Should discriminating against the religious ever be accepted?

eblistic

If someone thinks, as many here do, that religious beliefs are often irrational to some degree, could it ever be acceptable to use the fact that a person holds religious beliefs as one of the criteria in making a decision, say on whether to give them a particular job or to pay for their services?

I wholeheartedly support freedom of belief and this has been my own rationale for saying "no" but I'd like to hear if others here have thought about this question. Can you see situations where there may be exceptions for example?

nozzferrahhtoo

HAVING those beliefs should not be a reason to discriminate against them no.

How they espouse those beliefs should.

I have heard it said that there is no law against thinking Elvis is still alive. However if you were to espouse that belief in a political context, or an interview, or in our halls of education or power… you instantly pay a certain price. Usually you pay that price in a loss of credibility, and usually the payment of that price comes in the form off ill concealed laughter.

Yet at no point do we wish to remove them of that belief, or persecute them for having such PERSONAL and PRIVATE beliefs. They are more than welcome to believe what they want.

If Religion were some day to end up with exactly the same status, few here on this board would have anything more to write about. Few here are about converting people out of their belief in imaginary deities. Most here are worried about what is done WITH that belief.

eblistic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

How they espouse those beliefs should.

So would you go along with the perceived wisdom that it is usually unethical to ask a person's religious views in an interview for example? In effect you'd be prompting them to openly espouse their beliefs in front of you.

I think I agree with you but I've never been comfortable with the variant that goes along the lines of "believe what you like, but keep it to yourself". It sounds unhealthy.

Pushtrak

eblistic wrote: »

I think I agree with you but I've never been comfortable with the variant that goes along the lines of "believe what you like, but keep it to yourself". It sounds unhealthy.

Healthier that than the current education system in Ireland in most (primary) schools.

nozzferrahhtoo

eblistic wrote: »

So would you go along with the perceived wisdom that it is usually unethical to ask a person's religious views in an interview for example?

I am afraid this is too hard to answer in it’s current form. Surely it would massively depend on what the interview is for?

If I was hiring a chef for a restaurant that serves a lot of Pork, it would be important to know I am not hiring a Muslim who would refuse to deal with said meat and hence would need to be fired on day one when this comes to light.

Though in that case I would probably not ask his religion specifically, but would simply ask after whether the person in question has any personal conflicts with the work he is being hired for.

However a generalised answer to your generalised question, I see no reason to ask someones religion in an interview for the most part no. They know the job they are going for and what they are required to do to fulfil the post. If they can not do that, they either need to inform the employer of that, or expect to have their ass fired possibly as soon as the first day.

Zillah

Everyone plays by the same rules, if a person's religion causes them to break the rules then they suffer the consequences. I have no sympathy for the following people; a Jehovah's Witness who wants to let their child die for want of a transfusion, a Christian who wants to be a teacher but won't teach evolution, a Jainist who wants to be a cop but won't ever risk hurting someone.

Parents must look after the welfare of their children, teachers must teach the curriculum, police somtimes have to use force. I don't care what makes you incapable of doing your job, the salient issue is that you can't do your job.

AudreyHepburn

I see no reason why a person's religion should be a factor in whether they get a job or not unless it affects the way they do that job.

For instance a Jehovah's Witness as a Doctor might cause a problem if he refused to give a blood transfusion.

That said perhaps there are other aspects or areas of that job that person could focus on rather than the one they don't feel comfortable doing.

E.G. the JW Doctor could choose to focus on Orthopedics or Oncology or some other area where it is unlikely he'd have to give transfusions.

Just a suggestion mind, I'm not saying 100% fool proof.

And if the Doctor refused me or my family a transfusion I'd simply ask for another Doctor who would. I'd assume if you needed a transfusion you are in a hospital so there has to be another Doctor somewhere who will help.

I don't believe in completely ostracising people for their faiths. Look what happened in Germany and Europe in the 1940s when a small mustached gentleman called Adolf decided to treat a group of people called Jews that way.

Extreme example I know, but that's the first thing I thought of when I read this. These kinds of ideas can be dangerous IMO.

drkpower

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

E.G. the JW Doctor could choose to focus on Orthopedics or Oncology or some other area where it is unlikely he'd have to give transfusions.

