I feel like if this guy can be given a raw deal (pardon the pun) because of the emergency circumstances of a forest fire then the same should go for religious dietary “restrictions.”
Your choice of god(s) should not impose an extra burden on the rest of the emergency response infrastructure. Accommodate everyone or no one.
Agreed, everyone’s beliefs should be taken seriously or not.
It shouldn’t matter if it is a smaller religion or a personal belief.
I wonder if the case would’ve ended differently if the man was a Jain who was lactose intolerant.
Yeah this case was a good step but obviously there’s a lot of room for improvement
The case specifically wasn’t a good step. This is giving religion additional powers and privileges compared to non-religious beliefs.
It said if you say that you don’t eat meat because [any reason that doesn’t involve a magical immortal being] they won’t accommodate, but they would need to accommodate for religion.
Accommodate everyone, or accommodate no one.
That’s why more needs to be done
In Canada you’re free to have beliefs in private, not public
There shouldn’t be religious accommodations
This man deserves support as he sacrificed his health to keep us safe from fires.
Edit: I’m going to link some studies
2,500 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 pound of beef.
1,000 gallons of water are required to produce 1 gallon of milk.
those water figures are impossible to track down. can you provide an actual study?
I hate the “gallons of water are used” statistics because water is a completely renewable resource if managed properly, and mostly it’s managed properly these days since we realized it was a problem if we didn’t.
What exactly do you plan to use the extra water for if we stop using it for beef? Most if it is used to water the feed crops that cows eat, so what do you plan to use those farms for instead?
Is there a plant that grows in those same areas that’s currently too expensive because of a lack of land? Most of the expensive fruits/vegetables these days are expensive because of the labour involved in harvesting/processing them not due to a lack of cheaper land.
The feed is often enough in places like the American west where water is sarce and shouldn’t have been drawn in the first place
Feed crops like alfalfa are some of the most water intensive crops to grow on that land
and yet it’s the most profitable plant to grow on that land, or the farmers would be growing something else.
Kinda makes you think there aren’t any other better options…
That’s very circular logic. It’s only profitable because the beef and dairy industry. There are other crops grown in those areas too
Because of pollutants, forever chemicals, and other drains in the water table fresh water is cinsidered a limited resource.
Support, sure, but if you choose to take a job that requires employer supplied food you really shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t serve your custom menu. The employer probably provides two or three different options each meal to satisfy basic allergy/food preferences and that’s a reasonable accommodation.
What if I started a diet that only allowed me to eat wagyu beef garnished with saffron twice a week? Would they have to pay $400 a day to feed me as long as I could prove I eat that for “creed” reasons?
That is a strawman.
He didn’t ask for anything special like “$400 wagyu beef garnished with saffron twice a week” nope nothing fancy at all
All he wanted was something simple to keep his energy going such as rice, beans and vegetables.
“Nothing fancy at all” What’s the legal definition between fancy or not?
It costs more money to hire people to cook an entirely different meal. It costs more money to buy small quantities of different foods. It costs more money to import fresh products into forest fire zones. Some vegans won’t even eat from plates/cups/cutlery/pans/chopping boards that have had animal products touch them. That would add even more cost.
Should there be a dollar limit on what is considered fancy?
In Canada, even for protected classes, you’re only entitled to reasonable accommodations by employers. For example if you’re blind (a medical condition is a protected class) a taxi company doesn’t have to hire and accommodate you. If you’re deaf, a call center doesn’t have to provide you with a sign language translator who listens to your customers.
Is beans and rice fancy?
I’m not vegan and don’t care for it, but this is wrong. “You’ll eat what I put on your plate” is reserved for parents. It’s not for manipulating employees who’s terms are with capital.
