No chips without fish
Jul. 11th, 2012 12:35 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackvia fanf's dotaturls, http://i.imgur.com/xFB4G.jpg, at the olympics, chips may only be served with fish, not without.
I wonder, is that even legal, if it's equally easy to serve without, and not doing so even for the same price would disproportionately affect people who are vegetarian for religious reasons?
(I think the relevant questions are "are non-employers allowed to indirectly discriminate against protected classes" and "is this a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim"?)
(For that matter, is vegetarianism not a philosophical belief for the purposes of being a protected class?)
I wonder, is that even legal, if it's equally easy to serve without, and not doing so even for the same price would disproportionately affect people who are vegetarian for religious reasons?
(I think the relevant questions are "are non-employers allowed to indirectly discriminate against protected classes" and "is this a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim"?)
(For that matter, is vegetarianism not a philosophical belief for the purposes of being a protected class?)