Woman fired for eating PORK

[Lonskils]

ORLANDO, Fla. -- A Central Florida woman was fired from her job after eating "unclean" meat and violating a reported company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises, according to Local 6 News.

Lina Morales was hired as an administrative assistant at Rising Star -- a Central Florida telecommunications company with strong Muslim ties, Local 6 News reported.

However, 10 months after being hired by Rising Star, religious differences led to her termination.

Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean.," Local 6 News reported. She was then fire for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report.

"Are you telling me they fired you because you had something with ham on it?" Local 6 News reporter Mike Holfeld asked.

"Yes," Morales said.

Holfeld asked, "A pizza and a BLT sandwich?"

" Yes," Morales said.

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.

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

"Did you ever sign to or agree to anything that said I will not eat pork?" Holfeld asked Morales.

"Never," Morales said. "When I got hired there, they said we don't care what religion you are."

Attorney Travis Hollifield is representing Morales in a lawsuit against the company.

"It's just un-American," Hollifield said. "It's not in compliance with the laws of this country."

Local 6 News reported that the case has precedent-setting issues because it addresses employee rights and religion in the workplace.

"It's a classic case of religious discrimination," Hollifield said. "They have not articulated a single reason other than religious reason behind the policy."

The CEO of Rising Star, Kujaatele Kweli, told Local 6 News that they have tried to create an office that accommodates anybody's religion -- not just Islam.

"Clearly you're accommodating," Holfeld said.

"Yes." Kweli replied.

"And you have an ecumenical philosophy," Holfeld said.

" Yes," Kweli replied.

"(Then) shouldn't you be able to accommodate all faiths in the same lunch room?" Holfeld asked.

"We do, we can," Kweli said.

"But you've dismissed one of your employees for eating pork in the lunch room," Holfeld said.

"Yes, pork is considered unclean," Kweli said.

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.

"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 asked.

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

Orlando attorney Mark Nejame is close to the Muslim community, Local 6 News reported. He said Kweli's intentions may cross constitutional parameters, according to the report.

"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 said. "If this case prevails, what it will mean -- the implications of this case -- is it will eliminate accommodations of religion."

Both sides are steadfast in their belief that they are right. Morales is taking the company to court charging discrimination, Local 6 News reported.

Link (http://www.local6.com/money/3614199/detail.html)

[Peotr]

Some people say I'm Republican. I'm not.
Some people say I'm a Democrat. I'm not.

Some people say I'm conservative. They are idiots.
Some people say I'm a Liberal. I'm not.

I believe that gay people should be allowed to teach in schools. I believe kids should be allowed to pray in school. I believe that if you don't like the Pledge of Allegiance, you shouldn't recite it. I believe in explicit sex education, I believe everyone should be allowed to own any gun they like, and I believe that every gun owner should be required to have a license, should have gun-owners insurance, and that every gun they own should be identified on their insurance policy. I believe that drug laws are a waste of time, I believe that we need to cut government roughly in half, I believe that our legal system is one of our biggest strengths and one of our greatest social failures, and I am a Christian who still believes that it is perfectly 'OK' to say 'FUCK!'

That said ....

I don't know what 'warnings' she was given, if any. If she was fired without warning, well, thats an obvious violation. But -

Your company can (and should be able to) fire you if they don't like the way you dress. If they don't like it when you wear too much perfume. If you eat in your office. If you smell like smoke when you meet customers. If you cuss. If you are sexist. If you do not bathe. Pizza Hut will fire you if you bring food from McDonalds to work. Car dealerships prohibit their employees from parking non-company brand cars within two blocks of their dealership. Dominos Pizza requires you to say, "Yes Ma'am", "Yes Sir", etc., and they require you to wear those stupid shirts. I know a Korean exchange student that was not allowed to eat his wife's food in the employee break room ON MY CAMPUS (because it really did stink that bad.) Some supermarkets require that their cashiers smile.

Are we really representing American values if a primarily Muslim company says, "We don't care what religion you are, but please, don't eat pork here - it offends us" and we take them to court? If you were an homosexual atheist schoolteacher, would you really expect to be able to proclaim your views to your students if you were teaching at a private Catholic school? Why are we such hypocrits?

This is AMERICA. I am tired of people using 'political correctness' to control someone else. Would it really be that hard for the woman to not eat pork at work?? All things considered, is that really such a hardship?

-- Peotr (The Normal Guy) ©™

P.S. I know I'm going to get a lot of hate for this reply. =| I am not a bitter or angry person. I just love diversity, variety, and DIFFERENCE. I think it is one of the great things about America. To me, this article is not sad, it is not a topic for anger, nor is it a topic for justice. It's just FUNNY! What a great great conversation piece - "Did you know I got fired once for eating pork? True story!"

[Peotr]

A reply to my own post ...

I DO NOT think it's right for a company to use sex, religion or race to fire (or refuse to hire) anyone. Sex, religion, color of skin, age, marital status, or dependent status are all part of the process of existing as a human being, and using them as factors in employment is WRONG. It's unAmerican.

I'm one of the few people from my generation that thought that women should serve in certain combat units. I admit that I do see problems with having a co-ed infantry squad, but I see nothing wrong with having an M1 Abrams that is fully crewed by females, I see nothing wrong with females in artillery units, and I see nothing wrong with women combat pilots.

But ... Thats just me. I'm weird.

-- Peotr (The Normal Guy) ©™

[Aindayen]

Interesting reading. She didn't sign anything that said she wouldn't eat pork. Its clearly not in any policy/procedure. This action didn't directly effect her work, so why then is it right she gets fired? She will sue, and they will settle out of court for 6 figures easy.

Ain

[Andaas]

While I do not agree that the woman should have been fired, it does seem that both sides of this have their valid points.

The employer informed the employee that eating pork was offensive to his religion, and though this was not a written policy, it sounds as if it was a generally accepted "rule" by those who worked for this company. They did not ask her to never eat pork again - they simply requested that she do so outside of the workplace.

It is not legal to smoke in the workplace here in California (though it used to be), many companies banned smoking in the workplace before this law was inacted. So then, why can a company not ban pork?

[Eomer]

One's a health issue, the other is a religious issue. I think there's a pretty big difference. These guys don't have a leg to stand on.

[Tarissa]

I totally disagree with the idea of all of this moral relativism stuff. He doesn't eat pork? That's no religious belief, that's just ridiculous. Oh wait! Splitting hairs here, what's the difference?

[Buazag Bonesteel]

Leave it to Tari to take what would have been a 4 page reply from me assuming I got ambitious enough to write it and condense it down to 1 sentence :p

[Qaediin]

Thats why i keep pigs in my backyard in the city. To keep the muslims off my block!






P.S Im kidding :o

[Lonskils]

Hahahahhaahaha

[BurnemWizfyre]

The whole not eating pork rule is stupid, IT WAS OK 2100ISH FUCKING YEARS AGO BEFORE WE HAD THIS THING CALLED SANITATION. Do not eat pork because its unclean was because back in those days food was very unclean, and believe you me pork was well ahead of the rest of the food. This is one of the stupid rules that people follow to this day that just have no fucking place in our society now.

Reminds me of this retard catholic man who was a AIDS speaker in for my freshman health class. This man is carrying on the typical AIDS speach, weve all heard it before its damn near the same speach. He wraps up his lil speach and its time for questions, me not really giving a shit at this point i kick back and just listen.

"How did you contract HIV"---some random studen

"I was having an affair with this woman from work that ive known for many years"----Aids speaker

"Why dint you wear a condom like you told we should earlier?"---some random student

"Well you see, im catholic we do not believe in the use of condoms"---Aids Speaker

At which point, me being the dick i am and loving to argue and specially when i know i have the upper hand and in this case boy did i ever have it.

