well, Florida is a "right to work" state

which really means that it is a "right to fire" state. Absolutely this woman can be fired for eating pork in the workplace. She even got a warning, whih was more than they had to give her.

Personally, I think that it's a shame that she was fired for this and that it's a silly way to run a business. But, I don't see how this is religious discrimination. I'm not Catholic myself, but I'm pretty sure that Catholicism doesn't REQUIRE eating pork.

[hughee99]

48. I'm fairly sure that islam doesn't

REQUIRE its followers to stay 1000 yards away from pork either. They are not supposed to eat or touch it. They do consider it unclean. No one seems to be claiming that she was trying to get anyone else to eat pork (so muslims eating pork is not the issue). Are they afraid of comming into contact with it? When was the last time you "accidentally" came in contact with someone else's lunch (barring a last-day-of-high-school food fight)? Based on what I've understood from the articles, even if she was eating lunch in her own private area (an office or cube), she would still be fired simply because she brought this to work.

I agree that it's a shame she was fired and this is definately a silly was to run a business. I also don't see how this is religious at all, since I don't think that it violates islam to be in the same building as pork products. I do think it is unconstitutional to impose dietary requirements at an orginazation where those requirements aren't related to the companies mission statement (see my PETA member having a cheeseburger post above for this). If a company can tell it's members what not to eat, then it's logical to conclude that they would have every right to tell it's employees what it can eat. If a company decided the only food it would allow was lettuce and water, and you didn't have to eat it, but you couldn't eat anything else, would this be within their rights?

[Orangepeel]

53. that's not the point

The point is that in Florida, she can pretty much be fired for anything, including this.

If this really were a case of religious discrimination, then there are legal implications, even in Florida. However, although eating pork is not forbidden by her religion, is not part of her religion. Forcing her to do something against her religion would be discrimination, but forbidding her to do something that her religion doesn't care about is not.

I also don't agree that this is unconstitutional. There's no guaranteed right to eat pork. And, it doesn't follow that if a company can ban a specific food they can also go to the hypothetical extreme of imposing unhealthy dietary restrictions.

[forgethell]

64. Eating pork

I think is part of the pursuit of happiness. Besides I don't claim this as a constitutional issue, there should be a civil rights act that addresses it. Could a Muslim landlord refuse to rent to a Christian because he ate bacon for breakfast?

[DoNotRefill]

78. Wrong. Right to work does NOT mean....

that the employer can violate Federal law, which is what happened here.

[Ravy]

82. State the law then, or provide a link please.

[DoNotRefill]

86. The Civil Rights Act of 1964....

Title 42, §2000 et seq.

[hughee99]

85. If a company can restrict any food

for any reason, then it can restrict all food for any reason, can it not? I think this does logically follow. And as I said, a company cannot impose an unhealth diet, because it can not MAKE you eat whatever it allows. It can only say,

"The following food and drink are acceptable on company property:

Tofu
Water

You will be fired for brining in any food that is not on this list"

I'm not claiming that this is a case of religious descrimination, in fact, I'm asserting the opposite. No one's specific religious tenants is being violated here. The muslims at the company are not having their religious beliefs violated (as they would if they were forced to handle the pork). They are, however, confronted with someone else violating their religious beliefs. While this may disturb them, it's not the same as making them violate their own beliefs.

However, upon further though, you may be right about the constitutionality of it. There is no ammendment that says that a person can eat pork (or anything else), and there is no ammendment that says that a company can not pass whatever workplace restrictions it likes (unless it relates to the EEOC). So I think you're probably right about this not being a constitutional issue.

[Orangepeel]

95. there's a difference between morally right and legally right

of course.

as I said before, I think getting fired over something like this is a shame, as well as being a bad business practice. I don't think the company should have fired her for this. But, I don't think it is illegal.

It would be illegal if it was religious discrimination (even in Florida). Like you, I don't think it is (because no one is making her do anything that violates her religion). But, there seem to be plenty of people posting here who think it is. :shrug:

If this ever got to court (which I highly doubt), I suppose that would be a matter for a jury to decide.

[DoNotRefill]

100. think of it this way....

they effectively fired her for being a bad muslim.

The fact that she's not a muslim is irrelevant. You can't go around and say "this is an all-muslim workplace".

She was fired for sinning.

[Barret]

211. First of all

the fact that you are bringing up what state this is when this is a matter of FEDERAL LAW speaks volumes about your understanding of the basic foundations of government in this nation.

