Muslim staff can discriminate based on their religious beliefs.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

Marks & Spencer has told Muslim staff they can refuse to serve shoppers buying alcohol or pork, it has been revealed.
The chain has granted checkout workers in more than 700 stores permission to politely decline to serve customers for religious reasons.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2527820/Marks-Spencer-tells-Muslim-staff-CAN-refuse-serve-customers-buying-alcohol-pork.html

It reminds me of the fundie pharmacists in the US, but worse. A person shouldn't work for a company that sells alcohol and pork products, if they find it so offensive.

[etherealtruth]

1. I agree

One is entitled to their religious beliefs ... if it is your belief do not work for a company that goes against your beliefs. I understand jobs are often difficult to find; however, if you can't fulfill the job duties ....

[Boudica the Lyoness]

3. So you don't mind being discriminated against my staff in a grocery store?

I would object at being sent to the back of the line and being discriminated against.

[etherealtruth]

15. What? Surely, you jest ...?

"if it is your belief do not work for a company that goes against your beliefs. I understand jobs are often difficult to find; however, if you can't fulfill the job duties ....

[joeglow3]

247. And it is your right to not work for a bar that allows smoking

Oh, but your logic changes with the wind to fit what benefits you.

[etherealtruth]

250. How does my logic change?

I am fairly consistent in all I do.

Actually, if smoking is legal in bars and restaurants where one is working and you object ... I would suggest not working in a bar or restaurant.

The larger question re the topic you bring up is should it be legal ... on that subject I have bifurcated feelings ... I fail to see the inconsistency you are pointing too, perhaps you could provide enlightenment?

[etherealtruth]

255. Waiting ....

Very curious why this response?

[Hugabear]

111. Would you support their right to discriminate against gay customers?

If a Muslim employee refused service to a gay or lesbian couple, would you support that?

[etherealtruth]

113. What in the world are you talking about

i guess my post really wasn't clear

I agreed with the last lines of the OP which read: It reminds me of the fundie pharmacists in the US, but worse. A person shouldn't work for a company that sells alcohol and pork products, if they find it so offensive.

I guess I understand the mis-understanding with what I was agreeing with.

Since you are the second poster not to interpret the body of my post as intended: "if it is your belief do not work for a company that goes against your beliefs. I understand jobs are often difficult to find; however, if you can't fulfill the job duties.. "

I thought it was clear that I do not agree with special allowances for workers that are against lawful activities ... I will try again ... My opinion: if your beliefs or values do not allow you to carry out the functions of your job ... you should not have that job.

[drm604]

154. If it makes you feel any better

I thought that your post was very clear and I'm puzzled that two different people misread it so badly.

[etherealtruth]

155. Well, it was unclear enough for two people to not understand my intent.

Leads me to believe that it was ME and not them .... but, thank you for understanding.

[pnwmom]

194. I think the ambiguity was because a word was missing.

The word "however" might have made it clearer, as below.

"One is entitled to their religious beliefs ... however, if it is your belief. . . "

[etherealtruth]

202. Yep

The first time I thought WTF? ...by the second time (if "everyone" is misunderstanding ) I knew it had to be ME (how I wrote it)!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

219. I'm still thinking WTF. Your writing seems clear to me.

If an employee disagrees with some aspect of the job to the point where he can't do the job, he should look for employment elsewhere.

Where I live, there are plenty of Muslims who serve wine in the restaurant, liquor in the party store, and pizza with ham or pepperoni. I wonder if there's some other issue in play in the OP story.

edit: by "OP Story", I mean the link in the OP, not Boudica's comment.

[etherealtruth]

243. thanks. My personal rule for this kind of communication

If one person misunderstands (and is rude) .... they may just be an ass. If two or more people see it that way I KNOW I have communicated poorly!

My ex-husband is Muslim. While in school he worked at an upscale restaurant in Ann Arbor ... he touched and served alcohol, pork, shell fish ... he simply did not consume it. I realize there are many different interpretations of Islamic law ... but, if he couldn't serve the food and beverages at the restaurant he would not have worked there.

Lastly: thank you for the encouragement and support!

[tblue37]

275. Your post was perfectly clear. I am constantly amazed at how often people

jump all over someone for saying the exact opposite of what his post actually says.

