Montreal shop owner forbids eating meat at work

[HEyHEY]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/11/17/matt-nat-vegan-food-policy-in-workplace.html#socialcomments

Sorry, this person has no right telling people what to have for lunch.

[DrDan]

1. it is a policy that all agree to upon being hired - they have the option to not accept the job

[snooper2]

26. So you agree with Disney on this case as well right?

(Newser) – Hats—and presumably mouse ears—are fine, but Disneyland workers aren't allowed to wear religious head coverings. A Muslim woman who works as a hostess in a Disney-owned restaurant has filed a discrimination lawsuit after she was barred from wearing a headscarf at work four times this week because bosses say it doesn't go with the "Disney Look," the Los Angeles Times reports.


http://www.newser.com/story/98452/worker-sues-disney-over-headscarf-ban.html

[BoneDaddy]

37. Don't you know that authoritarian is ok when it is left

but not ok when it is right.

[DrDan]

38. you are conveniently leaving info critical to the story - aren't you

she was offered a position that was not customer-facing - but declined it.

Yes - I agree with this case. Employers have a right to place restrictions on dress, particularly when in front of customers.

[Kablooie]

103. Disney designed a costume themed head covering piece for her.

Working in a Disney park is considered a form of show business and wearing the appropriate costume is part of the job.

[Matariki]

122. Really? That's kind of a cool resolution.

[hyphenate]

208. There are several ways to address this

As far as the woman in Disneyland, if there was something in the contract she signed as an employee that dictated her clothing, she has to abide by it, religion or not. I remember at several of my jobs I was told what kind of dress code the company had, and I had to abide by it.

Here's a more clear-cut argument: if you worked at Microsoft, should you be allowed to wear an Apple or MAC hat or tee-shirt? I would think not. Same rule, same application of it.

As far as food code, I would think that the owner could dictate his own rulrs on the work premises, but not if someone ate somewhere else.

[Toucano]

28. That's a very weak argument.

If the employer claimed to have a Christian workplace and declared, upon hiring you, that you have to say grace at lunch time would your argument still stand?

Employers don't get to restrict our rights as a condition of employment. If we allowed that, our rights would exist only in theory.

[DrDan]

36. our individual rights are restricted -

I work for a large corporation.

Upon being hired, I agreed to an intellectual property statement. I also agreed to a set of business behaviors. Violation of either can result in termination. I have no problem with these as a condition of employment.

[Xicano]

44. What if as a condition of employment your employer required everyone to work nude?

:shrug:

[sufrommich]

46. You don't take the job? nt

[DrDan]

50. if the job were that of a stripper - then it is probably a condition that would be upheld

[Dr. Strange]

55. I'd send them my resume and ask for an application.

:hide:

[flvegan]

105. Way to punish your potential co-workers.

H8r.

[Adsos Letter]

177. !

:spray:

[Dr. Strange]

233. I hope your birthday was filled with lots of embarrassing itching.

x(

[fishwax]

126. What if as a condition of employment your employer required everyone to dress up?

[Roy Rolling]

155. spend a lot of time at the gym

[MedicalAdmin]

201. Depends on the tips.

Someone hiring?

[MedicalAdmin]

199. Care to name which right you are talking about?

Please use the Canadian constitution.

I've read the darned thing and it doesn't address the "right" to eat meat anywhere. It was a condition of employment and doesn't infringe on any rights other than the right ot have a good lean montreal smoked meat sandwhich (yum) as far as I can tell. They also wanted employees to eat veggie if they entertained clients. Note that the company said nothing about what employees do off premisis or off the clock.

I am completely fine with this.

[hyphenate]

209. I agree. eom

[Toucano]

217. Pretty clear...Section 2(b)

"...freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression..."

Forcing an employee to express YOUR thoughts and beliefs necessarily denies them the expression of their own.

One's diet also has religious and cultural implications that may extend this policy into racial discrimination.

The Inuit diet is not vegetarian. An employer's policy of prohibiting animal proteins could be interpreted as "Inuit need not apply".


**************************************

More interesting, perhaps is whether you would be equally supportive of the policy in reverse?

Can an employer dictate that you may not eat anything OTHER than animal protein on their premises?

[DonCoquixote]

241. Nice one

After all, few diets are vegan, does that make Halal meat a no go? If so, the employer has just said "Muslims need not apply."

[Dr Fate]

254. Canadian Constitution is new to me. The Lawyer in the article relates this to legal dress codes.

My guess is that like the US const, sections of the candadian const. are fleshed out, interpreted and applied through cases. We call that Judicial review here in the states. Not sure how it works in Canada, but the attorney in the article makes the case that this is like a dress code.

Read what the LAWYER says in the article- I'm not familiar w/ Canadian law, but he is, and he is claiming this is legal.

It is certainly legal under the US const.

The only question I have is if this was in the US, would this business have to make a special accomodation, only for the Muslim? There have been instances where muslims are given special accomodations for head gear, etc, so this would be applicable to what the attorney says about dress codes.

VERY interesting points, but I'm not sure it would be cause for the govt. to force him to lift the ban for all employees...I'm not sure, I'd have to look it up.

[MedicalAdmin]

265. Thats a pretty far stretch.

Last things first. Yes, I would be in support of that assuming that the same situation occured in exact reverse (same ethical stance of the company for eathing meat / whatever, similar location with eating options locally located (as well as parks and public spaces), etc.

However the stretch my mind is having problems is this, how is the choice of a meal restricting how that employee thinks, believes (keeping in mind that this has to do with belief in a quasi-religious sense), holds or forms opinions, or express themselves. There have already been somewhat similar cases that have found that the employer has certain ability to dictate some minimums of expectations of for their employees including dress codes, etc.

I have no problems with a company doing this as long as they don't extend outside the work environment or time. However, were I this company I would extend the food restrictions to areas of the business that have client contact only. Such as business lunches or in rooms where clients have access.

[ZombieHorde]

231. Some companies won't hire smokers. I disagree with that as well as the head covering and the meat

eating.

[kctim]

32. As do bartenders

but that doesn't stop the health nazi's from imposing their views onto business owners.

[LynneSin]

84. There is no comparison there to the 2

If I choose to eat meat the only person affected is ME.
If I choose to wear a muslim scarf of some form the only person affected is ME.
If I choose to smoke the only people affected are ME and anyone sitting near me.

As someone who worked a bar for 3 years at one point my mother SWORE I took up smoking. No I'm not a smoker and yes I needed THAT particular job because it was a chain restaurant and if I maintained 30 hours a week I could get health insurance (shitty health insurance but better than none). This is before smoking laws were commonplace so working as a bartender 3 nights a week surrounded by smokers, I ended up getting the worst smokers cough imaginable. I'm sure if I stayed much longer than 3 years I may have had my health even more affected by the smoking.

Smoking is a choice that impacts everyone around you so you cannot compare the two.

[Roy Rolling]

158. what about smoking? or drinking?

An employer can make rules for employees within the business. There are rules against smoking and some employers and professions forbid alcohol consumption at work. Not eating meat at work is an employers right, and a very simple rule to follow. Let's not embrace the "I am entitled to do whatever I want" on someone else's property or building philosophy. Then, I give up the right to make rules for MY property.

[DrDan]

164. I agree with what you say - I support that employer's restrictions

[apocalypsehow]

187. I didn't even have to click the OP to know there would be a reply like this, right up front.

Wrong, "Dr": I guarantee you if this was McDonald's or some other fast-food corporation, and they insisted vegetarians eat only hamburgers at work or face being fired, you'd be in here screaming to high heaven about "individual rights."

Really transparent, yah know it?





Edit: typo.

[DrDan]

193. if I were told that when dining with legislators, that members of the Beef Council

had to eat beef - and not chicken or pork, I would understand it.

[apocalypsehow]

207. Non-responsive. Count me unsurprised. n/t.

[DrDan]

245. so noted

[The Gunslinger]

238. There's really an "option" to not accepting jobs these days.

[Sanity Claws]

2. They can eat meat, just off premises

If they want meat, just take your lunch to a different site. No big deal. A lot of small employers don't provide any space to each lunch on premises anyway.
I've seen much more bothersome restrictions.

[DrDan]

39. there you go again . . . injecting facts into the OP

[petronius]

86. Yeah, I don't see this as particularly onerous at all - no different than a dress code

or something else that preserves the image of a business. Seems like a really trivial complaint to me.

Now if the business was trying to force people to be vegetarian 24/7, or otherwise intruding into life outside of work, then I'd see it as a problem...

[Xithras]

95. Exactly. You can eat meat, just not on their property.

I ran a business up until last year, and I can think of a lunch item or two that I would have banned from the office if anyone had brought them in. Foie gras comes to mind, though it's not much of a lunch item.

But then again, I'm the same boss who threatened to fire any employees on the spot if I heard them speaking against Prop 8 while on the job a few years ago, so I was never exactly "objective" when it came to inserting my own political views into the workplace.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

Just a question....

How about no Prop 8 talk at work period? Actually, no politics at work period might be an even better idea.

[Xithras]

256. My company, my policies.

We operated as a progressive company and openly donated to many politically left groups. We were also a regular and avid supporter of several local PFLAG chapters, and donated money and company resources to the fight against proposition H8.

I'm bi, so it's an issue that's personal to me. It's actually something that I even used to bring up in interviews: "I'm an openly bisexual male, and we have other homosexual employees in this company. Do you see any potential issues working closely with LGBT co-workers, including potentially travelling with them?"

I passed up more than one qualified applicant because they responded that they weren't comfortable working closely with "the gays".

If you run an openly progressive company, you have a right to set employment or workplace behavioral policies that reflect those beliefs. You also have a responsibility to LGBT employees to provide a work environment that is free of harassment.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

266. Well, I suppose those with an opposing viewpoint wouldn't work for you anyway

I see where your coming from if your company is that closely tied to an issue. I'd just be pissed if (throw out the LGBT issue) I worked in a place where everyone was allowed to openly spew right-to-life/anti-choice dogma but if you advocated pro-choice views you were reprimanded. And I suppose there are companies that do that using your argument.

[haele]

229. Leftover fish in the microwave oven - or microwave popcorn - I'd ban them if I could

Nasty, gag-worthy smells. But unless they cause someone to pass out or there is residue that sets off the Fire/CBN alarms, an employee can eat whatever they want.

Haele

[KittyWampus]

3. Good for the company for standing behind their ethics. They want people who embrace what they're

doing to work for them.

The "offended" meat-eater must have just seen this as a job. The owners want people invested in what they do.

