Posted on 08/04/2004 9:15:03 AM PDT by HundredPercenter
Woman Fired For Eating 'Unclean' Meat Attorney: 'It's A Classic Case Of Religious Discrimination'
POSTED: 5:46 am EDT August 4, 2004 UPDATED: 10:51 am EDT August 4, 2004
ORLANDO, Fla. -- A Central Florida woman was fired from her job after eating "unclean" meat and violating a reported company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises, according to Local 6 News.
Lina Morales was hired as an administrative assistant at Rising Star -- a Central Florida telecommunications company with strong Muslim ties, Local 6 News reported.
However, 10 months after being hired by Rising Star, religious differences led to her termination.
Morales, who is Catholic, was warned about eating pizza with meat the Muslim faith considered "unclean.," Local 6 News reported. She was then fire for eating a bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich, according to the report.
"Are you telling me they fired you because you had something with ham on it?" Local 6 News reporter Mike Holfeld asked.
"Yes," Morales said.
Woman Fired After Eating Pork
Holfeld asked, "A pizza and a BLT sandwich?"
" Yes," Morales said.
Local 6 News obtained the termination letter that states she was fired for refusing to comply with company policy that pork and pork products are not permissible on company premises.
However, by the company's own admission to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that policy is not written, Local 6 News reported.
"Did you ever sign to or agree to anything that said I will not eat pork?" Holfeld asked Morales.
"Never," Morales said. "When I got hired there, they said we don't care what religion you are."
Attorney Travis Hollifield is representing Morales in a lawsuit against the company.
"It's just un-American," Hollifield said. "It's not in compliance with the laws of this country."
Local 6 News reported that the case has precedent-setting issues because it addresses employee rights and religion in the workplace.
"It's a classic case of religious discrimination," Hollifield said. "They have not articulated a single reason other than religious reason behind the policy."
The CEO of Rising Star, Kujaatele Kweli, told Local 6 News that they have tried to create an office that accommodates anybody's religion -- not just Islam.
"Clearly you're accommodating," Holfeld said.
"Yes." Kweli replied.
"And you have an ecumenical philosophy," Holfeld said.
" Yes," Kweli replied.
"(Then) shouldn't you be able to accommodate all faiths in the same lunch room?" Holfeld asked.
"We do, we can," Kweli said.
"But you've dismissed one of your employees for eating pork in the lunch room," Holfeld said.
"Yes, pork is considered unclean," Kweli said.
The Koran forbids Muslims from eating pork. And according to Kweli, Morales and every employee at the company is advised of the no pork policy.
"Our point of view is to respect the laws of the land and the laws of the land as I understand it is to the accommodate people's right to practice their religions if you can," Kweli said.
"Even if it impacts other people?" Holfeld asked.
"Well, it always impacts other people," Kweli replied.
Orlando attorney Mark Nejame is close to the Muslim community, Local 6 News reported. He said Kweli's intentions may cross constitutional parameters, according to the report.
"They're making it seem that if you don't follow a certain set of religious practices and beliefs then you're going to be terminated and that's wrong," Nejame said. "If this case prevails, what it will mean -- the implications of this case -- is it will eliminate accommodations of religion."
Both sides are steadfast in their belief that they are right. Morales is taking the company to court charging discrimination, Local 6 News reported.
Watch Local 6 News for more on this story.
Last time I checked, eating pork is not a religious ritual for Christians. No one forced her to participate in a religious ritual, they simply asked her to respect the religious scruples of her employeers and not pollute their eating place with pork. She knew that before they hired her so she has little excuse.
If she loves pork that much, don't work for Muslims, pretty simple to me.
It is however her right to eat what she wants
No one forced her to participate in a religious ritual, they simply asked her to respect the religious scruples of her employeers and not pollute their eating place with pork. She knew that before they hired her so she has little excuse.