Either they have poor reading skills or they don't bother to actually employ the reading skills they have because they are in such a hurry to skim (carelessly!) the post so they can get on with the delightfully satisfying business of expressing outrage.

[etherealtruth]

279. Thanks

I appreciate the vote of confidence. I think its the skimming, but as I have said in response to this ... I will accept the blame since several people misinterpreted what I was saying. ... but, I appreciate your response!

[tblue37]

284. I notice that those who jumped on you didn't bother to apologize--or to respond at all--

after you explained that they had misread your post.

[etherealtruth]

285. That is par for the course

I am making a concerted effort to accept blame, apologize when wrong etc ... if others do not follow in kind, I think it says more about them than it does me!

Again, thank you so much for the support.

I didn't edit the original post (even though it is possible to look at the history) ... since several have found the post ambiguous (at best) , I felt editing would be disingenuous and make the respondents look 'nasty" and out of line. I accept they interpreted the post the way they responded (and I accept it was a very unclear post on my part)

[cleanhippie]

2. This is the inevitable result of giving one religious group that privilege.

If we allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense meds because it violates their religious beliefs, or let catholic hospitals refuse medical treatments because it violates their religious dogma, how can we refuse Muslims the right to not sell products that violate their religious beliefs?

[Boudica the Lyoness]

5. This is the UK

There are no religious hospitals, and so far as I know, no nut case pharmacists.

[cleanhippie]

8. Right, but you understand my point?

[Boudica the Lyoness]

10. Yes, but I don't like it.

It opens the door for a lot of nuttery.

[cleanhippie]

11. I agree. We shouldn't allow this type of thing.

[Igel]

77. There's no "we" involved.

An employer is letting its employees enjoy a certain privilege.

We don't need to patronize the store (not like I'm going to that particular store in any event) but I don't think there nees to be a "we" involved here. If there is, it's going to be in the form of a law or regulation stipulating a level of detail on working conditions and employer-granted privileges that I think I'd disagree with.

It's one thing to grant special punishments to an employee. It's another to grant some sort of privileges.

What this will do is destroy a bit of trust and make for a more acrimonious atmosphere, unless it's handled just right and everybody accepts the privileges or gets their own.

Full disclosure: I don't eat pork or shellfish for religious reasons. I think of them as appetizing as rat or cockroach. Yet I worked in a restaurant that left me no choice but to clean up such meals as dishwasher and even prepare such meals as line cook. ("Hey, Jane. Taste this. Does it need salt?" "John, stop stocking shelves and have one of these pork chops. Any good?&quot You take the job, you do the job.

[NightWatcher]

4. we used to shop at the hippy dippy grocer and I had a vegan refuse to serve me meat

She was the only one working in the deli and told me that she could not touch the meat. Since she was the only one, I would have to wait or come back. I never came back

[Boudica the Lyoness]

7. That was one little store

M&S is a major retailer in the UK.

[Orrex]

16. Why the hell was she working in a deli?

That's like working at a call center and refusing to answer the phone.

[NightWatcher]

18. they sell all kinds of veggie tempeh tofu... dishes

but they also sell sliced deli meats. We've since found less expensive, better meats when we need sandwiches

[Nye Bevan]

125. She "couldn't touch meat" because she was a vegan?

What a special snowflake. Couldn't she wear plastic gloves?

[Ash_F]

199. Well if she was vegan for moral reasons, it makes perfect sense.

If the thought of slaughtering and killing animals disturbs someone...flesh and bone...blood and marrow...tendons and gristle... then I understand.

As for me, I am currently preparing chicken.

For breakfast.

[jmowreader]

204. They put a vegan in the DELI?

Last I checked delis sell two basic items, sliced meat and sliced cheese, and both are taboo to vegans. One would think the produce department or the bulk food department more to a vegan's skills.

[Ash_F]

294. Probably she was covering for a regular

Happens all the time in shift labor.

[edhopper]

6. How the fuck does this work.

You wait on the check out line for 20 minutes only to find the checkout person won't ring you up?
Do they go and get another worker to do it?
Do they have no pork and no liqueur lines?

