# Woman fired for eating pork **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 4, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323 "2004-08-04T17:50:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/261 "2004-08-07T09:52:42Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Except that many people who follow kosher or halal rules **can** quite easily tell the difference between pork and other meat products (pork has a fairly distinctive smell, for one thing). So if one of your coworkers happened to notice that your sandwich was ham although you’d assured them it was beef, you’d come across as being inconsiderate, a cheat, and a liar, which might not be so great for your career prospects there. I know I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed but give me a little credit. I’d bring in things like hot dogs, pepperoni, and other products which could be made from beef or pork. Petty? You bet. When you have petty rules you get petty resistance. Marc ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/262 "2004-08-07T10:20:23Z")
> [@yosemite](#): > > …Because she sounds like a selfish, inconsiderate cow. All sorts of people sound like that, you know. By the way, what’s with the abnormal fixation on ‘cow’? Boy, I sure hope no Hindus are offended by that! ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 10:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/263 "2004-08-07T10:39:57Z")
Every once in a while you make me giggle **Brutus** (not often, mind you 😃 ) ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/264 "2004-08-07T10:43:52Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > Every once in a while you make me giggle **Brutus** (not often, mind you 😃 ) Unfortunately, I suspect that is the reaction that most people have to my posts! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 10:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/265 "2004-08-07T10:44:40Z")
Ooops I am a sponsored child too! If **Maleniblack** reads this and thought I was was being all anti-Hindi…well it’s a good thing he does know me better 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 10:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/266 "2004-08-07T10:46:21Z")
> [@Brutus](#): > > Unfortunately, I suspect that is the reaction that most people have to my posts! > > 😃 Oh Dear **Brutus** never underestimate yourself…sometimes you make steam come out of my ears. ---
**Author:** ![Dog80](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6bbea6/32.png) [@Dog80](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dog80)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/267 "2004-08-07T10:48:17Z")
IMO dietary laws like “kosher” or “halal” are religious fanaticism. Don’t get me wrong, I can understand how these laws came to be. Pork (and some other foods) was indeed unclean and potentialy dangerous back then. But carrying those laws into this age and time is really stupid. It defies everything we know about germs and chemicals. And why would utensils be “unclean” even after washing them with a detergent? Is there something like “pork memory” (along the lines of the homeopathic “water memory”)? Also, comparing a BLT sandwitch with a shit sandwitch (SLT ?) is rather offensive for those of us that eat pork. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/268 "2004-08-07T10:59:03Z")
> [@Dog80](#): > > IMO dietary laws like “kosher” or “halal” are religious fanaticism. Don’t get me wrong, I can understand how these laws came to be. Pork (and some other foods) was indeed unclean and potentialy dangerous back then. > > But carrying those laws into this age and time is really stupid. It defies everything we know about germs and chemicals. And why would utensils be “unclean” even after washing them with a detergent? Is there something like “pork memory” (along the lines of the homeopathic “water memory”)? > > Also, comparing a BLT sandwitch with a shit sandwitch (SLT ?) is rather offensive for those of us that eat pork. But if you are going to say that then you can say it about any religious belief. To some of us what Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Budda said umpty years ago makes no sense, to some of us it does. The dietry restriction are part of that. Do you want to be the one to make religion illegal? No I didn’t think so. So the dietry restrictions go along with those who believe. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 11:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/269 "2004-08-07T11:43:17Z")
> [@casdave](#): > > …but the biggie is that the manager is actually changing the terms and conditions of employment on the spot, without any consultation with the employee, quite simply its against employment contract law. The problem you have in defending this, is that he indeed talked her about this a few times. If she didn’t want to agree, she could at that point have said so or leave. Instead she clearly insisted on staying at the job, while at the same time insisting on disregarding orders that were clearly in function of the smoothly functioning of the company (by means of its workers concentrating on their job instead on cleaning and talking and being upset about her). > [@](#): > > The company can change your contract at any time, but it must provide proof of consultation and this must be written into the employment contract, neither has been done here. The consultation was certainly done. She could have said no, and leave. Yet as I said in a former post, the employer should have made her sign an agreement on this. This is his weak point indeed. > [@](#): > > The employment contract in this case would probably need to refer to the rules in a company handbook, of which no mention is made in this article. Maybe there is one, maybe not. Maybe this issue is not mentioned because they simply did not have experiences with non Muslim employees before. But