August 05, 2004

• Um, sausages.
• The terrorists have won!
• In other news, Muhammad and Jesus were notorious pig fuckers! Sweet irony!
• unusual, please give us links on that. Or, maybe dont't, since it doesn't addres thte issue here.
• The Koran forbids Muslims from eating pork. They didn't. She did. What's the big deal? I used to work in a restaurant with a heavy Muslim clientele, and none of them minded being in the same room as pork (mess their order up & put sausage on the plate, though, and they'd go nuts yes, I was a terrible waitress). These guys don't want people to bring in pork because it offends them. Don't we already have enough restrictive laws regarding offensive material/images/behaviors?
• I didn't realise that it was against certain religions to be in the same room as or look at pork products. That's pretty dumb, though. I mean, if a company was 100% Muslim or 100% Jewish, then yeah, go ahead and forbid prok. But since it's not, it doesn't seem right to not allow people to eat ham or something because some employees find it against their religion to eat it.
• I'm not sure if I want to live in a world without BLT's. Although I wouldn't be as upset if it was the lettuce that was 'unclean'.
• Look, when my employer instituted a no smoking policy, I stopped smoking in the spaces they controlled. (Yeah, I know I'm evil, but that isn't the point here.) In fact, it was kind of nice that they forced me to take a break now and then. Assuming that they did tell her about the no-pork policy, I don't feel a lot of sympathy for her. Unless whe was chained to her desk, she could have eaten outside.
• I like how the lawyer had to say "It's Unamerican!" instead of just saying it was illegal, thus implying that the people who own the place are unamerican.
• path, second-hand smoke is a health hazard, so I can understand your situation. But to say that eating a BLT sandwich is the same as smoking would be too extreme. I work with many Muslim colleagues and over here, they are strict enough that utensils cannot be shared between Muslims and non-Muslims, because anything that has come into contact with pork must be cleansed properly (using sand among other things, IIRC) before it can be used by a Muslim. However, my colleagues do not mind if I eat pork products in the staff room with them, provided I don't sit too close and risk them coming into contact with the pork, and I use my own utensils, not theirs. We also have separate locations for storing and drying our things, and use separate sponges and cloths for cleaning up. So as long as she doesn't spill her sandwich all over her colleagues or their things, I don't see why she can't discreetly eat her sandwich at her desk or in the staff room. After all, they can't know for sure it's pork bacon. Most of the sausages and bacon I eat nowadays is made from chicken, and halal (safe for Muslim consumption). Just an opinion, of course. And a damn long one too....
• they can't know for sure it's pork bacon If it ain't pork, it ain't bacon ;)
• Pork-4-Kids heh
• No Pork?
• No Pork for you!
• Busta Rhymes wants his dressing room pork-free but not THAT pork-free! I'll be here all week. Try the veal!
• it's a private company and they can limit what can be consumed in their building. it's not "discriminatory" in any way, nobody is allowed to eat the meat in the building not muslims or christians or jews or atheists. anyway it's not as if the woman's eating of the blt had something to do with her religiosity.
• esquire1983: But it is discrimination, because one religion's rules are made applicable to people of all religions in the company. If you find it non-discriminatory, the same argument can be made if a company prohibited anyone from wearing red to work. If everyone was forbidden from wearing red, then it's fair? What if this company decided to demand that all female workers cover their hair in opaque cloth? Would it be considered fair simply because Jewish, Muslim, Catholic and non-religious women - all of them - had to cover their heads? Unless this woman went around waving that sandwich in everyone's face, going,"I'm eating pork! Look! I'm eating pork!", I would say that her actions have harmed no one, and inconvenienced no one. So why should it be that she is deprived of her livelihood for eating a BLT sandwich?
• Alnedra, if NO ONE can do something, who am I discriminating against? Everyone is affected equally. In your second example, women are being discriminated against, regardless of religion, because men have no such obligation. There is a weak analogy to be made to peanuts: if some people are violently allergic, schools and other organisations (daycares, e.g.) have banned all peanut products. Best to be absolutely safe, rather than risk potential severe injury. If you make this policy clear, forthright and publisised, then...if you violate the policy, you'll be in trouble. Is that unfair or discriminatory to people who don't have seizures when exposed to peanut butter? Obviously, religious practice is not the same thing as health consequences. Nonetheless, accomodation goes both ways and how hard is it to avoid sausage pizza for lunch?
• If loving pork is wrong? I don't want to be right.
• ilyadeux: I can understand the spirit of accomodation. I can co-exist with colleagues and friends of four major religions and races everyday by prescribing to it. But I think a line has to be drawn between reasonable and unreasonable levels of accomodation. Just because no one can do something, doesn't mean that discrimination doesn't exist, at least to my mind. In one case (the Muslims), they have a religous reason for not eating pork. However, for those who do not believe in the same religion, their diet is being narrowed, even though they do not have the same injunction against eating pork. Who do is being discriminated against? Pork eating people. Because if they consume pork at work, they are fired. I cannot see why it is unreasonable for a person to discreetly eat a pork product (provided the smell or bits of the pork or meal do not spread) even if Muslim colleagues are around. Perhaps a sausage pizza, since it's hot and the smell may waft around, might not be discreet enough. But look at the article again. She was given a warning for the pizza; it was the BLT sandwich that got her fired. Anybody want to tell me that a BLT sandwich smells strongly enough to inconvenience people?
• The point is, Alnedra, that she was asked to not eat pork at work, which is a fairly innocuous request, by her boss, from whom requests of any sort normally accrue a greater level of importance. She, rather than comply, ate pizza with sausage. Now, *that* could have been a mistake, it seems that her employer acknowledged that by proffering a warning, and the matter was dropped. THEN she came to work with a BLT, which as you point out may or may not have a distictive smell, but is clearly an obvious sort of pork product, which indicates that she clearly and purposefully wanted to challenge her employer's wishes in this regard. No one mistakes bacon for anything but bacon. This is not about a boss making unreasonable requests of an employee (after all, he only asked that she not eat pork on the premises, not eliminate pork from her diet - the smoking analogy is apt, here), it is about an employee purposefully and blatantly violating her employer's stated request. And where I come from, that's a firing offense. She asked for it, and she got it. *If* she was interested in keeping that job, she would have put more effort into complying with her employers' requests. Instead, I think, she is (rather obviously, imo) trying to foment a suit, and using her employers' Muslim beliefs to inflame people against them.
