I’ll ask again…how close is TOO close? What if his desk is right next to the lunch room? Does the door protect him from porkage? What if there’s a BBQ Pork item on the menu at the restaurant next door?
Or how 'bout he just doesn’t EAT any fucking pork?
Sorry, everyone. I completely lost my head there. (I’ve found it, now - and the duct tape should keep it in place. I won’t lose it again.)
Celyn, and everyone who’s been saying that she was offensive and a pain, I apologise for lumping you with everyone. And, yes, the Loki part of my name is an allusion to the Norse trickster.
Kalhoun and nyctea scandiaca, again, and without the invective, I really don’t understand why the presence of religion matters here. The woman isn’t being told not to eat pork at home. Just observe a policy at work that adheres to the majority standards of the community: the employees. This is what I thought Democracy was all about.
Seriously, is a Mormon company suddenly not allowed to have a non-smoking policy because it’s also part of their religion? All the analogies you’ve given seem to either belittle the idea of respecting a religion you don’t share,
or extend the idea of not eating pork in a communal area into something that controls every aspect of someone’s life.
Neither of you care to address my own hypothetical about the Vegan owned and mostly Vegan company I posited earlier. Until you do, or at least the Mormon company analogy, I’m going to be skipping your own arguments.
Smoking (or not) isn’t a tenet of the religion – at least not in the workplace. The No Smoking policy is probably a village or state law anyway.
Yes, it is. According to Mormons, they are to keep their bodies pure avoiding such pollutants as caffeine, tobacco and alcohol. What does the law have to do with it? The no smoking policy probably predated the law anyways.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds? What are they looking so closely at her fucking sandwich for, anyway? Sounds like they’re the shit-stirrers.
Well, what if she prepared a couple pounds of bacon for her family, didn’t wash her hands, and got her greasy fingers on the door and desk and phone and maybe even shook hands with her co-workers? Are they all going to shrivel up and die?
Well, back to the OP regarding this point, for just a second.
I’m firmly of the position that it’s a gross out factor coming in to play here - otherwise ALL non-halal items would be banned. As it is, it was just pork.
If 99% of the employees of a place are disgusted by pork products I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask the other 1% not to consume them at work.
Ditto with the snot. If you have a habit/hobby/liking that disgusts 99% of your co-workers and you’re asked by your employer to cese and desist in doing it, it seems to me that you’re asking for trouble if you insist on doing it again.
(The reason for my suggestion that disgust was playing a big part in the “No pork” rule is the tone in which the company spokesman addressed the issue.)
I’ll remember that the next time some vegetarian starts in with the over-spiced fucking noodles in the microwave or when the next jerk re-heats last night’s cod.
Or maybe I’ll just get the fuck over it.
It is religion because they said pork is “dirty.” Well, we know pork isn’t dirty. It’s perfectly fine. The only problem is that some religions don’t eat it. Which is also fine. Crazy, but fine.
[/QUOTE]
The point I’m making is that a person wouldn’t be smoking there because it’s against the law. Pork isn’t against the law. It’s not a fair analogy.
I wasn’t assuming that the employer would HAVE to accomodate this request. Just that it would probably be easy to do so. How 'bout we attempt to make as many people as possible comfortable and happy?
I think the example in the OP was poorly handled on both sides.
OK I’ll adress it. I think it would also be completely unfair for the vegan business owner to force his employees to abide by his beliefs on company property.
Of course the presence of religion matters here. One particular religion bans a certain activity. Employee engages in activity, which is a common, safe, legal activity, and is fired. The point is, the policy was created NOT because eating pork is unsafe, such as smoking in the work place is unsafe… it was created because it is part of the owner’s religion. And the owner is basically saying, follow this tenet of our religion or be fired.
This is directly analogous to if she were fired for exposing her hair and not wearing a headscarf. Would you all support women employees being required to wear headscarves on the premisis of Muslim-owned businesses?
Another analogy could be, an employee being fired for drinking a Coke in a Mormon-owned workplaces. Again the activity is a *common, safe, legal * activity. Would you all support that?
Or what if an employee was fired for eating a cheeseburger in a Jewish-owned workplace?
Umm… Does that mean you’re willing to eat your pork less than well done? 
IIRC, pork is the only domestic animal where there is still a risk of parasitic infection - you have heard of triconosis?
Mind you, if you do want your pork cooked less than well done, the actual risk of triconosis is probably less than the risk of e. coli contamination in your medium rare beef. I’m just saying that there is some room to suggest that pork bans had some practical effect in the past. Ritualizing the bans doesn’t make sense to me, personally, but that doesn’t mean that I think that people living within those bans are necessarily insane either. Or that consideration for the majority of one’s co-workers is a vice.