[HEyHEY]

5. Okay, but as a commentor said (Not me, I swear) forcing someone to take your stance...

Weakens the act of taking a stance.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kctim]

29. Without a doubt

[petronius]

88. Not necessarily. I have no real problem with the business in the OP, but I would have an

issue with a company requiring an employee to eat meat - there's a big difference between prohibiting something that has lots of options and requiring something that does not (two totally different forms of regulation).

The reverse situation really isn't apt: for whatever reason a person is vegetarian, forcing them not to be for a meal does harm. But if a person is not a vegetarian, forcing them to be one for a meal does no harm at all.

However, if a meat-based company forbade vegetarian meals on the premises, but employees could eat whatever they wanted elsewhere, I'd react to it much like I do the OP (although a bit more negatively because the restriction would be more onerous)...

[Deep13]

17. What ethics? The owner is a control freak.

If it doesn't effect the quality of the work, it is none of the owner's business. Employees are their to perform a service for money, not to be personally "invested" in the owner's philosophy.

[Dr Fate]

188. But the Government should come in and FORCE this man to allow meat products on his private property?

B/c that is the only way you are going to make him do it. Maybe a boycott.

Sounds like you want "control freaks" to mandate this man to have things on his private property that are reprehensible to him and his customers.

[DonCoquixote]

159. Ethics

So, if a Christian wants people to say grace, or if a Muslim company demands all women wear hijabs, you are down with that? Religios people are VERY invested in what they do, that does not make them right.

[Confusious]

184. People forcing me to do things

Never makes me "invested"

It makes me resentful.

[Dr Fate]

186. But the Government can come in and FORCE this man to allow meat products on his private property?

B/c that is the only way you are going to make him stop, barring a boycott, etc.

Sounds like people forcing him to do things, doesnt it?

I wonder if it would make him resentful as well?

[Confusious]

194. Who's forcing who?

And in what manner. Will allowing meat in any manner in a hidden back room affect anything? Or is it just feel good bullshit?

I have a problem forcing people to bend to anything like this, whether left or right.

What next? Should the employer be allowed to look in their fridge for meat products?

[Dr Fate]

206. Are we discussing the actual law or what you think the law should be?

It's not a left or right issue for me at all. It's all about what I can and cant do with my own private store or business.

If I dont want people bringing BP products or meat or whatever onto my property, that is my business. If I'm wrong, that is for my customers to decide. They can boycott me or ban me if they disagree.

Who cares if it is "feel good" Bull shit or not? Who cares if it affects anything? It is his property and his beliefs, and it probably reflects his customer's beliefs.

He has a right to practice "feel good bull shit."

Why do you want the govt. to come in to force him to stop his practicing his "feel good bullshit" on his own private prop?

Under what law can the govt. do such a thing?

[Confusious]

210. Where is the limit on what a person can be required to do on company time? nt

[Dr Fate]

216. I already answered that in post #212. When are you going to answer MY questions?

Namely, how is the government going to stop him from banning meat, and under what law, freedom, protection etc. could this legally occur?

Seems like you cant answer that, so you are trying to move on.

[TheKentuckian]

232. A place of business is not your home. Just as the government can make an owner make

their location accessible to the handicapped, that they must serve minorities, that they dump antifreeze out back, that they don't abuse employees or maintain hostile workplaces.

[Dr Fate]

260. Government should not come in and force this man to allow meat on his prop.

All of your points are true, but they are not applicable to this instance.

Meat eaters are not a protected class like minorities.

A ban on meat is not akin to workplace saftey issues, sexual harassment, etc.

If you can show me a law or case where the government can come in and force his man to have meat at his work fucntions, i'd like to see it.

[BoneDaddy]

4. Veganazis

on parade. One more example on how the "left" can be as controlling as the right. And I see the value of a vegetarian diet.

[galileoreloaded]

15. Authoritarianism has no ideology, only a burning desire to control. n/t

[BoneDaddy]

33. That is sooooo true

I lean to the left because I have always rebelled against abuse of authority but I find that power knows no paty affiliation, ideology, gender, ethnicity, religion etc... Power can be abused by anyone of any persuasion. And sadly I see so many on the left act in such a way that is consistent with the most authoritarian practices.

[Dr Fate]

181. So the Government should come in and FORCE this man to allow meat products on his private property?

That seems consistent with the most authoritarian practices.

[Dr Fate]

59. Except this is not an example of Authoritarianism, it's just plain old respect for customers.

n/t

[BoneDaddy]

74. Eating a ham sandwich

in front of vegans and vegetarians is disrespecting them? how far are we going to take this nonsense?

[Dr Fate]

78. So if I work at a Kosher cafe, I should be allowed to bring pork on the premises...

...and I should be allowed to touch the pork on my lunch break, then touch the customer's food when I return to work?

Many customers might take their business elsewhere in that instance.

Not nonsesne at all- it's respect for what your customer wants. Sorry, but Vegans do not want meat grease or residue near their products, and these are his customers.

[KamaAina]

117. Ummm...

Not only are the 18 employees barred from bringing meat in their lunches, if they dine at a restaurant with a client, they are required to order only vegetarian dishes.

[Dr Fate]

120. So I should allow my operatives to eat pork in front of the Jewish investors/customers of my cafe?

Seems like that would be poor business practice to me, considering that I advertise a strict Kosheer menu & environment to my customers & investors.

If I run a religious charity, should I allow my employees to wear pentagrams and upside down crossses when they are attending church functions with donors?

If I run a Lung Cancer charity, I should allow my fund raisers to smoke while meeting with potential donors?

Etc, etc.

[Confusious]

189. Being a Vegan is not equal to religious

It's not protected in the constitution, or by law.

I like how most people here think "If I agree with it, it's OK" but turn around and scream bloody murder when the Repugs do it.

[Dr Fate]

191. The Government should come in and FORCE this man to allow meat products on his private property?

B/c that is the only way he is going to it, barring boycotts, etc.

Besides, You got it backwards-it is the meat eating employees who are not a protected class.

This genetleman is totally protected by the constitution, as far a s I can tell.

Please tell me the const. theory under which the goverment should come in and force this man to allow meat on his private property.

Yes, Veganism is not a religion (but some Hinus are vegetarian. So what? He has just as much right as a Kosher Jew or a Muslim to pursue happiness and run his private business a he sees fit.

[Confusious]

195. You completely missed the point of my post

But, yes, he has every right ON HIS PROPERTY. But to require people to eat vegan during lunch off premises is another thing altogether.

If he can do that, what is to stop him from checking their home fridge? Or are you OK with that because you agree with it?

[polly7]

196. He is only asserting the requirement off premises if his employee is

dining with a client, presumably during lunch hour. Did I read that wrong? I don't see any mention of employees' homes or dictating what they do in them.

[Confusious]

202. No it didn't say that

I did. In the past, corporations could come into your home and check everything to make sure you gave the right "company image" and I see this as an extension of that.

[polly7]

223. Hardly.

The company is asking it's employees not to eat meat while at work - work that is based on a humane philosophy and depends on that philosophy to sell a product. These employees were told prior to being hired of this, if they had a problem with it - refuse the job and find somewhere else to work. Don't whine afterwards. I wouldn't wear an anti-abortion button if I worked at Planned Parenthood, or expect my boss to tolerate it.

This is ridiculous.

[Confusious]

227. It's only ridiculous when you agree with it.

"work that is based on a humane philosophy"

[polly7]

228. No, implying that this employer is going to be snooping in their homes,

controlling what they eat outside of work when there is absolutely no evidence of that happening, is what is ridiculous. He's providing a living to employees who were told of the non-meat policy ......... he's selling products produced humanely, eating meat in his shop presumably goes against everything he started the business for. WTH should he jeopardize his business and sales, go against his own principles letting someone eat meat? Yes, it's ridiculous. They can eat anything they like outside of work, they can also leave the premises to eat meat during lunch-time. Good lord, cry me a river.

A good reader's comment:

"Some people commenting here seem to have a warped sense of freedom. Freedom does not only apply to you. The owner is free to have such a policy. A potential employee is free to accept or not accept a job their. An employee is free to quit the job at anytime. An employee is free to eat whatever they want wherever they want – just not on work property. We are all free to be pricks if we want to be. We are all free to be accommodating if we want to be.

You can swear like a drunken sailor all you want on the sidewalk outside your office but I’m sure most workplaces will sit you down if you do it on the premises. Where is the uprising??"

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/11/17/matt-nat-vegan-food-policy-in-workplace.html#socialcomments#ixzz15b8plqTc

What he said ............ and once again, if you don't agree with the policy you were informed of at hiring, why let on you're fine with it then, just to whine later?

[Confusious]

243. Go against his own principles letting someone eat meat?

"he's selling products produced humanely"

His principles are the only ones that matter, since you agree with them?

He's selling products. What other people do with their time is not his business.

One more thing: At which job did you get paid for lunch hour? I never did. He's dictating what people can do on their own time.

[polly7]

244. When it comes to HIS company, his principles are the only ones that matter.

Employees are not to eat meat on his property. They can leave and eat it on their own time. He's built his company based on using non-animal products ......... he has a right to uphold his principles that allow him to sell his specific product on his own property. Who is anyone to tell this company what they have to allow? Employees were hired knowing what the business sold, and what his requirements were. Whether they're paid for lunch hour or not has nothing to do with it ...... they're free to leave and scarf down ten hamburgers if they like. HIS PROPERTY. They knew beforehand. If I ran a business and my livelihood depended on a certain ideology, I'd be crazy to let employees show my customers I didn't believe in it myself if I let them act in ways that were opposite to what I was advocating. HIS business, HIS property. If they can't handle missing one meat-meal, work somewhere else that doesn't depend on a non-animal usage principle. Are businesses not allowed to exist if they operate on certain principles? I could see your point if these principles were dangerous, or causing harm to someone or something but in this case, it's a humane cause.

He is not forcing them to do anything dangerous, he is not depriving them of anything, he's not even demanding they believe what he does ........ they can leave to eat. He is only protecting the reputation that allows him to successfully sell a product. I can see it now ..... a customer taking him to court after buying a large amount of product produced humanely for resale, and learning he allows meat products in his shop. But, that probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

Would you expect to wear an anti-abortion button working at Planned Parenthood? I wouldn't, I'd hope they wouldn't even hire someone who didn't believe in free choice. Bitching after you've already taken this man's money (not you, but the employee in question), not caring whether you endanger his sales, being hired after you were informed of it ...... how sad. Quit already and give someone who doesn't absolutely require three meat dishes a day the job, many would be grateful for it.

It's no wonder so many small businesses struggle.

[Confusious]

262. What if he told everyone they had to get a H1N1 flu shot?

Perfectly legal under your definition.

What if they had to use the company bank?

What if they had to buy from the company store?