"So let me get this straight, you a catholic would not wear a condom because its against your religion, now this is a catholic thing not accepted by every religion out there. Your going to tell us, that even though you were breaking one of the 10 commandments, which is generally accepted by most religions in this world today, but you wont break the rule against wearing a condom?"---Me

"Im not trying to condone my affair as being right, you dont fully understand the situation i was in."---Aids Speaker

"Answer the questions, you cant justify breaking a catholic rule but cant justify breaking a 10 commandment, trust me if i were god i think considering the day and age we live in, if you were going to have an affair, the last thing id care about when considering about your redemption would be if you had a peice of latex wrapped around your penis"---Me

"John thats enough, sit down"---Mr Shriber

"No let him ask questions, this is what im here for...to educate.....You see i dont think you understand the nature of the rule us catholics believe in, we do not wear condoms because we dont believe in spilling our seed w/out the intent to concieve, i hope that clears things up for you"--Aids speaker

"So let me get this straight, so not only do you risk contracting AIDS by having this affair because your beliefs dont allow you to wear a condom, but you risk bringing a bastard into the world, let me ask you this. Did your wife or any other partner in your life ever give you a blow job, and if so did you insist that upon climax you insert your penis into her vagina for fear of spilling your seed w/out intent to concieve....yeah stfu your a hipocrit"

"Office, Right now john"---Mr Shriber

"Uhhh"--Aids speaker

I took my 3 day suspension and loved every minute of calling that fucker out for being a dumb ass. Yes i show no remorse for people who suffer from rules that thier religion tries to inforce upon them. PORK IS NOT UNSAFE IN 2004, NOT WEARING A CONDOM IN 2004 CAN FUCKING GET YOU KILLED, FORSAKE STUPID RELIGIOUS LAWS OF THE PAST AND FUCKING TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THE WORLD AROUND YOU TODAY PEOPLE.

[Qaediin]

I have to disagree partially with Pigs were unclean 2100ish years ago. My father in law is a pig farmer, they are some nasty animals.

I do believe muslims dont eat pork because of what goes in the pigs before they are slaughtered..such as eating feces etc etc. Pigs will eat metal if you put it in the pen with them. If you have the chance of eating a pig direct from the farm or from a store...pick the direct from farm option. You wont want to eat pork from a store.

[Vinen]

I thought this was going to be a article about a woman who was fired for giving oral sex to someone while at work.

[Gryfalia]

Normally a company/organization can only make 'religious' rules if they are, themselves, religious-based in some way.

So a Catholic charity, a Protestant school, a Jewish food processing plant (in some religions, food preparation is part of the religion), etc has the right to set such rules down.

I have a hard time arguing that a communications company has that same vested interested in adhering to a 'faith' based set of rules.

That being said, if the company doesn't have it in writing as something that she was forced to sign or whatnot when she was hired, I would think too bad/so sad for them. But if they HAD such a thing, I suppose they might be able to make it stick as long as you knew that was the case going in.

Gryfalia

[Andriana Duskrose]

The problem really isn't her eatting pork, it's that for some reason we still let women have jobs. See if women weren't allow to have jobs, then this sort of thing wouldn't happen.

*Ducks and Covers* :D

[Vinilaa]

The problem really isn't her eatting pork, it's that for some reason we still let women have jobs. See if women weren't allow to have jobs, then this sort of thing wouldn't happen.

*Ducks and Covers* :D

Die please, kkthx.

[Aindayen]

ROFL burn.

Ain

[Kirynos]

Barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, eh, Andri?

[Peotr]

Time for a long Peotr post! Stop here! You've been warned!

**********************************

I hate this topic because it takes a shit-ton of arguing in order to get people to absorb the basics of how I look at this.

In America we have a growing belief that if we are 'right', then we are entitled to force our opinion on someone else. If we are 'right' (if there is such a thing), we are empowered to pass legislation that forces our 'rightness' on others; we are allowed to take court-action against people who have violated our state of 'rightness'.

If we are 'right', we earn special privileges, such as the right to be angry and express our anger in public. We earn the right to yell, we earn the right to scream. We earn the right to use force, and we earn the right to pleasure ourselves as we watch our will being forced on others.

When we are 'right', we get to ignore those uncomfortable things like tolerance or courtesy or indulgence or consideration or politeness. We don't have to be humble or introspective because we've earned our badge for disregard and disrespect, and we are empowered, nay REQUIRED, to use our disregard and disrespect to force our rightness on the stupid, the misguided, and the evil, because anyone who disagrees with us is either weak, stupid, misguided, or evil.

This is America, and we've shitcanned all those oldfashioned ideals about tolerance for the idiosyncratic, the irregular, the nonconformist, the peculiar, the asymmetrical, the novelty, or anything that is a deviation from our blandness.

Everyone has seen the religious conservatives pushing their crappy agenda into other people's lives. We've seen the debates on sex education, literature, abortion, and even the fucking teaching of creationism (which is the most retarded and anti-Christian pile of hogwash I have ever seen.) We are watching angry, hateful people destroy the principles of Christianity while at the same time we see and feel them using coercion, courts, and the electoral system to inflict their beliefs on us and force us to live under their rules. Thats wrong.

Sadly, people who have no religion are equally comfortable using logic to force their beliefs on everyone else. Logic is an easy replacement for religion, and it's just as nasty when it's used as a tool to inflict your will.

From this, we get an amazing set of laws that have been attempted in this country:

• Ban scuba diving
• Ban paintball
• Ban sqirtguns
• Ban bibles
• Ban mysterys in public libraries
• Ban monster trucks
• Ban off-road motorcycles
• Ban all motorcyles
• Ban people under 21 from walking after midnight
• Ban certain types of sex, even in the privacy of the home
• Ban private aircraft capable of 300MPH
• Ban barbecues (charcoal, propane or electric)
• Ban nitrous-oxide
• Ban prayer in public, including graveyards
• Ban religious uniforms in public
• Ban guns
• Ban dogs above a certain size
• Ban unhomogenized eggs
• Ban video games
• Ban explicit lyrics in songs
• Ban discussion of alternate lifestyles
• Ban the consumption of alcohol
• Ban the practice of brewing beer or wine in the home
• Ban the ability to take local government to court
• Ban body piercing
• Ban tattoos
• Ban suggestive clothing
• Ban political stickers from being placed on cars
• Ban fast food
• Ban motorized boats on private property
• Ban public performance of certain types of music
• Ban public dancing
• Ban public basketball courts
• Ban SUVs
• Ban the teaching of evolution
• Ban the dissection of frogs
• Ban the teaching of biology
• Ban bicycles
• Ban rugby, football and soccer
• Ban school athletics
• Ban all religions except Christianity
• Ban all religions
• Ban atheism
• Ban beards
• Ban children's plastic swimming pools
• Ban daycare in residential areas
• Ban the sale of beer and wine in restaurants
• Ban pornography
• Ban abortion
• Ban marijuana
• Ban the Amish
• Ban consensual sex between unmarried people
• Ban co-ed living arrangements
• Ban woodburning inside the home
• Ban the sale of pornographic magazines
• Ban parachuting
• Ban computers in school
• Ban children from sleeping with their parents
• Ban homeschooling
• Ban caffeinated beverages
• Ban public voting
• Ban sex counseling
• Ban chiropractors
• Ban alternative medicines
• Ban planting trees on private property
• Ban garage sales
• Ban the private ownership of music
• Ban cameras
• Ban skateboards
• Ban coloring of hair
• Ban the use of headphones outside of the home
• Ban music after midnight
• Ban the sale of alcohol to private citizens

Too many fucking bastards in this country believe that FREEDOM means that they are free to force their life's choices on others. Unfortunately, freedom is a one-word oxymoron, because freedom does not give you the right to do anything you like - true freedom is the right to do anything you want provided that it does not create harm or hazard to others (including your dependent children). Outside of that right, true freedom requires that you accept others as they are, it means that you understand that others WILL HAVE an affect on your life, and you are required to be vigilant in the protection of other people's choices of expression. Freedom means TOLERANCE for others. That is freedom.

