For context, the story I read a similar comment under was about a decades long vegan forest firefighter who was unable to receive vegan meals through his employer (given that they’re very much “in the field” they can’t really bring their own). After complaining, he was suspended without pay by the employer and he tried to fight that, arguing that his vegan lifestyle was a creed.
That context changes things for me at least, maybe not for you.
It’s not really possible to arrange his own meals, and they told him they would give him vegan food.
If a person were sent on a work trip where it was impossible to get outside food, and their boss told them they could get them appropriate food, then didn’t, I think they should complain. Especially if it means that they essentially went hungry for weeks while doing a really active job. That’s crappy of their job to do, and they shouldn’t stand for it.
Snacks in the canteen is a totally different deal and I agree that a complaint is not really appropriate, but it’s reasonable to ask if they can supply a broader range of foods.
Ok then breach of contract, he sues and all is good. In the meantime just eat the salad bar and get a big can of mixed nuts shipped to him.
Of course they shouldn’t stand for it but workers protections are only as good as SCOTUS wants them to be and in that environment when it comes to food maybe it’s time to compromise till you can get your documentary on it out. Everything is public opinion now, justice varies based on clout. It is reality and I hate it but it is reality.
Salad bar and shipping at a forest fire? If they have reliable access to those, I’d be very surprised. He also probably won’t be able to digest meat after 25 years of a vegan diet, so he’d be putting everyone in danger if he made himself sick at the scene of a forest fire. It’s not like there’s much to forage in that situation, so he just has to choose between hunger and illness.
The court ruled that his moral veganism doesn’t count as a protected belief system (this is in Canada), so when he did sue, they ruled in favor of his employer. I’m not sure why breach of contract didn’t apply, but his right to vegan food would have been protected by the court had he been vegan due to religious beliefs (the example given is Jainism). That’s why the comparison is to a protected belief.
In order to understand that, you have to realise that veganism is not a diet, but an ethical belief. A huge part that often comes up is diet, of course, since we all eat, and often in a social setting. But it also concerns, for example:
Not using wool and leather
Not visiting for-profit zoos
Not using cosmetic tested on animals
Not riding horses or attending horse-related entertainment
It is an all-round ethical standpoint, and not just a diet fad. You may or may not agree with it, that’s how beliefs work, but ridiculing the thought of it being a protected belief seems narrow minded.
deleted by creator
Next up we need to officially protect Star Trek fans
Make it so.
deleted by creator
What if I like both?
And could I register as a member of a sub-belief? Like, I’m a true believer of the unified collective of the Borg?
Lets do that first.
For context, the story I read a similar comment under was about a decades long vegan forest firefighter who was unable to receive vegan meals through his employer (given that they’re very much “in the field” they can’t really bring their own). After complaining, he was suspended without pay by the employer and he tried to fight that, arguing that his vegan lifestyle was a creed.
That context changes things for me at least, maybe not for you.
Not for me, he should have arranged his own meals or not taken the job if his employer won’t cater to his particular snowflakeism.
I’m low carb but I don’t get to complain if all they have in the canteen is chips and candy.
It’s not really possible to arrange his own meals, and they told him they would give him vegan food.
If a person were sent on a work trip where it was impossible to get outside food, and their boss told them they could get them appropriate food, then didn’t, I think they should complain. Especially if it means that they essentially went hungry for weeks while doing a really active job. That’s crappy of their job to do, and they shouldn’t stand for it.
Snacks in the canteen is a totally different deal and I agree that a complaint is not really appropriate, but it’s reasonable to ask if they can supply a broader range of foods.
Ok then breach of contract, he sues and all is good. In the meantime just eat the salad bar and get a big can of mixed nuts shipped to him.
Of course they shouldn’t stand for it but workers protections are only as good as SCOTUS wants them to be and in that environment when it comes to food maybe it’s time to compromise till you can get your documentary on it out. Everything is public opinion now, justice varies based on clout. It is reality and I hate it but it is reality.
Salad bar and shipping at a forest fire? If they have reliable access to those, I’d be very surprised. He also probably won’t be able to digest meat after 25 years of a vegan diet, so he’d be putting everyone in danger if he made himself sick at the scene of a forest fire. It’s not like there’s much to forage in that situation, so he just has to choose between hunger and illness.
The court ruled that his moral veganism doesn’t count as a protected belief system (this is in Canada), so when he did sue, they ruled in favor of his employer. I’m not sure why breach of contract didn’t apply, but his right to vegan food would have been protected by the court had he been vegan due to religious beliefs (the example given is Jainism). That’s why the comparison is to a protected belief.
In order to understand that, you have to realise that veganism is not a diet, but an ethical belief. A huge part that often comes up is diet, of course, since we all eat, and often in a social setting. But it also concerns, for example:
Not using wool and leather
Not visiting for-profit zoos
Not using cosmetic tested on animals
Not riding horses or attending horse-related entertainment
It is an all-round ethical standpoint, and not just a diet fad. You may or may not agree with it, that’s how beliefs work, but ridiculing the thought of it being a protected belief seems narrow minded.
deleted by creator