Eh..... blood transfusions are quite common in both specialties; the reality is that a doctor who will not provide a blood transfusion (or will not refer someone who needs a blood transfusion) cannot practice medicine in any effective manner.

The religious should not be discrimnated against for being religious; it is the effect it has on their actions which should be acted against. But that is no different to anyone else who lets their personal views affect their work performance.

Zombrex

eblistic wrote: »

If someone thinks, as many here do, that religious beliefs are often irrational to some degree, could it ever be acceptable to use the fact that a person holds religious beliefs as one of the criteria in making a decision, say on whether to give them a particular job or to pay for their services?

I wholeheartedly support freedom of belief and this has been my own rationale for saying "no" but I'd like to hear if others here have thought about this question. Can you see situations where there may be exceptions for example?

Interviewer - So Mr. White, thank you for coming. To start perhaps you should tell us why you want the position of science teacher

Mr. White - Well a few years ago I was touched by Jesus, and since then I feel I've been destined to undo all the bad that the modern, materialistic world, has done to our children's education. I feel as science teacher I can make a small difference in correcting the hidious lies of theories such as evolution and old Earth.

Interviewer - Ok..... So you don't think the current science curriculum is scientifically valid.

Mr. White - No, not in the slightest. I think it is the invention of the atheist elite, who are trying to corrupt and poison young people today and turn them away from the Bible and the saving grace of a relationship with Jesus. I feel it is imperative that this is corrected in order to place the kids on the right path.

Interviewer - Ok.... So as science teacher do you plan to teach the current science curriculum.

Mr White - Where possible I will do my utmost to introduce the alternative, Christian orientated, versions. For example while learning about evolution I also plan to teach the children that it is an atheist conspiracy, utterly unsupported by science and that in fact the only theory actually plausible and supported by science is Intelligent Design.

Interviewer - Ok. Well thank you for coming Mr. White. Unfortunately I think your current religious views would make you an unsuitable cadidate for the position of science teacher at RationalView High School. Thank you for coming in though.

Mr. White - What!?! My religious views rule me out? That is blatant religious discrimination! I'm going to sue you and the school board!


I support the right to hold a belief. But if that belief gets in the way of the job you are required to do based on the non-discriminatory job description (ie a science teacher has to teach science based on the current curriculum) then it does matter and should be used to discriminate.

As an atheist I wouldn't expect to get a job as a priest. Equally I wouldn't expect a Young Earth Creationist to get a job as a science teacher.

AudreyHepburn

drkpower wrote: »

Eh..... blood transfusions are quite common in both specialties; the reality is that a doctor who will not provide a blood transfusion (or will not refer someone who needs a blood transfusion) cannot practice medicine in any effective manner.

Fair enough. I'd still be slow stop him/her working all together though.

Now if said Doctor ran a private practice I fully support his/her right to supply whatever services he/she wishes.

If he/she is in the public sphere I can see the problem but if you don't like the services some-one is providing you can easily find some-one else who will provide the service you want.

It happens all the time, in all industries.

The religious should not be discrimnated against for being religious; it is the effect it has on their actions which should be acted against. But that is no different to anyone else who lets their personal views affect their work performance.

I agree 100%

drkpower

This thread raises a contrast with the 'doctor refusing treatment' thread. Many people would support the right of a doctor to refuse in non-emergencies. The medical profession supports that right. So does the law. That also applies to doctors who work in public Hospitals providing a public service to the public (they are not contractually constrained from conscientious objection). Many people, me included, would support that right, on the basis that there is another doctor available to provide treatment and the patient suffers no detriment.

But if we look at the example of teaching, most of us would think it utterly unthinkable that a teacher could conscientiously object to providing a public service (education) to public school children even if there is a teacher down the corridor who could step in whee such an objection arose. Im struggling to see the essential difference between this freedom a doctor is allowed and the freedom a teacher is not allowed. Perhaps Ive convinced myself that noone should be able to conscientiously object at all........Anyone?

Pushtrak

drkpower wrote: »

Many people would support the right of a doctor to refuse in non-emergencies.

Like the morning after pill, for instance? If that was one you had in mind, I am not one who supports that. I'd like other examples because I can't really justify a doctor refusing to treat a patient from my current perspective. I can't think of anything justifiable.