Freedom also means that while you are free to do what you want, you are also responsible for yourself. That means that YOU, NOT OTHERS, are responsible for you living within your own moral values. If you don't like 'R' rated movies, you shouldn't go to them. If you don't like violent television, you should not watch it. If you do not approve of the consumption of beef or chicken, you should not go to those restaurants. If you feel really strongly about the above things, you should buy your own theatre that doesn't show 'R' rated movies; you should make your own restaurant that doesn't sell beef or chicken. Thats your right, your freedom, within this system. If enough people agree with you, you will succeed.

I was bartending at a local bar when one of the waitresses came to work from an Ash Wednesday Mass with the little thumbprint of ash on her forehead. A customer got pissed about it (I don't know why, she was a really cool and very sexy woman) and he complained to her and then complained to me. I told him to fuck off. So he complained to the other bartender, who called the owner, and the owner told us to tell the guy to fuck off. So later the guy took a glass of water and threw it in the waitresses face, and we made him leave. We didn't touch him, we didn't grab him by the collar and throw him out, we just said, "You have to leave, or we're calling the police." And he left. And he sued us.

Welcome to America. We cherish making fun of other country's beers, customs, food, laws, business methods, lifestyles, fashion, sexual practice, movies, media, etc., while being equally bored with the tasteless sameness of our own.

So ... A group of Muslims in the greatest free country in the world got tired of the saturation of Americana and decided to create a private business where they could comfortably work without anyone fracturing some of their basic Muslim values. It's THEIR business. Not hers. Is asking her to not eat pork on their property causing her hazard or harm? And if it does harm her, is it HER responsibility or their responsibility (under the above rules of freedom) to do something about it, i.e. work somewhere else?

Does a nudist colony have the right to ask their employees to be naked?
Does a convenience store have the right to require a female cashier sell pornographic magazines?
Does a predominantly-muslim telecommunications company have the right to ask their employees not to eat pork in the company lounge?

-- Peotr (The Normal Guy) ©™

P.S. If you want to come back at me with a whole bunch of "What about this? What about this? What about this?" statements, then you don't get it. And if you don't get it, you're still part of the problem. Feel free to disagree with me, we can argue this over and over and over until you get it.

And when you do finally get it, you will have a headache, and you will go into denial for several years (during which you will subconsciously try to poke holes in this whole concept), and then finally you will emerge out the other side and you will stand blinking in the sunshine, cloaked in the heavy burden of ensuring that you live your life in a responsible fashion that allows other people to be themselves.

And you will realize you are completely surrounded by conformist zombies. Even your radical friends are, in fact, looking to eat the brains of those they oppose.

[Buazag Bonesteel]

In America we have a growing belief that if we are 'right', then we are entitled to force our opinion on someone else. If we are 'right' (if there is such a thing), we are empowered to pass legislation that forces our 'rightness' on others; we are allowed to take court-action against people who have violated our state of 'rightness'.



I agree that this is a huge problem in society......but it is only American egocentrism that lets us think it's a problem confined to our country. It's been rampant worldwide ever since Gruk the caveman started rubbing 2 sticks together to make fire and started looking down on all the other caveman/woman idiots still eating raw meat.

[Kakeku]

Good post, Peotr. Have you thought to collect all your posts to make a book called "Random thoughts from a Normal guy"?

[Vinen]

Good post, Peotr. Have you thought to collect all your posts to make a book called "Random thoughts from a Normal guy"?

If he released that some people from the psycho ward would come to take him.

[Vinilaa]

OMG I LOVE YOU PEOTR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :o

[Thuggo]

This is no different than someone being fired by their catholic boss for eating meat on a Friday during lent. That firing would not fly with a 200 mph tailwind, neither should this one.

[Rika]

Peotr,

I get the idea from your post that you think you are "right" in your opinion of this. Which is the reason you went on in such detail to prove your "rightness" to the rest of us.

Unfortunatly, the issue here is about eating... Something that most of us do daily. We have no choice in this matter.

Its not about religion, or whos right or who is wrong its about the basic necessity for survival. If the lady wants to eat pork, she has the right to do so. Something you can't control.

There could be many reasons why she eats pork... Telling people what they can and cannot eat, because of a religious belief is wrong. Instead of eating the pork sandwich or whatever when they told me to stop. Would have given me the overwhelming temptation to stick the sandwich up their muslim asses. Seriously, think if this happend to YOU personally. You can't tell me you wouldnt be pissed.

Consider this though. From my viewpoint.. religion is worthless. I despise it. SPECIALLY one that creates such retarded rules and presses them on you to the point of fighting.

[Peotr]

There could be many reasons why she eats pork... Telling people what they can and cannot eat, because of a religious belief is wrong. Instead of eating the pork sandwich or whatever when they told me to stop. Would have given me the overwhelming temptation to stick the sandwich up their muslim asses. Seriously, think if this happend to YOU personally. You can't tell me you wouldnt be pissed.

Consider this though. From my viewpoint.. religion is worthless. I despise it. SPECIALLY one that creates such retarded rules and presses them on you to the point of fighting.

Thank you for demonstrating my point PERFECTLY.

-- Peotr (The Normal Guy) ©™

P.S. Rikachu, I lub j00! Please don't think I hate.




Edit: changed the word 'proving' to 'demonstrating', as my point isn't really 'proven'

[Forty]

So ... A group of Muslims in the greatest free country in the world got tired of the saturation of Americana and decided to create a private business where they could comfortably work without anyone fracturing some of their basic Muslim values. It's THEIR business. Not hers. Is asking her to not eat pork on their property causing her hazard or harm? And if it does harm her, is it HER responsibility or their responsibility (under the above rules of freedom) to do something about it, i.e. work somewhere else?

There is a lot of basic common sense that a lot of people simply don't have. And our laws help protect people from the extremes, even if they themselves, lack some common sense.

Problem is that with that freedom people take their views to the extreme (one way or the other) and you end up with a company that will only hire someone that molests 12-year old boys and they will feel the right to defend their decision to the bitter end. Will deny a women the right to hold higher office in the company but yet hire a gay man.

Or say that it is prefectly in their right to enslave a race of people in the name of religious/national belief....it may or may not affect you at all, but unless you do research on the company(ies) you deal with you may not know right away.

(Cheap shot incoming)

Or invade a country calling it a "crusade" like a certain yankee President did recently.

[Kattoo Tacit]

Or invade a country calling it a "crusade" like a certain yankee President did recently.

He is actually a southerner, not a yankee. Although it reduces the odds, he is still a numb nut.

[Rika]

Thank you for demonstrating my point PERFECTLY.


And thank you for once again demonstrating mine.

Oh and something to consider... A couple of times you briefly mention things that one could link you to being a christian. So a religios person in effect. I on the other hand mention the opposite. Perhaps that plays an factor of sorts on our perspective.

By the way. I don't eat pork or red meat unless im forced to eat away from home for an period of time. But I don't wanna get into dietary matters. I could be considered an extremist when it comes to that.

ps

Peotr i dont lub.. i hate..
but thats just in general.
not anyone personally.
and certainly not a christian.
or people that smell bad on the subway.
white girls.
or someone that eats fast food.
dogs that jump on you.
or everquest junkies.
sprained ankles.
or lazy people.
bullys.
mosquitos.
snagged toenails.
people that bumb change from you in chicago.
or tired stoned people that ramble and need to go to sleep.

[Vinilaa]

He is actually a southerner, not a yankee. Although it reduces the odds, he is still a numb nut.

Nope he's from Connecticut which means he's most certainly a Yankee, not a Southerner. :p

[Vinilaa]

Rika, the issue has nothing to do with religion... it has to do with respecting other people's views/feelings. If I owned a company and I asked employees not to wear perfume because it makes me sneeze and one employee decided that her right to wear perfume outweighed my right to be sneeze free, I'd fire her. Because she demonstrated that she has no respect for me. Or if I were allergic to peanuts and an employee insisted upon eating peanut butter in the breakroom without cleaning up, again I'd fire the person for failing to take into account that their actions impact others.

