• Nik282000
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    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.

    • Beaver OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

    • ILikeBoobies
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah this case was a good step but obviously there’s a lot of room for improvement

      • DerisionConsulting
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        30 days ago

        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.

        • ILikeBoobies
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          30 days ago

          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