"The point is that in Florida, she can pretty much be fired for anything, including this. "

BZZZT. Wrong.

Since when does state law trump federal law? Was the constitution recently amended and no one told me? This argument of religious discrimination is being made under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - a FEDERAL law. Thus rather this is Florida or Texas or New York or New Mexico is totally irrelevant. This is something that should be learned in high school government class.

If Florida passed a law in which employers were authorized to terminate anyone for reason of race the said Florida state law would be quickly struck down to due (superior) conflicting federal law.

You also have confused "at will employment" with "right to work". Right to work is more about union busting than anything else. Specifically you can't be required to a join a union, among other things. Regardless, "at will employment" allows an employer to terminate employment for any LEGAL reason. Failure to follow a policy founded on religious motivation would NOT be a legal reason under federal law.

"because no one is making her do anything that violates her religion"

Wrong once again. Rather or not the policy violates her religion or not is irrelevant. It is ALSO irrelevant rather or not they are "making her DO anything". In fact, by forbidding her from eating pork they are indeed MAKING her participate in a religion. The same as if my religion were to instruct me not to ingest sweet liquids. If you want to drink a coke, and I forbid you from doing so, then I am MAKING you PARTICIPATE in part of MY religion. Specifically the part that forbids drinking sweet liquids.

An employer can NOT make you participate - or NOT participate in - a religious activity. It does NOT matter if that religious activity would conflict with your religion (or lack of religion). You can NOT make a person participate - or not participate in - a religious activity. Period. It's that simple. Refraining from eating pork is a conscious religious activity.

But don't take my word for it. How about the EEOC?

From the EEOC web site http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html:

"Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment"

[Hoping4Change]

188. Love the points you made about coming into contact with someone's lunch.

Very true and very funny.

[Crunchy Frog]

50. I wonder if someone

would be likely to be fired at a Catholic run telecom company for eating a roast beef sandwich on a Friday.

I really wonder about those religions which regard menstruating women as unclean. Could they fire you for coming to work during your period?

I wonder just how far they can take this sort of thing.

[hughee99]

90. some people consider

long facial hair to be "unclean", especially if it's not well kept, though I'm guessing that there's no rule against this. Muslims are also not supposed to wear gold, I wonder if gold wedding rings from not-muslim employees must be removed before going to work? After posting and reading several other things in this thread, I'm not SURE that any laws have been broken, however I suspect that a savvy lawyer could make the case that by imposing certain rules designed to accomodate one group of employees (which appear to be based on a specific religion) while not providing protections for other religions, the company is "de facto" imposing a religion on it's employees. Now I'm not going to say that I can make that argument well enough to convince a jury or judge, but I'll bet there are many laywers out there who can.

[Liberal Veteran]

65. No. You are confusing "right to work" with "at will employment".

Not the same thing.

[Mighty Undecided]

44. Give ANY religion power to lord over people and you get Middle Ages

It's an upside-down case (as we usually have Christians abusing minorities in this country) and because of this reason I hope the attention it garners will have more people thinking of its absurdity.
There are things that people do in the name of their faith that are acceptable in the right context and on a purely voluntary basis. The moment one tries to impose those rituals on unwilling outsiders they appear ridiculous and abusive. Something to ponder for ALL wanting to flex the religious muscle.

[AngryAmish]

45. I don't understand all these folks defending the company

One of the basic tenants of civil rights law is that you can't hire/fire based upon certain characteristics like race, national origin or religion. She was fired for refusal to follow a religious-based ban on pork. Therefore, she was fired for refusal to follow religious dictates.

This was not kosher slaughterhouse or anything like this. It was a simple company. They have no right to tell her what to eat.

Unless it was a sour creme ban. That stuff is disgusting.

[Barret]

212. Welcome to republican rule

unfortunately they have screwed workers over so much people actually believe an employer can do whatever the hell he wants - regardless of rather or not it is legal.

[QC]

273. Yep, there's something really bizarre about seeing liberals argue

that property trumps all other rights and employers can do pretty much anything they want, as long as they own the joint.

That's the same reasoning that kept public accomodations segregated for so long.

[forgethell]

286. It's called 'hypocrisy'

Liberals are as subject to it as conservatives. whose ox is gored sort of thing.

[Pale_Rider]

46. In my company ...

... we have several plants in Malaysia where there are no prohibitions with non-halaal (haraam) food being on premises. However there are two sets of microwave ovens and food preparation areas, one for halaal and the other for haraam. Also food trays and cooking pots are also identified as being halaal or non-halaal. This arrangement accomodates Muslims and Chinese employees without any hassles.