No, you are correct it is not a condition of Christianity - however it is for muslims, which is where you argument fails. The muslim owns the company - the muslim owner obligates the non muslim employee to abide by muslim religious law
Its really not too hard - are you normally this stiff necked ?
Now since the civil rights act was republican legislation - I can only conclude by your comments that you are in opposition to that - hence you must be a democrat masquerading as a republican, perhaps from DU
It would be curious to know if they obligated a head covering for her - because if they didnt, it can be argued the enforcement of this islamic law is abitrary
we can argue this nonsense all day if you like - I do however as a business owner of 30yrs and 250 employees know- that
#1.) this employer will be eating cat food shortly and drinking out of a paper bag - because she is going to own that company
#2.) ought to find a really really good lawyer (who doesnt have a relative in Iraq taking enemy fire)
If youre inclined to continue - have the last word if you must
The company is in violation of the law if they impose religious edicts on hired positions
suppose a company was into occult practices - and obligated its employees to abide by occultic laws. A Christian applys for the job, and gets it, and is fired for not abiding by that religious law - the business owner is screwed
The mistake the employer has made is one of distinction - they can ban pork and get it to stick with the eeoc IF they make that ban a function of posted non religious policy rather than religious law.
If that was the case - the employee would not have a pork leg to stand on
Another texts anti-nomians use to twist Paul and the NT to claim that Yeshua died on the cross so they could eat BBQ pork and Canadian bacon pizzas.
Quote it in context:
“Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 16Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ” (Colossians 2:14-17).
Richard Drake said, "In ancient Israel, when a person brought charges against another person in court, the person pressing the charges wrote them down on a piece of paper and placed it in the middle of the court. Anyone could then come and look at the charges to see why the person was being taken to court. The charges that were written down were called the ‘handwriting of ordinances’. The word ‘way’ in Colossians 2:14 comes from the Greek word ‘mesos’ which literally means ‘middle’ (See Strongs Concordance).
With this information in mind, it is easy to see that Colossians 2:14 says “Blotting out the (charges) that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the (middle of the court), nailing it to the cross.”
Colossians 2:16 is simply saying that we should not let any ‘man’ ‘judge’ us in how we ‘eat’, or ‘drink’, or for keeping a ‘holyday’, or for keeping the ‘new moon’, or for keeping the ‘Sabbath.’ It is a popular belief that the ‘sabbath days’ refer to Annual Sabbaths which are holydays. However, it would not make sense for Paul to say “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the holyday.” Therefore ‘sabbath days’ have to refer to the Seventh Day Sabbath. This makes sense considering that the word ‘days’ was added by the translaters!
Colossians 2:17 says “Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” The word shadow is referring to the Annual Sabbaths and the Weekly Sabbath. Some take this to mean that the Annual and Weekly Sabbath were shadows that pointed to the cross, and were therefore done away with at the cross. This is WRONG! Please notice that Paul is writing this AFTER the cross. The words ‘are’ and ‘to’ are future tense. It is then reasonable to conclude that the Weekly and Annual Sabbaths point forward from the cross into the future. If this were not so, then Colossians 2:17 would read “Which were a shadow of things to come.” But it doesn’t! It says, “Which are a shadow of things to come.”
Ephesians 2:15 says, “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law (3551-nomos) of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace.” Please notice the italicized words. They were added by the translators. This text really says “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, the law (3551-nomos) of commandments in ordinances; for to make himself of twain one new man, making peace.” The word ‘enmity’ comes from the Greek word ‘echthra’ which means “a reason for opposition:-enmity, hatred” (Strongs Concordance). This text is really saying “Having abolished in his flesh the (reason for opposition to; hatred for) the law(3551-nomos) of commandments in ordinances; for to make himself of twain one new man, making peace.” What a beautiful text! Christ took away our hatred for the Nomos, or Torah!
All of the Feasts have future fulfillments. Matthew 5:17-18 says, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law(3551-nomos), till all be fulfilled.” Since the Feasts have not been fulfilled, they have not passed away from the law, the ‘nomos’!