[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
Ok let me revise my anaolgy…
Ok the pork situation goes like this. Employees are banned from doing a certain behavior/activity/action on company property because it violates the employer’s religious tenets.
QUOTE]
But lets get something straight. My eating pork doesn’t violate anyone’s religious tenets. You can only fuck up your OWN religion.
Oh? Has your employer asked these people not eat their noodles and cod in the work place? Cus if not, you probably should get the fuck over it because the example is totally irrelevant.
Exactly.
Are these people going to hell (or whatever they have in Islam) because someone else ate a BLT in their office building?
I doubt it.
Companies routinely prohibit their workers from doing common, safe, legal activities on the job. Wearing jeans, putting up risque calendars, eating KFC (which was, I think, the best analogy here). Actually, I’m not sure that last one qualfies as “safe.”
I’m not sure I see why the “no pork in the cafeteria” rule is more offensive than an “open-toed shoes are against the dress code” rule, just because the former is religious rather than aesthetic.
Thanks for answering
Actually the policy was created, I’m guessing, because the behavior, while common, safe, and legal, is also offensive and disruptive in the workplace.
As I already said, yes, I would, if the work involved being around rotating equipment, and men had to keep their hair similarly restrained. There are times safety reasons do require hair to be kept up. Whatever the religion of the owner of the business wouldn’t matter.
And, I still disagree about it being analogous. It seems to me to be requiring a compliance that wasn’t there in the OP. I’d consider the following to be more analogous: a dress policy for women that forbids allowing one’s midriff to be exposed at a Muslim owned business? This is something that would be in keeping with Islamic law, as I understand it, and is common, safe and legal. But I think it would also be needlessly provocative in a largely muslim community, such as was described in the OP. You may think that too, is unreasonable, but I don’t.
I’d never work there, upon being told about the policy. Me and my Elixer of Life ™ are not be seperated. But, I wouldn’t feel that I was being discriminated against, just that I wouldn’t care to work in that environment.
If I’d been told not to bring in things that would violate kosher laws, or at least the most common ones (pork, mixing cheese and meat, aquatic bugs…) I’d personally try to avoid doing just that. If the workplace were populated with mostly orthodox jews who were expecting the cafeteria to be kept kosher, I’d either not eat in the cafeteria, or be certain to be bringing only kosher to work. It really seems simple courtesy for me. And no hardship. If t had been explained upon hiring that the company policy was to keep kosher in the cafeteria, I don’t see why after repeated warnings, the employer wouldn’t have a responsibility to other workers to remove that worker.
I don’t feel that I’m being imposed upon to have courtesy expected of me in a communal area. No more than I feel that not smoking in the same area is only good manners. Even if it is common and legal. (While not precisely safe.)
Being and staying employed is very important to most people. So when employers start enacting unusual requirements and restrictions on their employees that have everything to do with religion and nothing to do with the business or the quality of the employees’ work, it creates a hostile and uncomfortable work environment.
Most requirements and restrictions at work have to do with work and safety. The “no pork” rule has nothing to do with the business. It is a rule because it’s a tenet of the employer’s religion.
The majority forcing their religious beliefs onto a minority in the workplace (or anywhere else) is wrong. The reverse is true also. Anyone forcing their religion onto anyone else is wrong. Religious freedom is not only the freedom to practice your religion, but the freedom not to practice religion, and the freedom not to be forced to practice someone else’s religion.
There is a difference. The things you mentioned are common prohibitions that are justified by non-religious reasons and relate to the business. You can’t wear jeans because it looks unprofessional, and being a business, employees are required to look professional. Risque calendars are not appropriate in a place of business because they do not look professional and they may be considered sexual harasment.
Eating a BLT is not unprofessional and is not sexual harassment. Eating a BLT is a common, normal, safe, legal practice. Eating a BLT does not make affect the quality of the employee’s work.
I don’t know why what I consume for lunch is of any concern to anyone else in my office. I would be extremely offended if, say, a vegetarian commented on my consumption of meat, or if a Jew or Muslim commented on my ham and cheese sandwich. I would view that as a hostile work environment.
On the same vein, that would be like saying to a Christian, you can’t wear a cross necklace to work because it is offensive and disruptive to the non-Christian employees here. Or saying to a Muslim woman, you can’t wear a headscarf to work because it is offensive and disruptive to the non-Muslim employees.