[Boudica the Lyoness]

9. They should have a no pork or liqueur line.

I don't buy meat or booze, but I'd avoid their nasty religious line out of principal.

[customerserviceguy]

74. Excuse me

but a "no pork or liquor" line reminds me of water fountains that said "Coloreds Only".

If you don't agree with what your employer legally sells, then find another job that matches your philosophical beliefs.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

88. I agree.

n/t

[RKP5637]

12. Yet another to add to my WTF list for today. It makes absolutely no sense at all, if the

store feels that obliged to honor these religious believes, then they should stop selling the items.

[geek tragedy]

13. The fundamentalist nutjob is always right. I guess they don't need stuff like customers nt

[JustAnotherGen]

52. +1000

[freshwest]

168. +1.

[RKP5637]

14. Religion, the great divider of mankind ... throughout history has caused more grief and suffering.nt

[Arugula Latte]

35. ^This^

All these silly made-up stories causing so much strife and oppression ... it's so pointless, so unnecessary.

[Codeine]

17. That's beyond messed-up.

If you can't bring yourself to sell booze or pork then don't work somewhere that sells booze and pork, ferfuxsake.

I'm a teetotal vegan but I sell beer, wine, booze, meat, and dairy in my job all damned day -- it isn't my goddamned business what people buy.

[Dash87]

19. Ridiculous. Why go to a free society and try to impose your own fundie nutbag ideologies?

Or, at least don't get a job at a place that sells pork or alcohol. Seems like common sense to me. I can't stand fundies that demand everybody else bend to their will. We have too many here in the US that we're trying to kick out of power.

The UK and US seriously need to stop bending to these fundies. If life here is so incompatible to their religions, they could go form their own country or something.

[Egalitarian Thug]

23. Because your book tells you to. It's the inevitable consequence of believing

what you're told by people that have conversations with invisible people inside their heads.

[jessie04]

40. That is called multiculturalism.

.

[Dash87]

70. Multiculturalism is the acceptance of the good in all cultures. Bowing to fundies is different.

There's no problem with fundies practicing with each other or at home. It's wrong to go out into public and demand that everybody else change their behavior to fit your religion. How is this any different from declaring a special aisle for their religion?

With the article, it seems that they have to go to a completely new line or wait for a new cashier. Is this right? The religious cashiers are inconveniencing others just because of their religion. Fine - don't eat pork at home or drink alcohol - there's absolutely no problem with that. However - don't get a job in a grocery store and refuse to ring up groceries because of your religion. That's just silly. Would it be okay for a fundie to turn women away because they're buying condoms, or turn people away that are buying stuff for Hanukkah because you celebrate Christmas?

This is no different from the fundie pharmacists that refuse to give out birth control because it's against their religion. Everybody else has to suffer because they apparently deserve special treatment.

And furthermore, why is ringing food items up against their religion? It's not like they're the ones buying the pork or alcohol. What's it to them?

[cbayer]

20. According to the article, the customer is asked to wait while they get another

cashier.

Big deal.

This has happened to me at Target when they had a cashier under 21. They can't ring up alcohol.

It was no big deal.

As long as the store has a plan to provide service at little or no inconvenience to the customer, why would it matter?

Same for pharmacists or OB-GYN's who choose not to provide abortions. As long as people have an alternative and are not being refused services in their community, why not accommodate people's religious convictions?

[PassingFair]

22. Why not accommodate a racist's convictions?

Why should a racist have to serve a person of color?

Or:

If a gay couple want to check into a motel, is it OK for the desk clerk to
refuse to secure it for them.

Should they be allowed to call someone else in to check them in?

[cbayer]

24. Are you equating people with religious beliefs with racists?

Really?

The issue here is not a prejudice against the people buying pork or alcohol, it is about the cashier's beliefs that they should not handle these items.

Do you think a OB-GYN who has strong personal beliefs about abortion should be forced to perform them if there are other readily accessible alternatives for patients who want them?

[PassingFair]

28. A belief is a belief.

What's the difference between "religious beliefs" and "strong personal beliefs"?

I think a pharmacist with strong personal beliefs should still have to dispense birth control.
And I don't think it would be OK for a desk clerk to refuse a room to a gay couple.