[Pale_Rider]

47. In my company ...

... we have several plants in Malaysia where there are no prohibitions with non-halaal (haraam) food being on premises. However there are two sets of microwave ovens and food preparation areas, one for halaal and the other for haraam. Also food trays and cooking pots are also identified as being halaal or non-halaal. This arrangement accomodates Muslims and Chinese employees without any hassles.

[mumon]

49. Well, I guess they could hire

Arnold Ziffel, then right? As long as they don't eat him.

[Crunchy Frog]

52. As long as he's qualified for the job

and doesn't engage in socially unacceptable behavior like crapping all over the floor, I don't see the problem.:)

[Bridget Burke]

59. I'd object if a co-worker sat at her desk eating a shit sandwich.

I'd consider it unclean.

But that's just me.

[lukasahero]

54. People who don't believe in gay marriage

shouldn't have one.

There have been some interesting points made on both sides of the argument here. However, what it comes down to for me is a) she wasn't forcing them to eat or touch the pork and b) they are, in effect, forcing her to follow their religious doctrine.

Her actions (albeit rather ignorant and disrespectful) did not force anyone to alter their behavior to support her beliefs. The employer on the other hand is requiring her to abide by his beliefs.

Proving once again why (as another poster noted) religion should be kept out of public places.

[lukasahero]

56. My point about

the gay marriage thing is that I'm so tired of people who don't believe in something forcing people who do to abide by their beliefs... This just seems to be more of the same.

(I tried to edit my original post but something wacked is going on and I can't...)

[hughee99]

94. Tolerance

Isn't that one of the things that we're supposed to be promoting? Tolerance isn't the removal of all "offensive" behavior. It's a "you do your thing and I'll do mine" sort of thing. When the two intersect, that's when we have an issue. Exactly as you said above, if one's actions doesn't force anyone to alter their behavior to support someone elses beliefs, what's the problem? If someone can practice their religion without altering anothers behavior then there's no problem with religion in public places.

[Hoping4Change]

270. I agree completely. Tolerance and accomodation. n/t

[pop goes the weasel]

70. the company is in the wrong

First, I have worked for Muslims myself. Both times were when I was a college student, both times were for pizzarias. Do you think for a moment that there was no pork at those places? Hell, no. They were Muslims, not lousy business people. (OK, one of them was, but he was a sorry excuse for a human under any belief system). So, from my own experience, I know Muslims can accomodate the cultural practices of other people.

Second, what made them so sure she was eating pork? Did they test her sandwich to make sure it wasn't Sizzlean or turkey bacon? Was the sausage on pizza maybe soysauge? Probably, she was eating pork, but also, they couldn't know for sure and fired her on the basis of an assumption. If she had been eating lard-laced cheese enchiladas instead, she would still have her job and she would have been eating pork.

Third, a business owner has the right to follow his own religion. He does not have the right to make his employees follow it. What else should this company do? Fire the left-handed? Impose hijab? Someone else made a point about Mormons and coffee. You can't go around firing people just because they display a harmless aspect of their own religion or national origin. Sure, eating pork is not a requirement of Christianity, but it is part of life for most Christians, a testament to the freedom of their faith (that is what I was taught when I was a child; if you missed that Bible school lesson, well, you probably didn't dragged to as many as I did). Wearing chadors or beards is not a requirement of Islam, either, but Muslims who do so can not be fired for it.

Fourth, it doesn't matter if Florida is a right-to-be-fired-at-will state. Even in such states, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, religion, color, sex, and national origin.

This company needs to come into compliance with US laws. I'm betting the courts will agree.

[Bo]

81. Sue the Bastards

[JohnLocke]

83. If she ate it on company property...

[QC]

89. OK, what if a Southern Baptist employer had fired the woman

for wearing one of those "I Had an Abortion" t-shirts, on the grounds that it offended the religious sensibilities of the other employees?

Would anyone here defend him? I think we already know the answer to that one.

[rocktivity]

115. the employer is effectively forcing his religious views upon the woman

which is simply is not legal in this country. He has the option of providing a separate dining facility.

:headbang:
rocknation

[LiberalFighter]

120. I believe this company will lose their case.

However, by the company's own admission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that policy is not written, Local 6 News reported.

If a policy is not a written policy then it becomes unenforceable and generally will favor the employee. In addition, there is no signed agreement by employee to abide by that policy.