• Well, I don't really support her, but I feel that this policy is also unreasonable. "(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." This is actually the source of my unhappiness with the policy. You want to accomodate all faiths? Fine. Eliminate beef products, so that Hindu and Buddhist workers are not offended; no meat allowed on Fridays, to accomodate the Catholics. Any meat must be kosher, for Jewish colleagues. In fact, there are many Buddhists who are vegetarians, and certain vegetables such as garlic, shallots and onions are "considered unclean", in his words. So no onion rings. No Hindu, Buddhist or Catholic workers in the office? Too bad; he claims to accomodate all faiths in the staff room. Why just stop at Islamic definitions of 'unclean'? Having a slight fever, which is making me very irritable. Going to bed now with an aspirin and my favourite teddy bear.
• THEN she came to work with a BLT ... which indicates that she clearly and purposefully wanted to challenge her employer's wishes in this regard. Because she knew she would be found out in the mandatory sandwich inspection!
• Why just stop at Islamic definitions of 'unclean'? Because he's Islamic, and he's the boss. It's his company and his premises, so he makes the call. If a Buddhist boss wanted requested that his employees refrain from eating garlic bulbs in the breakroom, that'd be his perquisite. Keep in mind that someone's right (and I'm not sure that enjoying a delicious BLT is a *right* exactly, but whatever) is only denied if they have no other option. If her employer's request to not eat pork in his breakroom was too onerous, then she could quit (I know, 'love it or leave it,' but wouldn't one quit working for an employer whose policies one found onerous? Conversely, should the job itself be remunerative or interesting, or one has a reason to ensure continual employment, could not one make more effort to comply with this and all other bossly requests?). Keep in mind also that she was perfectly able to enjoy pork during working hours at any of the fine restaurants which assuredly dotted the immediate region of her office, and at home, and probably even outside during conducive weather. Instead, she chose to (rather flagrantly) deny her employer's request. I think the difference you have is the idea that this was a conflict of religions, whereas I see it as a simple (and failed) interaction between employer and employee. There is no religion I know of that, I might point out, *requires* the eating of pork... although perhaps there should be :) mandatory sandwich inspection! I'd take a thousand sandwich inspections if I could make the "cup checks" around here go away. Financial services is no place to forget your cup, lemme tell ya.
• Also: I think he means that he employs people of different religions and doesn't discriminate against them when he makes his claims to "accomodate" all faiths. He fired the woman not for her religion, but for failing at least twice to comply with his requests.
• It's his company and his premises, so he makes the call. You can't possibly accept that as a general principle - ? What would you say if a Catholic (say) baker refused to employ atheists on the grounds of their lack of faith?
• get well and feel better soon, alnedra
• ( ... he asked respectfully and without snark!)
• ("he" = me, obviously)
• You can't possibly accept that as a general principle - ? What would you say if a Catholic (say) baker refused to employ atheists on the grounds of their lack of faith? But in this case, wouldn't the analogy be that the boss was Catholic, and he requested that employers didn't take the lord's name in vain, or something similar. And then sacked someone for saying "Dear fucking God" twice in a week.
• What would you say if a Catholic (say) baker refused to employ atheists on the grounds of their lack of faith? First, this guy isn't doing that - he fired her because she ate pork twice in his lunchroom against his specific request. This is not religious discrimination, as her eating the pork (as opposed to his not) is not a religious act. Second, apples and oranges. He had already hired her, and while he may not have known she was a Porkist prior to employment, we have no report that he fired her because she eats pork, but rather that she ate it despite his request. Third, regarding the catholic baker: why is it so bad if a catholic baker has no wish to hire atheists? For one, it's his business to hire any and all that he wants, based on whatever qualifications he deems fit. And against the charge of discrimination, I say: does not the Baker hurt himself and his business, if he fails to hire the most qualified assistant baker based solely on the ground of his atheism? (assuming atheism has no relation to baking ability, of course). Individual discrimination like this hurts the discriminator more than the discriminatee, unless it is widespread and uniform.
• No disrespect or snark assumed, of course, my dear Kid!
• (cool, mate!) apples and oranges. He had already hired her... Mate, I don't think my example is analogous either, for various reasons. I just thought that it was a counter-example to the "general principle" in your sentence - i.e. "its his place, he can do what he likes". I didn't think you were resting your case on that principle, because I don't think you believe it in all its terrible generality. Hence I wanted some further reasons from ya - "narrower" ones. This is not religious discrimination, as her eating the pork (as opposed to his not) is not a religious act. I put it to you that it's religious discrimination because the only reason this guy doesn't want her eating pork is because of his religious beliefs. He's foisting them onto her. why is it so bad if a catholic baker has no wish to hire atheists? Because it allows such unjust discrimination pratices to become widespread and uniform. You wouldn't accept a white business not hiring black people just because they were black? we have no report that he fired her because she eats pork, but rather that she ate it despite his request. Oh, I put it to you that its the same thing. "His request" was not to eat pork. It can't be that any request he makes of his employee is justified.
• He's foisting them onto her. Not at all. He *asked* her, in his role as her employer, to not eat pork in his lunchroom. As a counter example, we have a similar injunction against microwave popcorn, SOLELY because one of the bosses here despises the smell. And yet, no one feels that this is an infraction of our right to eat microwave popcorn. We just don't eat it at work. The point being, *why* he asked her to not eat pork is irrelevant; that he is her boss, that he requested that she not eat pork in his place of business and that she ate pork anyway despite that request is the event chain that led her to firing. If anything, one can make the case that she is infringing on his religious rights by insisting on consuming pork in his presence, in light of the apparent revulsion he feels for the practice and in violation of his specific request that she not do it! Because it allows such unjust discrimination pratices to become widespread and uniform. How? I'd say the opposite occurs: atheist bakers go to the catholic baker's competition, bake better bread, and put the catholic out of business. But I'd agree to the point that, in a culture that already is *predisposed* against atheists, this could spread. You wouldn't accept a white business not hiring black people just because they were black? I certainly wouldn't patronize it, if I knew that this was the case. But as for *accepting* it, well, what could I do - other than direct my patronization elsewhere? This sort of thing happens all the time, even today, so I have to accept that it exists; but what the last five decades have done is try to eliminte the predisposition of the culture against black employees - the disease. Affirmative Action, class action suits, etc - these address the symptoms. "His request" was not to eat pork. It can't be that any request he makes of his employee is justified. Justified doesn't enter into it. Each request from boss is judged either acceptable or unacceptable by the person requested in light of the various aspects surrounding that job. I may honor requests from my boss, based on things like a long-standing relationship, proven mutual loyalty, perquisites, increased remuneration above comapny standards, etc., that others might find unacceptable (stop sniggering! I can tell what you're thinking, and that's not what I meant!) But that is my decision to make, with all the consequences that may accrue thereon. Now, there are requests that are obviously unacceptable, and most of them are illegal (I'm thinking sexual harassment, based on your gutter thoughts back there a few sentences ago). But asking someone to eschew pork is not illegal, it's just an odd request, which she chose to deny.
