JW Chef Refuses to Cook Black Pudding

by cofty 109 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  DogGone

  Cofty, I'd appreciate a dictionary definition that makes the distinction you are drawing. It doesn't have to be identical, just one that presents it similarly to the way you do.

  A false dichotomy:

  A - If you dislike someone because of what they are that is bigotry

  B - if you object to what somebody does, that isn't

  You are missing options:

  C - If you object to what somebody does because of what they are or what they believe, that is bigotry.

  D - if you are intolerant to the beliefs and actions of someone you disagree with, that is bigotry

  etc. etc. etc

  Why you are side stepping this point is beyond me. Hating a Muslim is bigotry, yes. Hating Islam isn't, true. Hating a Muslim wearing a head covering because you don't like having their religion shoved in front of you is bigotry. Firing a Muslim for wearing a head covering is intolerant. Firing a JW for not performing core work duties and serving customers, not bigotry. Calling for a JW to be fired because the origin of the misunderstanding was a religious belief is bigotry.

  You would make reasonable accommodation for my friend with the wifi nuttiness. I'd also make reasonable accommodation if there was more than one cook to handle an objectionable dish. I find that a reasonable compromise, you don't. We can agree to disagree. But choosing not to find reasonable accommodation because it is a superstition religion you don't agree with and that you want to see left at home is being intolerant to beliefs and practices you don't agree with.

  Refusing to employ a JW because their religion prevents them fulfilling their job description isn't.

  Totally agree. And if that were the situation under discussion, no problem. We have the statements made by the employer that it was a misunderstanding and that she wasn't trying to deny the customer his side dish, we have the statements of the disgruntled customer, we have invented narratives of what happened behind the scenes, we have people calling for her termination, and we have people calling for her termination because she should leave her religion at home. If we can't agree the last point is textbook bigotry we don't have enough common ground for a productive conversation on this topic.(Though I agree with you on the vast majority of topics)
  
• 

  cofty

  DogGone - Your only interest seems to be a desire to label me with a pejorative epithet.

  I will reply later, I still think we might get there. My suspicions are that you are still arguing with a straw man.
• 

  slimboyfat

  If you dislike somebody because of what they are that is bigotry
  If you object to what somebody does that isn't.

  It's as if you've given this no thought at all. A Christian or JW could easily say: "I don't dislike anyone for being gay if that is what they are. If they practice sodomy on the other hand God will destroy them and I will tell them so."

  I think many people would class that as bigoted. The distinction between being something and doing something cuts no ice.
• 

  Simon

  So as long as you add "I believe ..." or "my magical sky god told me ..." to the beginning of any hate filled rant, apparently it makes it all OK? I think it's a false argument.

  The point I think Cofty is making is that disliking or disagreeing with some behaviour is not bigoted unless that behaviour predominantly applies to one group only and as long as the rule is applied to all groups equally.

  If it's just an excuse then it's bigotry. So no, you can't say "we don't make wedding cakes for gay people" unless you don't make wedding cakes for all. Likewise, you can say "no head coverings" if that applies to all - religious, men with hats, women with scarves, people with motorcycle helmets on et...

  A trick "some" religious use is to picking a trait of a group and make that the objectionable thing in order to not fall foul of the otherwise obvious bigotry they want to exhibit.

  We also see it in politics too where a party will insist on "government photo id" as a form of voter suppression because they know it will typically affect African Americans disproportionately more.
• 

  Finkelstein

  In the Old Testament couldn't the Israelites sell an unbled carcass to a non-Israelite unbeliever?
  

  Deut. 14 v 21

  Good point Freddo

  The JW should have proceeded on that premise or if it was required to do so for his employment, removed himself from that position, if it bothered his conscience so much.
• 

  DogGone

  Cofty

  DogGone - Your only interest seems to be a desire to label me with a pejorative epithet.

  Then I have done a very poor job explaining myself, indeed. I can understand it, my rhetoric can read that way. But, it is because I don't think you are a bigot that I'm debating the point so strongly. If you were, I wouldn't bother, for what would be the point?
  
• 

  sparrowdown

  Breaking News just in : A Black pudding says he "refuses to allow himself to be eaten by a Jehovah's Witness!!"
• 

  average joe

  Did the chef tell the employee to tell the officer he was a jw and refused to make blood pudding? NO ABSOLUTELY NOT. Therefore , The employee that first failed to understand simple directions and then took a subordinate attitude and brought bad press to this food chain is at fault not the chef.

  Once again I will say that I have worked in many places just like many of you here and you all know ......you all know ... that many of the places you worked at were not honest about what really happened. I can tell you for sure my current manager lies all the time about her screw ups to customers and staff. I can tell you also at my last job my bosses would lie all the time to customers about why we didn't show up to do the installation as scheduled . The tech called out sick or his truck broke down or family emergency etc etc when really it was their bad scheduling.

  There is no evidence the chef mistreated the staff. The article does not say anything about the chef being fired but does say the employers defend the chef and his actions.

  PUDDING PUDDING PUDDING PUDDING HAHAHAHAHA
• 

  cofty

  SBF - Your comment is simplistic.

  Every JW and every evangelical christian believes that everybody else is going to be destroyed by their respective gods. If that makes all of them bigots then you have diluted the word bigot so much that it has no meaning.

  Christians talk about "hating the sin but loving the sinner" and many of them really practice that. They would welcome a practising gay person in church and freely fellowship with them but would still consider it a duty to warn them that their actions exclude them from salvation. This is not bigotry.

  Other christians are homophobes who hide behind righteous indignation to spew hatred against gay people. They single homosexuals out for special attention. This is bigotry.

  If you dislike somebody because of what they are that is bigotry
  

  If you object to what somebody does that isn't.

  As you sneered - "It's as if you've given this no thought at all."
• 

  cofty

  If you object to what somebody does because of what they are or what they believe, that is bigotry. - DogGone

  In Syria Muslims throw homosexuals from tall buildings because they believe that Allah requires them to do so.

  I object.

  Does this make me a bigot?

  In Somalia 98% of women suffer genital mutilation because, as in 29 other Muslim countries, men believe that this is the will of Allah.

  I object.

  Does this make me a bigot?

  if you are intolerant to the beliefs and actions of someone you disagree with, that is bigotry - DogGone

  I am intolerant of murdering gay men and mutilating young women.

  Does that make me a bigot?