The Koran forbids Muslims from eating pork. And according to Kweli, Morales and every employee at the company is advised of the no pork policy.

It doesn't forbid those of other faiths from eating pork... just Muslims.

I don't see anything where the company is dealing with situations that would contaminate other food products or people. Even if this was the situation... what do Muslims do when they mingle with other people in the general population? Do they avoid contact with them? Do they ask each person that is in the area if they abstain from pork?

This is a company that must do business with other people. Do they only do business with other Muslims? Do they only buy supplies from other Muslims? Are their customers 100% Muslims?

[Book Lover]

122. So they have a policy that prohibits employees from sinning

I wanted to add this to an earlier post, but the edit period expired.

Let's do a little thought experiment. Say I am a Muslim employee in this workplace. Yet I am a "bad" Muslim, and I eat pork. Or say I have prayed to God about this issue and God and I decide that God is OK with Muslims eating pork nowadays because it is safe to eat. Is it legal for my employer to threaten me with termination because I commit a sin in his eyes? If so, would "God said it was OK to me" be or not be a reasonable rebuttal?

[HuckleB]

131. Sounds like the company's not too bright.

They fired her for a "policy" that doesn't exist in writing, that she didn't have to read and sign off on. Now she's got a great case to sue them with.

I don't understand. If you're going to have a policy, you put it in writing. You make it a part of your new employee education. If you don't, you are open to lawsuits, if you act against an employee for a policy that doesn't really exist.

She's probably better off working someplace else, anyway. I wouldn't have confidence in this place as an organization, period.

[DemBones DemBones]

143. I think that Ms. Morales is going to get a lot of money

as a result of eating that BLT. The company tried to impose its owners' religious beliefs on her.

[SemperEadem]

145. interesting concept...

"Our point of view is to respect the laws of the land and the laws of the land as I understand it is to the accommodate people's right to practice their religions if you can," Kweli said.

"Even if it impacts other people?" Holfeld (reporter)asked.

"Well, it always impacts other people," Kweli replied.



How true. Persecution--it's the consort to overzealous religiosity.

[prodigal_green]

164. They signed the EEOC

Which means they cannot discriminate! If they had not signed it, then there would be no case. By signing on to the EEOC, they have explicitly guaranteed her rights. I'm a vegetarian, I don't like having meat around me. My co-workers cannot force me to eat animal flesh, neither can I bar them from enjoying their meals.

On edit:
http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

<snip>
Employers may not treat employees or applicants less - or more - favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices.

Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment.

[Baltimoreboy]

193. Ah the special bacon and pork discrimination clause

Section 4, Paragraph 3: All eaters of pork shall be protected in their eating of any procine product. No employer shall have the right to interfere in your bacon bonanzas or your pork rind parties.

[Mississippi Liberal]

165. Another lawyer weighs in . . .

I'm somewhat astonished that I'm put in the position of defending a corporation, particularly one which fires employees over essentially fundamentalist reasons. However, Title VII only requires employers to make "reasonable accomodations" to the religious beliefs of its employees. The employee in this case had no religious belief that required her to eat pork. In the absense of any actual religious belief which must be accomodated, Title VII doesn't come into play. The term "reasonable" also is usually interpreted in favor of the corporations. Consider the two following hypotheticals.

Hypothetical #1 -- At a business owned by a homosexual, a fundamentalist Christian employee has a sign on her desk quoting the Bible verse which declares homosexuality an abomination. The owner enacts a policy forbidding signs being hung over anyone's desk. The employee persists in hanging her sign and is fired. Have her rights been violated?

Hypothetical #2 -- Fed Ex employees are required to adhere to the company dress code, which requires pull-over shirts, shorts or pants, and no headgear. A Pentacostal female who only wears long skirts and a Sikh male who always wears a turban apply for jobs and are hired, but only on the condition that they comply with the dress code. Have their rights been violated? What if a third employee belongs to a religious sect which forbids the wearing of any clothing?

In the first hypothetical, it is not unreasonable for an employer to forbid the hanging of potentially offensive signs in the workplace. While the fundamentalist employee has a right to her belief, all that is being impaired is her freedom to proselytize that belief to her co-workers on company time. The second hypothetical has actually been litigated. Salon.com several months back had a headline story on persons who got fired by Fed Ex for refusing to comply with a company-wide dress code for religious reasons. In general, courts have sided with Fed Ex, holding that forcing the company to amend its dress code just for the benefit of the religious beliefs of employees was unreasonable.

