RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

MariaB -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 10:12:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

According to the daily mail, it's 184 outlets.


Why would you trust daily mail over Subways own personal website?

You don't think a non-muslim country to have an American not meant to be a Muslim food franchise such as a Subway turn Halal is not a big deal?

To me it's shocking when I first read the news. Subways in UK turning halal! All 200 outlets of them! Like WTF!

I feel like if white non-Muslim countries are affected, we are screwed!



I don’t know if you’ve been to the UK Greta but you wouldn’t like London (at least outside the tourist zones) because there’s lots of Muslims here. The UK hasn’t been a white non-Muslim country for a long time but then us Brits are pretty cool about integrating. Most of us hate racists and so you’d be hard pushed to make many friends here.

If America wants to sell its franchises to the UK, then they have to accept (as they do) that sometimes their menu may need modifying to suit a need.

MacDonald’s accepted their French version would have an alcohol bar.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 10:15:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
...Like they cannot work in subways as there is BLT. (Exactly why UK Subways eliminate bacon from their menu, so Muslims can work in them.)

There are several ham and pork items in most UK Subway menus (Chicken & bacon melt, Subway melt, Italian BMT, Spicy Italian [contains pepperami & salami] and Pulled pork to name a few).
And I'm not talking 'turkey ham' either.
Only those that have explicitely decided to go Halal don't have them.
In all my travels around the UK, I have yet to stumble upon a 'Halal' Subway outlet.

Subway, like Burger King, Mac D's et al, are all franchised outlets so they have the option of opting for a Halal menu if they wish; but I've yet to come across one.


So to spout that UK Subway's have eliminated bacon (and pork) from their menus is not correct.


Agelica is correct, caesar salad doesn't usually contain any meat of any description.
It does have anchovies, egg and cheese which makes it unsuitable for vegans.



Actually the original award winning Caesar's salad recipe does include grilled chicken but does not call for any other meat.

Not according to Epicurious: When Caesar Cardini first served his famous salad in the early 1920s, he used just the hearts of the romaine lettuce, the tender short leaves in the center, and he presented them whole. The salad was tossed and dressed, then arranged on each plate so that you could pick up a leaf by its short end and chew it down bit by bit, then pick up another. However, many customers didn't like to get their fingers covered with egg-and-cheese-and-garlic dressing, and he changed to the conventional torn leaf. Too bad, since the salad lost much of its individuality and drama.

No mention of chicken.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 10:19:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness

That's why native Britons are leaving the UK. They no longer recognise their own society and the Islamisation of their country fills them with dismay.


Got any proof of this driveling nonsense A??
Coz I don't see any evidence of it and I live here.



ThatDizzyChick -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 10:25:59 AM)

FR
To me it's really simple; if your religion prohibits you from carrying out the duties of a job, don't take that job.



CreativeDominant -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 10:29:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

FR
To me it's really simple; if your religion prohibits you from carrying out the duties of a job, don't take that job.

Exactly



OsideGirl -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 10:29:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

FR
To me it's really simple; if your religion prohibits you from carrying out the duties of a job, don't take that job.

Exactly. Her religion is preventing her from fulfilling her job description. She knew when she applied for that job she would be serving alcohol.



Lucylastic -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 10:41:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OsideGirl


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

FR
To me it's really simple; if your religion prohibits you from carrying out the duties of a job, don't take that job.

Exactly. Her religion is preventing her from fulfilling her job description. She knew when she applied for that job she would be serving alcohol.


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


Exactly


Four for Four



Bhruic -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 10:50:06 AM)

When you impose restrictions on yourself, you are responsible for them. You can not demand that others accommodate you. Some employers may, and some may not... but none should be required to.



kdsub -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 10:53:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

FR
To me it's really simple; if your religion prohibits you from carrying out the duties of a job, don't take that job.

Exactly


And that should include bakers as well.



dcnovice -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 11:02:28 AM)

FR

In the throes of chemo brain, I forgot to post a link. Sigh.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/09/muslim-flight-attendant-sues-expressjet-serve-alcohol

* * *


This story caught my eye, because it illustrates the complexities of "religious freedom":

-- Does it apply to minority religions (the flight attendant) as well as the majority one (the Christian baker)?

-- How much weight should we assign to the gravity of the moral objection? Is refusing to serve alcohol on a plane the same as declining to perform an abortion?

-- Does it matter how feasible it is for the customer to get his or her needs addressed elsewhere? Is the next bakery two blocks away, or is it a 50-mile drive to another pharmacy for one's birth control pills?

-- Does it matter whether the would-be conscientious objector is an employee or owns the business? Does the airline's right to please its passengers trump the flight attendant's religious freedom? How does one factor in other employees whose work may become more challenging as a result of a religious accommodation to a colleague?

-- What, if any, weight should we accord to legal precedents curtailing the rights of religion (e.g., Mormons and polygamy, Native Americans and peyote, etc.)?