Just trying to understand what you think the limit is on what a company "make" an employee do.

[polly7]

264. He didn't tell anyone to get a flu shot. Or use the company bank.

Or buy from the company store. I don't understand your point. He asked them not to eat a product on his premises that he himself doesn't use in making the goods he sells in order to provide a living for himself .... and his employees.

[Confusious]

267. He doesn't serve food, that I could see

He sells bags. There is no "reasonable" reason for a "food code" except to force others to conform to his beliefs.

Same as christian groups forcing people to "join" their church before they give any help.

And you didn't ask the question. Some employers "forced" people to get the h1n1 flu shot. Do you agree with that?

[polly7]

272. He doesn't use animal-based product.

People buy the handbags because they're produced humanely ............ animal product free. He has the right to uphold that standard throughout his shop, including not allowing meat products in.

[Confusious]

273. Still didn't answer the question.

And it's not him using animal-based products, it would be his employees.

[polly7]

274. What ............ the flu shot???

What are you talking about, the flu shot has nothing to do with this. I have to get the flu shot every year if I want to work, what's the big deal? Every job has requirements. If you can't follow them ............ don't work there. Especially knowing what they were when you were hired.

Do you really believe employers should have no rights when their whole business is based on a certain ideology? How is this business supposed to operate and have any legitimacy with it's customer base if it can't even enforce its own principles?

[Confusious]

276. No, the H1N1 flu shot

You seem to be avoiding the question.

[polly7]

277. i guess the question makes no sense, as it has nothing, absolutely nothing ..

to do with the article.

[Confusious]

297. It does. It's examples of stupid shit that you would allow an employer

to do, if I see your argument correctly. But if not, then it's the other. ONLY in THIS case, SINCE I AGREE with IT.

[polly7]

299. LOL n/t.

[polly7]

279. He's responsible for anything and everything

on HIS premises, including not allowing meat-based products whose usage would obviously go against the ideology his whole company is founded on. Wow ..... I feel sorry for anyone trying to do a good thing while providing employment for others. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

[Confusious]

296. Not exactly, if he formed a LLC or company

He gave up some rights as a private owner to have legal protection.

And what, he's going to be sued if people eat meat on his premises? So that gives and employer the right to dictate everything they should do while at work? Like no more then 5 minutes for bathroom breaks all day, and have it timed? I'm giving examples of things you probably don't support, but in this case, since you agree with it, you'll let it go.

[polly7]

298. He could possibly be sued by a large buyer who purchases only from

someone using humane methods and who presumably doesn't believe in killing animals, possibly spending large amounts of money advertising these products for a specific client base. Heck, some here seem to think he should be sued for sticking to a principle his company was based on. Bathroom breaks, flu shot .......... anything else you can muddy the waters with? 'Everything they should do at work?' - lol, they're not permitted to have meat products, 'everything they should do'? what, like work? I didn't see anything he's requiring of them that they've found objectionable, just the meat thing. Exaggerate much?? They can step out the door and eat their meat if they're that bothered by it. He's not denying them ANYTHING. Your examples of things I probably don't support have nothing to do with this company and are irrelevant.

[Confusious]

300. As you said above LOL

How could he be sued by allowing his employees to eat meat? If anything is a good LOL, that has to be.

I was giving examples. I stated as much. It's not just this guy, it's every employer. Every example I gave was because some other employer made his emplyees do it. I wanted to know it you agreed with it. But you couldn't give a straight answer.

And since you've ducked an evaded so many times, I'll just take your answer to be "because I agree with it"

[polly7]

301. No, I don't agree with anything you've posted, but knock yourself out.

He could be sued by a company spending a shitload of money thinking they were getting a product produced humanely and 'probably' assuming the environment they were produced in practiced that ideology in all areas ........ which would include not allowing meat products on its premises. It would be pretty hypocritical to paint yourself as a humane environment and allow employees to chow down on slaughter-house meat, wouldn't it??? Maybe you don't agree it's important to follow certain principles you're basing your company and its success on, but that is what this is about. Not bathroom-breaks, flu shots, or anything else.

[Dr Fate]

197. No, I corrected your errors in interpreting the constitution.

What is to stop him checking their home fridge? Err, the same private prop. laws and const. protections that protect this man from your forced government mandates, that is what.

If this man has an employee who is on the clock but eating lunch with investors, customers, etc- the employer has every right to have the employee represent the company properly.

Just like I'm not allowed to smoke, cuss, drink, fart, wear satan stars, chew gum, etc. when I am meeting with customrs/clients/invstors outside of my employers prop.

[Confusious]

204. Where is the limit on what a person can be required to do on company time? nt

[Dr Fate]

212. You cannot require them to do anything illegal, for one.

You cannot force them to eat vegetables, OR meat, for another. Unless they are food taster, that is.

This man is not requiring that anyone eat one thing or another, he is just prohibiting certain products that are not in line with his business.

Should a Coca-Cola distributor be allowed to drink cans of pepsi in front of customers?

Should the government FORCE Coca-cola to allow this man to drink pepsi in front of customers?

SAY-Why do you get to ask all the questions? Your turn to answer one.

I've been asking you to back up your position that the government can just come in and force this man to allow meat.

Under what law, freedom, protection etc. do you base this on?

[Confusious]

221. I never said that there was any law that could make him do it

But I guess him being allowed to force others to what he wants is OK, to you. One person is forcing a majority to conform to his beliefs. That is my problem.

I have the same problem with corporations. I have the same problem no matter where I see it.

[Dr Fate]

222. In turn, it's not fair for the Govt. to force a man to conform to majority beliefs.

Especially if it is my private business and I am not violating the commerce clause.

But I guess the government being allowed to force others to do what the majority wants is OK, to some.

That is my problem.

If I ran a business, I dont want you or the government telling me what food I can or cannot have on the premises or during my work functions.

[Confusious]

226. In turn, it's not fair for the Govt. to force a man to conform to majority beliefs.

Kind of like civil rights?

Or workplace safety?

[Dr Fate]

248. Meat eaters are not a protected class. This has nothing to do w/ civil rights.

Or workplace safety.

You seem to misunderstand some basic const. principles here.

Unless we are talking about the commerce clause (civil rights, etc), the constitution is about what the government is prohibited from doing. It was little to do with reasonable workplace rules (dress codes, product loyalty, etc), marketing strategies, etc.

Sorry, but a ban on meat does not violate the commerce clause or any civil rights law that I know of.

It's simple- the government cannot force this many to have meat in his building or at his work functions.

[Confusious]

263. That wasn't your argument

this was:

In turn, it's not fair for the Govt. to force a man to conform to majority beliefs.

[Dr Fate]

284. You dont seem to understand the U.S. Constitution AT ALL.

My argument was "In turn, it's not fair for the Govt. to force a man to conform to majority beliefs." I should have added "in these types of instances."

As far as the topic at hand goes, I stand by this statement.

Did I miss the part where you countered or refuted it?

I shot down your civil rights & work place safety examples cold. Those examples are not applicable here under THE LAW.

Ever heard of the phrase "Tyranny of the Majority" b/f? It is what you seem to be advocating when you indicated that this man's vegan ethos is stepping on the toes of the majority.

The Vegan does not have to be a member of a religion or protected class in this scenario. The Vegan is not the one who claims he is being discriminated against- it is meat eating employees who are claiming discrimination.

Meat eaters are not a protected class under any civil rights laws. Sorry.

There is NO violation of the commerce clause here, that I can see. Civil rights and work safety rules are not applicable here at all.

I appreciate that you have your own feelings on what the law should say- I'm trying to tell you what it DOES say.

[Confusious]

295. No, you didn't shoot them down cold, you just moved the posts

No, what I'm advocating is that an employer has the right to ask things of the employee, when it **APPLIES** to the job. Dress nice, treat customers with respect. If you want me to dress in a clown suit, the customer better be a kids party.

This guy sells handbags, not food. If it was food, I could almost see it.

What a person eats has nothing to do with handbags.

One other thing. I worked with customers for more then 10 years. How many times was I asked what I had for lunch by a customer. Zero. He's just forcing people to live by his beliefs. It also goes the other way. Tyranny of the minority. There are a lot of examples, but you seem smart enough to find them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minoritarianism

He has a right to his beliefs, just as long as he doesn't use a position of power to force them on others, as he is doing in this case.

And you keep making an argument against things I'm not saying, and then prancing around saying "look I killed it cold." what you blew away was your straw man.

[Name removed]

268. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

271. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

285. Vegans are not the ones who are claiming discrimination here- meat eaters are.

And meat eaters are not a protected class.

The party claiming discrim. is the one who needs to be the protected class, not the business owner. I brought in Kosher delis, etc. as an example of a business owner respecting the wishes of his customers.

You are getting things totally backwards.

[Dr Fate]

286. They are getting it backwards. Vegans are not the ones claiming discrim. Meat eaters are.

Therefore it would be the meat eater who would need to be in a protected class for their arguments to work.

I brought in religion to illustrate customer respect- ie a Kosher Deli's customers do no want ham in the kitchen, etc.

[MedicalAdmin]

203. I assumed that to mean that if they were on the clock and the company card.

That they follow the rules.

I used to have an expense account and we had rules for entertaining clients that we had to follow. If we went out of the rules then we paid and got a lecture. I never had a problem with my boss setting up rules for the use of his money.

[proteus_lives]

121. +10,000

I've seen Authoritarians of all stripes.

[msongs]

48. what has "left" got to do with it? nt

[BoneDaddy]

69. Let's be honest

The percentage of right wing vegetarians and vegans is not exactly noteworthy

[KamaAina]

114. You'd be surprised

A fair number of fundies are health-food people.

[MedicalAdmin]

205. 7th day adventists.

Although I have no idea how they vote.

[bobbolink]

60. Neither side can see their own power and control issues, and authoritarianism.

NEITHER.

[Dr Fate]

106. There are no power or control issues here. This is all about respecting the customer.

There is nothing "left" or "right" about a business environment that respects it's customers- it's just good business.

Vegan customers prefer a meat free environment just like Muslim or Kosher Jew might prefer a cafe where there is no pork getting near their food.

[bobbolink]

107. Exactly. Its OK if the belief system is the approved one.

[Dr Fate]

140. ?

n/t

[DonCoquixote]

162. Don't pull a ?

You know damned well that if there was a Muslim owned business that forced women to hear the Hijab, there would be bloody murder here, if you cannot see how the right wing can take this and use it for "Christian" businesses where non believers get the shaft, then you are the not only a fool, but the sort of fool the right finds useful.

[Dr Fate]

166. Religous freedom is a fundamental right, we agree on that much.

Our freedom from having other people make us pray, swear alligence to a god, etc. is a really completely diff. subject and issue.