in my opinion asking someone that is payed by you not to upset all the rest of the workers (and yourself included)is not a matter of contract, but a matter of maintaining order at the workplace. > [@](#): > > Any employment tribunal is likely to take the view that simply allowing a manager to change employees contracts without actually setting it down is just a method of employer jeopardy on its employees, no employees can ever hope to meet an unwritten contract, especially if changes can be brought in on the personal prejudices of the manager at any time. See above. The fact is that her behaviour disturbed all the other employees and hence influenced the way they could do their job or could go on with doing their job after cleaning out in company’s time= on the company’s expence - what she contaminated. > [@](#): > > This is not a health and safety related matter where a new policy has been implemented either to meet new legislation, or comply with existing legislation, nor are there any obvious religious imperatives upon this telecoms company. We don’t know that. At first sight they seem to work for a Yemeni clientele that is 100% Muslim. In addition: Upsetting all the rest of the personnel in this manner can easily lead to such a great distraction that it influences the safety on the workfloor. > [@](#): > > Not true, not true at all, employers simply do not own their employees. An employer cannot require an employee to do anything they are not contracted to do, this can still give the employer a very wide remit, but an example would be if an employer required an employee to carry out some task for which they were not trained, employees have died trying to carry out duties which had safety risks that they were not competant to understand or control. I do not talk about asking people to do what they are not hired for. I talk about a clear and deliberate obstruction of orders that in this particular case were needed to maintain the overall productivity and attention of the majority of the personnel. Her actions show her absolute incompetence to work with the others. I would not fire all the others and keeping that one single employee who is clearly out on provoking me and all the others and hence causes my company to start disfunctioning. Would you? > [@](#): > > Trust me, if you tried running that line by any employment tribunal, you had better be very well prepared, in a tribunal I would totally destroy you. Be assured that you would stand no chance at all and would run away crying of misery. I am quite convinced and reassured that I have my back covered in a way that only the devil impersonate would have a little chance to win such a case. It would be funny to witness you though, if only because of this : > [@](#): > > Your comment actually betrays an authoritarianism and intolerance that one finds rare in a true Muslim. A bigoted hateful line that drives you already in a corner if I would choose to have that exploited it in a courtroom. I would begin with stating that in your opinion a “true Muslim” clearly is the one who owns a company and then let it be taken over from him by the people he pays to do the job they are hired for. Requiring from your personnel that they don’t mess up the whole place and the whole atmosphere under all the personnel with behaviour that is clearly provocative and clearly disruptive, is for you something a Muslim can not do because he is Muslim. Now I must ask you: What else can a Muslim employer not do in your opinion? Please enlighten me since clearly I must see that my lawyers pay attention to your comments. I think however that you can learn a lot of them, but that is the opinion of a Muslim, which as I see would not count for you. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Dog80](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6bbea6/32.png) [@Dog80](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dog80)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/270 "2004-08-07T11:53:43Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > But if you are going to say that then you can say it about any religious belief. To some of us what Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Budda said umpty years ago makes no sense, to some of us it does. > > The dietry restriction are part of that. > > Do you want to be the one to make religion illegal? No I didn’t think so. So the dietry restrictions go along with those who believe. We still don’t have proof for the existence or non-existence of God, so this issue is still open. On the contrary, we do have proof that pork or other foods are not unclean. Denying this scientific proof is religious fanaticism, like saying the Earth is flat. I didn’t say that religion or the accompanying dietary laws should be made illegal. If somebody wants to follow them he’s free to do that. Imposing them on others though is against our freedom. ---
**Author:** ![milroyj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@milroyj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/milroyj)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/271 "2004-08-07T11:57:12Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > I know I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed but give me a little credit. I’d bring in things like hot dogs, pepperoni, and other products which could be made from beef or pork. Petty? You bet. When you have petty rules you get petty resistance. > > Marc There’s also turkey ham and turkey bacon! Should the woman be fired if her BLT is made from turkey bacon? Just because her coworkers are “grossed out” by what they think is pork? ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/272 "2004-08-07T12:15:46Z")
> [@Dog80](#): > > We still don’t have proof for the existence or non-existence of God, so this issue is still open. On the contrary, we do have proof that pork or other foods are not unclean. Denying this scientific proof is religious fanaticism, like saying the Earth is flat. > > I didn’t say that religion or the accompanying dietary laws should be made illegal. If somebody wants to follow them he’s free to do that. Imposing them on others though is against our freedom. What you said was that dietry laws were religious fanitcism (while I agree that all rligion is faniticism to a degree) If a religon requires dietry laws then it does. it needs no explanationmore then the the religous one. If an employer in a FREE society chooses to put those constrictions on an emoloyee, surely that is within their right. In this paticular example the womans employment was not ‘because she was a Muslim’ rather she she was employed with no religious prejudice. She was however given conditions to her employment. I am a smoker…religiously so!!, if I don’t have a smoke someone will be going to heaven/hell. I fully accept that most employers will not allow me to smoke on the premises. If they wouldn’t let me leave the premises at lunchtime to smoke I would have major issues with them. If I can trundle away and smoke on my lunch break I’m happy. Pork woman had the same option. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/273 "2004-08-07T12:18:05Z")
And this is why you should always preview 😃 (or should not have more then 3 wines) ---
**Author:** ![Dog80](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6bbea6/32.png) [@Dog80](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dog80)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/274 "2004-08-07T12:56:41Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > I’ll repeat my question from above: is it legal for a company owned by a vegan, with a majority of its employees vegan, to require that all employees eat vegan food while on company premises? I don’t know if it is legal or not, but I guess they have much less chances imposing veganism on their employees than muslims imposing not eating pork. As others said, veganism is not a religion. If someone does something kooky, he’s a nutjob. But if said kooky action is a religious practice, then it automatically gets immunity and anyone opposing it is branded “intolerant”. What would happen if that woman was member of a religion that forces people to eat pork every day? That would be a very strange situation. ---
**Author:** ![Dog80](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6bbea6/32.png) [@Dog80](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dog80)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/275 "2004-08-07T13:10:52Z")
> [@calm kiwi](#): > > She was however given conditions to her employment. I am a smoker…religiously so!!, if I don’t have a smoke someone will be going to heaven/hell. I fully accept that most employers will not allow me to smoke on the premises. If they wouldn’t let me leave the premises at lunchtime to smoke I would have major issues with them. If I can trundle away and smoke on my lunch break I’m happy. Pork woman had the same option. Smoking is not the same. Smoke irritates people and there is also the danger of passive smoking. But not allowing pork is simply stupid. What are the consequences of eating a BLT, passive porking? Back when Greece was occupied by the Turks, Greek people would occasionaly make and grill pork sausages. Even though Turks are muslim, they would not interfere with their customs, although according to [books](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671212168/qid=1091883948/sr=8-8/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i8_xgl14/102-8602904-4651324?v=glance&s=books&n=507846), the smell BBQed pork sausages was all around the place. It seems that Turkish conquerors 100 years ago were more tolerant than muslim employers in todays USA. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/276 "2004-08-07T13:32:19Z")
Smoking is exactly the same! In Australia, New Zealand and Britain the morning tea break is colloquily (sp) known as “smoko”. It was called that because it was traditionaly when everyone went out for a smoke. For decades this was the accepted pratice. Now it’s not. Guess what smokers have dealt with this. See those people huddled on the footpath in the rain? Yep they are smokers. If the odd pork eater has to join them WHO CARES! The employer sets the work conditions. And before you say it is different, I was allowed to smoke on the premises of my last work place. In one place where there were no non smokers. Myself and the only other smoker puffed away together until the general consensus decreed no smoking AT ALL. We were already in a place far from any smokers but we were ordered to take it off the premises. Guess what we still smoked, just down the road. I will bet you anything I am more addicted to smoking then that woman is to pork, but when my workplace outlawed it I stopped doing it there. Hmm maybe I just liked my job more then she likes pork? ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/277 "2004-08-07T13:57:38Z")
> [@](#): > > **Diogenes** said: > She was contaminating a halal kitchen. And veganism is not a religion. No, but a halal kitchen only exists as a religious construct. Of course, it wasn’t just the kitchen that company refused to accomodate her in, it was anywhere on company property. They made absolutely no effort to accomodate non-muslim employees. > [@](#): > > Then they have a right to ask you not to contaminate it. As long as they provide accomodations for employees who are not of their religion and do not attempt to force their religious practices upon you. > [@](#): > > “pork lover” is not a protected class. But ‘non-muslim’ is a protected class. An employer cannot force an employee to follow the employer’s religious practices. Keeping halal only exists _as a religious practice_. > [@](#): > > **yosemite** said: > We can’t expect to always accomodate every single individual with a special