Religion Halal Meat

[Hilander]

I'm all for anything that makes the animals death less painful but you don't have to follow muslim law to do this. Subway can do what they want but I wouldn't eat there. I like bacon.
------

However, if religious people have a certain diet then they should be opening their own butchers and restaurants - not demanding they take things of other businesses menus; we wouldn't walk into their establishments and demand they serve our meat.

If we walk into their restaurant and demand they sell pork then they would call us racist or say we were just against their religion.

 

[sunrise]

It's not about sympathy, it is about bowing to pressure. I like bacon and at times I like the chicken bacon ranch sandwich. If a Subway isn't going to offer bacon even though I want it because some people down the street don't want bacon served there then yes, it is a problem. I respect their choice enough to not care if Subway serves Halal meet even though I don't eat it, I expect the same respect in return. If they don't want to eat bacon don't eat it, but to deny me that choice is wrong.

I don't believe they are bowing the pressure, surely if they were all of the Subways would be affected? As not all are affected this seems to me to not be pressure but actually saying "we want to offer a choice".

Have you seen any subways that have been affected where you live?
------

That's not my understanding. Why would Subway voluntarily stop selling bacon at only those locations? Why would they risk losing customers who wanted to buy bacon?

According to the DailyMail, bacon was removed after a "strong demand" from the Muslim community.

Subway removes pork from stores after 'strong demand' from Muslims | Mail Online

Even if there was a strong demand they do not have to do it, Subway made the decision. As for the Daily Mail? I would not put a lot of stock in their reporting - they tend to be, how shall I put it? Oh, Racist - thats the one :lol:

 

[CaptainObvious]

I don't believe they are bowing the pressure, surely if they were all of the Subways would be affected? As not all are affected this seems to me to not be pressure but actually saying "we want to offer a choice".

Have you seen any subways that have been affected where you live?
------

Nope, not where I live. Nevertheless, they aren't just offering a choice, they are eliminating a choice.

Even if there was a strong demand they do not have to do it, Subway made the decision. As for the Daily Mail? I would not put a lot of stock in their reporting - they tend to be, how shall I put it? Oh, Racist - thats the one :lol:

First off I don't pay attention to ad hominems. I would rather discuss the veracity of Daily Mail's claims. Secondly, I find that term thrown around way too much. Not wanting a business to succumb to pressure from a religious group doesn't make me racist, although I'm sure if I exhibited opposition to this change I would be labeled as such.

Yes Subway made a decision. The problem is them giving into a particular group. I have to question if people would feel the same if say Christians were making these kinds of demands, if white people said "we don't want black food in this restaurant" or if any other group applied this pressure. I really wonder if all these people who are supporting these changes by Subway would still say "Well, Subway made those changes, it's their decision". Something tells me they wouldn't.

 

[sunrise]

First off I don't pay attention to ad hominems. I would rather discuss the veracity of Daily Mail's claims. Secondly, I find that term thrown around way too much. Not wanting a business to succumb to pressure from a religious group doesn't make me racist, although I'm sure if I exhibited opposition to this change I would be labeled as such.

Sorry CO but at what point did I say you were racist? I called a paper racist and to be honest I was being kind in this statement towards them, they are in terms of papers in the UK the lowest of the low in terms of how they report stories and twist things in order to provide hatred, this is a paper that was almost closed down because it sided with the Nazi just a little too much back in 1944. The biggest problem with the paper though is how their readership is spoon fed things that are not, shall we say, always accurate and very rarely are called on it.

Oh also, at what point did I make you pay attention to ad hominem or did I create a personal attack to you? I just don't remember is all.

Yes Subway made a decision. The problem is them giving into a particular group. I have to question if people would feel the same if say Christians were making these kinds of demands, if white people said "we don't want black food in this restaurant" or if any other group applied this pressure. I really wonder if all these people who are supporting these changes by Subway would still say "Well, Subway made those changes, it's their decision". Something tells me they wouldn't.

To be fair that has been going on for quite some time, White people and indeed the Christian religion in some forms have been doing this for a while now.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Sorry CO but at what point did I say you were racist? I called a paper racist and to be honest I was being kind in this statement towards them, they are in terms of papers in the UK the lowest of the low in terms of how they report stories and twist things in order to provide hatred, this is a paper that was almost closed down because it sided with the Nazi just a little too much back in 1944. The biggest problem with the paper though is how their readership is spoon fed things that are not, shall we say, always accurate and very rarely are called on it.

Oh also, at what point did I make you pay attention to ad hominem or did I create a personal attack to you? I just don't remember is all.

I didn't say you did, you called the Daily Mail racist instead of commenting on what they reported. I've been called racist simply for pointing out Obamacare is the vast clusterfuck that it is, which leads me to conclude most people don't even know what the word racist means. I'm not saying you don't, I'm only saying the term is used WAY too much.

Here's my point, IF Subway were ONLY offering a choice and NOT giving into pressure, why not just offer Halal as a choice and leave bacon as a choice? Why eliminate bacon altogether? I can only conclude the Muslim community doesn't want MY choice on the Subway menus. I don't think that conclusion is far fetched.

To be fair that has been going on for quite some time, White people and indeed the Christian religion in some forms have been doing this for a while now.

I can't think of a single example of any Christians doing this, but if they did, and white people have, wouldn't you agree it's wrong? Wouldn't you agree it's wrong to exclude choices of people because those people don't subscribe to the same beliefs? So why is it accepted here?

