Her freedom to eat what she wanted was limited on the basis of religion. Her employer did not make reasonable accomodations for their non-Muslim employees. She was simply told she could not bring pork onto the premises because it violated Muslim practices. There was no written policy.
We’re not talking about cooking stinky fish in the microwave. We’re talking about banning something for religious purposes, which is illegal.
I think it’s the religious angle here, people. If I start a business and I ban eggs from the building, no one’s religious rights are being violated. Unless someone must consume eggs as part of their religion, I can fire someone for eating an omelet in the lunchroom. Although Catholics are not instructed they must eat pork, there’s no prohibition of it.
So although her religious rights were not violated, her employer attempted to force her to follow his religious practices.
Maybe we’re arguing different things. Whether you’ve got a problem with it or whether you think you should get fired for it isn’t what I’m talking about; people get fired all the time for what I think are stupid reasons. I’m arguing over whether the firing was illegal, not over whether it was stupid.
One article mentioned that her last firing was for microwaving bacon; given the previous requests not to eat pork in the facility, that seems like a deliberate provocation to me. Nuking bacon is, how shall I put it, quite pungent.
Are you sure this is the case in this specific instance? Can you please provide some sort of proof that *this * is in fact illegal? Because if it is in fact illegal I will shut up posthaste, I may disagree with that law but it has to be complied with.
According to the link provided by nyctea scandiaca, the employee did more than bring pork products onto work premises. She cooked or reheated her bacon in the company microwave. This goes beyond sitting in the corner eating a sandwich.
Okay, I’m willing to admit I’m wrong. Tell me where I steered off course. You cannot hire and fire someone on the basis of religion. So how can you ban a product or practice in the workplace on the basis or religion?
(I’m not talking about the practice of sacrificing goats in the middle of the hallway, here. Let’s be reasonable.)
It’s exactly the same thing. An employer who is a Christian zealot may choose NOT to hire an employee because they ARE Muslim or because they ARE NOT Christian.
Muslim = not Christian.
In the pork-eating case, it was her status as a non-Muslim, or her status as a Catholic (Catholic = non-Muslim) that was the issue.
The actualy leagality or illegality of this case is going to be decided by the courts…she has filed a lawsuit. We can make guesses and assumptions here about whether it is legal or not, but personally I don’t know for sure. But regardless, I think it should be illegal and I think it is wrong and unfair.
OK, maybe she was being insensitive, or being an asshole. But, the employer should have made accomodations for the employee instead of mandating that all employees follow Muslim law. Then the situation would have never happened. So, looks like they were both being assholes. But the employer was an asshole first. And, sometimes asshole behavior spawns more asshole behavior.
Like I said in a previous post, to which no one responded:
Some Christians do not eat pork. Catholics do, so it is not as clear-cut as you want to put it. I suppose that she’ll have to argue in court that her religion mandates she eats pork for lunch in the company’s ground.
Did they have a legal obligation to provide for accomdation so she could eat pork on the premises? Is that a fact?
That’s not right. Suppose her religion didn’t prohibit her from going to work with a mohawk, and so she did so. Could they have fired her for that?
She was behaving in a way allowed by her religion, not required by her religion. She could have complied with their requirement without violating her religion.
Someone whose religion does not prohibit the consumption of pork at work may still choose not to consume pork at work, and in so doing, not run afoul of this policy or of their religion.
Therefore, it wasn’t her religion that got her fired; it was her choices that were irrelevant to her religion that got her fired.
I agree. A reasonable person would have either a) created an area where non-muslim could practice non-religion in peace, or b) put up with the single employee who occasionally eats pork at work. The same way everyone else would accommodate a muslim co-worker who stopped work a couple times a day to pray. The company instigated the animosity.
I disagree. She was fired based on her actions. Since her religion doesn’t require her to eat pork, it’s not really part of the issue.
Companies seem to be able to issue various food rulings (no Pepsi in Coke facilities) for reasons of their own choosing. Unless you show how she was prevented from practicing her religion which would require some accomodation, I think this is a question of her actions, not her faith.
I was reponding to Left Hand of Dorkness who said:
.
So I pointed out that “firing someone on the basis of religion” is the same as “firing someone on the basis of their religion (or non-religion).”
No one ever implied that her religion mandated eating pork. Look, it’s really simple: *Employer mandated all employees follow a certain tenet of his religion on company property or be fired. * I think that is wrong, if not illegal.
It would be the same if the employer mandated that female employees may not come to work uncovered. Shit would hit the fan if that took place.
But praying is OBLIGATORY for Muslims whereas eating pork is not for Catholics. Your reasoning requires some contortionism of the kind only seen in the circus.
This thread is getting really ugly, IMO. In some of the posts I’m detecting a rather strong anti-muslim tone, which I find very dismissive and offensive, so I think I’ll bow out.
I do want to clairfy one thing, however - my understanding of a halal kitchen comes from speaking to one of my good friends - a practicing muslim - about what it entials, and things that can mess it up. I would be interested to know which defintion you, Kalhoun, are using for a halal kitchen.
No, it was her reluctance to be forced to follow the tenats of another’s religion that got her fired.
This has nothing to do with her religion or non-religion. It has to do with a policy that was religiously based that required people who are not of that religion (the pork eater) to abide by its rules while on company property.
It is unreasonable for employers to expect their employees to follow the tenats of the employer’s religion while on company property or be fired.
But people, a ban on something that is not expressly forbidden by her religion does not prevent her from following her religious tenets. She could as well jump into a bathtub full of bacon *outside * the company’s premises.
I am a born-again atheist. My religion - or lack thereof -does not prohibit a lot of things that would have gotten me fired for violating my employer’s rules if I did. Unless they tell me that I have to pray (or some other action that goes against my freedom of - or from - religion I don’t have a reason to protest.