The blood transfusion example was illustrated. And if one has such an objection, then they probably ought to have pursued another career. I imagine that'll be my opinion on other examples given, but I am curious as to what other examples people have on this.

Im struggling to see the essential difference between this freedom a doctor is allowed and the freedom a teacher is not allowed.

I suppose it is two fold. One being the teacher is a more fixed thing (aside from substitute teachers when they are needed) and secondly, what is this secondary teacher doing the rest of the time? Sure, in some cases, they could just reverse teachers, I suppose, but in practice, I can't see it being that easy.

drkpower

Pushtrak wrote: »

I suppose it is two fold. One being the teacher is a more fixed thing (aside from substitute teachers when they are needed) and secondly, what is this secondary teacher doing the rest of the time? Sure, in some cases, they could just reverse teachers, I suppose, but in practice, I can't see it being that easy.

Im not going to derail this thread on the doctor thing, you can have a look at the other one(s) :eek: if you want to see all of the arguments to n fro. Im just interested in what seems like a double standard - not by everyone, by the way, but by people like me, who support the doctor's right to conscientiously object but dont support the teacher's right.

I also see your point about the teacher being more difficult in practice; but lets say, they were a muslim business teacher and had a problem with insurance theory being tought (areent muslims opposed to insurance as a form of gambling....or did i dream that up...?); it would be very easy for the teacher to sit out the couple of classes where insurance was taught, swap with his colleague who teaches business to a different stream of students, and then step back in again. What is the difference between that and a doctor stepping out before an operation? But if someone suggested a teacher be able to conscientiously object like that, it would, i suspect, be treated with derision, by people who, like myself, support a doctor's rioght to conscientiously object.

Pushtrak

drkpower wrote: »

I also see your point about the teacher being more difficult in practice; but lets say, they were a muslim business teacher and had a problem with insurance theory being tought (areent muslims opposed to insurance as a form of gambling....or did i dream that up...?);

Don't know whether they are opposed or not, but it's a hypothetical so, lets roll with it.

From my perspective, I imagine if hiring a business teacher in this instance, it wouldn't really make sense to hire someone who stipulates what they cannot teach. I'd imagine practicality, pragmatism and cost measures would make me inclined to make one bringing about their own rules like that someone I'd not want to hire.

I imagine I'd probably be inclined to make an exception if the teacher was a particularly good one, and there was already a teacher on site for whom it was practical for him or her to fill in for the other teacher.

In fairness, I don't really see "I have this issue on which I will not do the work I need to do" as being a good endorsement on anyones CV and in a battle between a person with such caveats and a person without, the latter really should win.

Anyway, I'm off to that other thread now.

Dades

I don't think you should ask someone religion in an interview. Doing so would leave you wide open to a discrimination case anyway so it would be a daft thing to do.

On the other hand, if an interviewee declared some religious affiliation unprompted, then they are open to be judged. I would certainly give pause to hiring someone who, unbidden, declared their religiosity.

I'm not saying I wouldn't hire them, but I'd be lying if I said it wouldn't be a black mark in my book.

stevejazzx

eblistic wrote: »

If someone thinks, as many here do, that religious beliefs are often irrational to some degree, could it ever be acceptable to use the fact that a person holds religious beliefs as one of the criteria in making a decision, say on whether to give them a particular job or to pay for their services?

I wholeheartedly support freedom of belief and this has been my own rationale for saying "no" but I'd like to hear if others here have thought about this question. Can you see situations where there may be exceptions for example?

It's tricky question because the of the moderates? A lot of people with religious vies are regular people who have similar moral views to the rest of us (by of course ignoring any literalism and essentially any mandates their religion has set down). but then there are the people who make life choices (affecting themselves and others) based on their religious belief and these are the people we should take issue with, i don't know if discrimination is the right word though. Perhaps 'openly challenge' would be a healthier way of putting it?

robindch

eblistic wrote: »

I wholeheartedly support freedom of belief and this has been my own rationale for saying "no" but I'd like to hear if others here have thought about this question. Can you see situations where there may be exceptions for example?

The issue isn't one of "freedom of belief", since everybody has a very basic right to believe whatever they like. What is important is the related issue of whether people have the freedom to put their beliefs into practice, or follow their religious beliefs to their inevitable conclusion. In my experience, most religious people can't or don't distinguish between the two -- ie, most seem to think that because they have a right to believe what they want, they have a right to do what they want too.