Being religious or anti-religious has nothing to do with the issue which was that the woman obviously had no respect for her employers or their wishes. She could have discussed the policy, she could have taken lunch off-site, she could have done several things but instead she chose to ignore the policy and then sue when she was fired for doing so. Ignoring a company policy, no matter how stupid it may be is grounds for dismissal at any organization.

P.S. I lub lub lub!

[Eomer]

Yeah, the whole Texan thing is bullshit. He's every bit as much of a NE establishment yuppy as John Kerry, they went to the same schools etc. It's just part of his image to be the "everyman" southerner with the texan twang. I mean seriously, listen to George HW talk and tell me the family is "southern."

[Forty]

Being religious or anti-religious has nothing to do with the issue which was that the woman obviously had no respect for her employers or their wishes. She could have discussed the policy, she could have taken lunch off-site, she could have done several things but instead she chose to ignore the policy and then sue when she was fired for doing so. Ignoring a company policy, no matter how stupid it may be is grounds for dismissal at any organization.


The company also didn't show her any respect in allowing her to eat whatever she wanted.

And seeing that it was not a written policy, one in the company handbook, they really have no grounds whatsoever. Verbal policies amount to hearsay and are typically ones that you shouldn't get fired over. If it had been in the company handbook as company policy and she signed it, then yes, she may be fired for violating company policy. (Your state/country may vary)

Owning a company does not give you a blank check to make up whatever rules or policies you want.

[Vinilaa]

The company also didn't show her any respect in allowing her to eat whatever she wanted.

And seeing that it was not a written policy, one in the company handbook, they really have no grounds whatsoever. Verbal policies amount to hearsay and are typically ones that you shouldn't get fired over. If it had been in the company handbook as company policy and she signed it, then yes, she may be fired for violating company policy. (Your state/country may vary)

This I would agree with. If they felt that strongly about it, it should have been a written policy that was discussed prior to hiring the woman and accomodations should have been made so that both parties would be satisfied with the situation.

However, they didn't say she "couldn't eat pork" they simply said she couldn't eat pork on the premises. There's a difference. She could have eaten lunch off-site and had no problem whatsoever.

[Buazag Bonesteel]

Just to toss another log on the fire in the pork eating lady debate........how much of this story have we really heard? It's entirely possible that she was a terrible employee and was fired for a whole slew of different reasons and like so many people she felt she was treated "unfairly" and went right to the media screaming about being axed because she made a sandwich.

In the world at large we have a very significant number of faults......and I'm going by the law of averages here.....some are worse than others.

1 - We rarely like to take responsibility for ourselves and our actions.....it's always someone elses fault

2 - Once we've decided on just who's "fault" it is we think we have every right to make them pay for it.....through the nose if possible. The sheer, mind boggling number of assinine lawsuits going on at any given time in our country is ridiculous.

3 - We are incredibly quick to decide who is right and/or wrong about anything and everything, whether we are actively involved or not, without ever stopping to consider if we have all of the information needed to even form an educated opinion with. We watch 8 minutes of the 6 o'clock news and we know everything that's wrong with all those other people in the world. Unfortunately for us the politicians know this about us.....hence the moronic campaign propoganda they throw out like slop for the pigs. Oddly enough,and somewhat related to this.......it makes me just a tiny bit, respect George W. just because he's taking a stand on being against the gay marriage issue. I completely disagree with him but I do support his right to have that opinion and at least he's saying what he believes instead of being safe and uncontroversial.

We have a lot more problems than this.....someday maybe I'll write a book. Of course it wouldn't sell nearly as well as Peotr's :D

[Rika]

andaas sent me a pm telling me that if i continue to talk about pork on his message boards, i will be banned.

[Vinilaa]

andaas sent me a pm telling me that if i continue to talk about pork on his message boards, i will be banned.


:eek:

<3 Rikachu

[Rika]

Rika, the issue has nothing to do with religion... it has to do with respecting other people's views/feelings.



Nothing to do with religion? It has everything to do with religion. If not for religion I don't think anyone would care what you eat. Name some other reasons that would lead into getting fired or a debate about eating a ham sandwich.

I just see this as secular vs non-secular argument. And as for respecting other feelings and views. The whole argument is a wash from the begining. So just gonna have to go by laws. Fortunatly, companies in US have rules to follow.

[Kattoo Tacit]

Yeah, the whole Texan thing is bullshit. He's every bit as much of a NE establishment yuppy as John Kerry, they went to the same schools etc. It's just part of his image to be the "everyman" southerner with the texan twang. I mean seriously, listen to George HW talk and tell me the family is "southern."

Bush Sr Moved to Midland, TX after graduating from Yale, and made his money in oil, Bush Jr where ever he was born, was raised in Midland, TX and was sent to Yale also, tho his oil business did not gain the success his fathers business did. I'd wager Bush Jr went cow tipping at least once, and he was probably made fun of in high school because he was a cheer-leader.

[Thuggo]

Rika, the issue has nothing to do with religion... it has to do with respecting other people's views/feelings. If I owned a company and I asked employees not to wear perfume because it makes me sneeze and one employee decided that her right to wear perfume outweighed my right to be sneeze free, I'd fire her. Because she demonstrated that she has no respect for me. Or if I were allergic to peanuts and an employee insisted upon eating peanut butter in the breakroom without cleaning up, again I'd fire the person for failing to take into account that their actions impact others.

Being religious or anti-religious has nothing to do with the issue which was that the woman obviously had no respect for her employers or their wishes. She could have discussed the policy, she could have taken lunch off-site, she could have done several things but instead she chose to ignore the policy and then sue when she was fired for doing so. Ignoring a company policy, no matter how stupid it may be is grounds for dismissal at any organization.

P.S. I lub lub lub!

This is not a health issue, the reasons you listed are. Just because an employer wishes for you to not eat a certain food does not mean they can fire you if you do. There are laws governing reasons for which you can and cannot be fired.


Under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:

-hiring and firing;
-compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
-transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
-job advertisements;
-recruitment;
-testing;
-use of company facilities;
-training and apprenticeship programs;
-fringe benefits;
-pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
-other terms and conditions of employment.

Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:

-harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age;

-retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices;

-employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities; and

-denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group.

She was fired by her muslim boss because she ate pork. The law protects her right NOT to be fired because of that. He clearly fired her based on a religious reason. That is a discriminatory practice.

[Aindayen]

Thuggo speaks the truth. On a side note i have the biggest friggen headache trying to figure out wtfak kattoo's avatar means. It makes no sense damnit!

Ain

[Andriana Duskrose]

Die please, kkthx.

Bah! You know you love me! *Hugs* ;)

[Vinilaa]

Obviously you're missing the point. The woman KNEW the issue before she took the job, she decided to eat pork anyway, not once but twice, probably without consulting her bosses on her feelings toward the policy. The bottom line is, why did she take the job without stating that the policy would be a problem for her?

It's not a religious issue, it's a respect issue. She didn't have enough respect for her bosses to talk to them about the issue if she had such a problem with it. Again I say, they weren't controlling WHAT she ate for lunch just WHERE she could eat it.

Sheesh.

[Eomer]

Well, there are two ways to look at it. In the legal sense, they don't have a leg to stand on and will most likely to rehire her or pay a fine or something.

But yes, I agree it was disrespectful of her, and she probably went out of her way to piss them off.

But they still don't have a leg to stand on.

[Tarissa]

Sorry guys didn't read this thread much but I fully support women getting porked at work

[Thuggo]

Obviously you're missing the point. The woman KNEW the issue before she took the job, she decided to eat pork anyway, not once but twice, probably without consulting her bosses on her feelings toward the policy. The bottom line is, why did she take the job without stating that the policy would be a problem for her?

It's not a religious issue, it's a respect issue. She didn't have enough respect for her bosses to talk to them about the issue if she had such a problem with it. Again I say, they weren't controlling WHAT she ate for lunch just WHERE she could eat it.

Sheesh.

It doesn't matter. Her boss is unable to use religion as a stipulation to hire or fire her or to set corporate policy. She is also under no obligation to respect his religion or observe its' practices.

