Muslim care home staff stopped elderly residents having bacon sandwiches, report finds


#1

Muslim care home staff stopped elderly residents having bacon sandwiches for breakfast, critical report finds

A council-run care service has been told to improve after staff refused to help a client buy pork pies and stopped them having bacon sandwiches for breakfast because of their cultural beliefs.

A new report by inspectors, who visited Wagtail Close in Buttershaw, Bradford, West Yorkshire, unannounced in January, found the actions of some staff were restricting people’s right of choice and not everyone was getting food that met their personal preferences.

telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12196145/Muslim-care-home-staff-stopped-elderly-residents-having-bacon-sandwiches-report-finds.html


#2

Sorry I couldn’t resist and no offense is intended to anyone. :smiley:

Seriously though…, give the old people their bacon.


#3

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


#4

Would people object if it were a Catholic-run home and they didn’t serve meat on Fridays? Or a Jewish-run home that served only kosher foods? Must the people running the home put aside their religious beliefs in order to provide a service?


#5

A reminder that the desire of some Muslims to impose Sharia on others is not as uncommon as we would like to think.


#6

If it were a Catholic-run home, there would be no reason for them to not serve meat to non-Catholics, because that abstinence is only binding on Catholics.


#7

Well, for starters, from the linked article it isn’t a “Muslim-run” facility - it’s a government facility in Britain. It appears that individual Muslim staff members refused to assist patients / residents because of dietary preferences of the individual staff members. Which is a whole different thing.


#8

Bingo. It’s Council-Run which means this is a government service, not a religious one.


#9

If they’re at a government run service center as in this article, then yes. The Catholic should serve the residents meat on Fridays if they want it. And the Jewish staff should provide both Kosher and non-Kosher meals to the residents.


#10

You’re right, that is different.


#11

Isn’t this exactly the same thing as the Christian county clerk Kim Davies who refused to issue same sex marriage licences as it is against her religious beliefs?

Both situations involve employees of secular organizations who refused to carry out paid work duties because it is against their own religious beliefs.

If Christians want to have the right to refuse services if it goes against their religious beliefs then surely the same right must apply to all religions and therefore shouldn’t these same Christians be supporting a Muslim’s right to refuse to handle pork?

I’m also confused as to why this is a sign of Muslims trying to impose sharia law, couldn’t it then be argued that Kim Davies is trying to impose Christian law on non believers? Or if Kim Davies is not trying to impose Christian law but merely trying uphold God’s law and trying to avoid sinning herself then isn’t the same thing true of these Muslims?

I’m not trying to be argumentative or anything, it’s just Kim Davies got support / sympathy on this forum & I don’t see what the difference is.

I’m new here & am having a crisis of faith at the moment and it’s been pointed out to me that some Christians demand freedom for their own religious expression but don’t seem to want to extend that freedom to other religions so I just wanted to see if maybe I’m missing something between these two scenarios?

Go easy on me :slight_smile:

Edited for clarification


#12

Very similar yes. And this is why I’d argue Kim Davis needed to either issue those marriage licenses or quit. She’s a government official/employee and part of her job is to issue those licenses is her responsibility as part of the job. If she doesn’t like it, she’s free to seek employment elsewhere. Same goes for these Muslim kitchen workers. Otherwise they, as extensions of the government, are forcing their religious beliefs on someone else on behalf of the government.


#13

Not quite as big of an imposition as a certain church imposing its beliefs upon women’s heath services.


#14

In before nuclear proliferation


#15

Nor is the blind support for it from liberalism.


#16

Thank you for your thoughtful post; I hadn’t made the connection before. The only difference I can think of in the two similar cases is that Kim Davies was elected prior to the legalization of gay marriage in her state, whereas the Muslim staff at the public care facility were undoubtedly hired long after pork products were on the menu at the care home. The Muslims knew, or at least should have known before being hired, that their duties would include serving pork products to their non-Muslim patients; when Kim Davies was elected she had no idea that she would one day be responsible for issuing gay marriage certificates. In either case, if possible, some reasonable accommodation of people’s religious beliefs should be made


#17

Well, here we go with the distraction technique! Since some ways cannot be criticized on any level according to the Western left, quick! Point the finger the Catholic Church! Hurry! Before someone who is “different” feels an offended feeling! :wink:

Also, as far as women’s “rights” go, Muslims are FAR more conservative that most Catholics.


#18

And the Muslims? What should they do?


#19

You mean like laws forbidding murder and rape?


#20

Also, given the incidents are happening in two countries I’m not sure what the UK laws generally are.

In the US, an employer is expected to make ‘reasonable accommodations’ for a person’s religious beliefs/practices. In Davies case, could the government do something to accommodate Davies belief that she should not be participating in legitimizing same-sex marriage. That’s where I think things went a bit off the rails-- is it reasonable to assign those duties to someone else, or are they a core function of that position so they can’t be shifted to someone else. I guess you could say the ‘reasonable accommodation’ in the case where you say it is a core function, would be to offer her a different position. I think really that’s what the conversation came down to, was allowing Davies to remain in that position a 'reasonable accommodation of her beliefs, with the change in duties having occurred during her time in that position kind of a mitigating factor to some.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.