Path: utzoo!hoptoad!uunet!labrea!aurora!jade!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!jwl
From: jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (James Wilbur Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.flame
Subject: Re: Vegetarians in the Workplace
Message-ID: <22305@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 24 Dec 87 04:53:11 GMT
References: <22293@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <17934@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <22303@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <17951@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 56

In article <17951@bu-cs.BU.EDU> bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>>So let's hear it, you folks who claim that Christmas parties
>>are a form of discrimination:  would YOU abstain from meat in the workplace
>>to avoid offending a vegetarian Buddhist coworker?
>>-- Jim Lewis
>
>Isn't there still some question about whether the Buddhist coworker
>would be offended or not? I suppose *someone* in the world might be
>offended at your eating meat, but I'm not sure this is a good analogy
>to religious parties at work. Something is lost in the non-disruptive,
>private nature of eating. 

C'mon, Barry, you're grasping at straws.  A manger scene is non-disruptive
as well, but Mikki is taking offense.  

All it takes is *one person* to be offended by some popular custom, and
you're forced to choose: do you support their claim of harassment and 
discrimination, and force everyone else to accomodate them by desisting from 
the offensive act?  Or do you support the predominant culture, by placing
the burden on the offend-ee to avoid or tolerate the behaviour in question?

My answer: use the libertarian criterion; if the "offense" involves
force, threats of force, or fraud, then the offend-ee has a valid
complaint; otherwise...well, no one's stopping him from finding company
more to his liking. 

Now you can counter this with the argument that the *reasonable* thing to
do is for the majority to show compassion for the beliefs of others, and
take reasonable steps to avoid offending the minority, and you would of
course be correct.  *However*, when those who object to Christmas parties
invoke the awful spectre of government coercion :-) (by citing religious
discrimination laws, calling the celebration "harassment", etc.),  I
believe there is a legitimate need to speak up for the right of an
employer to run his or her company any way he sees fit.

Suppose it is in the interest of the corporation to promote Christianity;
a private Catholic school, say.  If Mikki were hired to work for them,
would she still be justified in having the Dec 25 celebration purged
of Christian symbolism?   Would it be discriminatory on the part of the
school if they refused?  Perhaps; but if you think she should win
a court case based on that, I am prepared to unleash a nightmare-blizzard
of counterexamples showing the silly conclusions that would lead to.
(The Buddhist vegetarian is the mildest of the lot, let me assure you...)

>What if cabbalists had a party commemorating Christ's thefts from the
>second temple which gave him the tricks needed to present himself as a
>false messiah? That might give some a closer feel for the issues.
>Would you be uncomfortable with some workers throwing such an office
>party?

To be honest, I probably wouldn't attend...but I wouldn't bitch about it,
either.

-- Jim Lewis
   U.C. Berkeley