Yes- if a business forces an employee to pray, that would be a cause for concern.

The right to eat meat on someone elses property is not a fundamental right, and meat eaters like me are not a protected class.

Illegal mandates and legal prohibitions are two diff things.

I'm sorry if you are not satisified with years of jurisprudence, but it's all we have to go by...

[DonCoquixote]

160. Bobbolink

I may disagree with you sometimes, but as usual, you provide some of the best anti-bs antidote on DU.

[superduperfarleft]

94. Stay classy. n/t

[Dr Fate]

97. Wrong- it's CUSTOMER RESPECT and CUSTOMER SERVICE on parade.

See my other posts for more.

Think about the customer as well as the employee for a few seconds here.

Vegan customers would not want meat near their products anymore than a muslim or kosher jew customer would want pork near theirs.

"the cusotmer is always right" is a business practice that is neither right or left, it's just good sense.

[Confusious]

190. So what? If the customer says "strip nude" I should do it? nt

[mod mom]

7. "no right" I disagree. They are not forcing employees to become vegetarians

just eat meat off premises. I have that rule in my house. I find it offensive and have asked guest in the past to respect our house rule when we've hosted pot lucks.

[HEyHEY]

8. Suppose the rule was you had to say grace before eating on the premises?

[Dogmudgeon]

9. Why, the outrage!

Our tribe is nothing if not selective in its prejudices, pro and anti.

--d!

[Poll_Blind]

63. +1

Yup.

PB

[Obamanaut]

110. That would be easy. "Grace. Now I give thanks to my (enter relation) who

made this tasty lunch for me." You have said Grace, *and* you gave thanks. It can by adjusted to wherever the meal came from - Wendy's, Quizno, etc.

[WolverineDG]

111. Oh, well *that's* different

:sarcasm:

dg

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[polly7]

40. A poster is a control freak for having a say in what enters her own home?

Unbelievable.

[BoneDaddy]

42. No, I find it offensive that someone is so entrenched in their ideology

to restrict people from having a choice of what to eat. I cater to my friends who are veg, meat eaters, those with food allergies.

Hell, I personally don't care what her rules are in her house, I just think she is a control freak. And what she does in her house is MUCH different than making employees uphold your ideology.

[polly7]

45. HER house.

She has the right to control anything and everything about it. I'm sure there are things you don't allow others to do in your home?

Those employees were told beforehand what the policies were. They have the perfect right to refuse the job and leave it for someone who isn't going to whine afterwards they were denied one of their three meat dishes a day.

[BoneDaddy]

67. Obviously you don't listen and have your own agenda

because I clarified it in the previous post. I don't care what she does in her own house yet I think her restrictive behavior is way over the top. I can still have a criticism about how her ideology is so far overboard that her imposition is pretty messed up.

Yeah, and I think the employer is a freaking control freak as well.
Stop trying to justify authoritarian behavior because if they were promoting an ideology that YOU disagreed with, you would be the first person to cry foul.

Typical crap on DU

[polly7]

68. I have no agenda.

You don't care what she does in her own house yet are calling her a control freak because she stated what isn't welcome in her own house ........... makes no sense.


The employer makes a living because of it's humane policy. Employees knew of this policy.

I would never whine about an idealogy I agreed to in order to become hired.

You have no idea what I would cry foul about, you don't know anything about me.

[BoneDaddy]

72. Jesus

why is it so hard for you to understand that where I personally don't care about how she runs her household (afterall it is her house) yet I can still think her ideology is restrictive and over the top.

I don't agree with much of the right wing religious ideology yet if they want to wear hair shirts and self flagellate in their own house it is after all their house. I can still think their belief system is nutty.

They are not mutually exclusive.

[Dr Fate]

104. Vegans do not like the idea that meat grease or residue could touch their products.

It may sound restrictive and over the top for you, but they are consumers with standards and demands just like anyone else.

Vegan consumers do not want meat near their products, and the owner is merely respecting his customer base.

Same thing with a Kosher or Muslim grocer- the customers would not like the idea of employees eating pork on site, near the food they are going to buy.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

182. So the Government should come in and FORCE this man to allow meat products on his private property?

Sounds control freakish and authoritarian

[DonCoquixote]

242. look up 217, toucanos reply

He quoted a law that is very clear, and even quoted an instance where an Inuit would be slammed because inuit do not eat vegan.

[polly7]

10. Isn't their business based on using non-animal products?

Employees were told of their policy before they were hired. They can scarf down some bacon for breakfast and have a steak for dinner .... I think they'll survive.

[HEyHEY]

13. What if you worked at a sausage factory that required you eat sausage for lunch?

[polly7]

20. There is a big difference, one is sticking to the principles it operates

by and in no way forcing its employees to eat certain things they may object or which may cause distress. Btw .... it's not forcing anyone to 'eat' anything, if they want to eat something the shop doesn't allow on its premises, they have the simple option of not working there or leaving the premises to eat. A sausage factory requiring you to 'eat' something you may not agree to, or become sick over, as opposed to 'not' eating something is quite different, no? If someome were going to force me to eat something specific I didn't normally eat ..... well, when it was pointed out in my interview, I would have just said no. Simple.

[HEyHEY]

27. Well, you can leave the factory BUT WHY WOULD YA!?

Seriously though, some consider not eating meat to be unhealthy.

[polly7]

30. Why would you?

Not sure about you, but I'd leave to avoid eating something that may make me sick, be against my religion, or that I just didn't agree with. If I knew of any restrictions beforehand and wanted a job, I'd expect to follow the rules and principles of the company. Not eating meat once a day, when you're perfectly free to eat as much of it as you like for other meals, is not unhealthy. It's kind of pissy too to complain about it after you're hired. Just say no and give someone who isn't so dependant on eating meat the job. There are thousands and thousands waiting ...

[AngryAmish]

11. And requiring people to eat meat at work is kosher also, yes?

[HEyHEY]

12. Who's requiring that?

[AngryAmish]

16. Well, some restaurants have that policy

Servers gotta try the dishes.

But it was more of a thought provoking idea. Sauce for goose and gander alike.

[HEyHEY]

18. Ruh roh

Actually, I bet many such places are more lenient to objectors than these people.

[AngryAmish]

21. Some places are lenient, and it bugs the crap out of me

It harms the dining experience.

[WinkyDink]

No. Servers have to KNOW the dishes.

[madrchsod]

25. if they want a tip they`d better....

[AngryAmish]

14. Along the same lines, isn't it annoying when you get a veggie waitress or waiter?

Not at some greasy spoon but at a nice restaurant. Your server is supposed to try the dishes and make recommendations. WHitefish or lamb shanks? Well, I'm a veggie and I can't tell you but I heard that...

Listen, if I am going to be paying hundreds of dollars for a meal I damn well want to know if what I order is good.

rant off

[WinkyDink]

24. What kind of straw-man is this?

[WorseBeforeBetter]

236. A delusion of grandeur kind of strawman. (n/t)

[GrpCaptMandrake]

58. I actually had that happen . . .

I asked my wait-staffer in a restaurant whether she preferred the (a) or the (b). "Neither," she answered smugly. "I'm a vegan." "Gee, thanks for helping," I replied, "is there someone else working here who actually knows about the food they're serving?"

[WorseBeforeBetter]

237. Sure ya did. (n/t)

[GrpCaptMandrake]

283. I sure did!

The owner of the restaurant wound up serving us instead of the clueless vegan.

[SoCalDem]

171. We never ask about a food item's "goodness"

because we naturally assume that any reply would be in the affirmative anyway.

Most adults can read a menu, and would assume that anything written down on a menu in a nice restaurant would be tasty.:)

Restaurants routinely remove items that are not ordered regularly, or about which there are complaints.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

173. Who cares?

The waiter/waitress could be a moron with no taste anyway.

I'm not a fan of fish, so it's doubtful I'd ever be able to provide a good recomendation on one.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

235. I'm not sure what's more preposterous...

your claim that a waitperson, who makes the bulk of his/her income on tips, refuses to tell you about non-vegetarian dishes, or your claim that you're dropping hundreds on meals. If you're dining at restaurants where you'll be spending hundreds (e.g., The Inn at Little Washington) you can pretty much plan on it all being "good."

[slackmaster]

19. His right to dictate what his employees eat extends only to the boundary of his property IMO

OTOH this story reminds me of something my ex-wife told me about her first husband, an accountant.

He was working for one of the old Big Eight accounting firms in North Carolina, Touche Ross. Employees had to wear business suits at all times of course. They were permitted to remove their jackets only while seated at their own desks, and never when in sight of clients.

They were permitted to go to restaurants for lunch, but could never be seen at any eatery more lowly than Denny's. Being seen at Jack-In-The-Box or even Kentucky Fried Chicken was grounds for termination. :-)

[WinkyDink]

22. Tell that to Sir Paul McCartney.

[madrchsod]

23. they make stuff out of plastic and rubber which is made out of oil

but using a natural product that has been used since the dawn of mankind is forbidden.

ok..to each his own.

[RadiationTherapy]

31. The key word here is: owner.

Although, eventually he will have to enforce and things may go poorly.

[WildEyedLiberal]

41. So business owners can dictate the personal habits of employees so long as it's a "lefty" habit?

I find threads like this so very fascinating. I would really love to see the reaction if the business owner were trying to enforce a "right-wing" habit or practice.

[polly7]

43. Not wanting to use animal products or have them on your premises

is hardly a 'lefty' position only. Their business exists because of their policies ...... why on earth would you expect potential customers to patronize a business advocating the use of non-animal products if they see the hypocrisy of letting meat be eaten there? Potential employees were informed of the policy, they're not forcing them to eat anything, let alone anything dangerous ...... just not to violate their principles.

[WildEyedLiberal]

49. It's "lefty" in that it's being defended here because vegetarians tend to be liberal-leaning

Would you feel the same way if a "Christian" company forced employees to pray, regardless of the employee's religious affiliation? The owner can have whatever ethics he wants. No one is disputing his right to have principles. But some people have a problem with him forcing his principles on his employees in a way that has NO bearing on the actual running of the business. Why the hell would "potential customers" know whether or not the employees had a ham sandwich in their lunchbox? Do you make a habit of asking employees what they ate for lunch before you patronize a business?

[polly7]

51. 'Tend to'. That's kind of broad, isn't it? My SIL is about as conservative

as they come yet won't touch meat.

If I knew beforehand I was expected to pray at a Christian company and had no problem praying, I would pray. If I had a problem with it, I wouldn't take the job.

No bearing ....... when the whole business is based on non-animal use? Get real. If I walked into McDonald's and saw the employees eating Wendy's burgers, I'd walk straight back out.

