• corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Restrictive personal choices aren’t a protected class if it’s not imaginary sky-person friendship.

    • jol@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Which is a fucking shame. The article says that the judge said the only reason he lost the case was because veganism has no deity. He practices his beliefs more sincerity and deeply than any Christian, but because there’s no deity involved he gets shit.

    • rekabis@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is the key thing, right here.

      Although Veganism is a laudable choice, especially considering how meat production contributes so disproportionately to climate change and ecosystem destruction, it is a personal choice and not a fundamental dietary restriction that limits what you can actually safely eat. While an employer should make reasonable allowances to allow you to meet your own personal restrictions, meals in the bush, well away from infrastructure, makes any such allowance that much more onerous for an employer to meet.

      Don’t get me wrong, tho - I am not a corporatist. Nothing would have made me happier than the company being found at fault and getting nailed to the wall. Corporations will try to get away with everything they legally can, and a lot that they legally cannot, so long as no-one complains. But the legal ruling did follow the law, and the law was very clear.

      • Phil_in_here@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        It is restrictive by definition, but it’s in the top 5 most common dietary restrictions, and it’s a government program for forest firefighters, not a dinner party with your friend’s boyfriend. Figure it out and make it work!