Another way of looking at the company’s rule would be: Muslims are allowed to eat whatever they want, but non-Muslims are not allowed to eat anything they want.
Well, we don’t actually know that. If one of the non-Muslim employees had a severe peanut alergy and petitioned his or her boss to have a peanut free cafeteria and the boss agreed, then Muslims would be restricted also.
Food restrictions in offices are really, really common. Who gives a crap what the basis for the restriction is, unless you’re being an asshole about it?
I agree that people should show respect for each other. So why couldn’t the employer respect the fact that the employee is not Muslim and respect her choice of food?
And no, avoiding pork is not a hardship. But being fired for eating pork certainly is a hardship.
And just as avoiding pork is not a hardship, neither is making arrangements for non-Muslim employees to eat their choice of foods. Both sides were being stubborn here, it seems. Being respectful of differing beliefs and being compromising here could have avoided the whole situation.
By the way, here is something that hasn’t been brought up. The company is majority Mulsim?? Sounds like there are some discriminatory hiring practices going on there…
That would be a way of looking at it; unfortunately, it would be an incorrect way. There may well be Muslims who wish to eat pork, but hwo are constrained by doing so by company rules.
The restriction applies to everyone regardless of their religion, and forces no one to act in a fashion contrary to their religion.
My ex-company’s cafeteria, at a hospital, didn’t serve beef, due to the staff nutritionist’s advice. Were they discriminating against non-Hindus? How silly and convoluted, exactly, are you willing to go with this?
It may’ve been bad judgment on the employer’s part, or may not have been. Under current law, bad judgment is not a prohibited reason for terminating an employee.
Daniel
Well gosh. Unless the majority of people applying for positions were gasp Muslim! :eek: :eek: :eek:
First of all, that’s not the scenario. Second of all, the only place I’ve ever heard of peanut products being forbidden is in schools, where impulsive little children share food when they’re not supposed to.
Peanuts would be life-threatening. There’s a huge difference between forbidding something that is dangerous and forbidding something that’s “upsetting.”
No one responded to the fact that she was forbidden to eat pork in her car, in the lot. Where no one would smell it or (heaven forbid!) see it.
You left something very important out of the sentence: It should read: she was simply asked to refrain from an act that many employees found offensive due to religious reasons. That makes a difference. The sole reason for the rule was to force a religiously based prohibition onto non-religious employees.
So, if an employee who worked for a Christian employer refused to take part in a morning prayer circle and was fired, this would be permissible? I don’t think so.
And if it’s illegal to fire someone because they are a certain religion, then it would also be illegal to fire someone because they are not a certain religion.
Also, keep in mind that NOT eating pork is an expression of religion. Just as not eating meat and dairy, or not eating shellfish is an expression of Judiasm; just like not consuming caffeine is an expression of Mormonism; just like not engaging in premarital sex is an expression of Christianity (and other religions); etc.
Can you give some example of common food restrictions? I have never encountered any in all the places I have worked.
I doubt this. Muslims make up a small percentage of the population, and this was a secular telecommunications company – therefore had nothing to do with the religion – so how would you get a majority of applicants from such a small minority of the population? Pure coincidence? I think not.
Wrong scenario again. If someone at the hospital brought in a roast beef sandwich and ate it, I’m sure they would not be fired. The OP is not about the company not serving a certain kind of food.
Right on. You can be damned sure that if one muslim wanted to wear a headscarf to work and someone else said it was distracting (like the school case), everyone would be up in arms about respecting that person’s religious beliefs. Well how about respecting the fact that I don’t have religious beliefs and to force me to OBSERVE yours…not just respect them…is out of line? This “majority rules” reasoning is bullshit. There are plenty of things we do in this country that have nothing to do with the majority opinion.
Respect works both ways. At this company, it’s only flowing one way.
- Food restrictions:
Peanuts
Shell fish
Strawberrys
Smelly fish
Meat products
Overly smelly dishes
KFC
Taco Bell
Burger King
McDonalds
any other fast-food firm that doesn’t sell your particular products
Pepsi
Coke
RC Cola (does this even exist anymore?)
