Ahh, I'll pass then...potatoes should be diced and pan fried with onions for breakfast. :)
JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding
by cofty 109 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Simon
Even if you don't want to take a morning after pill, it shouldn't stop you handing one to someone.
Even if you don't want to eat bacon, it shouldn't stop you from cooking it for someone else. Last time I checked you don't cook food with your mouth (well, unless I'm cooking bacon - some does 'accidentally' get eaten).
The reality is that these are people trying to force other people to abstain from what they themselves have decided to abstain from, to impose their beliefs on others. In both cases they can do their job without impinging on their religious convictions at all. In both cases they are an intrinsic part of doing their job so if they don't want to do those things they don't want that job.
That is nothing like being bigoted toward some group or other. It's a trick to try and claim they are the ones being discriminated against when they are really trying to impose their views on others who don't want them and just want some bacon.
In conclusion. Bacon. I just made some. It's best baked in the oven until crispy.
-
Listener
It's not right that this chef gets to impose her conscience on a customer by refusing to serve something that is offered to the customer on their menu. It's rude and offensive. -
Simon
the statement "keep religion at home where it belongs" is bigoted. You don't want society to tolerate the bigotry of others, I get that. But, why fight bigotry with bigotry? People were once told to keep their "gayness" or their "transgender" at home.
The big difference is that your sexuality is who you are. You cannot change it. Being told to be different or you are not allowed would be bigoted.
But religion is different. It is not who you are, it is a coat you wear (usually because your parents gave it to you) and people often change their coat because they realize it's old, worn out and smells of pee (that's my view of religion).
Someone's sexuality doesn't really affect or impact anyone else beside them and their partner(s) but different people's religious "demands" would cause conflict if allowed - that's why they should be kept at home or in church because how do you pick who should win? There should be absolute limits to religion because religion comes up with stupid ideas like "bacon isn't allowed" or "women should be covered" or "infidels should be killed". All of these are abhorrent ideas, most of all the ban on bacon.
If I believe uncovered women are an affront to god (trust me, I don't) then how can that be reconciled with someone else's freedom to be uncovered? (please, be my guest).
Who you are (color, height, sexuality etc...) does not impose any limits on other people's rights (although religious people often claim it does - they are wrong). Therefore, the notions of discrimination are not the same.
-
average joe
#1 There is not mention of termination of the employee which is often the case when they have done something wrong and it makes it to the media.
#2 The restaurant defended the chef by saying there was a mixup in the kitchen in which blood pudding which was regularly served was supposed to be made and served by someone else.
#3 The chef is apparently valued and appreciated as they still have their job. Perhaps what the chef brings to the business is more important then whether or not they actually make the blood pudding themselves or have someone else do it like many other chefs who assign tasks to their staff. Perhaps, This is one of many company's who value employees that are religious and come with benefits that non religious people do not have or perhaps the chefs religion isnt a problem for the business. Surely, the issue of the blood pudding being prepared by the jw was addressed at their hire date or shortly thereafter and it was approved for others to make it and the staff was fully aware of this arrangement as blood pudding was served regularly. The only exception would be for a new hire who had not yet had time to learn the acceptable arrangement. This brings more questions though.
#4 I want to know why if the chef asked the employee to make the blood pudding why he told the officer the chef wouldn't make it? Was the employee lazy? Was it a deliberate attempt to make jws look bad? How do you confuse the chef telling you to make the pudding with telling you we refuse to make that pudding which is made regularly? I admit however, unlikely it is possible but highly suspect!#5 How does an officer not getting his pudding one time make the news? Did he call the news because he didnt get his pudding???? Did the employee call the news to make the jw look bad?? Did someone else who wasnt even involved call the news because they were so distraught the officer didnt get his pudding?? Or they hated jws so much they called the news about pudding? How the hell is this even news ?? Basically, the news story is really nothing more then the officer is cheezed off because he didnt get his pudding..... due to staff confusion... This isnt news at all.. I couldnt tell you how many times I went to a place that didnt have what i came there for or screwed up my order. I ordered something else and didnt cry about it to the news like a little whiny baby especially over pudding!!! freakin pudding hahahaha Be a man about it.. move on keep smiling officer. I see pudding in your future. one day without pudding is not going to kill you.
#6 Somehow an article which said nothing more then an officer was not served pudding due to staff confusion and hes cheezed off about it turned into this long debate about religion in the workplace etc etc etc ... the article really didnt say much at all and i find it fascinating how its considered news and how people are having lengthy discussions which have really littleif anything to do with staff confusion that this article is about. -
average joe
Also, he got his meal free, his name in the media and you can be sure hes eaten plenty of blood pudding and will eat plenty of pudding in his future. phew! I am so glad that officers going to survive this terrible ordeal. hahahahah -
GrreatTeacher
It made the news because religious people not wanting to do their jobs because of said religion is a big issue lately.
County clerks not wanting to provide marriage licenses to gay people,
Pharmacists not wanting to prescribe contraception,
Chefs not wanting to serve black pudding...
-
Simon
Supposed I ordered a cooked breakfast and I was particularly looking forward to some eggs or bacon (probably both).
Now the plate is brought to me and it's missing the thing I was anticipating and looking forward to the most.
I say "erm, excuse me, where is my bacon? I'm pretty sure the bacon breakfast is meant to have bacon!" and am told "oh, well, the chef says bacon is evil and god doesn't want them to make it for you".
I am going to be very unhappy and probably complain.
Sometimes companies double-down on a stupid decision because they don't know how to back down or don't know which is the right thing to do (because religious people are often litigious about their nuttery).
Now I have no bacon and am being told to sod off and shut up. You bet I'm going to call someone and tell them about it.
That's why it's a story.
-
DogGone
Average Joe, I read the situation the same as you do. And reading his response, it seems he refused to eat the meal and left in a huff. Why? Because he wanted blood pudding? Well, no... because he went home and ate a couple hours later and he doesn't have it at home. He got in a huff because someone else's beliefs inconvenienced him.
Had they run out of blood pudding I'm sure he would have been disappointed but reasonable. Had he been told the lady who makes it had to go to the hospital, sorry it isn't available today, he would have dealt with it, I'm sure. So, my take is that it isn't even the fact he was inconvenienced... it was that someone's religion dared inconvenience him.
To me, he is an absolute tool and a symptom of a problem.
-
GrreatTeacher
Yes, that is the problem; someone else's religion inconvenienced him, because he will be inconvenienced every time he's served by her.
A sick employee? That might happen once. Running out? Well, the store is going to do everything in its power to make sure that doesn't happen again.
Ms. JW chef will always refuse to serve him.
The store realizes this is a problem and they try to cover it up by saying it was a misunderstanding. But, they know it's a serious faux pas because it's insulting.
A customer hears that they won't be served because of a person's religious convictions that class the item he has asked to eat as sinful. That's an insult. You're being served an item that has been deemed so disgusting by an employee that he can't even touch it to serve you.
Insulting the customer is not a good way to do business. That's why the customer was offended and that's why the store explained it away as a mistake.