[WildEyedLiberal]

61. Why are you "seeing" what the employees are eating at all?

Employees eat in a break room. How often, really, do you walk into a business and actually see the employees eating? With the exception of restaurants, where employees eat at the tables, I have NEVER been into a retail store and seen employees eating their lunches. Don't you think that's a bit of a ridiculous strawman?

I highly doubt that many here would be accepting of a Christian business owner forcing his employees to pray, but if you are, then I guess you think employers have the right to dictate their employees' personal habits. I find that disturbing, but at least you're consistent.

[polly7]

66. So, hiding it would be ok, even if what's being eaten violates everything

the shop stands for? Even after you were informed of the policy and obviously agreed to it and were hired? Yikes. That's scummy.

Yes, I believe any employer operating with a set of their own principles (which they're fully entitled to) has the right to enforce them. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't apply for a job with them. What's disturbing about that? It would be different if I took a job not knowing the requirements, which isn't the case here. Disturbing, is making a living off someone and thinking it's ok to hide out while breaking policy you were fine with upon being hired. And ......... not everyone eats in a break room only ,really, do they always? Not in the many places I've worked. ??? We usually eat in the cafeteria where pts., family members, anyone can see us. I don't whip out my smokes, because even if it were allowed, it would be against everything the hospitals stand for.

Yes, I'm consistent. Thanks :)

[WildEyedLiberal]

70. I just don't think it's right to dictate an employee's PERSONAL preferences

Yes, the employer has the "right" to do this. It's not illegal, and employees are free not to work there if they don't like it. But I think dictating what your employees personally consume is scummy. I doubt the business in question is big enough to have a cafeteria, so why would any employees be eating in sight of the customers? If there were a cafeteria, then yes, I understand only serving veg options, but an employee in the break room eating his own brown-bag lunch? Sorry, I think a policy telling him what he can and can't have in the lunchbox is creepy and authoritarian.

But kudos for your consistency, even if I disagree. :)

[Dr Fate]

76. So if I work at a Kosher cafe, I should be allowed to bring pork on the premises...

..and handle the pork on my lunch break, then touch the customer's food.

[SOS]

98. Your Kosher example has ended debate twice on this thread

Apparently those troubled by "left-wing authoritarianism" don't want to touch that one.

[Dr Fate]

101. Every now and then I come up w/ something that makes sense!

Book mark this! ;)

[Scout]

112. sure, bring it on the premises and eat it ... but just as with any other food you handled,

you need to WASH YOUR HANDS before touching the customer's food.

better yet, why aren't you wearing gloves to touch the food?

[Dr Fate]

118. And this is something you think the owner would want his customers to find out about?

If I were such a customer, I might shop elsewhere. I might find a place that was more in line with my strict values.

Some hard-core believers may not even want the pork in the same fridge or even the chance that a tiny bit of it could get on them, gloves or not. THey dont even like the idea of it being around.

Crazy? Radical? Could be. But the customer is always right.

Obviously this guy's customers want a place with policies like this. If this was the US, I'd say that so long as no const. rights are being violated, I'm fine with it.

If I run a religious charity, should I allow my employees to wear pentagrams and upside down crossses when they are attending church functions with donors?

If I run a Lung Cancer charity, I should allow my fund raisers to smoke while meeting with potential donors?

[WildEyedLiberal]

130. Are vegans following a religious edict?

Do they find it offensive to be in the mere presence of meat - to see, smell, or touch meat? Why do you assume that the employees in question are "handling" the products after smearing their hands all over meat? Do vegans object to people eating meat in their presence, or eating meat in the presence of animal free product?

Your comparison is a nice try, but unlike Kosher laws, which apply to more than the consumption of meat, there is no good argument that a vegan could be reasonably offended by the very thought of someone else eating meat in his nearby vicinity. If said vegan IS offended, then he needs to mind his own business and not police everyone else's lunch.

[Dr Fate]

136. No, their personal belief system. Pursuit of happiness and all that Jazz.

You dont get to say what is reasonble or not reasonable for vegan customer expectations. The guy about to open his canvass wallet is the one who gets to do that.

No chance of contamination? Are you sure? The customer may just prefer to not take the chance. Even if this policy is just for customer piece of mind, or to avoid looking hypocritical, it's the owners business choice. As far as I know, perfectly legal in the US (I do not know Canadian law).

So the customer needs to "mind his own business" as to the business practices followed by the companies they give money to?

LOL! IF the vegan IS offfended, he just may take his business elesewhere. Maybe that is what this business owner is trying to avoid.

[WildEyedLiberal]

138. What I am failing to understand is how the customer has any way to know WHAT the employees eat

How would they even know? Do they have the right to go into the break room and go through the employees' lunch bags? To ask each employee to make sure they have not brought meat on the premises (since, apparently, it's okay for these employees to eat meat off-premises)? How are the customers ever going to know one way or another WHAT the employees ate for lunch?

I think that customers need to mind their own business about the personal lives of people who work at the stores they shop at, yes. I know it goes on, and I know it's business, but I don't have to like it.

[Dr Fate]

143. Good point, but the owner still has the right to implement any legal safeguards or rules...

...in order to secure more customer confidence in his products or mission.

You are right- the owner should not be going through people's things.

What the customer actually can or cannot find out is not really the main issue for me- the issue is whether the customer knows or believes that the owner has a policy that might make his product more attractive.

This is not about he personal lives of employees- it is about what occurs on your employers property or conduct while you are on the clock. Fair or not, the reasonable expectation of privacy is not the same in some situations as it is at home, etc.

No, you do not have to like it, but we should try to understand why it is legal.

[WildEyedLiberal]

150. I do understand why it's legal, but I think it's very squicky

Also, many places don't allow employees to have lunch on the clock. If they're not on the clock - even if they are still on the premises - I think that gives the employer even less of a say what they eat for lunch. I understand that there is less of an exception of privacy, but - and this is where I think we've been crossing signals - I think that this policy is far less about the potential customers than it is about the OWNER and HIS personal beliefs. I do understand providing a suitable business atmosphere for your customers, but I just can't fathom any situation in which the customers would ever have any reason to know or discover what the employees are eating. So this just comes across far more to me as the boss imposing his personal ethics on his employees, which is obviously still his right, at least in Canada, but is still very overbearing. But then again, most laws are structured to allow overbearing bosses a lot of leeway.

[Dr Fate]

156. I really do see your legit concerns. I disagree with one point...

In this case, it seems reasonable to assume that the owner's personal beliefs are the SAME as that of his customers.

As to some things you said in other posts, we would agree that the state cannot mandate speech and that employers in most cases cannot mandate prayer. Forcing behavoir where there is fundamental const. right and prohibiting certain conduct at work are two diff. things.

It would be interesting if this were in the US, and in court. I'd love to see the analysis. Maybe I'm way off base, but I dont think so.

[Confusious]

192. Religious preferences != vegan preferences

One is in the constitution, one is not.

One is support by law, the other is not.

[Dr Fate]

247. Wrong- the government cannot force this man to have meat in his building...

...or at his work function.

Your argument is a misapplication of the const.

[polly7]

77. Is it creepy and authoritarian to expect employees you hired after

informing them of your policy and expectations, to follow them? I find it unbelievable that an employee would have a problem with this ........... do they think they're working at WalMart? No, they're working at a business that depends 100% on following a specific ideology, using non-meat products. Eating meat goes against everything they stand for, I'm sure no-one has died or been adversely affected not having three meat meals a day. It goes beyond being in sight of the customer (and you have no idea if they can be seen by the public or possibly a potential client in the back-room looking at stock), a little honesty and loyalty to policy you agreed to would be a good thing. I don't understand why anyone not agreeing to the non-meat policy would even want to work there in the first place. It seems hypocritical.

[WildEyedLiberal]

133. I wouldn't want to work there.

However, as someone else in the thread said, there is an inherent power differential between an employer and an employee. If I am looking for a job, and the only place hiring is the vegan shop, why should I remain unemployed because I don't agree with the owner's principles?

I just don't think the employer has any business making a policy dictating what lunch decisions his employees make. Yes, it's his right. Yes, it's made clear. No, meat lovers should probably not work there. All of these issues are true, but are incidental to the fact that a boss dictating his employee's lunch is intrusive and crosses a boundary that makes me very uncomfortable.

[polly7]

178. Well that's your right. I imagine there are hundreds who would

be grateful for the job and have no problem with following policy they signed up for upon being hired. The boss is not dictating the lunches, they are a company operating specifically with a humane, non-animal ideology and informed potential employees of that. As long as the lunch doesn't include meat products, they can eat what they like ....... they can also go off premises to eat if they're going through D.T.'s from lack of meat at lunchtime. I would find it very odd to see someone eating meat in a humane workplace. It would make me think the employer wasn't very committed to what they were trying to sell. Maybe you need to consider how hard it is for any small business to make a profit.

[Dr Fate]

56. Vegans do not like the idea that meat grease or residue could touch their products.

You dont have to agree with that, but those are what many of his customers believe.

My girlfriend will not eat food cooked in the skillet I use to cook chicken, even after I clean it. Crazy? could be, but the customer is always right.

I think the idea that the owner may also be respecting his customers is a valid one.

If I were going to give to lung cancer charity and I found out that people were allowed to smoke on site, I would probably try to find a new charity.

[WildEyedLiberal]

62. I understand a policy of not cooking meat on site, or having a vegetarian cafeteria or whatever

But I think telling an employee what they can bring in their own personal property (ie, a lunchbox) for their own personal consumption crosses a line.

[Dr Fate]

71. So the guy at the front desk of the Lung Cancer Charity...

...he should be able to have a pack of cigs in his front pocket, and it should be okay for him to smell like cigs?

It's his own personal consumption and his own persoanl property, after all.

Vegans do not want meat grease or residue touching their products. They dont even want the IDEA of it.

What if this was a Kosher or muslim food store and the owner wanted to avoid the possibility of pork residue touching their products? Imagine what his customers would think if they caught wind that people were handling their food had been touching pork on their lunch breaks.

Could you see his point?

In sum, the customer is always right, and no one's const. rights are being violated as far as I can see.

[WildEyedLiberal]

137. Yes, a smoker should be able to work at a lung cancer charity

But if he smells like smoke, that could affect other people who are sensitive to cigarette smoke, which is a different issue altogether. But the mere fact that he smokes in contradiction with the mission of the lung cancer charity shouldn't bar him from working there. In contrast, someone eating meat on their lunch break is not intruding on anyone else. They don't "smell" like meat. They're not getting "meat residue" on the products - why the hell would an employee be eating his food right over the retail products, anyway? And it's state law in most places to wash one's hands after consuming food, so that's a rather moot point too.