This case is obviously the inverse of the Fed Ex cases, since it is the company that has a religious-based policy that affects someone not a member of that religion. The article does not indicate exactly what the employee's religious beliefs are. More importantly, it does not indicate whether the employee was free to leave the building and eat her lunch off the company premises, although I suspect an "administrative assistant" is a normal 9 to 5 job that gives an hour-long lunch break that can be taken anywhere. That's purely a guess, though. Based on the facts contained in the article, I strongly doubt that she has a viable Title VII claim (an area of the law that I work with every day), and if she was free to eat her lunch off the premises and simply refused to do so, then I'm quite certain she does not. Again, I'm not defending the company so much as expounding on the law.

Oh, and by the way, in the absence of any state or municipal laws forbidding discrimination against gays, it is absolutely permissible for "Christian" employers to fire gays solely from opposition to their orientation.

[Barret]

214. You are not an attorney

I challenge you to prove your claim to that effect.

Although I am still taking law even I know an employer is forbidden from imposing his/her religion on an employee. If you were an attorney you would well know this.

Further, your basic understanding of the situation is flawed. This is NOT an issue of an employee being denied her ability to practice her religion. (and thus relating to reasonable accomidation not being made... making me wonder why you even brought this (non-applicable) section of the statue up) Rather, this is an issue of an employee being forced to adopt a religious practice of her employer as a condition of employment.

I would suggest you actually read the applicable statue.

You are correct in one aspect - The statue requires reasonable accommodation for an employees religious beliefs.

*AND* (keyword here is AND)

Prohibits an employer from mandating a religious practice as a condition for employment.

In this regard the employer is in gross violation.

[Mississippi Liberal]

252. It never fails to amuse me when people refuse to believe

that I'm an attorney just because I offer an opinion that contradicts what someone else thinks the law should be. I assure you that whenever you actually graduate from the ivory tower and enter the real legal world, you will find that Title VII is, in many ways, a very "employer-friendly" statute, at least under the Rehnquist-Scalia regime. You'll forgive me if I decline to give out my personal information on a board that occasionally attracts freeper trolls, but suffice to say that I am a 2000 graduate of the University of Mississippi (with honors) and that I am currently employed in an office where approximately half my normal case load involves Title VII cases.

We agree that employers are forbidden to discriminate on the basis of religion under Title VII. We disagree on whether any religious practice is mandated here. This is not a case where a woman is told she must permanently abstain from eating pork. It is a case where she was told that she can't bring pork into the building where she works.

In order to win a religious discrimination case, the plaintiff must first prove a prima facie case with the following elements: (1) the employee has a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) the employee informed the employer of this belief; (3) the employee was disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement. _Wilson v. U.S. West Communications_, 58 F.3d 1337, 1340 (8th Cir. 1995). Right off the bat, the woman in this case has not indicated any bona fide religious belief violated by the requirement that she not bring pork products into the office. Assuming arguendo, however, that she can satisfy the prima facie case, the employer is merely required to "reasonably accommodate" the religious beliefs or practices of their employees unless doing so would cause the employer undue hardship. _Id._ (holding that that any reasonable accommodation by the employer is sufficient to comply with the statute). The _Wilson_ Court further noted that "Title VII does not require an employer to allow an employee to impose his religious views on others. The employer is only required to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious views. _Id_ at 1342. As long as the woman in this case was permitted to leave the office to eat pork, I believe a court would find that her "beliefs" had been reasonably accomodated. YMMV.

[no name no slogan]

259. Neither am I ....

but even I know the difference between a "statue" and a STATUTE. :eyes:

[LimpingLib]

206. There are laws against eating certain meats. (sadly not against pork)

Eating pork is immoral , pigs are the 9th smartest animal.

Anybody who east pork is scumb,PERIOD!!!

[DoNotRefill]

219. How do you "east pork"...

and what is "scumb"?

[LimpingLib]

228. Worst yet I think pigs are actualy 4th smartest (dogs might be 9th).

Myabe I was thinking of the 1/3rd of the worlds population (Muslims and Hindus) , our dear friends to the East who are rapidly growing in population and moving west? Actualy it was a typo.