[Kuroni]

I copied this section from a website listing the reasons that Muslims don't eat pork. After reading it, you might see why they might not want pork in their facility. If this is what they truly believe, the fact that this woman did bring pork into the workplace, one could argue her boss did think she was causing harm.

Just a side note, there was another site that listed some of the ova from these microorganisms could be found in pork that is well cooked. It kind of freaks me out knowing I had bacon for breakfast this morning!


DISEASES CAUSED BY PORK

The following lists show germs or parasites that are found
in pork and some diseases caused by them. Many of these
diseases are contagious while some are proven fatal.This proves
that the more science advances the more Islam is shown correct
as a religion of God.

PARASITIC DISEASES

a) TRICHINELLA SPIRATIS ( Trichina worms )
It is the most dangerous parasite to man ( Rheumatism and
muscular pain). The infected persons shown no symptoms, recover
very slowly some die, some reduced to permanent invalids. No one
is immune from this disease and there is no cure.

b) TAENIA SOLIUM ( Pork tape worm )
The worm causes malnourishment of the person leading
to anemia, diarrhea, extreme depression melancholia and
digestive disturbances. Cysticercosis means that larva enter
the blood stream then settle down in one or more of the vital
organs of the body, for example: brain, liver, lungs or spinal
cord. They grow and encapsulate, inducing pressure to the
system around, resulting in dangerous diseases (diarrhea,
digestive disorder, anemia, chronic invalidation).

c) ROUND WORMS
Examples: Ascaris, which may lead to digestive
disturbances, appendicitis, obstructive jaundice.

d) HOOK WORMS
Examples:Ancylostomiasis, which may lead to
anemia, oedema, heart failure or retarded
growth ( mental and physical), tuberculosis,
diarrhea and typhoid.

e) SCHITOSOMA JAPONICUM
Bleeding, anemia and other syndromes. If ova
are settled in the brain or spinal cord, paralysis
and death may occur.

f) PARAGOMINES WESTERMAINI
Infestation leading to bleeding of the lungs
( endenve haemoptysis)

g) PACIOLEPSIS BUSKI
Digestive disturbances leading to persistent
diarrhea; generalized oedema.

h) CLONORCHIS SINENSIS
chlonorchiasis-obstructive jaundice, liver enlargement.

i) METASTRONGYLUS APRI
Causes bronchitis, abscess of the lungs.

j) GIGANTHORINCHUS GIGAS
Cause anemia and digestive disorders.

k) BALATITIDIUM COLI
Causes acute dysentery and general weakness.

BACTERIAL DISEASES

1. Tuberculosis
2. Fusiformis necrofurus: causing foot-rot which is very
difficult to heal.
3. Salmonella Cholera suis: causing cholera
4. Paratyphoid
5. Bruceellosis: Acute, sub acute and chronic. It may lead
to permanent disabilities.
6. Swine Erysipelas: causing Erypelas in man.

Viral Diseases
1. Small pox: is was a source of infection to man.
2. Japanese B-encepphalitis: It is the source of infection
3. Influenza, foot mouth disease, gas tro-enteritis of the
new born babies.

Protozoal Diseases : Toxo plasma goundii- It is a very
dangerous diseases.A new born baby of an infected woman may die
within few days or weeks after delivery. But if he survives
he may develop blindness or deafness.In adult chronic exhaustive
fever with enlarged liver and spleen may occur. Pneumonia, or
celebro- spinal meninggitis which may lead to death or madness.
The patient may become blind and deaf too.

Fats In Pigs:
Pork contains more fats than other meats.
Therefore, people who are fond of pork are more obese than
others. Cholesterol is higher in their blood thus making them
more prone to asthereosclerosis cardiovascular accidents and
sudden death.

Other Diseases :
Flesh of the pork is hard to digest and may
lead to chronic digestive disturbances. Pimples, boils, cysts are
common in pork eaters. These are some of the parasites and
diseases found in pork and/ or the skin of pigs and certainly
there are many more. There is still no means of killing these
parasites, in the tissues, neither has anyone found a method of
expelling them, even produced any specific treatment for the
diseases.

[Vinilaa]

It doesn't matter. Her boss is unable to use religion as a stipulation to hire or fire her or to set corporate policy. She is also under no obligation to respect his religion or observe its' practices.

Obviously she's under no "legal" obligation to respect their religion. She was NOT asked to observe its practices, she was asked to respect their beliefs WHILE on their premises. I do not think that it was too much to ask. I also think that if SHE did think it was too much to ask she should have said something like, "I'm sorry I cannot refrain from eating pork here. There must be some compromise we can reach over this." She failed to do that. She failed to act like a normal human being and state her grievance before acting out, then upon meeting a consequence she didn't like she then decided to sue. It's stupid.

This is all I'm going to say on the subject.

[Lonskils]

what if it hhad been turkey bacon ;p

[Andaas]

I wonder how they even knew she was eating a BLT.

How did they know there was pork on the pizza she was eating?

I imagine this woman must act like Homer Simpson when she eats... "mmmm, bacon".

[Thuggo]

Obviously she's under no "legal" obligation to respect their religion. She was NOT asked to observe its practices, she was asked to respect their beliefs WHILE on their premises. I do not think that it was too much to ask. I also think that if SHE did think it was too much to ask she should have said something like, "I'm sorry I cannot refrain from eating pork here. There must be some compromise we can reach over this." She failed to do that. She failed to act like a normal human being and state her grievance before acting out, then upon meeting a consequence she didn't like she then decided to sue. It's stupid.

This is all I'm going to say on the subject.

It is too much to ask. There is no compromise, what is he giving up? A catholic boss is unable to force you to refrain from eating meat on fridays during lent. A mormon boss is unable to force you to refrain from drinking coffee. A jewish boss is unable to force you to eat a kosher diet. A boss who thinks that a certain food is gross is unable to prevent you from eating it. The fault is not hers, but that of her arrogant boss.

I happen to have a muslim coworker, he has refused to eat pizza at work before because it had pepperoni on it. That's his perogative whether to eat it or not. But if he came and told me that I couldn't eat pork at work during my lunch hour because it insults his religion, he would quickly find out what a real insult was.

Legally her boss was unable to fire her for this reason. Morally he was wrong to try and force his religious mores on her. In my opinion she was completely right and he was completely wrong.

[Andaas]

Did she deserve to be fired over this? No.

Was she rude and inconsiderate to her employers by going against their verbal request? Yes.

Were her employers a little too curious about what it was their employee was eating? Perhaps.

Was she a little too obvious with what she was eating, considering she was asked to refrain from eating that food on the premises? Perhaps.

Was she the type of person who, after hearing a non-written policy such as this, decided that she would try and be the "martyr" that gets fired and sues for lots of money? Most likely.

Is this thread worth my posting in? Probably not.

[Eomer]

Do I agree with Andaas? Mostly. Is bolding all this shit a pain in the ass? You bet!

[Vinilaa]

Of course Thuggo is right. I just hate pork and am adamantly anti-pork and pork products. Please do not eat pork and reply to my posts.

Thanks.

[Tarissa]

So, the product of all of this is that, in order for her to be safe, she has to invent a new religon that demands pork consumption at every meal?

Clearly the issue here is pork, and the level of worship it deserves. Do not worship pork and suffer!

Actually, religious views aside and stepping into the dangerous world of harsh objectivism: (Insert religious insult here) are (censored by most television stations)

It's a lot easier if I let you fill in the insult. Then I don't seem so mean~

[Vinen]

I just want to see how much money she makes when she sues the company.

Im going to go back to eating my diet of Hotdogs, Corndogs and Pork.

[BurnemWizfyre]

If i made enough money out of it and had money to blow, id open a business right across from them that only sold pork.

[Aelia]

I dont eat pork. And it isnt for health reasons, and it isnt because I dont like it. I dont eat pork so that at least 3 times a day I think about God and my relationship with God. I think this is the deeper reasons why jewish people keep kosher, and muslims keep halal.
-hs

[BobDole901]

Im going to go back to eating my diet of Hotdogs, Corndogs and Pork.