• I am not a law expert, but I'm pretty sure that being the boss/owner of a business doesn't give you the right to impose arbitrary rules on your employees. You can impose a dress code, but it can't include a crucifix necklace or a "Jesus Saves" logo. That discriminates against non-Christian employees. Even if you apply a rule to everyone, it can still be discriminatory if it primarily affects an identifiable group.
• *why* he asked her to not eat pork is irrelevant And I says it ain't! He's asking her not to do it solely for his religious reasons. Not because of an allergy. Not because of medical harm it may do to him, his customers or anyone else. I'd say the opposite occurs... And I says your suggestion leaves the right of individuals to fully participate in our society - to get jobs where they like - to market forces; when a much simpler way to protect the right of black folk, or catholics, or jews, or whatever is to ensure that it is unlawful to discriminate against them in recruitment on those grounds alone. Now, there are requests that are obviously unacceptable, and most of them are illegal And I says - not all of 'em. It's not illegal to fuck your boss, but it should be illegal to require that you fuck your boss to keep your job. I dig it what you say fes. We are both wondering about the line between ok-request-at-work and not-ok-resquest-at-work. I put it to you that this request is not OK, because its sole effect is to prevent an employee doing something for no reason other than that her employer does not do the same thing for his own religious grounds.
• Saying he's the boss so he makes the rules is, I agree, too simple; and clearly, this relates to religious beliefs in the workplace, in the sense that one person (or group) is requesting another to comply with principles that are not universally held. The thing is, that does not automatically make it "discrimination" (meaning improper discrimination). The employer is asking for reasonable accomodation of his and other employees' religious beliefs; he is NOT (on the face of it) requiring this woman to ascribe to the beliefs. Surely foregoing pork on office premises does not interfere with her beliefs, principles, or capacity to do her job safely? [by way of full disclosure, I'm vegetarian so couldn't care less.] To me, it does seem to appproach a minimally impairing policy, and actually easier to follow than "you can eat pork, but only over there in the corner by yourself, unless it's too pungent, in which case you can eat it, but only in the broom closet, and you have to use your own cutlery, and dispose of the residue in this Bio-Hazard container." Why don't they require kosher food, no garlic, etc? If no one has asked for it, why should they have to? If people have requested other accomodation for their beliefs (holidays off, etc.) then hopefully they have been or would be reasonably accomodated.
• First, Human Resource laws usually don't allow these kinds of rules to be put in company policy (in CA, anyway, but I do have to say our laws are usually more strict than other states' and even federal laws). Second, I wonder how the warning for eating the pizza was worded, exactly. Specifically, I wonder if he said "That meat is unclean, you shouldn't eat it" or if he said "Eating that meat is against our policy, don't do that again". If it was anything like the first example, that's not a warning, it's a suggestion. Third, this is more about a person being offended by pork than it being against his religion. Why? Because it's not against his religion to be around the meat, it's against his religion to come in contact with it. His offense to what his religion says is unclean is infringing on her rights. It may just be a BLT, but at this moment, it's a pretty damn important BLT. Lastly, we really don't know enough about this case to make too many decisions. Still, though, if she did do what Alnedra said would be punishable by firing (waving it around and all that), I'm still not sure if they could legally fire her. I'd be interested in hearing more about it. Still, though, if the employer wins in this case, Florida at least is going to see a major backlash, and lots of religious discrimiation. On preview, Fes it's illegal in the US to discriminate against a certain type (black, hispanic, redheaded, whatever) of person in the hiring/firing decision. Also, it's nice that everyone respects the boss enough to not eat microwave popcorn because he/she hates the smell. However, a blurb in the policy regarding it wouldn't hold up in court (again, here in CA). It's a favor, not a rule. on second preview, I see plenty of comments have been made since my first preview. I'm going to post anyway, so if I echo someone who already posted, I apologize ahead of time.
• ...but it should be illegal to require that you fuck your boss to keep your job. It is.
• The employer is asking for reasonable accomodation of his and other employees' religious beliefs - ilyaduex Well, I says it ain't reasonable, 'cos there's no good reason for it in this case. he is NOT (on the face of it) requiring this woman to ascribe to the beliefs. Pah! Hrumf! Zig-zog! If he required her to pray five times a day, it wouldn't be acceptable - even if she just "went through the motions". No difference, I says, if the requirement is to refrain from doing something she otherwise could. By the way - I'm being funded by the American Pork Council for each comment that I make on this thread. "Pork - the great meaty taste that pisses off Allah!"
• It is. - minda25 Umm, no shit.
• Also, I am hoping I don't come across as antagonistic towards my Muslim brothers in this thread - ? Call me out if you think I am sounding like an asshole.
• It is. - minda25 Umm, no shit. Yeah, I've been known to make stupid comments before. Sorry about that... didn't mean to be insulting. :o\
• No, no - It's all cool my friend. I was too quick on the keys - I woulda said the same thing as you if I'd seen what I wrote. I was the insulting one, so have your apology back with mine on top!
• Thanks, quidnunc! Have a ) Anyhoo, I put the question of the company's right to restrict people's diets to a great HR resource here in CA. I'm also doing some research on Florida HR laws, and what I've seen so far is leading me to believe that the company will not win this case.
• I'm still trying to figure out what Fes's "cup check" is. Why do bras come to mind?
• We used to do a "cup check" in gym class. And if you weren't wearing one you'd be walking funny the rest of the day.
• I think I found it, on the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission website: Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment. According to the employer, not eating pork is a religious requirement. Of course, I could be too narrow, or just wrong, in my interpretation....
• Looks like you've nailed it, minda25. She'll likely win her case, but if I were her I wouldn't go back to work there - the boss is a jerk.
• He's asking her not to do it solely for his religious reasons Well, that's a question of motive. Nevertheless, if the request in question doesn't violate *her* religious principles, the point of religion as a motivating factor is moot, imo. I put it to you that this request is not OK, because its sole effect is to prevent an employee doing something for no reason other than that her employer does not do the same thing for his own religious grounds. And I continue to contend that the motivation behind the request is irrelevant. If the request is reasonably achieveable, and doesn't violate the person's rights, then firing for noncompliance is reasonable. it's illegal in the US to discriminate against a certain type (black, hispanic, redheaded, whatever) of person in the hiring/firing decision. I understand that. However, this is not that sort of case. He is not firing her because she's (what is she, Hispanic? I can't remember). He's firing her for repeated violation of (admittedly) an unwritten, personal request. I says it ain't reasonable, 'cos there's no good reason for it in this case. Oy. If I had a nickel for every request a boss made of me for no good (or apparently good) reason... If he required her to pray five times a day, it wouldn't be acceptable - even if she just "went through the motions". No difference, I says, if the requirement is to refrain from doing something she otherwise could. See, that would be overtly religious, would extend outside of the company doors, AND she would have no other options. The two cases are 180 degrees different. the company's right to restrict people's diets See, he's not restricting her diet, he's asking her to omit one food while she is on the premises. She is perfectly able to enjoy pork at any other time and place. Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment. And I don't think he is. He asking her to show respect, perhaps, for his religion, as well as his status as boss, but in no other way has he tried to force her to comply to the strictures of Islam. Millions of people don't eat pork every day - does that make them Muslims? No. The mere act of not eating pork is not inherently a religious activity unless it is down overtly as part of religious adherence to tenet, which in the woman's case it is not, since she is not a Muslim.