[cbayer]

32. Again, I ask this - are you equating people with religious beliefs with racists?

I think refusing a room to a gay couple is a civil rights violation and the courts agree with that.

I also think that if a pharmacist who does not want to see contraceptives is the only alternative in a town, he needs to sell them until there is an alternative or move somewhere where there are alternatives for patients.

But there are also pharmacists who choose not to sell scheduled drugs for a number of reasons. Should they be forced to do so?

And what about the OB-GYN who does not want to perform abortions? What are your thoughts on that?

[PassingFair]

48. SOME courts agree with that. Courts in more "religious" states do NOT.

http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/2012/06/Chapman.pdf

snip> more than half of the states—twenty-nine—still lack laws protecting gay individu-
als from even the most basic discrimination they may receive in public accommo-
dations such as hotels, restaurants, and movie theaters.
more than half of the states—twenty-nine—still lack laws protecting gay individu-
als from even the most basic discrimination they may receive in public accommo-
dations such as hotels, restaurants, and movie theaters.


This Note analyzes data to support the contention that the populations in the
states that do not have public accommodations laws providing protection on the
basis of sexual orientation (“holdout states”) are more religious—and greater
numbers practice religions more strongly opposed to gay rights—than those that
do have such laws.


Although this distinction may be intuitive, such state
religious data means that even the narrow, traditionally carved-out religious
exemptions may not be broad enough in certain states to garner sufficient
support for public accommodations protection (or, conversely, to deter sufficient
opposition to the protection). Given the religious nature of the states that do not
currently have such laws, conceding more expansive religious exemptions than
are employed in less religious states would likely expedite the process—and
may well be crucial to the ability of gay individuals to gain these protections in
the foreseeable future.

Critics of broad religious exemptions believe that the exemptions undermine
the purpose of the statutes themselves: when the purpose of a law is to protect
against discrimination, why should some groups be given a free pass to do so? <unsnip

The people who refuse to sell pork and alcohol at liquor and party stores should find other
employment or open their own halal stores.

The pharmacists who refuse to sell birth control should open their own no-choice pharmacies.

The OB-GYNS who refuse to perform abortions should have a separate course study
with different credentials.

[Bluenorthwest]

235. 29 States allow open discrimination in not just services but in housing and employment

No only can the religious deny us a night's lodging, they can refuse to rent a home or even evict us with the only cause being 'you are gay' or even 'I think you are gay' as no proof is needed.
No arguments are offered for this discrimination other than religious dogma.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

142. these are not exactly the same as pork/alcholol

which are both small accommodations

notice, no one is allowing religious Muslims to shun gay people. it's a very small and narrow ruling

[liberal_at_heart]

173. I agree. There has to be some reason here although when you're talking about religion there

usually isn't any reason on either side of the argument. I don't see a problem with a small accommodation that offers an alternative and does not violate anybody's civil rights. There is a difference for example between having to wait in line at a deli for another person to hand you a piece of pork and having a Muslim refuse you a cab ride because you have a guide dog. One involves having your civil rights violated the other doesn't.

[MADem]

58. Some people's religious beliefs are bigoted--like the Duck Dynasty guy.

He considers gays to be an abomination...because the bible told him so...?

The Qu'ran also has prohibitions along this line, if you want to dig deep enough.

[cbayer]

64. That's true, but that wasn't my question.

My question was about the blanket equating of religious beliefs with racism.

If the issue were about serving gay people, that would be one thing.

But it's not. It's about accommodating the personal beliefs of some individuals.

Until I see otherwise, I am going to assume that they have done this in a way that is least likely to cause an inconvenience to their customers and in no way that would cause the customer to feel they were being discriminated against, despite the obviously inflammatory headline.

[DonCoquixote]

118. IF a religion demands that someone is a second class citizen

Because they are not your faith, then yes yes yes, it is the same as racism. Anything where someone has to go through an extra step solely because they are not the folks in the dominant position of power is an ism, equal to racism.

[cbayer]

119. I can not disagree that there are aspects of religion or ways that

some interpret religion that equates to racism.

But that is not true of all religion or religious believers.

A racist is a racist, wherever they get their ideas from or reinforced.

The problem I have is equating a religious person with a racist person based solely on them being religious.