And unless vegans are as religiously and culturally bound to avoid meat as Jews and Muslims are to avoid pork, that is a red herring. Not wanting to consume animal products or purchase them is one thing, but being offended by being in the very presence of someone who is eating meat and then deigning to sell you a leather-free purse takes it beyond reason.

No one suggested that the business owner is violating anyone's Constitutional rights (even though this is in Canada, but apparently he is not violating any Canadian laws, either). I never suggested that he is breaking the law, or even that he should be "banned" from setting this policy. I can, however, express my discomfort and disapproval of such an invasive and busybody intrusion into employees' personal lives.

[Dr Fate]

139. I'm sorry- but Vegans dont need be "religiously and culturally bound"...

...in order to have certain expectations as a customer to a business.

Pursuit of happiness and the concept of voting with one's wallet seems to have that one covered.

No, washing the hands does not make the point moot- Kosher customers or Vegan customers at a grocers or cafe may not even want to take the chance. Sure, they could still be eating meat or pork at home or off site, causing the same problem, but the owner is at least taking the safeguards that are available.

[WildEyedLiberal]

142. We're talking past each other because I do not agree that an employee's lunch has any bearing

on a vegan customer's chances of encountering meat. I'm not suggesting they fry bacon in the break room kitchen. But I am very uncomfortable with the sandwich police coming in and busting a worker for eating a chicken salad sandwich on his break because he didn't want to take the time and money to leave the premises and drive to a restaurant.

[Dr Fate]

145. The owner does not care if you agree. You are not his customer.

His customers may get piece of mind knowing that the chances or encountering meat are lower at his business than they might be elsewhere.

[WildEyedLiberal]

149. How many more concessions are you going to be willing to make for "a customer's peace of mind?"

Should employers be able to mandate that his employees not eat meat - ever? Even when they're not at work? How much control do you want to give employers over the lives of their employees? How much personal autonomy should workers have to sacrifice to comply with "workplace policy" or ensure that their customers are "comfortable?" This is a slippery slope that leads right to serfdom.

[Dr Fate]

152. I'm not making "concessions." I believe I'm following the law.

As it has been written and interpreted for many, many years.

I agree with you that things can and do go too far. I do not believe this is one of those instances.

I would agree that off-the clock, out of the public eye, off property, legal behavior should be off limits.

[WildEyedLiberal]

153. Fair enough

Despite our disagreements, thank you for the vigorous and civilized discussion - something that happens rarely at DU these days. :hi:

[Dr Fate]

157. I agree- you made me think. Thanks! n/t

n/t

[Dr Fate]

52. I heard that they do not allow smoking employees inside of Lung Cancer Charities as well.

Damn nazis!

But seriously, I see the points from both sides.

If I showed up to Lung Cancer charity and saw the guy at the front desk smoking, I would take my donation elsewhere.

What if a vegitarian or strict vegan customer comes to this business and sees employess eating meat on site? Not only would it be hypocritical in the eyes of the customer, they might even take their business elsewhere. Great point.

So long as the OWNER is not requiring people to abstain from meat off site, I dont see what the big deal is. Some of the employees will probably lose a little weight- worse things could happen.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

80. Like what, for instance?

What "right-wing habit" do you have in mind?

[Dr Fate]

90. Not a "right wing" example, but I have a religious one.

I have brought up the Muslim & Kosher prohibitions on pork and I have yet to see a good counter argument.

Would we all be crying "facism!" if we found out that in effort to respect his customers, a Kosher or Muslim Cafe owner did not allow his employees to handle pork on the premises?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

92. I wouldn't. That would be a perfectly reasonable prohibition.

Especially if the owner didn't forbid people from eating such things away from the job.

[Dr Fate]

93. So what is the difference? Shouldnt vegan customers get similar respect?

Whether it is mainstream or not, vegans dont like the potential of meat residue or grease being near their food either.

The customer is always right- and this business owner is merely catering to his customer's beliefs. Employees can eat meat off site, and no one's const. rights are being violated that I can see.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

96. No difference.

I'm eagerly awaiting for the poster above to elaborate on his passionate denunciation of "lefty hypocrisy". Hence my question to him.

[Dr Fate]

99. We are on the same page- thanks! n/t

n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

141. Her, actually

And someone else in this thread had a good example: a Christian business owner mandating prayer or grace before starting work, or before meals. Tell me DU wouldn't be all in a tizzy over a boss telling his employees they had to pray before they ate, unless they wanted to leave the premises. Should only Christians apply to work there? What if they offer the best pay or benefits in the area, but the tradeoff is agreeing to pray every day - even if you're not a Christian? Should you just suck it up and pray because after all, you took the job and you knew the policy? Since when did this website start supporting management forcing employees to make *personal* choices that reflected their (management's) principles?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

144. So sandwiches and religion are the same. Gotcha. -nt

[WildEyedLiberal]

147. No - business owners imposing their personal ethics on employees is the same

I really don't think you're as obtuse as your response to me indicates. If you disagree, then you could bother articulating a reason, since I did you the courtesy of giving you a serious answer despite your wink-wink-nudge-nudge implication that I'm trolling in this thread. I think it's beyond sad that defending the rights of employees against unduly invasive workplace policies is somehow considered trolling on a liberal board.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

148. See #88. -nt

[WildEyedLiberal]

151. If you can't bother to reply yourself, then don't

It's not my job to hunt through a nearly 200-post thread to find a response that summarizes what you can't be bothered to type yourself.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

165. No need to hunt. Ctrl-F, then type ''#88''. Easy as pie. There, isn't it nice to learn new things?

That person was more eloquent than I would be.

[KamaAina]

168. Vegans "don't like" the potential of meat residue or grease.

And in this case, it would be near their handbag, not their food.

Jews and Muslims are religiously offended by the potential of pork residue or grease being near their food (or handbag). BIG difference.

[Dr Fate]

170. Some Vegatarians (certain Hindu sects, etc) might be religiously offended as well.

But since when does a customer have to be religious in order to have standards as to what they buy and who they buy from?

And you dont get to decide whether it is offensive for a Vegan to have meat, etc. near their hand bag. The Vegan who is about to open up his wallet and spend his money gets to decide that.

Not only do they "don't like" it, they *don't BUY* it either. They just may take their business elsewhere. This business owner seeems to undestand his customers better than you do.

[KamaAina]

172. Not all Hindus are vegetarian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism#Ahimsa.2C_vegetarianism_and_other_food_customs

In accordance with ahiṃsā, many Hindus embrace vegetarianism to respect higher forms of life. Vegetarianism is propagated by the Yajur Veda and it is recommended for a satvic (purifying) lifestyle. Estimates of the number of lacto vegetarians in India (includes adherents of all religions) vary between 20% and 42%. The food habits vary with the community and region, for example some castes having fewer vegetarians and coastal populations relying on seafood. Some Hindus avoid onion and garlic, which are regarded as rajasic foods. Some avoid meat only on specific holy days. Observant Hindus who do eat meat almost always abstain from beef. The cow in Hindu society is traditionally identified as a caretaker and a maternal figure, and Hindu society honours the cow as a symbol of unselfish giving. Cow-slaughter is legally banned in almost all states of India.

[Dr Fate]

174. That is why I said certain sects. It changes nothing in my argument.

A customer does not need to be a member of a religion in order to demand that the business he gives his money to meets his standards.

Any other sematics problems I need to fix?

[justiceischeap]

47. Matt and Nat has been a long-time "humane" company

All of their products are animal free. If they set a condition that their stores are a humane environment and the employees agree to such when they're hired, what makes that any different than working for a company where you have to sign a code of conduct form or non-disclosure agreement before being allowed to join that companies workforce?

A lot of people that shop Matt & Nat products are indeed veg/vegan so they have a reasonable expectation when entering a Matt & Nat store not to see someone scarfing down animal products. If your customer base is offended by meat-eating, then it's only smart business to make sure they aren't offended when in your stores.

[polly7]

53. Exactly. n/t,

[Dr Fate]

57. I agree. I dont see how this rational argument can be shot down.

But I am interested to see someone try.

I eat meat about once a week, BTW, but I also eat lots of vegan & veggie meals, so I feel I can be objective as to both sides on this.

[TexasObserver]

54. It's their shop and their preference. Don't see a problem.

No one is forced to eat there or work there.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

64. The essential problem here. . .

. . . is that employer and employee do NOT occupy an equal bargaining position on a level playing field. A potential employee needs the work much more than the potential employer needs any given potential employee. As such, that potential employee may feel a greater compulsion to comply with an employer's demands. I'm sure the management at that company understands this. It's a not-so-subtle attempt at workplace proselytization.

Such conduct is either OK across-the-board or Not OK across-the-board, as the points raised on this thread have shown.

As for me, I will, by dint of my own leanings, generally side with the worker, whether the worker's issue be religiously mandated headgear (although I personally find such a thing stupid beyond expression, I realize that many people live in abject fear of their imaginary "friend"), dietary issues (a "no vegetarian meals" rule at a slaughterhouse would be egregiously improper), gender accomodation or any other subject in which the unequal bargaining position between worker and employer allows the employer to exploit the worker's need to make a living.

[lame54]

65. apparently it hasn't been a problem for 7 years

[Dr Fate]

73. Should Kosher & Muslim cafes let their workers handle pork, on site, on their lunch breaks?

Would customers who caught wind of this consider going eleswhere? Possibly.

[slackmaster]

81. I believe that would technically bust their Kosher or Halal status

So the answer is clearly no.

[Dr Fate]

83. Exactly. I think Vegan customers deserve similar respect for their beliefs. n/t

n/t

[slackmaster]

85. It's entirely up to the owner

:hi:

Not all vegans are vegans because of beliefs per se. Some people can't tolerate meat because of allergies or digestive issues.

[Dr Fate]

89. Another great point.

Off topic, but I often eat vegan or veggie meals, not really b/c of beliefs, but b/c it keeps me fit & trim.

[Arkansas Granny]

75. This has been their policy for over 7 years and people are informed of

this policy at the first job interview. If they don't like it, they are free to find a job elsewhere. If they accept employment, the are free to eat meat for lunch, if they wish, they just can't do it in the workplace.

It's no different than a company which has a dress code. You may not like it, but if you want to work there, you will comply. When you're not at work, you can wear the clothing you choose.

[slackmaster]

82. IOW it's a slow news day

Thanks, AG!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

79. If it's only on premises, it's no big deal.

Like the lawyer in the article says, it's equivalent to a dress code.

[flvegan]

87. While I don't like the framing, I can understand the policy.

It's a company sending a humane message through their products, and they want consistency in the workplace. A (far) more extreme case would be PETA, for example. You can't eat meat on premises nor "on the clock" anywhere. I *think* the rules vary for undercover work, but don't quote me.