preference. But when a whole crowd of them is concentrated in one place and they’re yelling “No!” and you’re pretty much the only person who wants to do the thing, then, hey, maybe it would be more polite for you to consider not doing the thing. Since when is religious majority rule allowed here? It’s not as if she was attempting to force other people to be non-muslim. She just did not want to be forced to observe their religious practices. > [@](#): > > **Aldebaran** said: > Now I must ask you: What else can a Muslim employer not do in your opinion? They can’t force people to comply with their religion or religious practices as a condition of continued employment. > [@](#): > > **milroyj** said: > There’s also turkey ham and turkey bacon! And they taste awful. If I’m going to eat a BLT, it’s going to have real bacon on it. > [@](#): > > **calm kiwi** said: > She was however given conditions to her employment. So if I hire someone and I tell them that other than their 30 minute lunch, their responsibility is to be at their desk at all times, can I fire a Muslim for leaving the desk to pray x times a day? > [@](#): > > Smoking is exactly the same! It would be if the only reason you were not allowed to smoke at work was a religious belief of your employer, and if ‘at work’ included inside your own car out in the parking lot, and there were absolutely no harmful biological effects. ---
**Author:** ![calm\_kiwi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9fc348/32.png) [@calm\_kiwi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/calm_kiwi)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/278 "2004-08-07T14:12:04Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > If I hire someone and I tell them that other than their 30 minute lunch, their responsibility is to be at their desk at all times, can I fire a Muslim for leaving the desk to pray x times a day? Yes, yes you can. If you are not a govt agency the workplace is yours to set the rules, providing they don’t break any lawas, it is your own private Disneyland. Unfair? yes. But the employees don’t get to make the rules even in Disneyland. > [@](#): > > It would be if the only reason you were not allowed to smoke at work was a religious belief of your employer, and if ‘at work’ included inside your own car out in the parking lot, and there were absolutely no harmful biological effects. I knew the only other person affected by my smoking was my fellow smoker. Yes I grumbled at the new rule. But it was the rule so I smoked elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/279 "2004-08-07T14:42:52Z")
> [@DtC](#): > > “pork lover” is not a protected class. Asking her not to contaminate a kitchen and prevent everyone else from being able to eat in it is not discrimination but it has nothing to do with any status she may hold as to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or physical disability. > [@Brutus](#): > > There is no federal legal restriction against discriminatory practices regarding sexual orientation, you know. IANAL, but it seems to me that you could make a much better case for a protected category of sexual orientation as fundamentally akin to race/religion/gender/etc. than you could for a protected category of pork-consumption-on-the-lunch-hour. After all, the reason race/gender/etc. discrimination is so burdensome is that race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc. are all very fundamental and persistent parts of a person’s identity. You can’t just temporarily stop being black or disabled or female or gay during your workday. But you **can** quite easily make small modifications to your behavior like not wearing heavy perfume at work, or not eating pork for lunch, or not wearing a nose ring on duty. So I think it’s quite reasonable to argue that discriminating against employees for being, say, black or gay is a much more unfair and burdensome form of discrimination than forbidding them to wear perfume or eat pork in the lunchroom. Now, if the pork lover in question had a religious mandate for eating pork at lunch or something, then as **Dog80** noted, we’d have ourselves a big old can of worms about conflicting constitutional rights. But as it is, from a civil-liberties standpoint, it looks to me like a pretty easy call. (Famous last words, and remember that IANAL.) ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [August 7, 2004, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323/280 "2004-08-07T16:38:02Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > As long as they provide accomodations for employees who are not of their religion and do not attempt to force their religious practices upon you. What accomodation doe she need? They aren’t preventing her from doing something that her religion requires nor are they requiring her to to do something her religion forbids. > [@](#): > > They can’t force people to comply with their religion or religious practices as a condition of continued employment. And just how far does that go? Say for example that my religion forbids me to earn money on a particular day. Therefore, my business is closed, and my employees are not permitted to work on that day. Am I required to open up because my employee’s religious beliefs allow them to earn money? > [@](#): > > It would be if the only reason you were not allowed to smoke at work was a religious belief of your employer, and if ‘at work’ included inside your own car out in the parking lot, and there were absolutely no harmful biological effects. Maybe I missed it, but I’ve seen “she can’t even leave pork in her own car in the parking lot” more than once. What I haven’t seen is the slightest indication that this company even _has_ a parking lot. It seems to be entirely possible that “company premises” includes only the buiilding [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/woman-fired-for-eating-pork/258323.md?page=15)