 

[sunrise]

I didn't say you did, you called the Daily Mail racist instead of commenting on what they reported. I've been called racist simply for pointing out Obamacare is the vast clusterfuck that it is, which leads me to conclude most people don't even know what the word racist means. I'm not saying you don't, I'm only saying the term is used WAY too much.

Woot! Something we agree on! I don't mean that in a sarcastic way CO or to be facetious but to simply say I agree, the term racist and racism is throw around to much but the fact is that the paper does have a tendency to give a slanted view of reality and use it is as there own personal soapbox to find blame for anyone who is not White British.

Here's my point, IF Subway were ONLY offering a choice and NOT giving into pressure, why not just offer Halal as a choice and leave bacon as a choice? Why eliminate bacon altogether? I can only conclude the Muslim community doesn't want MY choice on the Subway menus. I don't think that conclusion is far fetched.

I quite agree, I do think to an extent they should have said "this is what we serve and this is what we do not serve" but they most likely could not have done so, I think the idea of being able to offer both in the same resaturant is a good idea, let people make the choice and lets try to understand and not be blind to things so easily (not you, the world at times).

I can't think of a single example of any Christians doing this, but if they did, and white people have, wouldn't you agree it's wrong? Wouldn't you agree it's wrong to exclude choices of people because those people don't subscribe to the same beliefs? So why is it accepted here?

My main example I can think of is the Crusades where the Roman Catholic Church lead a campaign of fear and destruction across europe to take out the Muslim religion. Do I think it is wrong? Or that white people pushed black people around for so long because it was seen as the right thing to do? Damn right I would agree it is wrong, I was in South Africa during the last stages of Apartheid, not something I think should ever be done again myself.

 

[Sim]

I still don't see the problem (unless someone threatened Subway). Apparently, some Muslims just had a sort of campaign for Halal food, and some smart guy at Subway decided it would increase their profits by addressing that demographic -- so they'd make more profits by going all Halal than they lose by skipping pork.

Especially when that's just in some shops. Perhaps there are places in some British cities were Muslims are a majority, and Subway thinks it's a great marketing strategy to offer "Halal". Just like they'll perhaps keep bacon in all places where the majority of costumers is not Muslim or Jewish.

So I think it's just a matter of the free market: Whatever people want to buy, gets offered. And a private enterprise addresses the preferences of a majority of potential buyers.

Likewise, you'll probably hardly find shops that sell non-Kosher food in Jewish quarters. Simply because offering non-Kosher would be bad for business there.

So yeah, it was just a business calculation, as far as I can tell. If a bunch of Muslims made a campaign, that just showed to the business owners the market demand is there.

 

[CaptainObvious]

I still don't see the problem (unless someone threatened Subway). Apparently, some Muslims just had a sort of campaign for Halal food, and some smart guy at Subway decided it would increase their profits by addressing that demographic -- so they'd make more profits by going all Halal than they lose by skipping pork.

Especially when that's just in some shops. Perhaps there are places in some British cities were Muslims are a majority, and Subway thinks it's a great marketing strategy to offer "Halal". Just like they'll perhaps keep bacon in all places where the majority of costumers is not Muslim or Jewish.

So I think it's just a matter of the free market: Whatever people want to buy, gets offered. And a private enterprise addresses the preferences of a majority of potential buyers.

Likewise, you'll probably hardly find shops that sell non-Kosher food in Jewish quarters. Simply because offering non-Kosher would be bad for business there.

So yeah, it was just a business calculation, as far as I can tell. If a bunch of Muslims made a campaign, that just showed to the business owners the market demand is there.

I would agree with this if they added Halal meat to their menu and not exclude anyone else. Since they gave in to pressure to exclude those who do not subscribe to their religious beliefs I find this move by Subway disgusting. Sun brought up the Crusades which is a great example. I find excluding people for religious reasons wrong, no matter who the group is.

 

[Clare]

There are a couple of (fast) food shops in Berlin too that offer only Halal food. But those are food shops run by Muslim immigrants anyway, such as Turkish. For example, Turkish Döner Kebap stores are rather popular among Germans -- and it would be absurd to demand them changing the original recipies of their Turkish food to include pork. People go there to eat Turkish food.

Another thing are chicken fast food shops. The only meat they're selling is Halal anyway, since they only have chicken in various forms -- no pork, but neither other Halal meats such as beef. I don't see a problem there. People go there to eat chicken.

In my mind this is different. If you go to a fast food shop that is run by Muslims and/or is their cuisine then it's fair enough to expect that there be halal products. You can choose to eat there or not and it's not excluding you from anything.

I agree with CO on this issue.

I don't think it's intolerant at all to expect that you could perhaps go to a US founded sandwich shop in Britain and get non- halal products.

I also can't see this happening the other way around, not by a long shot. For example if a group of British people went to live in a Muslim community somewhere in Indonesia and demanded that they sold pork and non-halal products in their restaurants. Even if theoretically there were more British people than Muslims in that community, I just don't think it would ever happen. Now I know that's ridiculous because it would be asking them to not follow their religion in their own country, which I understand. In my mind though it's not too different to essentially force people in Britain to go elsewhere if they don't want halal products.

If there's an option for halal products then ok, that's fine. Here in Australia halal foods are offered in a variety of fast food restaurants, but not to the exclusion of other options.

 

[AngelsPeak]

I understand this is happening in another country (for now) and from what I've read the majority of the posters are ok with Subway's decision.
What I don't understand then, is why so many people chastise and protest against a bakery or another business that doesn't want ot make a cake for a couple because the type of wedding being performed goes against their religious beliefs.
Why is it ok for Subway to change their menu and discriminate due to religious beliefs, but not ok for those who live in the land of the free to do the same?