I used to cringe/laugh when I'd see a humane society/spca having fundraisers based on a BBQ or other animal-based meal. Most folks don't make that connection, so I don't expect more from them.

[Dr Fate]

91. LOL! It's like serving pork hot dogs at a screening of "Babe"

Which is also something I saw with my own eyes when I did AV for a children's event years ago!

I think I was the only one who got a chuckle out of that...But I digress...

[superduperfarleft]

100. NAZI!!!!!!!!111111one

[Morning Dew]

102. If the company really wanted its employees to be good representatives

of its "brand", it would require they never eat meat or wear leather ( or fur!) anywhere a potential customer could see them.

Seeing that would be bad for business. It would be bad for the BRAND !!

[Dr Fate]

113. Unless you are his customer, he has no obligation to consider your standards

Just b/c a person is not 100% radical about something does not mean that they cannot make an effort to be close.

The owner is making efforts to do what he sees fit to keep his VEGAN customers happy, not to please non-vegans who are looking for points of supposed hypocrisy.

His customers appreciate his efforts, even if they may not be 100% iron clad, as you seem to think they should be.

This like saying that Al Gore is hypocrite on Global warming b/c he drives a car and lives in a big house.

[Morning Dew]

253. Although this company seems to have had this policy in place for a number of years,

many companies take advantage of a bad economy to institute draconian personnel policies. They can't do it in a good economy - their employees would walk.

Anyway, if I owned good vegan company, I wouldn't sell faux leather bags. From a distance, they look like leather and that's not what I'd be trying to promote.

http://www.bluefly.com/Matt---Nat-black-faux-leather-Axel-studded-top-handle-bag/cat20442/309585003/detail.fly

[Dr Fate]

255. Government should not come in and force this man to allow meat on his prop.

You point out that this business man made diff. choices than you would. Great. So what?

I have my doubts that this Canadian, Vegan, Purse-smith the draconian Daddy-Warbucks type, but point taken. Someone else could be.

I dont see this rule as Draconian- it's no different than FED EX not allowing employess to send UPS from the office. It's no different than not allowing Pizza Hut Employees to have dominoes pizza on property. It's no different that banning employees of a Lung Cancer charity from smelling like cigs while meeting w/ donors.

It's all about the LEGAL beleifs held by the organization, and what their customers/donors/investors etc. expect.

What about a Animal Farm Sanctuary that has a bed & breakfast?

Should the government come in and force them to have sliced meat on their property if a hired hand who works in the kitchen insists on it? Seems like it would screw up their whole mission and be 100% against their ethos and pursuit of hapiness.

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/farm/ca/

[Taverner]

108. (putting on my Republican hat) but a business owner has a right to make emps do anything!

They can always not work there


:sarcasm:

Seriously, I agree with you

[Dr Fate]

115. He certainly not only has right- but an obligation to cater to his CUSTOMERS.

Just like a Jewish Deli or a Muslim grocer has a right and an obligation to keep pork away from their products & customers.

Just like a Lung Cancer charity does not want the guy at the front desk smelling like cigs.

So I'm a Republican if I agree that a customer of a Jewsih deli should not have to wonder if pork is getting near his food?

No, I would be a Liberal who respects the beliefs of others. You may think Vegans are radical and out of the mainstream, but they are consumers with demands just like anyone else.

[Taverner]

119. Yes but how does my eating a burger violate your rights?

I still don't get that...

[justiceischeap]

123. It's not about rights but expectations

If you can't see that, then you're being argumentative for arguments sake. As I said in my post above, Matt & Nat is known as a humane company, meaning NO ANIMAL PRODUCTS are used to make their goods. Most customers are veg/vegan. I couldn't imagine what going into the store and seeing someone eating meat would do to their business or their status as a humane company.

I worked in an environment where no animal products were allowed on premises--which meant no leather, wool, etc. Matt & Nat, I'm sure are the same way. It's all about what the CUSTOMER expects when they walk into your store and I'm certain most shopping there don't expect to see ANY type of animal product there.

[Taverner]

128. I'm not just arguing for arguing's sake, but this IS discrimination

Now this can fly in Canada, because they don't have the same rights as we do. Collective rights are weighted against individual rights.

But in the US, its like the Employer who fires any staff member for voting Democrat

[justiceischeap]

131. Did you read my entire post?

I worked at a company, where upon my interview for a position, I was informed that I was NOT allowed to wear any animal products or eat animals on the premises. I live in the US.

A private company can do what they want, for the most part.

[DonCoquixote]

163. You stumbled into something

"A private company can do what they want, for the most part."

THAT belief is actually what we need to get rid of, because that is what is being used to destroy the world.

[Dr Fate]

167. I doubt that allowing vegan grocers the right to dictate what occurs on their private property...

,as far as the presense of meat, is going to be used to destroy the world. Same goes for legal prohibitions against certain conduct while an employee is on the clock, off property (Dress codes, not smoking, etc.)

Absent a violation of the commerce clause (there is not one in this instance, that I can see), I dont see how we can say that a business owner cannot have control over certain conduct that occurs on his property, the same way you have control over certain conduct that occurs on your property.

Seems like we would need to ammend/re-write major portions of the const. to meet your goals.

Now if you are talking corporate person hood, that is one area where we can agree SCOTUS got it wrong. That is not really the issue in this thread at all.

[Dr Fate]

125. This is not about "rights" on either side. I'ts about customer expectation.

If this was int he US, no one's const. rights are being violated one way or the other.

If I run a religious charity, should I allow my employees to wear pentagrams and upside down crossses when they are attending church functions with donors?

If I run a Lung Cancer charity, I should allow my fund raisers to smoke while meeting with potential donors?

If I run a Vegan business, should my employees be eating meat in front of customers & potential investors?

[Taverner]

127. If I run a counter at Walgreens, should I allow African Americans to sit at the counter?

[Dr Fate]

134. You should if you want to keep them and people like me as customers.

Yes, you should allow them to sit at the counters if you do not want to piss off people who believe in civil rights.

You just switched the roles here- it's the employees who you claim are being discriminated against, not the customers.

You need a better example.

[alarimer]

109. I wouldn't work for fascists like that.

People who force their opinions on other people do not make good people to work for. Inflexible, dogmatic assholes.

[KamaAina]

116. Wow. Someone managed to play the race card!

kjlvan wrote:
Posted 2010/11/18
at 1:35 PM ET

Inder Bedi is of Hindu-Sihk (sic) background. So here we go again. They want us to bend to their beliefs. Now they are beginning to erode our own rights to personal freedoms. This is going too far.

:wtf:

I suppose Canadian teabaggers actually drink tea. :eyes:

[Dr Fate]

183. So the Government should come in and FORCE this man to allow meat products on his private property?

Now they are beginning to erode our own rights to personal freedoms. This is going too far.

[KamaAina]

219. Of course not. But bringing ethnicity and religion into it goes too far.

:eyes:

[Dr Fate]

220. So you agree that he can keep doing this, even though you dont like it?

If so, good, then we are on the same page.

If you think he should be stopped, then how?

This took place in Canada, BTW, but I'm assuming everyone is discussing this in the context of US law.

The only way I know of to stop him is to have the govt. come in and force him. I suppose a boycott, etc. could work as well.

[KamaAina]

304. That's about the size of it.

:hi:

[proteus_lives]

124. What a bunch of pricks.

[Dr Fate]

129. Yeah- those pricks, respecting their customers like that. What jerks.

Next the facists will tell us that employees of religious charites cant wear pentagrams and upside down crossses when they are attending church functions with donors.

Next the nazis will tell us that Lung Cancer charity fundraisers should not smoke while meeting with potential donors.

Next thing you know, HITLER will rise from the grave and try to say that employees at Jewish Delis or Muslim grocers should not have safeguards to keep employees from getting pork on their prodcuts.

[proteus_lives]

135. It's their business, it's their rules.

Still pricks though.

[Dr Fate]

146. I can respect your right to not like it. You are not his customer one way or the other.

The owner does not care if you like it- he only cares if his customers like it.

I'll bet they do.

[Mona Blue]

132. Meat

Is Murder.

[Warren DeMontague]

154. Unless you're eating rocks, sterilized dirt, and other inanimate objects

so is veganism.

[Dr Fate]

161. I once stared into a carrot's eyes as I plucked it from it's mother's breast!

Then I realized- what kind of monster am I?

LOL!

Look, I eat meat about once a week-I try to get it from a farm that has humane & sustainable practices. I'm not 100% on that, but I try.

I admit that I kill & harm birds & fish, but trying to say that farming & eating plants is the same as slaughtering & eating mammals & birds? Get real. Read up on what happens at slaughter houses as compared to what happens in your garden.

Whether meat really is bad or not is kinda off topic, and should be another thread.

[Warren DeMontague]

169. I'm saying that plants are alive, too. Is "meat murder"? Maybe. And I know what happens

in slaughterhouses. Like you, I try to eat humane and sustainable produced animal products. I haven't eaten red meat for over a decade. My diet is mostly plant-based; overwhelmingly so, certainly in comparison to the avg. American diet.

But please, spare me the Morrisey-style weeping about "meat is murder". Okay, we're ALL murderers; humans are omnivores, and a large portion of animal life on this planet -including our species- has evolved to include other animals in their diet.

Issuing fundamentalist vegan edicts and fatwas against meat eating is no more a realistic appraisal of the human condition than the pope telling people not to masturbate. Give me a break.

[Dr Fate]

176. I dont think meat is technically murder. I eat it too.

I just have to laugh if we are going to compare picking an apple to chopping up a live cow with a saw blade.

[Warren DeMontague]

239. That's good that you have to laugh

because it was intended as a joke, at least somewhat. But it was in response to a very specific post, not one you made.

[Dr Fate]

246. I "murder" my lemon tree several times a week, for instance. n/t

n/t

[Odin2005]

175. It is still corporate serfdom even if the paternalistic BS is "socially liberal"

[Dr Fate]

179. Nothing paternalistic or socially liberal about giving your customers what they want.

Vegan customers dont want meat near their products or food.

Kosher Deli customers dont want pork near their food.

Donors to Lung Cancer charities dont want to see fundraisers smoking on the clock.

Donors to Christian charities dont want to see the fundraisers wearing satan stars at on-the-clock fucnctions.

Etc, etc. All legal, all perfectly reasonable.

I honestly dont see the threat of serfdom at all- I just see a business man giving his customers what they want.

I have to wear a tie. I'm not allowed to cuss at work. I'm not allowed to even have one drink, which is legal would not intoxicate me or impair me, etc, etc. If I did these things, it might drive away the people that my boss is trying to get money out of.

