In this post you talk about the "spirit" of the act not being applied - essentially an unintended consequence.
You've leapt to an anti left conclusion that isn't correct.
Your description of a distorted market might be good, but your complaint about the act is not valid.
Placing themselves "outside the spirit of the act" is not the objective of legislators with a "leftist agenda" but merely an opportunistic effort by profiteers who prefer the cheaper option of one method of slaughter to the more costly option of two.
Equality is the act of being treated equally. Some want to be supplied with Halal meat as a choice, some have objection to being presented with Halal meat as a matter of no choice. If for arguments sake all our meat is Halal (and the left agenda is generally well what's wrong with that) then a consequence will be that all meat workers can only be Muslims. We know that some complain about food being handled by non-Muslims so eventually it could be that all food workers will have to be Muslim as a necessity of the occupation. All for a market that currently is only approx 5% of the total.
Now I can hear the cries of that will not happen well go back ten years and who would have thought that much of our meat production would be Halal and that we would not to be able to tell how our meat was slaughtered through official channels and as indicated on the actual meat purchased. Most people would have said it will not happen we have too many safeguards. Well it has.
The complaint about the act is that it opens the door to just such abuse by allowing religious exemptions to safeguard the religious but not to safeguard those who have been reasonable but are now found to have been stiffed by that act of reasonableness. It is because of such things that tensions are created.
You misunderstand the equality act, it's not about treated people equally, it's about treating people fairly and ensuring there is no unreasonable discrimination.
Some want to be supplied with Halal meat as a choice, some have objection to being presented with Halal meat as a matter of no choice. If for arguments sake all our meat is Halal (and the left agenda is generally well what's wrong with that)
That's not a correct assumption, mandatory labeling was rejected by a cross section of MP's and is most likely rejected by supermarkets. Muslims are probably broadly n support of it too.
then a consequence will be that all meat workers can only be Muslims. We know that some complain about food being handled by non-Muslims so eventually it could be that all food workers will have to be Muslim as a necessity of the occupation. All for a market that currently is only approx 5% of the total.
I don't disagree about the potential for the market to be distorted but I mandatory labeling will resolve the issue. I would also add that an absence of the equality act would not prevent the distortion of the market as you describe.
The complaint about the act is that it opens the door to just such abuse by allowing religious exemptions to safeguard the religious but not to safeguard those who have been reasonable but are now found to have been stiffed by that act of reasonableness. It is because of such things that tensions are created.
The Christian bakers did not have a cake with a slogan that promotes same-sex marriage either, but not only were they expected to provide one they were expected to make it.
Religious people are not meant to discriminate against non religious people when they are providing a service now.
That comparison works if Subway slaughter the animals for their foot longs in back shop. You're clutching at straws. If it were possible to sue them over this, it would have happened already.
Horrible thread title and another thread that has gone the exact same way every thread about Islam does. Hardly surprising considering how it started. Thread closed.
Comments
Equality is the act of being treated equally. Some want to be supplied with Halal meat as a choice, some have objection to being presented with Halal meat as a matter of no choice. If for arguments sake all our meat is Halal (and the left agenda is generally well what's wrong with that) then a consequence will be that all meat workers can only be Muslims. We know that some complain about food being handled by non-Muslims so eventually it could be that all food workers will have to be Muslim as a necessity of the occupation. All for a market that currently is only approx 5% of the total.
Now I can hear the cries of that will not happen well go back ten years and who would have thought that much of our meat production would be Halal and that we would not to be able to tell how our meat was slaughtered through official channels and as indicated on the actual meat purchased. Most people would have said it will not happen we have too many safeguards. Well it has.
The complaint about the act is that it opens the door to just such abuse by allowing religious exemptions to safeguard the religious but not to safeguard those who have been reasonable but are now found to have been stiffed by that act of reasonableness. It is because of such things that tensions are created.
You misunderstand the equality act, it's not about treated people equally, it's about treating people fairly and ensuring there is no unreasonable discrimination.
That's not a correct assumption, mandatory labeling was rejected by a cross section of MP's and is most likely rejected by supermarkets. Muslims are probably broadly n support of it too.
I don't disagree about the potential for the market to be distorted but I mandatory labeling will resolve the issue. I would also add that an absence of the equality act would not prevent the distortion of the market as you describe.