As long as people keep their beliefs private and don't let them influence their ability to do whatever job they're being paid to do, then discrimination on grounds of religious beliefs is completely inappropriate. If, however, people won't do part of their job, or if they demand special treatment, special terms and conditions, special anything at all because they believe certain things, then it's quite reasonable to include their religious beliefs as part of the selection criteria.

mehfesto

Just one point:

Having worked in a hospital for four years, I would struggle to see how a JW would avoid giving a blood transfusion during their internship, or afterwards.

Hospitals are busy, busy places. Oftentimes there are not many doctors milling about when the blood needs to be administered. Emergencies occur and I cannot see how any intelligent, honest doctor would refuse to give blood, at least if they want to continue working in the profession, having taken the hippocratic oath.

Dying because of your own beliefs is one thing, but allowing someone to die because of these beliefs is a whole other story.

AudreyHepburn

I really wouldn't advocate discriminating based on religious views jobswise because you wouldn't discriminate if some-one was black or gay or because of their gender. You wouldn't even think about it.

So why feel you can do it for religion?

Pushtrak

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So why feel you can do it for religion?

As has been pointed out by many. If the belief is a hindrance to their ability to do the job. This has been established.

Ickle Magoo

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I really wouldn't advocate discriminating based on religious views jobswise because you wouldn't discriminate if some-one was black or gay or because of their gender. You wouldn't even think about it.

So why feel you can do it for religion?

What colour of skin someone has or what gender they prefer has no baring on their ability to do a job as set out by a job description. Prospective employers have the right to know if a prospective employee has personal beliefs that will affect that persons ability to carry out their duties as laid out by their terms of employment; such as a registrar who won't officiate if the parties are the same sex. I don't think it's discrimination if the choice is made not to employ someone based in their own refusal to do part of the job you require them to do, I don't know any employers who allow their applicants to pick and choose which parts of the job description they get to do - the alternative seems more ridiculous.

eblistic

I think attitude to homosexuality is an interesting one. If a psychiatrist sees homosexuality as a disorder, for example, it's clearly going to impact their approach to their job. You could get to the bottom of that without going near religion mind you.

By the way, I agree that opinions that directly impact the ability to do the job should be the only ones considered, be they religious or otherwise.

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I really wouldn't advocate discriminating based on religious views jobswise because you wouldn't discriminate if some-one was black or gay or because of their gender. You wouldn't even think about it. So why feel you can do it for religion?

Would you be happy to hire a cook for your restaurant if the person told you that they were islamic or jewish, and couldn't touch pork?

AudreyHepburn

robindch wrote: »

Would you be happy to hire a cook for your restaurant if the person told you that they were islamic or jewish, and couldn't touch pork?

I actually don't think it would bother me no. I'd probablu just serve beef or lamb instead.

Zillah

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I really wouldn't advocate discriminating based on religious views jobswise because you wouldn't discriminate if some-one was black or gay or because of their gender. You wouldn't even think about it.

So why feel you can do it for religion?

There have been a number of posts in this very thread that quite eloquently address what you've just said, so you're either not bothering to read what other people say or the words just pass right through you.

AudreyHepburn

Zillah wrote: »

There have been a number of posts in this very thread that quite eloquently address what you've just said, so you're either not bothering to read what other people say or the words just pass right through you.

Why do you always feel the need to be so derisive and pompus Zillah?

drkpower

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Why do you always feel the need to be so derisive and pompus Zillah?

Did you read your own answer to the 'employing a chef' question.....? It deserved all of the derision and pomposity that Zillah could muster......and that's quite a bit.

Zillah

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Why do you always feel the need to be so derisive and pompus Zillah?

People who talk absolute nonsense evoke that in me. Perhaps it is a flaw, perhaps not, but there you have it.

Not to mention the fact that I could be Satan incarnate and my point would still be valid.

Shenshen

eblistic wrote: »

If someone thinks, as many here do, that religious beliefs are often irrational to some degree, could it ever be acceptable to use the fact that a person holds religious beliefs as one of the criteria in making a decision, say on whether to give them a particular job or to pay for their services?

I wholeheartedly support freedom of belief and this has been my own rationale for saying "no" but I'd like to hear if others here have thought about this question. Can you see situations where there may be exceptions for example?