• The mere act of not eating pork is not inherently a religious activity unless it is down overtly as part of religious adherence to tenet, which in the woman's case it is not, since she is not a Muslim. It may not be in her case, but it most certainly is in the company's case. Their policy is such that if you do not follow the tenets they require, which are religious in origin, that you will be fired. In other words, they fired her for not following the religious tenet that they used as a corporate policy. Clearly, it a case of religious discrimination, because the policies are based on religious tenet and motivation. "I think she was trying to make a statement," Kweli said.
• Fes, first, when I said "it's illegal in the US to discriminate against.....", it was in response to a hypothetical situation given about halfway up, not this one. Second, it's a "religious activity" because his reasons for not wanting pork around are that it's unclean, which is a religious argument. On preview: I read a little of shawnj's article, and I have a feeling that the basis of our argument is about to change completely.
• So, then. Their policy is verbal only, so not binding. However, "she prepared bacon in a company microwave for a BLT sandwich." That is going too far. Since she knew about the religious aspect, and was impacting their ability to comply with their religious requirements, I wonder if she bleached the microwave after she was done. If not, I have a feeling she might not win this case, after all. This kind of pisses me off. I mean, openly eating a BLT prepared somewhere else would be one thing, but using the microwave to cook the bacon?! She's lost all my support, although I'm still very interested in the outcome of the case, from a legal point of view.
• Sorry minda25, my mistake. Alright, let's turn this around: How is it that Miss Morales was not infringing on Mr. Kweli's religious rights by putting him in close proximity (as well as "defiling" company equipment with the microwaving of the bacon [which we won't get into the disgustingness of in itself, but even so, yuck]) with something that causes him and many of his other employees to feel a strong sense of revulsion? Isn't, by bringing in pork in direct opposition to the request of Mr. Kweli, Morales forcing him to abrogate the exercise of *his* freedom of religion?
• No. Is he the one preparing the meat?
• And furthermore: do we all *really* have to have legislation and lawsuits for something this simple? Is not simple respect for one's employer enough to prompt us to acquiesce to a small, if odd, favor? Must we really force these issues? I am an atheist, but I can be found in a *church* (a BAPTIST church, no less!) on Easter and Christmas - because my wife asks that I accompany her and her family on those days. A simple, honest request. Does it impinge on the free exercise of my religion (or lack thereof)? Yes. Do I do it because I respect my wife and wish to do her and her family this small favor? Yes. I wish that we as a society might be just the teensiest bit more obliging to our fellow men and women. Perhaps, in the end, it is technically a violation of her religious freedom - that will be decided, now, by a court. But it says quite a bit about her that this small favor, this tiny show of respect, for her employer and his religion and culture was not only beyond her capabilities but surpassed even her ability to *pretend* to care.
• Then it's incumbent upon the employer to provide two microwaves and declare one "pork free". I think the employer is the one trying to make a statement, by forcing non-believers to follow a religious tenet. I've worked for a Muslim owned & managed company, and although the owners were otherwise devout, they placed no restrictions on employees. They even brought in pizza (with pork) & beer on occasion, although they didn't partake in those products. I have another Muslim friend who owns & operates a sandwich shop. He makes ham sandwiches all day and it doesn't violate his beliefs, as long as he doesn't eat any himself. This Kweli fellow seems to be taking it a bit too far, IMO.
• I mean, I agree that the microwave thing is a bit overboard, since it would essentially make it unusable for a Muslim coworker. However, two things. 1) They make microwavable bacon. This might have been the case here. 2) Seperate from the microwave, were any of the Muslim coworkers forced to prepare or consume her BLT? I agree that Morales was not being very sensitive about the whole ordeal, but she was not abrogating the exercise of his freedoms by eating a BLT on her lunch break.
• Is he the one preparing the meat? No. But I will bet you that he finds it difficult to put anything in the microwave after she's made bacon in it. Doesn't proscribed food funkify (religiously speaking, can't think of the right word) anything it touches, necessitating some sort of ritual cleanup? In the end, she not only refused his request, but she flaunted that refusal. In my gut, I think that's what he *really* fired her for.
• It does seem that way. I would be interested to see how the court case turns out, because I just don't feel like I know enough details around the incident to go one way or another.
• This is a cool thread, huh? We're jamming on both (a) the legalities themselves, in the relevant jurisdiction; and (b) what we think is "just", both in the abstract and in the particular; and (c) its all love and respect. Nice one y'all! Good fun! And bananas to my peeps Fes-tastic and MC Minda 25million!
• Honestly, I think she's going to win. There's too much religion involved, and not-quite-legal restrictions placed on employees. There's also the shaky legal ground of an exclusively verbal policy. shawnj is right, though; not enough information is presented. About the microwave, I thought about it, and perhaps she's not been treated well there. That's another unknown that's relatively important. She might have done that because they were treating her badly, as an employee, regarding this rule. Or perhaps she's one of those people who really cherish all rights given, and who will fight to the death over someone trying to take away a right. Or, perhaps she's just a doody-head who refused to show respect for her boss and ate pork at work, which would make her a bitch, but wouldn't change anything legally.
• Honestly, I think she's going to win. Yeah, I think she'll romp home, for the reasons you've said.
• I would say it was wrong of Morales to flaunt her betrayal of the company policy. She was insubordinate. It was also wrong of Kweli to make the pork ban in the first place. I would rule that she loses her job but gets some kind of severance compensation. But then, I'm not a Judge (thankfully).
• Wow, everyone is right. /chronic fence_sitter minda, you're right. I think she will win too. But only because her employer made the mistake of trying to impose a ban, rather than simply asking employees to be considerate of other employees. It sounds like she was making a crude protest against his ban. Using the microwave to cook her bacon was harsh, and then there's the possibility that she puts her sandwich down somewhere, then a Muslim co-worker later comes into contact with that place. I don't know the religious ins and outs of unclean meat but I imagine that touching a place where bacon has been rested would be bad enough. It defiles the entire workplace. I can understand her boss's anger because something so simple affects not only their religious beliefs but their productivity at work. Hopefully Kweli will learn from this.