Vinen is on the Atkins diet it sounds like.

[Vinen]

Vinen is on the Atkins diet it sounds like.

Naah just that, what can I cook in about 1 minute diet.

[Frostboo]

The woman KNEW the issue before she took the job, she decided to eat pork anyway, not once but twice, probably without consulting her bosses on her feelings toward the policy.


As far as this being a religious issue, its not. Vegetarians could argue the same case with different views, but that does not lead to being religious.


The bottom line is, she's no different then anyone else in this world. She recognized a flaw in a company that would then lead to a perfect opportunity to work for an organization that wouldn't have enough binding agreements to force certain issues in court about the *eating pork* idea that was being influenced in their work center. Therefore she began to eat her pork and when the company fired her she did what she set out to do from the beginning, start her law suit.

some people would say this is smart thinking to be able to notice something so little but yet so big while others would say she has no morals and she lacks respect for others. I personally could care less which of these statements is true, b/c the majority of Americans in today’s imperfect society are yet blinded by their own reality, and heres where the irony comes in. They don't even realize it.

PS: i just wanted to be in the book PEOTR!!!!!!!!! hahahah

[Peotr]

Sorry I haven't been able to post to this thread for a few days. Honest, I've been writing a manifesto.

People seem to think I support the business, or that I believe the business has legal grounds to defend the lawsuit. In our current situation, I'm afraid the business might be SOL.

What I really feel - I don't care about the business, it's not my business so I have nothing to say about it. And sadly, I do believe the business will lose this lawsuit.

For a country that is supposed to be founded on freedom we are curiously driven to legislate what people can and cannot do. We are curiously driven to take businesses or people to court for the purpose of ... well, it seems like for the purpose of making money, although we pretend that we are 'punishing' the evil company. We are curiously driven to create laws that over-define things that are already illegal.

Freedom begins when you are allowed two things and required to do two things:

You are allowed:
1) The freedom to do what you want with your own life - this includes total ownership of your own mind and your own body.
2) The freedom to do what you want with your own property, including your own business.

You are required to:
1) Be responsible for yourself and your own actions.
2) Not create a harm or hazard to others.

We are a multi-cultural society founded on the premise of Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness. In spite of this, many organizations are bent on forcing everyone to homogonize to sameness. This happens in all spectrums - left, right, conservative, liberal, religious, atheist.

Since we lack any guiding principles, we legislate. It's a constant game in this country to see who can force a legislation on other people. We also refuse to take responsibility for ourselves, and we require our government to create huge safety nets for that save us from stupidity. Hell, I'm gonna sue Sony for creating an addictive game that has ruined my life.

We must 1) Take responsibility for ourselves, and 2) Realize that we have no right to dictate to anyone else. Anyone attempting any legislation that interferes with Rule 1 or Rule 2 should be in violation of the law.

I hear some people saying, "AHA! But the muslim company was dictating its principles to the woman, not the other way around!"

Perhaps, yes, but living in a free, multi-cultural society requires all of us to accept others and to realize that other cultures and lifestyles will have an impact on us. This is just like a line of restaurants - one is Chinese, one is Italian, one is Mexican, one is Thai, one serves sushi, and one is a steakhouse. You don't expect the Mexican restaurant to serve Chow Mein, and you don't expect the Italian restaurant to serve ridiculously expensive and minute portions of vinegar-flavored rice. But you may enter each restaurant of your own free choice. You may decide to do business with whichever establishment suits your tastes and mood.

The Mexican restaurant cannot legislate that the Hindu restaurant serve beef.

So - we have freedom of restaurants. And don't tell me the woman would be allowed to eat pork on the premises if she worked for a vegetarian restaurant. And don't tell me that vegetarianism is a form of religion, either. Each restaurant is allowed to be what it wants to be, and is free to succeed or fail based on its appeal to customers. From this tiny principle comes the great correlation between enterprise and freedom - if you are determined to live a particular lifestyle, you must create or acquire the wealth / property that allows you to live without compromise.

Freedom begins with the right to do what you want with all that is yours. If you are allowed any freedom at all it must be the freedom to be yourself and to do what you want with your own property. If a Muslim living in a free country is not able to create a business where he feels his business and his employees represent his values, then we don't live in a free country. Welcome to the basic of Fascism.

Heil Hitler! Let the beatings begin.

-- Peotr (The Normal Guy) &copy;&trade;

P.S. Sure, you can be a Muslim in our country. But you gotta be a Muslim that acts just like the rest of us Americans.

P.P.S. In an article in the 1932 Enciclopedia Italiana, written by Giovanni Gentile and attributed to Benito Mussolini, fascism is described as a system in which "The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad. ...For the Fascist, everything is within the State and ... neither individuals or groups are outside the State. ...For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative."

[Vinilaa]

Would we even be having this conversation if the woman worked for PETA rather than a Muslim company?

Ok. I'll shut up now.

[Vinen]

Would we even be having this conversation if the woman worked for PETA rather than a Muslim company?

Ok. I'll shut up now.
Then she would just be a hypocrit.

[Frostboo]

Freedom begins with the right to do what you want with all that is yours. If you are allowed any freedom at all it must be the freedom to be yourself and to do what you want with your own property.


To define freedom in such ways in what humans can and can't do and/or have would take to long. To have the right to choice what you want to do and when you want to do them is a conversation for the birds, per say. Everyone stacks certain life values into the freedom category, when the truth of the matter is no one is totally free, which would rule out the term FREEDOM. We all live in a world despite our rules and differences that are based off laws and those laws will forever restrain us from being totally free. Yes one might say you have the freedom of speech and the freedom to protest, (that fall under the 10 commandments) but yet people can be put in jail for just saying “I will kill you”.

From the day a toddler is brought fourth into this world, they are taught to follow certain rules, and guidelines throughout its development process of becoming an individual. Some of which aren’t defined in any contract or agreement that ties Americans to live by but yet they are still influenced and can be punished for.




You are required to:
1) Be responsible for yourself and your own actions.
2) Not create a harm or hazard to others.

If one were free then wouldn't the freedom to do as you pleased when you wanted to rule out both of these ideas?



Webster defines freedom as one or all of the following:


1. The condition of being free of restraints.
2. Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
3.
a. Political independence.
b. Exemption from the arbitrary exercise of authority in the performance of a specific action; civil liberty: freedom of assembly.
4. Exemption from an unpleasant or onerous condition: freedom from want.
5. The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
6. Ease or facility of movement: loose sports clothing, giving the wearer freedom.
7. Frankness or boldness; lack of modesty or reserve: the new freedom in movies and novels.
8.
a. The right to unrestricted use; full access: was given the freedom of their research facilities.
b. The right of enjoying all of the privileges of membership or citizenship: the freedom of the city.
9. A right or the power to engage in certain actions without control or interference: “the seductive freedoms and excesses of the picaresque form” (John W. Aldridge).


Food for thought, for every one of these ideas, (for that’s all they are) which is based around a perfect society which we are not, there is a rule and or guideline that’s either in writing or not by legislature that will counter act and out rule your whole mentality of being free. Now this will draw a lot of speculation and will lead to, well we are free, we have to freedom to (insert what you think defines freedom here) and I would have to agree to a certain extent that we are free to choose what we want to THINK b/c no one can control your thoughts. It’s just when you react to your thoughts and they become reality one realizes how far freedom goes. So the question at hand is, are we as Americans totally free? The answer would appear to be false, but then everyone has their own opinion on what they consider being free means.

[Thuggo]

The Mexican restaurant cannot legislate that the Hindu restaurant serve beef.

You are correct, they cannot. This was not done.


If a Muslim living in a free country is not able to create a business where he feels his business and his employees represent his values, then we don't live in a free country. Welcome to the basic of Fascism.

