2 ms·
> here the company trying to do something “nice” for a particular subset of employees. Or the company is trying to be more inclusive to folks that do not want
by red_trumpet 4y ago
> here the company trying to do something “nice” for a particular subset of employees.
Or the company is trying to be more inclusive to folks that do not want to eat regular icecream, and would not eat any otherwise. Then his action might have been in harmony with the intention.
Also, I don't see this as favoritism: While it is a special treatment, the ones eating kosher icecream do not have a better outcome than everyone else.
- onos 4y agoI would consider it favoritism if they were only trying to accommodate the special needs of a certain group, here the religious Jews, perhaps out of deference to religion… which seems to be a point of concern of the op since he goes on about his atheism. I wouldn’t consider it favoritism if a general rule applied to which groups get special treatment, provided the rule itself did not show favoritism a priori and had reasonable motivation. A la “we want to accommodate as many people as possible but it’s too costly to get a special solution for any group with fewer than X people”. So… yeah maybe you’re right and the latter applied here. In this case he followed the spirit of the law as a worthy tag along of the explicitly labeled intended recipient group.