Some people have medical or religious dietary restrictions. I think the employer would have to accommodate those. Ethical restrictions is a grey area.

[–] PuddingFeeling907@lemmy.ca 51 points 2 years ago (2 children)

But why are ethical restrictions any less valid than religious dietary restrictions?

[–] eezeebee@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 years ago

[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

He argued that veganism was protected as a "creed". The Ontario Human Rights Code considers 5 factors in determining whether a belief system constitutes a creed. Under that code, a "creed":

Is sincerely, freely and deeply held

Is integrally linked to a person’s identity, self-definition and fulfilment

Is a particular and comprehensive, overarching system of belief that governs one’s conduct and practices

Addresses ultimate questions of human existence, including ideas about life, purpose, death, and the existence or non-existence of a Creator and/or a higher or different order of existence

Has some “nexus” or connection to an organization or community that professes a shared system of belief.

Veganism clearly meets 1, 2, and 5, but I'm not quite seeing 3 or 4.

[–] ebc@lemmy.ca 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I think you could probably argue that ethical veganism is a deeply held belief that humans are not inherently superior to other animals, and that said animals also have emotions, etc.

This would address 3 as it would definitely govern one's conduct and practices: not exploiting animals in any way.

I would also argue that it addresses ultimate questions about human's place in the living world, partially addressing 4.

Also, looking at federal law (https://www.justice.gc.ca/fra/sjc-csj/dlc-rfc/ccdl-ccrf/check/art2a.html), looks like "liberté de conscience et de religion" should be interpreted widely:

La « liberté de conscience et de religion » devrait être interprétée largement et s'étendre aux croyances dictées par la conscience, qu'elles soient fondées sur la religion ou sur une morale laïque et les termes « conscience » et « religion » ne devraient pas être considérés comme tautologiques quand ils peuvent avoir un sens distinct, quoique relié.

So Ontario's interpretation here is potentially unconstitutional, especially if their decision hinges on something as minor as what a belief system has to say about a Creator.

EDIT: Not a vegan at all, but I can understand the ethics.