No that is not freedom, that is bigotry. He is NOT free to hire and fire people using religion as a criteria. Following your logic I should be able to create a corporation wherein I only hire white male christians. It is my background and I do feel most comfortable with people of this ethnic and religious background. That policy would be predjudiced and would rightfully be called into question.

Those defending the boss are in effect saying to me that because the boss is a muslim he should be granted special rights based on his religion. No, not in my country. He has the same freedom to choose his religion as everyone else. But the same laws protect him from being fired based on his religion prevent him from firing others for that very same reason.

The corporate policy was based on a religious more, that is illegal. The fact that she was fired was based on this illegal corporate policy. This woman lost her job because of and illegal corporate policy, she was wronged, she should be able to collect for this. It doesn't matter if she intentionally set out to cause a stir, what the company did was illegal. She's right and they are wrong.

PETA is a private not for profit institution. The laws governing it are different. They are fully able to allow only vegans to join. Now if they were a corporation paying taxes, selling stock, etc then the laws would be different.

[Vinilaa]

Thuggo you are right. However, they did not exclude this woman from their organization because she was Catholic... They tried to create a lunchroom where EVERYONE felt comfortable. They did not expect her to be Muslim or to adopt their faith, they asked her to please refrain from flouting the tenets of their faith on their property. There is a subtle difference here I think you're just choosing not to see it. ;)

I still lub though! :o

KOOLAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Eomer]

I like that quote Vin. I thought that most e e cummings stuff barely made any sense :D

[Vinilaa]

I like that quote Vin. I thought that most e e cummings stuff barely made any sense :D

It all makes sense to me... :eek:

But it's an odd sort of sense...

Buffalo Bill's
defunct
who used to
ride a watersmooth-silver
stallion
and break onetwothreefourfive pigeonsjustlikethat
Jesus
he was a handsome man
and what i want to know is
how do you like your blueeyed boy
Mister Death

- e.e. cummings

[Vinen]

/e Takes a Bite how of his Hotdog, then stares at the pork hes going to have for dinner.

[Vinilaa]

/e Takes a Bite how of his Hotdog, then stares at the pork hes going to have for dinner.

Damnit get the hell out of here with your nasty pork products!!! :D

[Vinen]

Yummy Hotdog!, this has to be one of the cuteist pictures i have ever seen.

[Yendii]

Hi Peotr you don't know me but we have very similar views on moderation and tolerance and I really liked your posts. At first glance I swallowed your arguments hook, line and sinker however on a second reading there are some things I must nit pick. In the interests of fair play I'll just tip my hand now and let you know I'm probably one of those who has replaced religion with logic. If I'm going to accept your beliefs as my own I require consistancy.



This is America, and we've shitcanned all those oldfashioned ideals about tolerance for the idiosyncratic, the irregular, the nonconformist, the peculiar, the asymmetrical, the novelty, or anything that is a deviation from our blandness.


So you are saying that America used to be more tolerant and is moving towards less tolerant as time goes by? I don't think this is true but maybe I'm just a victim if revisionist history, can you provide links or recommend books that support this?


true freedom is the right to do anything you want provided that it does not create harm or hazard to others (including your dependent children). Outside of that right, true freedom requires that you accept others as they are, it means that you understand that others WILL HAVE an affect on your life, and you are required to be vigilant in the protection of other people's choices of expression. Freedom means TOLERANCE for others. That is freedom.


Someone already brought this up, you seem to be redefining the term "Freedom" this is not a good way to premiss your arguments. If you are just saying the freedom we are supposed to have, I don't think you are making it clear enough. You seem to be actually redefining freedom.





I was bartending at a local bar when one of the waitresses came to work from an Ash Wednesday Mass with the little thumbprint of ash on her forehead. A customer got pissed about it (I don't know why, she was a really cool and very sexy woman) and he complained to her and then complained to me.


If the waitress was not cool and not sexy, could you understand the problem the guy had with her ash print?



Welcome to America. We cherish making fun of other country's beers, customs, food, laws, business methods, lifestyles, fashion, sexual practice, movies, media, etc., while being equally bored with the tasteless sameness of our own.

Does making fun cause harm?



P.S. If you want to come back at me with a whole bunch of "What about this? What about this? What about this?" statements, then you don't get it. And if you don't get it, you're still part of the problem. Feel free to disagree with me, we can argue this over and over and over until you get it.

Are you saying that you are "right" and can prove it with logic?


People seem to think I support the business, or that I believe the business has legal grounds to defend the lawsuit. In our current situation, I'm afraid the business might be SOL.

What I really feel - I don't care about the business, it's not my business so I have nothing to say about it. And sadly, I do believe the business will lose this lawsuit.

I think your "fear" that the business is SOL and your "sadness" over them losing the lawsuit might lead people to believe you support the business. But that's just me :p

I find it strange and interesting that I agree with your philosophy but come down on the side of the woman in this case. Do I get it, or will it take a few more years?

[sendain]

Yendii Wazzup

[Rika]

P.S. If you want to come back at me with a whole bunch of "What about this? What about this? What about this?" statements, then you don't get it. And if you don't get it, you're still part of the problem. Feel free to disagree with me, we can argue this over and over and over until you get it.

This statement is the main reason why i disregarded Peotr's initial post. Maybe he thinks hes got it... and maybe im myopic, but I can't see this quite so clear as him. Perhaps im in the same boat as Yendii, and its truly sad that its going to take me weeks, months and years until i finally get it.

Or maybe im not the one that needs to get it.. Maybe logic is so twisted and reverted that the most basic principle is overlooked. I don't know what true freedom is.. but this day and age, anytime anyone loses a right, even if its eating pork, people are going to object. Unfortunatly, somehow, someway, we all got stuck with the patriot act. Thats a much bigger issue and loss of freedom than eating bacon at work.

[Lonskils]

agree

[Tarissa]

I would argue that all bets are off when you impose your will on others. This guy had the freedom to worship as he pleases, regardless of me thinking that his religion is <insert unflattering word here>. Then, he said she couldn't either.

Wanker :D

[Andaas]

I think I can sum this all up with something a good friend of mine used to say, "I love pork".

[Tarissa]

I like getting porked. Hmm. Get it? PORKED.

laffo. :|

[Peotr]

AAAARGH! Very busy, no time to reply.

Sadness overcomes me. I will return to this on... like ... Tuesday. =(

-- Peotr (The Normal Guy) &copy;&trade;

[Peotr]

As I write this I am eating a couple of sausage biscuits from McDonalds. Bring on the pork!



So you are saying that America used to be more tolerant and is moving towards less tolerant as time goes by? I don't think this is true but maybe I'm just a victim if revisionist history, can you provide links or recommend books that support this?

Nope nope - you are correct, sir. We are, perhaps, more tolerant now than at any point in our history.

The American Revolutionary War was the herald of one of the largest changes in the concept of a national government in the history of the world. A nation determined that it would no longer have hereditary rulers, would no longer have a single religion, would no longer have social castes created by legislation, and would hereafter form its government and its policies based on the collective will of the people.

Very radical. It took the rest of the world centuries to catch up with us; a lot of current nations don't meet the standards we set in 1776.

But ... I have a feeling, and maybe it is only my own, that we are no longer the leaders in tolerance. We have stopped advocating tolerance and acceptance, and have started down the sticky path of trying to 'define' what it means to be American, and 'shape' what is proper and improper for an American citizen. And we are doing it through the only legal method of force we have, through politics, law, and the courts.

You don't speak english? Who gives a fuck!? Welcome to America. If you want a job in San Antonio you best be speaking Spanish.

If personal rights concerning drugs, abortion, suicide, homosexuality, tolerance for race, tolerance for religion, social tolerance, environmentalism, social protections, and political position are considered competitive virtues of a tolerant society, well, we aren't winning the gold in any category.



Someone already brought this up, you seem to be redefining the term "Freedom" this is not a good way to premiss your arguments. If you are just saying the freedom we are supposed to have, I don't think you are making it clear enough. You seem to be actually redefining freedom.

You are correct again, but I'm not really trying to redefine freedom in its current context.

