Vegan Firefighter Loses Groundbreaking Discrimination Case
Vegan Firefighter Loses Groundbreaking Discrimination Case
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.
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.
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?
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.
Veganism is an opinion or philosophy, it does not come from any doctrinal teachings with historical writings to count as a belief system on the same level as someone who can only eat certified kosher food.
Being vegan is recent fad or trendy thing from the perspective of world history. Nutritionally, veganism is not healthy without an extensive amount of supplements. Before corporations could manufacture suppliments, everybody needed to eat a few animal products for basic health. In there West though, there is definitely way too much consumption of meat but pescatarian is very healthy.
B12 is not an "extensive amount of supplements". Furthermore your average contemporary nonvegan likely consumes way more supplements than a vegan just indirectly through livestock feed, including B12. Even ignoring the "animal" sources though, people these days consume a lot of supplements from cereals, energy drinks, table salt, and more. I'm not sure why relying on supplements would even be a gotcha in the first place though.
Furthermore I'm not sure why it would matter that there exist healthy diets that include meat, like you said a mostly plant foods diet but including some fish. If anything that reinforces that there are other reasons for people abstaining entirely from animal foods. Veganism is way more than a diet, it is an ethical stance, and extends to far more than what we eat. It just so happens that what we eat leads to some of the most egregious abuses and also butts heads with culture because what we eat and what others eat is so important to us as humans. That's why the way vegans choose to eat gets so much attention.
Being vegan is recent fad or trendy thing from the perspective of world history.
Abstaining from animal products has been a thing for at least a couple centuries (see al-Ma'arri)
Nutritionally, veganism is not healthy without an extensive amount of supplements.
The only supplement you must absolutely take on a vegan diet is vitamin B12. The source of vitamin B12 in omnivore diets is also supplements, albeit given to the animals raised for slaughter rather than taken directly. Supplementing omega-3 is also highly recommended for vegans. The other ones you'll hear mentioned are vitamin D3 and iodine, with both of which many foods are fortified since most people, including those who eat an omnivorous diet, don't get enough of these through their food. This is hardly what I'd call "an extensive amount of supplements". I've been vegan for 7 years and the only supplements I take are B12, as well as vitamin D during the winter months since I live in a northern area.
Veganism is an opinion or philosophy, it does not come from any doctrinal teachings with historical writings to count as a belief system on the same level as someone who can only eat certified kosher food.
I agree, a person's carefully thought-out ethical decisions about what they consume are different from someone doing something because an old book tells them to.