Beef products
etc.
- I guess the idea that this is a FAMILY business that had expanded never occured to you. No, because you couldn’t get yer panties in a wad over a family business. What your putting down as “discriminatory hiring practices” could be as easily explained by “family business expanding and hiring…**NON-MUSLIMS”
But whatever. I assume there’s a reason that this is not possible as well.
Most of these I have never heard of…you say they’re common?
First time I heard of the beef one is a few posts up. I’ve heard of the restriction on bringing food from a competing company… but that just applies to food/beverage companies, so while that may be common amongst those types of companies, it isn’t common in general. Other than the Paul McCartney case, I have never heard of banning meat products in a workplace. Maybe at PETA or something, but again, that wouldn’t be a common thing.
Other than that, strawberries? Shellfish? Fish? Peanuts? Never heard of those. I doubt they’re common restrictions.
I didn’t see any evidence in the article that it’s a family business. It could be, but it’s doubtful to me.
Here’s another article on it:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/9320058.htm?1c
It says other than the pork incident, she was a “quality employee.”
I didn’t mean that they were common in every company, I just meant it’s common for many companies to have some sort of food restriction. No overly smelly food in the lunch area is one that I think tonnes of places have.
Further, I don’t know if it was a family run business. It does seem perfectly logical to me that it would be though, because Muslim communities tend to be quite tight-knit so when a company needs a new accountant, why not hire your cousin’s wife, rather than someone you’ve never met.
I suppose I’m only objecting to the fact that you seem determined that the woman was the “wronged party” in this scenario. I think it’s equally likely that she’s the one being the asshole - a possiblity you seem to reject outright.
Also from the article:
“They’re making it seem that if you don’t follow a certain set of religious practices and beliefs then you’re going to be terminated and that’s wrong,” Nejame (attorney for the company) said. “If this case prevails, what it will mean – the implications of this case – is it will eliminate accommodations of religion.”
What, is this guy high? What is he saying? The muslims in the group are perfectly free to practice their religion. No one has even hinted that they would be force-fed pork. The only religious beliefs that were compromised were those of the pork-eater.
It’s clear who the assholes are. And they don’t have any Jimmy Dean’s in their freezer.
Well, people have said this before, and you’ve alternated between ingoring it, or being dismissive and condescending of it. That being said, I’ll repeat it anyway.
Having pork products prepaired, handled or eaten in a muslim kitchen makes it non-halal. Obviously, this means nothing to you; however, to a large percentage of the companies employees, as well as it’s owners, it’s a very big deal.
Regardless of if you think they’re stupid for believing it’s a big deal, it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a big deal. It also doesn’t change the fact that they asked the woman not to do it because it was disruptive. It doesn’t change the fact that she did it anyway.
Guess what. If you do something and it pisses of 99% of your co-workers, and you’re asked not to do it 'cus it pisses everyone off, and is a really big deal for them, and you insist on doing it again and again so your “personal freedoms” won’t be trampled on, then you’re an asshole.
To me, getting fired for eating a BLT – a common, legal, safe activity, which in no way affects the business or her work – when she was otherwise a quality employee = wronged.
To me, imposing restrictions on your employees based solely on your religion, then firing them, when they are otherwise a quality employee = being an asshole.
And again, I’ll remind you that this had absolutely nothing to do with sullying the kitchen. Absolutely nothing. I’m telling you again…the woman was forbidden to have pork on the premises. Including at her desk, in the restroom, in her car, in her briefcase, out on the lawn, or in the janitor’s closet. This was about religious freedom being infringed upon, alright. Only it wasn’t the muslims who got the short end of the stick.
Incidently, I’d like to see a cite on what does or does not constitute a halal kitchen.
And regarding being an asshole, turn the tables and tell me who’s the asshole. If I employ 100 people and I tell the one muslim he can’t wear religious headgear because it’s disruptive, and he continues to wear it, who’s in the wrong?