In teaching that the Sabbath was not done away with, we point out that the apostles kept the Sabbath after the cross. This allows us to state that since the apostles kept the Sabbath after the cross, it was not done away with, for the Apostles understood what was done away with at the cross. It is interesting to note that the apostles also kept the Feast Days. Paul “bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus” (Acts 18:21). There are more places in Acts where it is recorded that the apostles kept the feasts – like Pentecost etc… People are quick to state that Paul was still a Jew and he was just trying to prove to the Jews that he was still one of them by keeping their feasts. However, other churches use the same reasoning for why Paul kept the Sabbath. Was he really just trying to identify himself with the Jews? No!
Not only did Paul keep the feast of Passover and Unleavened Bread, but he kept them with his Gentile converts.
“At Philippi Paul tarried to keep the Passover. Only Luke remained with him, the other members of the company passing to Troas to await him there. The Philippians were the most loving and true hearted of the apostle’s converts, and during the eight days of the feast he enjoyed peaceful and happy communion with them” (AA 390, 391).
If the only reason for Paul to keep the Feasts was to identify himself with the Jews, then why did he keep Passover and Unleavened Bread with the Philippians, who were Gentile converts?
We know why, the early Christians knew that Yeshua didn't die on the cross so they could eat pork sandwiches or disregard other aspects of Torah.
I didn't mean to take this down the path of talking about the feasts rather than the Levitical dietary laws but the renunciation of both the feasts and the dietary laws comes from the same source of rebellion and anti-nomianism and are linked together.
For more information on the Richard Drake execerpt, go to http://www.bibleexplorations.com/article6.html
Christians are no longer under the law as Galatians says ... twisting is implying that I say it's about pork ... it's about the fact that not eating pork doesn't result in Salvation ... Galatians goes long into the subject. You can eat pork all day long after being Saved, it doesn't affect a Christian's Salvation one bit.
FReegards
typical lashon hara argument. if you can't win on points of fact, make up lies about your opponent.
But it does affect ones standing in heaven
Matthew 5:17-20
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.
There are a lot of anti-nomian pastors (and Freepers) who are going to find themselves making it to heaven as the "least in the kingdom" because they teach their congregations and their audience that it is ok to violate G-d's written Torah with impunity and wear it as a badge of honor.
You're failing to see the difference between the letter of the Law and the Spirit of the Law. The New Testament says you are cursed if you keep all the Law and fail in even one point. That's the entire human race other than Jesus Christ. James says if you break one you're guilty (essentially) of breaking them all.
Salvation is not a license to sin, but the Scripture is clear: No flesh shall be justified by the Law.
This is the whole point of Peter trying to get the people to follow the Law in addition and Paul rebuking him.
However, I've been through this before and it usually doesn't ever get resolved.
Salvation is not a license to sin, but the Scripture is clear: No flesh shall be justified by the Law.
But you are the one failing to see the point that eating pork was a sin before the cross, it is sin after the cross. Yeshua didn't change the definition of sin, He took upon Himself the penalty of sin (and what a cost it was/is).
Romans 6:1-6
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Paul goes on to say in verses 15-18:
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. 16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? 17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which F23 was delivered you. 18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Sin is sin. Adulter is a sin, so is eating pork. The only difference is that Yeshua died so we wouldn't have to bear being seperated from G-d for eternity because of sin. However, Yeshua's great and mighty sacrifice is NOT a license in indulgence of sin. Such an attitude mocks Yeshua.
LOL - lies ? - I only stated my conclusions based on your comments - you can either ignore them, dispute them or refute them - that choice is yours -
It was however a republican piece of legislation was it not ?
Sounds to me youre having a hard time admitting you were incorrect in light of the civil rights act
Look - I dont agree with the law either - there are far too many regs imposed on private business - but law is law - and this place is clearly in violation of it
ding ding ding ...a winner
.....as Christ was a fulfilment of them
Enjoy your canadian bacon pizza - I prefer prociutto or speck on mine
yes, the civil rights act of 1965 was largely a republican piece of legislation. However, business owners have freedom of religion, too and I feel this woman is a money-grubber, pure and simple.