I think I mentioned in an earlier post that freedom is a one-word oxymoron. If a person has total freedom, they have the ability to do what they want whenever they want, and that would include forcing their will on other people. Ergo, for one person to have total freedom they must have the power to subjugate another person. To have true and total freedom you must have the power, ability or authority to deny someone else total freedom. This is called a dictatorship. It's not a very good starting point.

These days, when we use the word 'freedom', we generally refer to achieving, reclaiming, or winning lost 'rights' from a person or social group. The Protestants won their religious freedom from the Church of England; the slaves won their freedom from their masters; Women's Suffrage gave females the right to vote. Our history of the word 'freedom' is the history of gaining new rights that were (unlawfully?) denied us.

We have a growing culture in the United States that feels the need to define what it means to live in America.

You can't have a handgun because handguns kill people.
You can't have an abortion because they are immoral.
You can't watch violent movies because they are unhealthy.
You don't need to play paintball because it is unnecessary.
You don't need to ride a motorcycle because they are dangerous.
You can't pray in school because it is offensive.
You can't be a married homosexual because we've never allowed that.
You can't listen to explicit lyrics because they are dangerous.
You can't be nude in public because that is offensive.
You can't dive off a bridge because you might hurt yourself and then sue the city.
You can't be certain you have any rights at all because if I can successfully pass legislation I can take them away from you.

The list of things that people are trying to legislate, regulate or outlaw is ENDLESS, and is successful or unsuccessful depending on where you live. The U.S. constitution doesn't have adequate ammendments to protect a citizen's freedom of self and property.

So, if we use the word 'freedom' as gaining a freedom from an oppressor, then I say I want to gain freedom from oppressors who want to legislate what I can or cannot do. With this freedom comes responsibility, because I am responsible for myself and I am not allowed to harm, hazard, or interfere with others.

Libertarians define the foundation of freedom as the right to do what you want with your own property, beginning with your own mind and body, with freedom stopping at the point that it causes harm, hazard (or possibly aggravation) to others.

This is not a fully realized concept. Like the words "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", it has no body of law to support it. But I support the idea, and that's what this conversation is all about.



If the waitress was not cool and not sexy, could you understand the problem the guy had with her ash print?

Failed analogy. It's not that she was cool and sexy, it's just that she was a great person. Everyone liked her, she was always happy, always funny, always very sophisticated, always very polite. She was genuine, the embodiment of a sweetheart, it was always a comfort to work with her and I had very few words to sum up how much I liked her.

We will never know if the ash-print on her forehead was the only thing that the customer disliked about her, but it was definitely the root of the argument. I knew her (and I also knew that many of the customers were ready to kill the guy), and so I can't imagine it was anything else.

You have to decide for yourself if I am objective.


Does making fun cause harm?

Columbine. A criminal act.

The root cause of death at Columbine was not religion, greed, avarice, failed parental responsibility, or access to guns - it was anger. People want to legislate responsibility so that this doesn't happen again - impossible, so we get wild stabs at gun laws and a ban on black trench coats. Fucking ridiculous, why don't we legislate what weather is acceptable so that we don't have class 4 storms hitting the Florida coast.

You can't legislate someone making fun of someone else. You can only decide for yourself if you believe that it is acceptable, and you can voice your opinion.


Are you saying that you are "right" and can prove it with logic?

I can't. I don't believe in a right or wrong, I believe in a certain set of values, values which don't exist anywhere in the world.

How can I declare the rightness of something that doesn't exist?

Were the Romans right to conquer the Greeks, ending the Greek concept of citizenship by ancestry? Was Charlemagne right to negotiate the existance of Islam and request fair treatment of Christians in Muslim countries (against the will of the Catholic Church?) Was Martin Luther right to nail his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Wittenburg church? Was America right to start the revolution and declare independence from England, creating the foundation for American democracy? Were the Irish coal miners right to rebel against the English laws that legally tied them to the coal mines?

These are concepts that changed how we viewed our responsibilities to our fellow man. Hey, although it was legal, was it right for a man to beat his wife in 1910? Well, by today's standards, NO. But it was considered fine at the time.

I can't claim a basis of 'rightness' - I'm pushing forward a concept that doesn't exist in any national law anywhere in the world. I want to advance the idea of your own personal freedom as a worthy and correct way to move into the next centure.

I'm going to step back from saying I'm 'right' - I have nothing to measure 'rightness' against. I'll call this my crusade, though, and I do want to crusade. The banner I am carrying is twofold: It says that you, and no one else, are responsible for yourself, and that you are free to do what you want with all that is yours.


I think your "fear" that the business is SOL and your "sadness" over them losing the lawsuit might lead people to believe you support the business. But that's just me :p

I don't support the business, within my own principles - I doubt I would shop there, and I doubt I would choose them for whatever products they offer. The flip side of that is that I cannot say the business is right or wrong, just like I'm not likely to say that a topless nightclub is right or wrong, or that Chippendale dancers are right or wrong. It's not * my * business.

I do believe, though, that the business has a right to declare how their business is supposed to be run and how their employees are supposed to behave. Again, the WOMAN WAS NEVER TOLD TO NEVER EAT PORK, NOR WAS SHE TOLD SHE COULDN'T EAT PORK FOR LUNCH. She was asked not to eat pork in the fucking company lunchroom, a piece of property not owned by her.

I remember a store in Pennsylvania that catered to Amish customers - the supplies and goods were amazingly ... uh, Amish. And the place was busy. The owners weren't Amish, and less than a quarter of the employees were Amish, but there was no radio playing in the store, and the employees all wore plain, modest clothes with no buttons. The female employees all wore long skirts. They did this so as not to offend the Amish, who were their targeted customers.

Did the owner of that store have the right to dictate dress code based on the religious values of his/her customers? WHO FUCKING CARES, IT'S HIS/HER BUSINESS!

[Small subnote: The Amish are decendents of the Anabaptists, a devoutly religious sect that first put forth the idea of the seperation of Church and State. Many Anabaptists were jailed or executed because they believed that political figures, and especially judges, needed to severe all ties with church or religion before they assumed their political offices. The first Amish to hold political office in the American-English colonies were not allowed to attend their own church services, and were not allowed to speak to religious figures. Their only contact with their faith was permission to read the Bible to themselves.]

Btw, for people who think religion is the root of all the world's problems, and that we would be safer and more rationale without religion, well... China, Russia, South Korea and Cuba all declared religion illegal and jailed or executed people who were defiantly religious. In the US we've always called that behavior 'oppression'.

Do you really want improve the world through a form of social engineering? Thats what the Nazis wanted to do.

Isn't it more true that you wish that the people who call themselves Christians didn't spend so much time doing the evil and oppressive shit they are currently doing? Isn't it more true that a bunch of evil hypocrites have taken up the term 'Christianity' and pretty much fucked it into the ground for their own gratification?


I find it strange and interesting that I agree with your philosophy but come down on the side of the woman in this case. Do I get it, or will it take a few more years?

It's really not for me to say. This is my crusade, if you will, and crusaders march forth based on beliefs.

I believe in the United States. I believe in the guarantee of the maximum freedom possible for the individual, and I believe that barring any artificial or political definition of freedom, freedom should begin with the individual and his property.

I believe that these freedoms should be guaranteed, and should stand impervious to politics or opinion. We live in a political democracy - did you really believe that a democracy equals freedom? Democracy has nothing to fucking do with freedom - if 300,000,000 devout muslims moved to the United States, they would be within their perfect democratic rights to legislate an Islamic state and repeal women's rights and rule by the Koran.

I will deny them that. I will deny anyone the right to dictate to anyone. But that's just me. I speak only for myself, fully proclaiming that I can prove nothing, but also ready to point out that all the other emporers are wearing the same clothes as me.

-- Peotr (The Normal Guy) &copy;&trade;

P.S. Everyone needs something to believe in. Just be certain that what you believe in pure, because the Devil is looking to taint anything that is right and good and reasonable.

[Rika]

Uncle.