Well, considering another active thread here, the HSE might want to be careful before they hire one as a doctor...

Shenshen

eblistic wrote: »

So would you go along with the perceived wisdom that it is usually unethical to ask a person's religious views in an interview for example? In effect you'd be prompting them to openly espouse their beliefs in front of you.

I think I agree with you but I've never been comfortable with the variant that goes along the lines of "believe what you like, but keep it to yourself". It sounds unhealthy.

How about "belief in what you like, but let others belief what they like"?
I've never had any problems with people believing whatever they feel like. My problems usually arise when somebody belief I should be behaving in certain ways because their faith tells them to behave that way.

AudreyHepburn

drkpower wrote: »

Did you read your own answer to the 'employing a chef' question.....? It deserved all of the derision and pomposity that Zillah could muster......and that's quite a bit.

Yes I did read. What's your point?

All I said was personally I really don't think it'd bother me personally if the chef had an issue with beef. It's not a crime or the end of the world IMO.

I'd just serve something else, beef or lamb or something.

I don't see the problem.

AudreyHepburn

Zillah wrote: »

People who talk absolute nonsense evoke that in me. Perhaps it is a flaw, perhaps not, but there you have it.

Not to mention the fact that I could be Satan incarnate and my point would still be valid.

Right because everything you've ever said makes complete sense :rolleyes:

I just don't think I personally would be all that bothered if some-one didn't want to tough beef thats all.

No nonsense there just personal opinion.

Zillah

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes I did read. What's your point?

All I said was personally I really don't think it'd bother me personally if the chef had an issue with beef. It's not a crime or the end of the world IMO.

I'd just serve something else, beef or lamb or something.

I don't see the problem.

Ok, let's try it another way.

My dear friend is Mr Wang. Wang owns a chinese take away. Many of his dishes, some of his most popular ones, are based on pork. He interviews for a new chef and a Muslim chef applies for the job, but makes it clear he cannot work with pork.

Do you think Mr Wang should not be allowed to take this into account when deciding who to hire for the position?

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I
And if the Doctor refused me or my family a transfusion I'd simply ask for another Doctor who would. I'd assume if you needed a transfusion you are in a hospital so there has to be another Doctor somewhere who will help.

You'd hope so, wouldn't you?
Imagine arriving in an overcrowded A&E at 2 in the morning after an accident, and the only doctor available to look after you straight away happened to be the one who isn't allowed to save your life due to his religion?

I don't believe in completely ostracising people for their faiths. Look what happened in Germany and Europe in the 1940s when a small mustached gentleman called Adolf decided to treat a group of people called Jews that way.

Extreme example I know, but that's the first thing I thought of when I read this. These kinds of ideas can be dangerous IMO.

No, not an example at all, actually.
If people had be prosecuted for their religion, why would you think they killed those Jews who had converted to another faith?

Zillah

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Right because everything you've ever said makes complete sense :rolleyes:

I'm sure I've failed to express myself clearly in the past, and when I did I would be receptive to correction, or dare I say, grateful.

I just don't think I personally would be all that bothered if some-one didn't want to tough beef thats all.

No nonsense there just personal opinion.

It is both your opinion and nonsense, not to mention ingratiating, condescending, irrational and short sighted.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Yes I did read. What's your point?

All I said was personally I really don't think it'd bother me personally if the chef had an issue with beef. It's not a crime or the end of the world IMO.

I'd just serve something else, beef or lamb or something.

I don't see the problem.

So you would change the menu of your restaurant, removing current customer-favourites and removing choice for your customers, just to accomodate a chef you haven't even hired yet?

And you don't see the problem?

AudreyHepburn

Zillah wrote: »

.It is both your opinion and nonsense, not to mention ingratiating, condescending, irrational and short sighted.

How is it any of these things?

If anything refusing to hire him on the basis of his religion would be all of the above.

And again it's just my opinion. Disagree with me if you want but that does not make it nonsense.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

So you would change the menu of your restaurant, removing current customer-favourites and removing choice for your customers, just to accomodate a chef you haven't even hired yet?

And you don't see the problem?

Resturaunts change their menus all the time I've seen it in some the places I go to and I've never had an issue with it.

What problem exactly?

krudler

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Resturaunts change their menus all the time I've seen it in some the places I go to and I've never had an issue with it.