We are focusing on on-the-clock, on property work prohibitions of the employees here, without balancing the debate by also looking at the rights of the business owner or the expectations of his customers.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

211. I'm sorry, but who's eating an Italian hero using the product as a placemat?

I'd think the customer wouldn't want someone slobbering a squishy pear, plum or a sticky orange near the product they are going to buy either.

[Dr Fate]

213. Unless you are this man's customer, why should he care what your standards are?

He has his standards and what he believes his customer's standards might be. All that really matters.

Vegans dont like meat near their things, go figure. The customer is always right.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

215. How near is near?

I mean, really....

Besides, aren't vegans anti-milk too? Sounds like that needs to be banned quick too. Can't offend those customers. They are so easily offended.

[Dr Fate]

218. Who cares? They have a right to be extreme and easily offended. It's their money.

The pursuit of happiness does apply to vegans the last time I checked.

Do you have LEGAL argument as to why the government should come in and force this man to lift his ban on meat, milk, etc?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

225. They have a right to be extreme?

Is that just them, or are their other groups who get this right?

I've never thought for one second that any product I bought might have been handled by someone that eats things I wouldn't.

[Dr Fate]

249. Of course they do. Government cannot force this man to have meat in his building...

...or at his work functions, just because a majority feels his views or his cunstomers views are extreme.

Yes, other groups have the right to be "extreme" too.

What is extreme to you relfects the pursuit of hapiness to another.

Again- do you have any LEGAL arguments to support forcing this man to have meat on his private prop?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

270. I have none nor am I looking for any

Just another boss acting like a little dictator control freak for no real good reason. You have a right to defend his right to be a Richard Head and I have a right to call him such.

[Dr Fate]

281. I do not believe the law and the US Constitution is on your side. You have a right to oppose it.

But I dont think you should.

If you ran a business, would you want govt. mandating what groceries, products, etc. you had to allow on your prop or at work functions? I would not.

"no real good reason" Wrong.

I've listed several good reasons all over this thread for having a business or org. relfect the values of your customers/donors/clients etc.

He is no more of a "conrol freak" than the head of a Lung Cancer charity telling fundraisers not to smoke on site or in front of clients. Etc, etc.

No more of a "control freak" than the owner of a Kosher Grocer who respects his customers by not allowing employees to bring in pork, etc.

I've listed plenty of examples on this thread. You either ignored them or you had nothing to refute.

[Dr Fate]

180. So the Government should come in and FORCE this man to allow meat products on his private property?

Sorry, this government has no right telling people what foods they should or should not allow on their private property.

I'd like all the DUers who are crying "facism" to wrestle with that one a bit.

[Puregonzo1188]

185. The real question--how many people who support employers telling their employees they can't smoke at

home, oppose this one telling his employees they can't have meat at work?

[Warren DeMontague]

240. People support employers telling their employees they can't smoke at home?

Wow. Anyone espousing that kind of thing would really be an authoritarian prick, but I've never seen it.

I'm assuming you're talking about smoking cigarettes. Unfortunately, employers telling employees they can't smoke POT at home is fairly common, given the prevalence of job-based drug tests. Which is fucked up, since it's not the employer's business if the employee goes home on Friday night and smokes a cigarette, drinks a beer, OR smokes a joint. IMHO.

[joshcryer]

294. It's very common on DU. Corporations have healthy policies that demand people stop smoking.

Those health policies extend to the home and if people break the rule they can get in trouble (I can't remember if they have a higher fee or if they lose a bonus or what it was, but it did happen).

The anti-smoking contingent on DU was all behind it.

[Warren DeMontague]

305. I guess I'm not a member of the "anti-smoking contingent", then.

I support regulations on smoking in indoor, enclosed, public spaces, like bars and restaurants- I don't think it's a massive infringement on anyone's freedom if they have to go outside to light up. Also, I think it's reasonable to ask that you not light a smoke on the bench right next to the play structure covered with 3 year olds in the public park, when there's a big open field and other benches available (and none of the kids on the play structure are theirs, even) --- which I've seen people do. But that's enough to make some members of the "smoking contingent at DU", if you will, go positively ape-shit.

But other than that, people should be free to make their own choices on their own time, and if an employer is going to provide health coverage, they provide health coverage- not health coverage with an asterisk.

[hyphenate]

198. I would think that if people

ate in a cafeteria on the premises that the owner might have a point, but if people didn't eat on-site, they should eat whatever they want.

(Haven't yet read the other comments, so take this however way you want to!!! :)

[Dr Fate]

250. Government cannot force this man to have meat in his building...

...or at his work functions.

If you know of a const. principle that is contrary to this, I'd like to see it.

[MellowDem]

200. So, no honey?

I know those bees suffer terribly. And don't forget the silk worms! Gah!

[Dr Fate]

214. So he must meet the standards you set for him, and if not, he is a hypocrite?

Assuming you even actually hold those standards?

He has the right to be hypocritical, wrong or even crazy as to his beliefs-so long as no laws are violated- so do his customers.

Your argument is akin to accusing AL Gore of being a hypocrite on global warming b/c he drives a car or takes a bath.

[MellowDem]

261. You misunderstand me...

I was being tounge in cheek about certain vegan standards or the whole idea of not using animal products of any kind at all. I'm guessing he does follow those standards, though whether he does nor not doesn't really matter. I just find most sorts of absolutist beliefs to be somewhat silly when stretched far enough.

[Dr Fate]

282. Point taken, but your personal problems w/ his ethos does not matter unless you are his customer.

I agree that absolutist beliefs can be somewhat silly when stretched. I dont have to agree with a belief in order to fight for someone else's right to hold it.

If the most "silly" of beliefs are protected, then we are all safer from having the not so silly beliefs destroyed by over-reaching Govt.

Silliness and absolutism may just be the key to this gentleman's pursuit of happiness. Same with his customers.

I'm certainly NOT going to say that the govt. needs to come in and tell this man what products and what types of foods he should allow on his prop or at business functions.

He has every right to be "silly" and his customers have every right to expect him to be "silly."

[Liberal_in_LA]

224. agreed.

[Dr Fate]

251. Government cannot force this man to have meat in his building...

...or at his work functions.

[ZombieHorde]

230. First smokers, then... nt

[Dr Fate]

252. Government cannot force this man to have meat in his building...

But you think government should force him to have meat on his private prop or at his work functions?

How?

[leftstreet]

234. How did I miss this thread?

:popcorn:

ibtl

[Dr Fate]

257. How about Farm Sanctuarys? Should govt. force them to allow dead meat on their prop?

http://www.farmsanctuary.org/farm/ca/

They have a vegan Bed & Breakfast here- and all of their customers are opposed to meat and killing aninals.

If a farm worker or kitchen worker insists, should the government come in and FORCE them to have sliced meat on their prop?

Seems like that would be 100% contrarty to their ethos, mission and what their customers are expecting.

Private Prop. owners who happen to be vegan have a right to the pursuit of hapiness just like anyone else.

[walldude]

258. Private business he can do what he wants...

Paul McCartney allows no meat on his tours.

[Dr Fate]

259. Many DUers seem to think the Government should come down and take that choice away from him.

n/t

[BakedAtAMileHigh]

269. +1

Lotta closet goose-steppers 'round these parts these days.....

[The Straight Story]

275. Same folks don't like smoking in bars either, customer & owner choice (nt)

[Name removed]

278. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

280. This is all about presenting an image that his customers appreciate.

He is making sure that his company's actions are in line with his customer's beliefs. Just like any sane business man would do.

This is all about presenting an image to his customers/investors, etc.

Is a Coca-cola distributor "imposing their beliefs on others" if they do not allow people to sip on cans of Pepsi around the office or in front of clients?

Is a Lung Cancer charity "imposing their beliefs on others" if they insist that their fundraisers not smell like cig smoke while meeting w/ clients? Etc?

Seems like some people here at DU want the govt. to come and impose the beliefs of the majority onto this fellow's private goals and business practices. Is this based on a form of meat-eater "fanaticism" or just a poor understanding of the law?





I

[joshcryer]

287. Contract > freedom.

:rofl:

[Dr Fate]

288. Government cannot force him to have meat on his private prop or at his work functions.

n/t

[joshcryer]

289. Yes, contract subverts freedom, this is a basic tenet of capitalism.

[Dr Fate]

292. Yeah- that Canadian,Vegan ,Purse-smith- a real Robber-Barron he must be.

He has a right to make a living in the system he happens to live in. Just like the capitalist pig, "Daddy Warbucks" types who run the head shops, candle stores, yoga gyms, local coffee shops, record stores, and alternative news-stands down the street from me.

True- we are not as free at work as we are off the clock. My guess is that would be true even if we worked in a socialist govt. run factory, etc.

I'm not advocating corporate personhood- I'm saying that this vegan Purse-smith has a right to run his small business in a manner that his customers expect. Just like any other company or organization.

If a man worked for the DNC and was told to take down the Bush stickers in his cubicle, would that be an example of a contract subverting his freedom, or would it be an example of the DNC's freedom to run their org. in line with thier members & donor's values?

Again, I'm not advocating corporate personhood, but organizations like the DNC and companies like this man's have protections and freedoms for their goals & beliefs too.

[joshcryer]

293. This is why I am against all forms of contract.

Unfortunately I am forced to cede to contract in various aspects of my life, but ideally I would not have to. This sounds crazy, I know, what with this being a right and just and wonderful thing going by your posts here, but it's simple, there exist no thing that I should agree to that subverts my rights.

Of course, you are not advocating corporate personhood but the results are the same. Indeed, if a nasty corporation dared do this we'd be all in arms (and those who would agree to a private business doing this would just be silent, even though they'd want to side with the corporation), I can guarantee that.

Capitalism forces people with different values to associate with one another. A big republican business owner could put up flags and GOP stickers in his business and forbid you from wearing a Democrat tshirt. One has a higher class and therefore dictates rights to the individual. This is exactly the definition of capitalism, whether it be a corporation or a private business or a one on one contract between two individuals.

I cede my rights to you, period.

[Old Troop]

290. His/her business his/her rules.

[JonLP24]

291. The strangest threads get the most replies

:rofl:

[whistler162]

302. Well that is one way to garner publicity and destroy your

business at the same time!

[flvegan]

306. How specifically does this "destroy" your business at the same time?

I'm so curious.

[polly7]

307. I'm wondering that too.

I'd heard about out Matt & Nat's but never really checked them out. Nice handbags ...... I think I'll get one for my sister for Christmas.

[Canuckistanian]

303. Is this thread still going?

Amazing.

The owner doesn't want meat on his property. Big deal.