• I hadn't thought of it like that, tracicle. Who ever said there's only two sides to things? ;)
• MetaFilter: funkify (religiously speaking)
• It's not ok to eat pork, but if you blow up a bus load of Jews your 72 virgins await. Great religion.
• What an insightful comment. Or was it inciteful? I can't remember, now.
• thanks, willienelson_mandela, for pooping in the thread.
• He even forced me into making an awful pun. I feel dirty.
• I don't think this Winnie Mandela character is going to last very long around here.
• *paging the_bone*
• Do not feed the troll. Thank you. Thanks Fes. Feeling a wee bit better today. As I said, I do not support this woman, because her motives are unclear and her methods a little too extreme for my taste. However, I still hold the opinion that the policy is unreasonable. To my mind, there is little difference in forbidding the consumption of pork on the premises and telling the non-Muslim women workers to cover their heads up when they come to work. Would one then say,"But they can take the headscarves off when they get off work, it's not unreasonable." On the other hand, non-Muslims should also compromise, by making sure they do not contaminate shared utilities and utensils with pork products, and not dressing too provocatively to work. You don't have to wear a headscarf, but don't come in a bikini top and micro-miniskirt. Oy. If I had a nickel for every request a boss made of me for no good (or apparently good) reason... Fes, there is a difference between what is and what is right. You're absolutely right, we do have unreasonable bosses and they make unreasonable demands on us at times. But that doesn't make it right. And quitting may not be the solution, because a)you might not get a job elsewhere, and b)it doesn't guarantee that your next boss will be more reasonable. Companies and bosses must learn that accomodation must stretch both ways. Y'all are great. I was afraid it would be a train wreck when I saw 50 new comments since last night.
• Okay, but what about this? What if you had an employee who ate something at her/his desk that really grossed you out, like, maybe maggots, and you were a strict devotee of a religion that had schooled you in the belief that maggots were not only disgusting, but also that they were "unclean" from a religious stand point, and that so that you had an extreme reaction to watching someone eating maggots on your premises made you paranoid about contacting any particle of maggot juice. And you said "Look, I really can't bear the presence of maggots, so please don't eat them on the premises." So this employee ate them anyway, knowing it made life very difficult for the you. Who's at fault? Two things I think we need to make this discussion relevant are: 1) a lawyer who could talk to us about what discrimination is from a legal standpoint, and 2)a strict Muslim who could explain the faithful's reaction to pork.
• And, Alnedra, your society is so much more practiced at dealing with differing beliefs than mine. We USAians are immersed in a majority of Christians with a big enough population of Jews that we've managed to accomodate, at least for the most part, especially if the more conservative of them keep to their own comminities. Buddhists don't seem to bother us a lot. But, attention was drawn to our small Muslim population by the terrorist stuff, making Muslims an easy target. We must look pretty primitive from a more worldly view, but I do think we'll get better.
• That would be good, path, if it actually mattered what our verdict was towards the employer or employee. Sure, for curiosity's sake I'd rather like to know what the whole pork thing is about too (and there aren't exactly a lot of Muslims in NZ to ask) but discrimination in this particular case seems pretty darn subjective to me. I still think the employer made a critical mistake in making a "no pork" rule, but the employee basically behaved like a careless, insensitive dick (feminine gender notwithstanding). So, does anyone know someone educated in these matters?
• My comment refers to your first one there, path. :)
• path, there is a small problem with your analogy because pork is a pretty ubiquitious product. AFAIK, Muslims consider pork to be unclean, but not gross exactly. Moreover, what I question is not just the request, but the motive behind that request (not to eat pork, that is). In Morales' place, if my boss told me, "I really hate the smell of pork, it grosses me out. Please don't eat any here." I wouldn't think twice about it. But the crux here is that the boss has told her not to eat pork because he has a religious reason for not eating it. Assuming this is perfectly all right will open the doors for more unreasonable demands. Many pork products aren't obviously uh...porky in appearance, unlike wriggly maggots. If the BLT sandwich were pre-packed, one would have to look pretty hard to see that it's bacon under all the lettuce and tomato slices. Also, I hope I don't come across as being more worldly, or that I know better. These are definitely just my own opinions, based on my own personal experiences.
• *paging the_bone* willienelson_muntz: kindly take it elsewhere. Please. Thank you in advance. further electronically-facilitated trollbouncing will need to be done by someone else; I've had an extraordinarily taxing couple of days and need to supress my natural instinct to verbally decapitate people. I nominate JoeChip or Goetter.
• maggots are good path, we try as hard as we can to accomodate everyone at their work. That's a huge part of the reason our HR laws are so complicated and wierd (or weird, whichever you prefer). This company's request should have been for employees to be respectful enough to not eat pork there, which most likely would have gone over just fine. The scary part of this whole fiasco is that, if by some miracle this case were to be won by the company, it sets a precedent that will totally screw with our laws. What's to stop other companies with strong religious ties from doing the same thing with what they don't view as right? Other Muslims might hear about it and begin making women wear those head & face concealing scarves. Catholics and Christians would stop hiring gay people, and most likely the part of their policy that deals with discrimination against gays will be edited, and on and on. Because past cases are so often used to decided new ones, these scenarios aren't so far fetched. The bottom line is that the more laws that are created to shield people from what they consider offensive, the more laws are created off of those laws. I'm damn tired of having to watch my every word and move around work for fear that one misplaced "merry christmas" will result in a lawsuit. I don't even say "happy holidays" to the "letter carrier" or the UPS delivery person anymore because they might get offended and sue. There are things that cross the line, sure. Like a manger in the office. Or daily required prayer. But for little shit, it's time to let it all the fuck go. Sorry... nothing gets to me more than more damn laws that tell me what I can & can't see, eat, smell, watch, say, whatever. And now I'm going to go log onto KoL for a bit while I cool off.
• I'm sorry, did I say something wrong? I was just amused at the link. Is it ok to be amused? The Koran states in Suras 2-5 the methods and rewards for persecution and jihad against Jews, not nice stuff. So is my contrasting of the two elements in my former statement not warranted? given that a woman is being punished by a Muslim for eating pork. The people in this thread have greatly defended the Muslim, how pc. I'm not pc. However, in an effort to get along I won't be so to-the-point.
• Decisions, decisions... feed the troll or let him think he has argued us into silence? Ok, I'll bite. Where in Suras 2-5 does it say to persecute Jews? The prohibition against eating pork (and other unclean meat) is in the Koran. But I don't recall reading anything about rewarding suicide bombers who kill Jews with 72 virgins - that's a fabrication of the extremist 'religious leaders'. Here are a couple online versions of the Koran. Kindly point out where it says in Suras 2-5 that there should be a jihad against Jews.