I doubt there are simple answers for any of this, but I know that tends to be a minority position on Collarchat. [:)]




Kirata -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 11:11:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

This story caught my eye, because it illustrates the complexities of "religious freedom":

I don't think it has anything to do with "religious freedom". Freedom of conscience does not confer freedom of action.

K.



kdsub -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 11:11:39 AM)

I don’t think this is complicated at all DC. The choice is not in serving alcohol or baking a cake… it is in choosing a religion.

Once you make the free decision to abide by a religion then it is incumbent on you to find a job that is compatible.

Butch



dcnovice -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 11:22:40 AM)

quote:

I don't think it has anything to do with "religious freedom". Freedom of conscience does not confer freedom of action.

I used "religious freedom" because that seemed to be the rallying phrase for proponents of legislation to allow one to decline baking a same-sex wedding cake or selling contraceptives. Do you see those as matters of conscience or action? I don't think I'm entirely grasping your distinction.



WhoreMods -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 11:30:50 AM)

A good point: I'd certainly hope that nobody who thinks that a baker should be free to refuse to make a cake for poofs has any issue with a moslem waitress in the sky refusing to handle pork or booze. Defending one but not the other would be rank hypocrisy, wouldn't it?



dcnovice -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 11:35:05 AM)

quote:

or put another way. whatever thoughts and feelings you have about Stanley's case, do you have the same when it comes to the Christian photographers, bakers, pizza shop owners, etc?

More than anything else, I have questions (see above), and they range across the board. I'm trying to grope my way toward a consistent standard.



Kirata -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 12:43:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I don't think it has anything to do with "religious freedom". Freedom of conscience does not confer freedom of action.

I used "religious freedom" because that seemed to be the rallying phrase for proponents of legislation to allow one to decline baking a same-sex wedding cake or selling contraceptives. Do you see those as matters of conscience or action? I don't think I'm entirely grasping your distinction.

Be that as it may, I don't view the cake situation as having anything to do with religion. If you're in the business of making wedding cakes, you make the fucking cake. If, on the other hand, you're explicitly in the business of catering traditional Christian weddings, then you shouldn't be forced to cater non-traditional, civil, or non-Christian unions. With respect to the situation with the Muslim flight attendant, if your job duties explicitly include serving alcohol, then you serve the fucking drinks. "Religious freedom" has nothing to do with it.

K.



MariaB -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 12:59:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I don't think it has anything to do with "religious freedom". Freedom of conscience does not confer freedom of action.

I used "religious freedom" because that seemed to be the rallying phrase for proponents of legislation to allow one to decline baking a same-sex wedding cake or selling contraceptives. Do you see those as matters of conscience or action? I don't think I'm entirely grasping your distinction.

Be that as it may, I don't view the cake situation as having anything to do with religion. If you're in the business of making wedding cakes, you make the fucking cake. If, on the other hand, you're explicitly in the business of catering traditional Christian weddings, then you shouldn't be forced to cater non-traditional, civil, or non-Christian unions. With respect to the situation with the Muslim flight attendant, if your job duties explicitly include serving alcohol, then you serve the fucking drinks. "Religious freedom" has nothing to do with it.

K.



I agree. When she trained for the job she knew she was training to be a glorified waitress and barmaid. Its like taking on a job in a bar and then telling your boss that your new found religion won’t allow you to serve anything other than water and orange juice.




Real0ne -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 2:18:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MariaB


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

I don't think it has anything to do with "religious freedom". Freedom of conscience does not confer freedom of action.

I used "religious freedom" because that seemed to be the rallying phrase for proponents of legislation to allow one to decline baking a same-sex wedding cake or selling contraceptives. Do you see those as matters of conscience or action? I don't think I'm entirely grasping your distinction.

Be that as it may, I don't view the cake situation as having anything to do with religion. If you're in the business of making wedding cakes, you make the fucking cake. If, on the other hand, you're explicitly in the business of catering traditional Christian weddings, then you shouldn't be forced to cater non-traditional, civil, or non-Christian unions. With respect to the situation with the Muslim flight attendant, if your job duties explicitly include serving alcohol, then you serve the fucking drinks. "Religious freedom" has nothing to do with it.

K.



I agree. When she trained for the job she knew she was training to be a glorified waitress and barmaid. Its like taking on a job in a bar and then telling your boss that your new found religion won’t allow you to serve anything other than water and orange juice.





freedom of religion is a 'reserved' right. One the gubmint has no 'legitimate' jurisdiction to even define much less regulate.

So then we are expected to discriminate against ourselves so gubmint defined commercial religion does not have to?



mnottertail -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 2:25:44 PM)

it must be so in the world where fact and hallucination intertwine. Your world your rules, you are each alone in it. Each of you tinfoilers.



Real0ne -> RE: New Front in the Battle for Religious Freedom (8/11/2016 2:27:30 PM)

no was not referring to your world of on demand felch pudding topped with delusional denial.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.296875E-02