It's just not valid.

[DonCoquixote]

122. The creed doe not matter

The behavior does. I could care less what people believe, and, I can even see that culturally, if you are in a store that caters to said culture, you should not expect them to sell things against that culture. I would not ask for a Roast Pork sandwich in a Muslim or Jewish deli. However, this retail chain caters to ALL types, and as such, anyone working there should realize that they will have to serve all sorts.

It is not just a matter of the values of the marketplace, it is a matter that if the buisness wants all sorts of people, they will need to make all sorts of people WELCOME. When you make me wait in line because your employee wants to get religious on my time and on my dime, then yes, you have made me a second class person, the sort of person who the whole queue will look at and blame. And no, it is not the exact same thing as racism, but it does the same thing, to make people who do not tow the line someone to be punished. An Axe is not the same as a sword, that is literally true, but both tools will cut our heads off, especially when someone trying to enforce their rules swings them at our necks.

[cbayer]

128. The store is not refusing to sell anything to anyone.

They are accommodating some of their employees.

If they can do that without inconveniencing their customers, why should anyone else care.

And it's not about who they are serving. It's about the action that they take. The person buying the items is not a factor.

The outrage over this seems really over the top, but that is, of course, what the Daily Mail aimed for.

[MADem]

167. I think Marks-n-Sparks needs to modify their employment application.

If a person can't sell the wares in the store, they can't be effective in their job.

This fake insistence that they not "touch" the product is bullshit. Their paychecks have "touched" the products they hate--those paychecks are the result of pork and alcohol sales.

For the literal amongst them, they can wear a glove and not "touch" the stuff. But to stop the line and call someone over everytime a damn BRIT buys booze or beer? I'm not going to make any "two of the three major food groups" jokes, but I lived in UK and I never drank more alcohol nor ate more sausages in my life than when I lived there. It's a national pastime to enjoy those products...that's gonna disrupt every third sale in the store. It's just fundy bullshit.

I've lived in the ME and had no problem purchasing "non halal" items sold to me by Muslims. Anyone using religious excuses to avoid doing their jobs working retail in a store that sells a wide variety of stuff needs to go work for the halal butcher -- who will probably pay them under the table, half what they get at MandS. I have zero sympathy for these cashiers, I think they are poseurs. They need to get with the program, and either deal with the job requirement or quit, IMO. And like I said, MandS needs to get correct with their job requirements, and not provide "unreasonable" accommodations of that sort.

[OwnedByCats]

197. I don't know if you found this

but while there are large M&S stores, there are a lot of smaller ones - they may only have 2 or 3 cashiers on at a time. I lived in a small town with a small M&S that had 3 cashiers. One of them was an express lane. The lines could get pretty long in my local one, can you imagine waiting in a long line and then be told the cashier can't cash you out because you're buying beer? Then you have to wait for another cashier or worse, have to switch lanes (if it ever came to that). The Brits hate lines as it is, I'm sure more than a few are not going to want to be inconvenienced, even just a little. I hardly ever got offered to go ahead of the person in front of me in line when I had 2 items and they had a cart load. I also had people cut in front of me in lines quite a bit. I love the Brits, but when it comes to "queues", they aren't the most tolerant of people lol.

[Violet_Crumble]

221. My experience of queuing in the UK was different...

Maybe it was the shock of going there directly from Italy, where to get a cup of coffee, you shouldered yr way to the front of the throng of people, ignored who was there before you because they were all ignoring it too, and got yr order in as soon as you caught the barista's eyes. In the UK, there seemed to be orderly queues formed for everything, and no-one cut in or got visibly impatient. I became convinced that the British had an obsession with queuing and that if I started my own random queue for nothing in particular, within five minutes I'd have a line of people forming behind me. In my country, we're somewhere in the middle of Italy and Britain. We don't queue for coffee, but there's an unwritten law that you notice who's there before you and point the barista to them before you order. In supermarkets, where there are queues and when people cut in, I've heard them met with 'Oy! Get to the back of the line, ya fuckin' wanker!', especially during busy times like xmas eve. But people with full trolleys in express lanes aren't the worst. It's the elderly folk down at my local supermarket, who move in slow motion and take about 15 minutes to get their ten items out of their trolley onto the thingy for the cashier, and then take another ten minutes to get the correct cash out of their purses or wallets. They're a real patience killer, but of course you can't ever show any impatience with them, coz we'll all be there one day