• Alnedra, I don't think "worldly: is bad. Just tried to point out that we in the US haven't the same experience as you have in Singapore. Minda25 - as long as those companies make their dress code known on hiring, I'm not sure that it would be a problem, especially in the case of small, family owned employers. Large companies probably wouldn't get away with it, however. And I doubt that letter carriers would have grounds to sue when you wished them "merry Christmas." My experience with HR departments in major corporations is that they drill the absolutely most paranoid thinking into their memembers which is pretty far from real laws, just on the chance that someone would sue and the company would have to defend a suit, which they might win, but would still cost money. If you brace HR higher management about their edicts, they will generally agree that they are a bit extreme and will fold if you have a good case for an exception to their rules. I spent a lot of years negotiating with HR and other departments in extremely conservative companies, and found that all of them took the "no exceptions" stance if I didn't talk to higher management. You seem to be in a position which in in the early line of defence, but, trust me, if I could get to your boss, or your boss's boss, I could get what I wanted, unless it was too far out there. I'm not criticizing you, just telling you my experience.
• Oh path, I'm sorry. Just really prickly these few days. *HUG* I'm actually glad that living in Singapore has taught me many good things, such as being aware of more religions and races, and their particular adherences. But it's also taught me that we can't bend over backwards too much for any one group, because that will only create resentment and friction in the long run. Note to self: Don't feed the troll...don't feed the troll....
• willienelson_mandela: your comment has the potential to turn what has been a pretty interesting thread on employee relations into a trainwreck regarding the validity of Islam as a religion. It's pretty close to trolling for that reason. Sure, be un-PC if you so desire. Tell a few Irish jokes if you feel the urge. But I imagine you'll find your audience here fairly minimal. It's not about being PC or not; it's about sticking to the point and arguing sensibly if you have a point to make.
• The link is about Islam as a religion, if i'm not mistaken and how it affected some woman in her work place. It seemed to me that those replying to the link used it as an opportunity to beat around the bush instead of saying "yeah it's wrong to punish someone for eating pork, but then again doesn't this go along with the theme of Islam", meaning that when referencing the muslim religion it is nearly impossible not to apply the many negative conotations that surround it. No place in which Islam is prevalent is healthy, human-rights loving or free.Instead we see people who love to punish others because they do not follow their law, this is the defining trait of Islam.
• "that's a fabrication of the extremist 'religious leaders'" Alnedra, why do you not think that the religion of Islam is not a fabrication of extremist 'religious leaders' as well as the teachings that have been added to Koran throughout the centuries.
• Yep, we have a gen-u-whine troll here, as I live and breath.
• Please leave, mandela. This crap is not welcome here.
• You make it sound like this is a one-sided discussion, bad willie. If you dont' want to get into it then don't try to comment intelligently about my post. Just leave it alone if you don't like it. But please, don't even think I'm gonna kiss your ass.
• Buh-bye!
• This thread's dead anyway, I'm outta here, seeing as I'm the only reason anybody else posted after my first post. It's early in the morning, prime trolling time. See ya suckers. Wolof lighten up, you know you're just sittin there waiting for me to post. I ain't your enemy. Buh Bye now.
• Before anyone accuses us again of weighing down on newcomers, let me explain why I am convinced willienelson_mandela is a troll: 1. His incendiary comments about Islam, even though the specific issue here is about the consumption of pork on Muslim-owned company premises; 2. His overly disingenuous attitude: I'm sorry, did I say something wrong? 3. His pluck-out-of-the-air non-quotes of the Koran: The Koran states in Suras 2-5 the methods and rewards for persecution and jihad against Jews, not nice stuff. 4. His non-answer to my request (polite request, mind you) for actual quotations to back up his statement in point 3. 5. His overgeneralisations of Islamic nations: No place in which Islam is prevalent is healthy, human-rights loving or free. We want to play nice. But we're not pushovers.
• 1. Alnedra doesn't get to dictate what the specific issue is. 2.No sarcasm allowed? Fine, I'm not even that sarcastic. 3.Did you even bother to reference the Suras 4.I don't have to jump when you say "jump" 5.Why can't I express my viewpoints even if they are a bit generalized. I don't see everyone adhering to this rule. I want to play too. But not with spoiled kids.
• *plonk*
• I want to play too. But not with spoiled kids. Well, at least we agree on something.
• *plonk* Plonker.
• Wot are plonker?
• Plonker = wanker.
• I'm thinkin' willie was just made to be daisy_mae's mate. May you live your lives in mutual understanding.
• I should get to stay for the following reason's Coming to Alnedra-style; 1.I'm having fun 2.Alnedra,Wolof,tracicle and whoever else get to play a different game than their usual game of sitting around on their fat asses thinking up ingenious comments to bless us all with. 3.You guys get to use the really boring and,if I may say, just fucking lame word, "plonk", I mean, my God, "plonk", and I'm supposed to be insulted by that. Even if the definition of the word was the worst immaginable insult, the actual word itself is...aw forget it. 5.Cause I get to meet new friends like Alnedra,Wolof,and tracicle.
• Group Hug!
• willienelson_mandela has posted 0 links and 15 comments on MonkeyFilter since July 27, 2004. ingenious comments to bless us all with. Please continue to speak for "us all", o wise man who can detect the size of an ass through a computer monitor.
• Ah, Wolof, my Russian friend, why must you continue this barage of ill-intended comments towards me. I know neither the size of your ass or your national heritage, I'm just guessing. On the matter of posting 0 links, give me a darn chance, I thinking.
• Wolof. Don't feed the troll.
• Alnedra, don't feed Wolof, he's got a fat ass.
• BTW, this is only my opinion.
• Does willienelson_muntz = thooloo? This thread's dead anyway, I'm outta here, seeing as I'm the only reason anybody else posted after my first post. It's early in the morning, prime trolling time. See ya suckers. Revised MoFi Hall of Fame: 1. cock 2. daisy_may 3. willienelson_mandela
• languagehat's comment in the thread I linked above is appropriate. Hell, the whole thread is. ♥
• path, unfortunately, people look for any old excuse to sue, and while half or more of the cases are tossed out of court or aren't won by the person, it's still a pain in the ass to be sued. And, sometimes even the most asinine lawsuit gets won because precedent setting cases, such as this one, are used as examples. I actually work for a very small company - one sole proprieter, three interior designers, and me. In CA, we're exempt from some HR laws, but not too many. Yes, a lot of HR policies are conservative in order to avoid trouble, and can be considered a bit extreme. Unfortunately, it's pretty much the way it has to be. If we were to be sued, regardless of whether the person won or not, it would be a major disruption, and cause problems. Also, in CA, before Gray Davis left office, he signed A LOT of bills that became law, including the "Sue your boss" bill. Basically, sue your boss for whatever, be greatly rewarded. A CA employer who makes a *small* mistake regarding poster requirements will be sued for $100 per employee per week the requirement had been violated. The second time this kind of thing happens, it's up to $200 per employee per week. Same goes for paystub requirements, which is just silly. For example, I print out all company checks, including payroll. I have no desire to have my SSN on my stub, because it's not at all secure, and just plainly unnecessary. However, it's a CA requirement, and we would be fined for not complying. I'm not criticizing you, just telling you my experience. No problem, didn't take it that way. :o) willienelson, you're off topic. We're not talking about religion, we're talking about how HR law would apply in this particular case. The thread the_bone linked to above would be more suited for your comments.
