There's no assumption there. It's a fact. Some people like pork and some people like it better than other non-pork items.
It's really elementary, Toni. I'd say it's difficult to believe you can't understand it, but you've shown you are willing to believe many strange things in defence of the religious.
Anoushka likes pork. In fact, it's her favourite meat. She loves it. She likes beef and chicken too, only not quite as much. Bella doesn't want to be served pork because she had back-to-back VHS screenings of Babe and Charlotte's Web.
Because of this, the meat options are restricted for both children to beef and chicken only. Anoushka has paid a price for Bella's aversion to pork. You can argue the price is worth it, but please don't have the audacity to say
Anoushka paid no price at all.
Irrelevant. A price is paid, and you simply cannot acknowledge it.
Your only real objection is that you perceive the pork ban to be religiously motivated
The reason given for the ban was specifically to cater to the children of Muslim parents. I don't know what else you could call it.
although you yourself point out that the pork ban did not bring all foods served into the realm of halal.
Yes. In fact, I think I've made it quite clear that the policy to ban pork to appease the Muslim parents of two children is an absurd half-measure and the formulators of the policy might be the full six pack of beer but they lack the little plastic thing to hold it all together.
In fact, the pork ban was a marketing ploy to make the day care more attractive to Muslim parents.
There is no evidence of that.
Of course, Muslims practice varying degrees of adherence to halal just as Jews keep varying degrees of kosher including no kosher at all. Not all Muslims follow dietary restrictions.
I know. I work with Muslims.
If actual harm were being done to any child in the program, I would agree that it was wrong to institute the ban. But pork is not the only option for protein at lunch, is not universally beloved by all children,
Irrelevant. It doesn't have to be universally beloved to mean that removing it imposes a cost.
is often more expensive than other protein sources
Yeah, that's both bullshit and also irrelevant. If they reduced the pork options on the menu because of skyrocketing pork prices, that would be a reasonable reason to do so. But that isn't why they proposed doing it.
and often contains much more sodium, fat and preservatives
Irrelevant and bullshit, because the salty, fatty, preservative-heavy pork doesn't need to be on the menu, and taking those forms of pork off the menu for nutritional reasons is not the same as taking all pork off the menu to adhere to the religious strictures of the parents of two of the children.
than other protein options, making it often far less healthy.
Irrelevant.
Your opinion is rooted in anti-Muslim bigotry and anti-religious bigotry rather than the actual welfare of the children who might potentially be affected.
The fact that children pay a cost when a culturally important foodstuff that many of them are bound to have liked is banned is not a fact dreamed up in anti-Muslim bigotry. It's a brute fact about the world.
You clearly demonstrate that you don't care about the welfare of the children who liked pork, because you imagine for yourself that they pay no cost when a religious stricture is put on them.