Justice and decency for intelligent life might not be popular in the swine capital of the world (the USA)but even with all meats shooting up in price due to the low carb diets , I find it heartening that pork bellys have fallen from their trade of $38 down to around $10 while all other meats are skyrocketing. (sometimes I cant get a pizza on certain days , certain clearance day sales require all pizza to be pepperoni, the crap is so overproduced its just unreal)

The abuse of animals (pigs as smart as they are get literally crammed into a tight space so badly that they cant even turn their heads, all they can do it bite the metal cage their heads are jammed into)will eventualy cease at some point in the future. There will be a day when intelligent animals and mans best friend (Asia betrays the multi-millenial bond between man and dog) wont be slaughtered anymore , and even the more dumb animals will be killed humanly.

Anybody who wants to be on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of justice ...well...I wont say what I think.

[DoNotRefill]

233. Well, until then...

I just have to observe that ham's some tasty meat!

"Pork! The one you love!"

[Dastard Stepchild]

215. Wonder whyhe caved and ate pork...

the article says she was fired after 10 months of employment for eating a BLT. Perhaps she cracked under the pressure of her pork-free days and HAD to have that piglicious delicacy regardless of the cost.
Hmmmm.... if I was an employee, and my supervisor told me that if she saw wheat bread in my lunch bag I'd be fired, I'd prolly just bring bagels. But that's just moi...

[John_H]

239. Another new DU kick.

October surprise, GOP rent-a-hecklers, media bias on pages 2 and 3. 238 responses for a BLT.

[no name no slogan]

258. Pork may have political meaning to Muslims, too

During the Reconquest of Spain and the Inquisition which began in the 15th century, pork was often used as a "test" for recent Jewish and Muslim converts to Catholicism in Spain.

These converts were made to "prove" their Catholicism by eating pork in front of the Inquisition. Those who would not partake were labeled as "heathen" and were persecuted or killed for holding on to their Jewish or Muslim beliefs.

If you look at the cuisines of Spain (particularly in the southern areas, like Andalusia), you see a prevalence of pork in the diet-- a legacy of the Reconquista and the Catholic Crusaders who "liberated" Spain from the heathen Moors.

Pork is seen as not only unclean and unhealthy by Muslims, but also as a reminder of European Christian oppression. It is a reminder of EuroChristian dominance of their homes and the humiliation many Muslims faced by their Christian overlords.

This issue goes so much deeper than just a BLT or a pizza, but many non-Muslims are not aware of the historical baggage that exists between EuroChristians and Muslims. A lot of it is based on a combination of American fear and ignorance of all things from the Middle East, and the atttempts of the media to portray Arabs and Muslims as medieval barbarians hell-bent on destroying our culture and covering our women in burqas.

Here's a question to the non-Muslims on this thread: how many of you have actually read the Quran? Not the whole thing, but even just a part of it? How many of you have heard it recited in Arabic? How many of you know ANYTHING about the religion, about the Prophet Muhammad, the Shar'ia, the Quran, or about Islamic community that you haven't got from the western media?

Or better yet, how many of you have Muslim friends? Or Muslim relatives?

I for one would like to know.

[Hoping4Change]

269. Muqtedar Khan "all ideas have an expiry date."

"Today, the Islamic Ummah is in disarray. It has not only lost its past glory, but has also lost the capacity to comprehend the virtues and the causes of its past glory.

It is in decline and unable to defend or take care of itself. After nearly 100 years of Islamic revivalism in the Sunni world, the best we have to show is the Taliban in Afghanistan!

I believe the singular reason for this state of affairs is the transformation of a people from processors of ideas to recyclers of ideas.

Muslims... have become estranged from the pure idea of Islam, and have also been deprived of their capacity to generate contingent ideas more meaningful to their times. It is this alienation from the creative process of idea generation that has stripped the Islamic civilization of its vitality and its brilliance leaving behind an embittered, insecure and clueless Ummah."


http://www.ijtihad.org/ideas.htm

[sidestreamer]

283. If the woman is correct in everything she said, the company is at fault

But ONLY if that is the case. It appears it is though.

[Tripmann]

284. Call me old fashioned...

But my reading of the situation is that she knowingly went against company policy. If you do not agree with the policies of a company you do not have to work there, and you certainly should not be crying foul when get fired for breaking it.

Does anybody know if she was aware of these terms when she took up employment? They should supply a copy of terms and conditions to new emloyees which should be read and signed in front of a witness.

They didn't seem to be forcing their religion on her as she was allowed to eat pork while not on the premises or outside work hours.

Mutual respect people, mutual respect, for religious views, worker rights and company policies. If it was company policy where I worked, I would have the option of complying with policy, leaving or disrespecting peoples religious beliefs.

She had those options, I don't see the repre3ssion or wrongdoing. sorry!

Tripmann