• To take the opposite tack and assume Mr. Mandela is genuinely interested: Unlike at Mefi, from which you may have taken your posting style cues, we prize collegiality, reasonable debate and politesse. We are not above snark and sarcasm; however, we temper it with the perhaps unspoken but assuredly present understanding that personal attack is not to be employed. On the occasions that it has been, the employers apologize. Regarding your posts in this thread: while you may have had some point to make regarding defense of Islam, a quick review of this and most other threads will reveal that, with few exception, we tend to concentrate on the question at hand and avoid derailment. You initial post was curt, offered no insight or opinion on the topic at hand, made blanket (some might say, stereotypical) statements, and seemed purposefully written to generate ire and foment argument. When this was pointed out, the implied sarcasm of your contrition only served to further predispose those who were particpating here against you. I won't presume to give you discourse advice; what I will say is that the posting course you seem to have cut for yourself in this thread mimics that of members who have ultimately become persona non grata to this site. If, as you claim, your intention is to particpate fully, then I would keep that in mind.
• Fes, I would say that your comment to me is...off topic, seeing as the thread is about the employer/employee relationship. I see the topic has changed to: get the new guy in line quick before he destroys all that we have worked so hard to create. Blah. So, I strayed, and made an "offensive"(non pc) remark, sue me. My read on the issues is subjective. If I feel that my input is pertanent to the thread then that's my view. Now, my suggestion to you, is, leave it alone. Late night jousting between a few MoFiers does not consitute trolling. Onlying playing.
• That is, of course, your privilege; I will not presume to comment on it again.
• Good, then in the spirit of healthy debate and discussion, we'll move on, Cheers.
• Password changed; I can't be bothered with this crap.
• And the crowd goes wild!
• shazam!
• Hmmmm. Disturbed I am over the quick pile up on Willie, deserved though it may be. Though it is a troll-y comment, it is one I hear on a fairly often basis, both on the street and in private, from people I'd call normal. -- But back to the subject at hand ... -- Although I agree that HR can be overly paranoid, the numbers are clearly on the side of conservative. The cost of having to hire a lawyer just to respond to a suit, forget about the defending part, are simply astounding. Add to that the time and the stress involved, and the possible financial disaster that comes from losing (or even winning), and it's clear to see that imposing a lockdown on any sort of anything becomes a very attractive solution. As for the specific case at hand, I am no lawyer, but I think the lady will win. Even if she was leaving a thick layer of lard (mmmm... lard) all over the copy machine I think she would win. Even if she had plans public posted on her blog, test runs available in photoblog galleries, and a charity fundraiser to carry it all out, I think she will win. Because, as pointed out so many times before, the rule was based on a religious requirement. And we even have proof of that on videotape. "Yes, pork is considered unclean," Kweli said. If he had said, "Because it might offend some of our employees," they might have a shot. If he had said "Because, as a small child, my favorite boiled-egg doll action figure, Mr. Eggy, was eaten by a pig and I've hated pigs ever since," they might have a chance. But as it is I think it's time to look to settle.
• Actually, when my fiance house-sat for kosher-observing Jews, they asked him not to bring pork into the house. (They also bought him what we affectionately called the goyim dishes, cheap plastic plates on which we can mix cheese and meat.) And, of course, he didn't - he had some bad bacon cravings after a month, but it would have been unthinkably rude to disregard what was so important to them for a mere food product that he could eat elsewhere. Just as I wouldn't cook meat in a vegetarian's house without their permission, or have brought pork into the kosher cafe at my old university. Whether the firing is correct under employment laws (in fact, if the US has a probationary period like Canada, and the woman was still in it, then there does not have to be a reason to fire someone) is a question for the courts. But whether she agreed with her boss outright forbidding of pork, it was rude of her to treat his, and many other co-workers, feelings so lightly.
• (Let it be noted that willie made these comments across multiple threads... it wasn't just a matter of his/her/its behavior in this thread)
• jb, salient point. However, I would never bring pork to a Jewish or Muslim house, nor would I bring it to a kosher or Muslim food establishment. The first because it is their abode, and the second because that is where food is the business. Both places implicitly have the right to dictate what does and does not come into their premises. However, this (Kweli's company) being a telecommunications company, and also hiring non-Muslim staff, must take into account not just the needs and sensitivities of the Muslim workers, but also the non-Muslim workers. I think one reason why we all have differing opinions about this matter is that it's not a right-or-wrong issue (I feel both are wrong, although Morales more 'wrong' than Kweli for her actions), but actually a gradient. How much should a Muslim employer accomodate a non-Muslim employee? And vice-versa? So we each draw our own lines along that gradient. As for willie, I'm not sorry to see him go. But like LarimdaME (Hello! Nice to meet you!), I nonetheless feel a little uncomfortable about him getting kicked out so quickly. /off topic
• Well, I don't. It's not worth thinking about.
• That's cos you're a gallant man, Wolof. I love you. *HUG*
• Ok, back to the smoking comparison. When my place of employment banned smoking (years ago) the issue of second hand smoke hadn't been raised. The issue was that non-smoking workers found the smell of the smoke disgusting. I could understand their problem and took a couple of breaks each day to have a cigarette, along with my fellow addicts. Not hard to do. We're kind of light on facts in the pork issue at the place of business, but, if the boss (and maybe others) found the mere presence of pork disgusting, it would have been simple for her to eat the sandwich somewhere else. That seems even easier to do than the smoking thing - once every few days. No one seems to have challenged her right to eat what she wanted in a place where they wouldn't be disgusted. And this is not even considering the fact that she used the microwave to cook the bacon, leaving scum in the appliance which the owner must have been unable to take care of since he would have had to deal with unclean remains. Yes, we have a lot of rights to do what we want, but, when they bump up against the rights of others, and the solution is really pretty simple, shouldn't we acommodate that? Especially in a country that doesn't provide separate facilities to cook foods that would gross out some of our fellow workers?
