Timeline for Is it indirect discrimination or otherwise unlawful to maintain a menu that does not include vegan options?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 10, 2023 at 20:37 | comment | added | hszmv | @Seekinganswers Additionally, Muslims can eat traditionally non-Halal food if it has been blessed by a person of an Abrahamic faith (Given the note about Kosher being stricter, this really only refers to food made by a Christian) so long as the person offering the food is unaware of the dietary restriction. A Muslim cannot ask his Christian friend to ask for God to bless some bacon so they can eat it. The exception is to cover pre-Islamic Arabic culture's very strict Hospitality customs, which make it a taboo for a guest to refuse a meal offered by a host. | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 20:28 | comment | added | hszmv | @Seekinganswers During most of the year, there is nothing preventing a Catholic from eating a Big Mac (unless it was a personal Lentin sacrifice). Unlike Jewish Kosher Dietary Laws or Islamic Halal Dietary Laws, Catholic dietary restrictions are only seasonal. Additionally the New Testiment has a specific passage where God tells one of the early Christian who converted from Judism that it's okay for them to eat foods that violated Kosher restrictions. Halal doesn't get a nod, but Halal is less strict than Kosher and Kosher covers all the rules of Halal. | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 20:20 | comment | added | hszmv | @Seekinganswers Catholics do not eat meat (fish does not count per the ruling) Ash Wednesday and all subsequent Fridays in Lent (period of 40 days between Ash Wednesday and Easter) as part of Fasting in addition to other personal sacrifices that are given up, usually something that is pleasurable, but not sinful (since you should be trying to avoid sin at all times). Lent fasting was historically not tied to a day of the week until recently and eating meat during let period was to be avoided. It also would not count if the fish was a luxury food, so lobsters are not included. | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 19:42 | vote | accept | TylerDurden | ||
| Jan 10, 2023 at 19:15 | comment | added | Neil Meyer | @Seekinganswers I believe the tradition of not eating meat on Friday stems from the fact that Jesus was crucified on a Friday. Something that was very sad to his followers and that meat was considered a celebration meal. So they consider it poor and rather eat fish. | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 18:26 | comment | added | TylerDurden | I think we may be confusing different concepts with each other: dietary restrictions alone, I would think unless they form part of a disability, or are the result of a protected religion or philosophical belief, would not be a protected characteristics. However reasonable accommodation does not apply to any protected characteristics but only to disabilities, so it’s not necessarily applicable to this scenario. Btw, @hszmv what prevents Catholics from eating a regular Big Mac? | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 16:18 | comment | added | hszmv | @Seekinganswers It does go without saying that dietary restrictions alone are not a protected class and it's not considered a reasonable accommodation for a restaurant to cater to a dietary restriction. Typically, they will have one or two options for those who have a restriction marked on the menu, but that's because it's poor buisness sense to not sell food to people who don't want your signature item. McDonald's for example, makes a lot of money on their Fish Filet because it's popular with Catholics (to the point it's called "The Catholic Big Mac"). | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 15:38 | comment | added | Michael Hall | At least in the US, most steakhouses will omit animal products from a salad if asked. | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 14:12 | comment | added | TylerDurden | @hszmv That’sa great point and example. See there they’re at least going a length to make an effort to accommodate everyone. Not that they necessarily have to in the USA (idk, but I assume it is just good for business to accommodate everyone and their friends) but arguably here they do. | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 14:11 | comment | added | TylerDurden | @HarryMcKenzie no, and that is sort of the crux of this question. I’d also perhaps suggest that what you’ve asked is a separate question. On the surface different considerations to my mind would include that vegans are a minority (essentially it would be affirmative action) and also a proportionate means to a legitimate aim (promoting and encouraging veganism to fight climate change, creating a speciality vegan establishment like keeping a Christian church etc) | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 14:08 | answer | added | Harry McKenzie | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 13:57 | comment | added | hszmv | At least in the U.S., most Steakhouses will include a salad option for the vegetarian crowd, but it may not be vegan (it may include animal products in the form of eggs and cheese). | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 13:57 | answer | added | KFK | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 13:53 | comment | added | Harry McKenzie | Can the same not be said the other way around? Is it not discrimination against meat enthusiasts for a vegan restaurant to not include a steak on the menu? if you want vegan go to a vegan restaurant, if you want a steak go to a steakhouse. | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 13:42 | comment | added | TylerDurden | This question and the other it could be said are perhaps primarily about the Grainger test. It seems to me that in law the way in which one understands doctrine and principles is by looking at their applications to different types of cases including actual and hypothetical (through a mixture of logical reasoning and the lens of past decision on actual) ones. I’d think that this is a very common pedagogical method/exercise for imparting understandings of concepts in law schools. | |
| Jan 10, 2023 at 13:21 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jan 18, 2023 at 3:05 | |||||
| Jan 10, 2023 at 12:17 | history | asked | TylerDurden | CC BY-SA 4.0 |