Accusing me of being a DU plant without a single source of evidence other than the fact that I might disagree with you on this paricular matter is why you lost the argument before you presented it. That is slander or lashon hara and I'm still waiting for the apology.
eating pork is not a sin
Matthew 15 Clean and Unclean 1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" 3Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, 'Honor your father and mother'[1] and 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.'[2] 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,' 6he is not to 'honor his father[3] ' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 8" 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. 9They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'[4] " 10Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' " 12Then the disciples came to him and asked, "Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?" 13He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14Leave them; they are blind guides.[5] If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit." 15Peter said, "Explain the parable to us." 16"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them. 17"Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' "
Im starting to get the impression that while you profess a faith to Yeshua - you still hold the Torah over the NT - which is fine if youre a Messianic Jew - but understand that in doing so, you are mocking these very words of Yeshua himself, diminishing what He has commanded of us through faith - not by the obedience of law
......which begs - why do you mock the Christ ?
they sure do - but they dont have a right (in law) to impose that religion or edicts thereof upon employees who are citizens of the United States and fall under the American legal system....INCLUDING the civil rights act
Accusing me of being a DU plant without a single source of evidence
Liberals "feel", conservatives use logic. I have all the evidence I need before me
so which law do you ascribe? - there is generally no forgiveness offered for lashon ha-ra
This is really interesting because youre sounding like a strict adherent to the law - but are opting to use a very liberal interpertation of it by allowing room for forgiveness
Ac 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
Our Lord Jesus fulfilled all the requirements of the law.
I dont understand the legal argument about this. It seems very clear that the muslim employers broke discrimination law - that is what outraged me when I first read about it.
Now I see that there is another context, a religious and personal one. I fear muslims who would change our laws bit by bit until we all live under their precious beliefs, if this happens, if muslims are allowed to get away with this nit-picking, we are all doomed.
I looked up what scripture I could remember about eating certain foods around those who believe they are forbidden.
Romans 14 and 15 address this fairly well, but these two scripture jumped out at me:
Romans 14:20 Don't undo the work of God for a chunk of meat. Remember, there is nothing wrong with the meat, but it is wrong to eat it if it makes another stumble.
Romans 15:15 Even if we believe that it makes no difference to the Lord whether we do these things, still we cannot just go ahead and do them to please ourselves; for we must bear the "burden" of being considerate of the doubts and fears of others-of those who feel these things are wrong.
I'm not sure if we can make a muslim "stumble" or not, since I do not think they worship the Christian God. But if it furthers their hatred, or causes them to make fun of our God, then it is a wrong thing to "bait" Muslims with behavior that is abhorrent to them.
Now I am incredibly confused.
Only if they don't hire people because of their religion are they in violation. They hired her and expected her to follow the rules.
Sorry but it doesn't matter why the rule was made. If you tell an employee not to do something and they do it again then they can be fired on the spot.
I worked at one company were talk radio was banned on company property. Some disagreed with this policy. They were warned. Then they were dismissed.
It is no different. She was not being made to do something, she was asked not to do something. If she didn't like it she was free to work elsewhere.
People are spazing over this because the owners are Muslim. And they are being dishonest with themselves because of it. Would you be upset if an employee in a Christian owned company was fired because they hung nude pictures?
ROTFLOL! Conservatives don't have the corner stone on logic, look at the humor threads (especially the ones with Kerry and the ears of corn sticking out the window.)
Now I am incredibly confused.
It depends on if you consider a muslim your "brother in faith"? Paul said we aren't supposed to make our brother stumble.
If a person truly loves Muslim people and they want them to come to Yeshua, eating a BBQ sandwich in front of them is not the most sensitive way to do it.
If you decided not to eat pork in front of a Muslim, remember you are doing it for Yeshua's sake, not theirs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.