• Path, I started on my usual argument on this, and then re-read your comment. You are 100% right. If people like this woman would just chill out, think about what they're being asked to do, and have enough respect and courtesy to do that, we wouldn't have so many laws. It's not a hard thing to not eat a certain thing at work. A lot of the time, people would like others around them to do little things to make life easier. The great thing about that is when one person acquiesces, more usually follow. I'm one of those people who's nice to others wherever I am, because I believe if I'm nice to this one person, it'll make their day a little brighter and they'll be a little nicer to other people, and so on. Unfortunately, there are a lot of dicks (to use tracicle's term) out there who want nothing more than to be antagonistic. They want to piss people off, want to offend them, want to shove in their faces the things they hate most. Or, they believe they should be able to do *anything* they want, and those who try to limit that get burned. This woman is a glaring example of that. There are many things she should have done, the first being to not have accepted the job. The employers also have some responsibility in this, though. I'd like to know how the no-pork requirement was presented to the employees. Wording means everything, especially when introducing a policy that's verbal only. Also, they also have a responsibility to attempt to adapt to a country with lots of different people, faiths and habits. Maybe this is just them trying to control their own environment, but it goes a little far. I find most fast food offensive (whatever has meat in it), but I wouldn't dream of telling someone that, and asking they not eat it at work. Because it's *my* belief, I keep it to myself (except in casual conversation, usually when asked why I don't eat meat). Basically, both parties are wrong. Neither wanted to put themselves in the others' shoes, and now we have one woman out of a job, one company being sued, and one microwave that will likely get tossed (I hope she has to pay for that).
• Yes, she *should* have been more sensitive, and yes, she *should* have acquiesced to the no-pork rule/request, but does she deserve to lose her job over it? Don't employees have certain rights when their employers make unreasonable (to them) requests? Someone has to draw the line and define when a workplace rule is reasonable or not. Can an employer make a no-meat-in-the-building rule if they're a vegetarian? Can they ban meat, eggs & dairy if they're vegan? Can they mistreat divorced employees if they're Catholic? I know this is just a sandwich, but the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable can't be arbitrary.
• rocket88, I agree totally with you, too. No, I don't think they were justified in firing her. They weren't justified in making the rule in the first place. The whole thing should have been taken care of in a non-legal manner. They are both at fault for being, essentially, poopy-heads.
• heh. rocket - in human rights law (which includes religious discrimination), the line for reasonable accomodation is frequently laughably arbitary. As to whether employees have certain rights when their employers make unreasonable requests (they do), shouldn't employers have certain rights when employees flagrantly refuse to accomodate reasonable requests? As well, the majority of employment discrimination laws are written based on the presumption that it is the religious beliefs of the EMPLOYEE who are being disregarded and law frequently can't flip perspectives that fluidly. In any event, here is Eugene Volokh's take on it: essentially, this is not religious discrimination because the employee is not being penalised for any religiously motivated action. Volokh is far more libertarian than I am, but I do think he's right about the approach a court might take to this case, especially with empoyment at will laws in place. This does not mitigate the fact that from what information is available, both sides could have acted a bit more above board on the issue. And that this is only my opinion. And that I'll now stop talking about it.
• Please don't feel that you must stop talking (unless you are bored) - it's very interesting, ilyadeaux. I was thinking, though, that this incident is not really comparable a Catholic employer discriminating against a gay or divorced employee. She was hired, though she is not Muslim, and nothing in her personal life was at issue (she was allowed to do whatever she liked at home). She was not asked to stop eating pork altogether - only in the workplace itself. And I can imagine that a business that was owned and catered to vegetarians might very well make a similar request that no meat at all be brought into the workplace.
• I don't consider this a religious rights issue. As ilyadeux noted, religious discrimination laws are meant to protect employees, not employers, and don't really apply here. If we can remove the religious aspect entirely, and look at it strictly as a employee/employer issue, then it becomes a case of an employer imposing his personal beliefs on all of his employees, very similar to the example with the vegetarian or vegan employer. Employment laws tend to be interpreted with a strong bias toward the employee (and rightly so, given the uneven nature of the relationship), so I think Ms. Morales will win her case. If a Muslim employer wants a pork-free eating area for himself or his fellow Muslim employees, the onus is on him to provide a separate area for that purpose. If he did so, then he would be right to fire any employee who brought in a bacon sandwich.
• In light of the apparent majority of employees being Muslim, the employer's smart play would be to portray this not as Morales rebuffing his religious-based requests, but her violating her *fellow employees'* religious rights. If several employees come forward and state that they came to the employer with complaints about Morales bacon-related escapades in the break room, all bets are off.
• I didn't see it mentioned before, so if it was I apologize (got distracted by the passive-agressive activities of one Ms. Mandela and the monkey attempts to cool him out). For the U.S., 'discrimination' is legally--albeit broadly--defined as some policy, stated or unstated but in practice, that is both 'arbitrary and capricious.' Whether you are a private company or not makes precious little difference--and I know many a lawyer that would be happy to prove that to headstrong and inconsistent bosses. The questionable enforcement of this 'no pork' rule, to say nothing of the religious motivation that is not in line with the legal precedent of equal employment law means that the woman will almost certainly win. The only chance the company has to win is on appeal, and that, given the aforementioned equal employment precedent, is spotty. Having said this, I do have to agree with the other monkey who mentioned the microwave popcorn example (our company has it which rather surprised me on first notice). Without us being flies on the wall (which would hopefully be deemed unclean by most people's standards), we can't know what context or wording the boss used to communicate what was and is a definite issue with him. Pork is haram (unclean). So in the same context of respect for not making someone queasy with the smell of microwave, fake-butter drenched popcorn, the same request could be made to refrain from pork. By the way, from what I can see, it doesn't sound like this boss was either headstrong nor inconsistent, though in the glare of the TV cameras he might feel more stubborn (wouldn't many of us?). Unfortunately, it sounds like this whole debacle started off on the wrong foot. It seems many of the other monkeys have pointed out, at least indirectly, that ideally this issue should be one of respect, and instead, it has fixated on religion. Yes, I know religion is central to this case, however, where a Catholic and a Muslim cannot find common ground about the Koran, they have a better chance of finding common ground on respecting each other. Alas, in a case of something that perhaps could have been settled more peacably--through dialogue and possible arbitration--it now seems to be in the meat grinder that is the news cycle--and that is most definitely haram.
• jb: Workplaces can also try novel ideas like being flexible themselves. I'm told by a friend who used to do orchard work, for example, that it became common practise in some New Zealand orchards to have a third set of toilets, because so many transvestites and transexuals were doing the work that it was the easiest way to cope with women employees who didn't like the trannies using their loos, and they themselves didn't want to use the mens'.
• Well said, BearGuy!