What is religious freedom, and why does it need protection in Australia? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Australia.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please.
#15057196
No, the woman refusing to handle pork should have been disciplined or even asked to get a different job if she was incapable of doing the work. Handling pork is not consuming pork, and so there is no religious defense.
#15057199
Godstud wrote:No, the woman refusing to handle pork should have been disciplined or even asked to get a different job if she was incapable of doing the work. Handling pork is not consuming pork, and so there is no religious defense.


Hindus don't even believe in handling beef. Hence you can't get a Big Mac or Cheeseburger in McDonald's in India. It is in fact illegal to even serve in many states in India, because of the majority Religion of the country.

You have no right to demand they give you a beef burger "because you're a McDonald's!". Order a Maharaja Mac (and enjoy the weird alternate Indian McDonald's taste) or get out.
#15057205
Ter wrote::D it was a question that needs a yes or a no answer.


No, it does not.

Neither is abortion a medical necessity in 99.3% of the cases.
I am also pretty sure that if it would be a genuine medical necessity, even most if not all religious doctors would perform the abortion.


I am not using your personal criteria to determine what is necessary or not, but instead I am using the criteria of the people and medical professionals involved.

You are really trying to weasel out of this, aren't you ?
Explain how a shrink-wrapped portion of pork meat can infect the person operating the till.


I apologise. I thought you were Jewish, and therefore would not need to have the rationale behind kosher laws explained.
#15057235
Godstud wrote:@colliric We were discussing a Muslim woman and pork, not a Hindu with beef.


If the Muslim woman doesn't believe in handling Pork(because some denominations do some don't), she can look for another job elsewhere (upon find out this is part of her job) or risk offending the customer(some customers may be mature and may not be offended). If the Boss thinks this is ok, it's up to him. But it is their religious belief. It is part of Islam, the Koran's verses on pork are vague. Some Muslims believe in handling pork, but others don't.

It's not discriminating against the customer, it's just a minor inconvenience for them.

The person serving it is not getting government money that was raised by taxing the person being served.


Depends on the situation. If they are operating a canteen in a hospital or other public establishment(like for instance a Public School) they are, since the company is being fully payed by the government to provide catering services. Or they've entered some sort of contract agreement. Usually the government pays for the catering.
#15057243
colliric wrote:If the Muslim woman doesn't believe in handling Pork(because some denominations do some don't), she can look for another job elsewhere (upon find out this is part of her job) or risk offending the customer(some customers may be mature and may not be offended).
True, but we're discussing medical care, which isn't as trivial as where you get your pork. :D

I don't think people should take jobs if part of the job might imply going against your beliefs. Working at a butcher shop and not expecting to handle any pork is simply ludicrous.
#15057312
colliric wrote:If the Muslim woman doesn't believe in handling Pork(because some denominations do some don't), she can look for another job elsewhere (upon find out this is part of her job) or risk offending the customer(some customers may be mature and may not be offended). If the Boss thinks this is ok, it's up to him. But it is their religious belief. It is part of Islam, the Koran's verses on pork are vague. Some Muslims believe in handling pork, but others don't.

It's not discriminating against the customer, it's just a minor inconvenience for them.



Depends on the situation. If they are operating a canteen in a hospital or other public establishment(like for instance a Public School) they are, since the company is being fully payed by the government to provide catering services. Or they've entered some sort of contract agreement. Usually the government pays for the catering.


Do you think medical treatments should be provided the same way that prepared food is?

Yes or no?

If you are saying yes, then you are discussing far more than religious bigotry towards women.

If you say no, because you understand that medical treatments and prepared food are qualitatively different, then this argument is irrelevant.
#15057375
Maybe.

Pork is not a necessary medical treatment.

But the person serving it is sometimes getting government money that was raised by taxing the person being served because the government pays catering services sometimes especially in public places.

There are rational religious reasons for refusing to handle pork, while there is also rational reasons for religious denials of medical treatment.

Et cetera.

Happy?

I live in Australia, and we have a mixed public-private system. In both schooling and healthcare.
#15057392
colliric wrote:Pork is not a necessary medical treatment.


So we agree that the comparison fails in that regard.

And this also means that the two things have different economic factors affecting how they are distributed.

But the person serving it is sometimes getting government money that was raised by taxing the person being served because the government pays catering services sometimes especially in public places.


No. The catering is between the institution (the hospital or school) and the catering company. Public funds are only indirectly involved at best.

There are rational religious reasons for refusing to handle pork, while there is also rational reasons for religious denials of medical treatment.


No, there are no rational medical reasons for withholding abortion that are also religious in nature.

The one you gave (i.e. fear of hell) is not a rational medical reason.

Et cetera.

Happy?


I am always pleased when people copy me. They immediately become more polite, clear, and concise.

I live in Australia, and we have a mixed public-private system. In both schooling and healthcare.


I believe that I addressed that in my first post in this thread.
#15064213
colliric wrote:
I live in Australia, and we have a mixed public-private system. In both schooling and healthcare.


So do I, and that is not strictly true.

We have a public education system, funded by the government, with the choice of sending your children to a private school at your own cost - which is what my parents do. There is subsidisation of private schools, specially religious ones, which my dad says is wrong. It means less money for the public schools, which need it more.

We have universal health care, funded by taxation, with the choice of going to a private doctor or taking out private medical cover, at your own cost - which is what some people, including my parents, do.

I don't think the choice of going outside the system if you can afford that, is the same thing as a joint public/private system. :)

If the communist system is not 1. Unreasonably[…]

Election 2020

Bernie will beat Trump in November. His proposals […]

Propaganda works

On a scale of 1 to 10 how scared are you? If you s[…]

Pence is probably the most competent person in the[…]