What problem exactly?

not because of the chefs religion though. Its called variety.

AudreyHepburn

krudler wrote: »

not because of the chefs religion though. Its called variety.

You have no idea why they might change a menu any more than I do.

Unless of course you are chef yourself, in which case I take your point.

robindch

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Would you be happy to hire a cook for your restaurant if the person told you that they were islamic or jewish, and couldn't touch pork?

I actually don't think it would bother me no. I'd probablu just serve beef or lamb instead.

Imagine that this restaurant is somewhere in deepest Germany, so in order that you can make money, you must serve pork. Imagine that you do not have the option to serve beef or lamb. Try to ride a bit with me on this one...

Would you hire the cook?

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Resturaunts change their menus all the time I've seen it in some the places I go to and I've never had an issue with it.

What problem exactly?

How many restaurants change their menu more than once or twice a year?
And how many do it to remove things people actually buy and eat, rather than remove options that are just not popular enough to keep going?

So you run the restaurant, it's your place, you've decorated it the way you wanted, and so far, you've served the food you wanted to serve... and now you need a new chef, you've got 5 applicants, one of whom would start out by making you change the menu you and your current chef spent so long to get right. And you would honestly hire him rather than any of the other guys?

You have to forgive me, but I don't think you're being honest.

AudreyHepburn

robindch wrote: »

Imagine that this restaurant is somewhere in deepest Germany, so in order that you can make money, you must serve pork. Imagine that you do not have the option to serve beef or lamb. Try to ride a bit with me on this one...

Would you hire the cook?

In that case no I wouldn't I'll give you that.

But if I could get alternatives I'd have no problem.

mehfesto

Hello welcome to O'Flanaghans Genuine Irish Pub.

The Irish Breakfast no longer comes with Sausages or Bacon, because our chef is a bit sensitive on that issue. Similarly our Sunday roast doesn't have ham as an option anymore....

And the chipper next door has a new Jewish chef, so battered burgers are off, because the batter mixture contains milk and you can't mix meat and milk...


FFS




Moving on.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

You have no idea why they might change a menu any more than I do.

Unless of course you are chef yourself, in which case I take your point.

I do, and usually it's for two reasons :

1) Some of the ingredients have gone up in price, or are less easy to procure

2) Remove items that weren't ordered frequently enough to safe on staff costs and make room for new choices.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

How many restaurants change their menu more than once or twice a year?
And how many do it to remove things people actually buy and eat, rather than remove options that are just not popular enough to keep going?

So you run the restaurant, it's your place, you've decorated it the way you wanted, and so far, you've served the food you wanted to serve... and now you need a new chef, you've got 5 applicants, one of whom would start out by making you change the menu you and your current chef spent so long to get right. And you would honestly hire him rather than any of the other guys?

You have to forgive me, but I don't think you're being honest.

So I'm liar now? I don't know why I bother sometimes.

If the chef was good at his job and had good ideas that could rejuvenate my restaurant and bring in more customer then yes of course I'd hire.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

In that case no I wouldn't I'll give you that.

But if I could get alternatives I'd have no problem.

Why not just hire another chef?

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

So I'm liar now? I don't know why I bother sometimes.

If the chef was good at his job and had good ideas that could rejuvenate my restaurant and bring in more customer then yes of course I'd hire.

We're talking about a chef who is just as good as all the other applicants, but refuses to handle pork.
Or hell, take my case, make him a vegetarian! Would you blame McDonald's for not hiring a vegetarian as a burger flipper if the person refuses to touch meat?

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

Why not just hire another chef?

If the chef is willing to cook everything else bar pork and is good at what he does I see no reason not to hire him.

I've never heard of a restaurant going out of business because a particular food isn't served.

AudreyHepburn

Shenshen wrote: »

We're talking about a chef who is just as good as all the other applicants, but refuses to handle pork.
Or hell, take my case, make him a vegetarian! Would you blame McDonald's for not hiring a vegetarian as a burger flipper if the person refuses to touch meat?

Of course not no.

Shenshen

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If the chef is willing to cook everything else bar pork and is good at what he does I see no reason not to hire him.

I've never heard of a restaurant going out of business because a particular food isn't served.

Try running a vegetarian restaurant in rural Ireland, I dare you.