[OwnedByCats]

293. LOL

Yeah you're quite right. I guess what I was trying to say was that in Britain, queues do appear to be an obsession for them. I just think that while they believe in orderly queues, they have their limits. They seemed to hate it when they lasted too long, I often heard "That bloody queue took an eternity!", and most really don't appreciate getting cut and you might hear "Oi! Get back to the end of the queue, fuckin wanker!" from the occasional impatient customer. Most of them won't cut in front of you, but there is that subset of the population who will try it on whenever they can. I'm not a big person, only 4ft 11in, and I would get the feeling that they would pretend they didn't see me standing there lol. It happened just on occasion. It was just strange to me that in a country where obeying the rules of queueing was deemed so important, there would be some who just thought it perfectly acceptable to cut. But I swear, in the 10 years I lived there, I can only recall one time where the person in front of me offered to let me go before them because I had just a handful of items (no express lane open) and they had a trolley load. Here in the US it happens all the time, with many people being considerate. I will certainly offer to let someone go ahead of me. In the US, I get a warm thank you - in the UK, they would look at me like I had two heads if I offered to let them go first! Then as soon as they realized they'd be like "oh wow, ta very much! Cheerio!" lol

I just think if you told one of them to go to another queue after having waited for a "bloody eternity" in their original queue, I'm sure that would go down like a lead balloon! Like I said down farther in this thread, I saw Muslim run corner shops that sold pork and alcohol. They didn't seem to have a problem earning their living by catering to what the larger segment of the population wanted. Not sure why M&S is now doing this. Is this really an issue in Britain now? I knew some Muslims when I lived there but they actually assimilated somewhat to their surroundings. For example, my husband's hematologist was a Muslim originally from Iraq (excellent doctor btw!), but when it was Christmas time, him and his family had no problem receiving Christmas cards. My husband would always bring the nurses and doctors at the hospital chocolates and Christmas cards every year, because they treated him so well when he received cancer treatment from them (still in remission almost 14 years now). The first year he started doing this I told him his doctor was Muslim, so we weren't sure that was appropriate but he didn't want to leave him out. Upon explaining this quandary to his doctor, he said he would not be offended in the slightest to receive cards and chocolates at Christmas. I'm sure not all of them would feel the same, but the Muslims I knew seemed pretty laid back about their adopted country's different culture.

Still I think if you are not willing to do your whole job description because some elements offend you, how can you justify drawing a paycheck from them? It's not like they are being forced to eat or drink the stuff. I'm really not bigoted against other people's religious beliefs that are not in line with mine, I just think as long as it's not being forced upon you, it's not an issue. Those in the free world have a choice on where they can work. The government isn't forcing that upon them, thus forcing the job description. They can either choose to work in a different department where they won't be required to handle those items, or they can work some where that does not sell them at all.

[MADem]

296. I've queued in M/S and in Woolworth's on the odd High Street, and

it frequently doesn't go quickly on a good day, owing to the chit and chat.

The bottom line--if the store sells booze and pork, the profits and the paychecks enjoyed by the workers are supported by booze and pork sales. To work there and pretend that touching and taking a paycheck made possible by booze and pork is "OK" but refusing to push the product down a belt with a gloved left hand is, to me, bullshit. Steaming bullshit.

[OwnedByCats]

298. Definitely true by my experience

They do not move quickly ("on a good day", I had to laugh at that, so true!!) and it would be a nightmare if cashiers had their limitations. I totally agree that if you've got a problem handling pork and alcohol, even just long enough to scan them at the till, you shouldn't be earning money which in part is paid for by ... pork and alcohol sales! I'm not sure what the logic is behind all that, doesn't seem like there is any. Just seems to me it's a small group of Muslims trying to make some kind of point or statement. I started to notice some Muslim/Christian tension following the 7/7/2005 attacks in London. I left in 2007 so I don't know if it's increased or decreased since then. I heard someone who lives there say it's gotten much worse in recent years, but I don't know if that's true or not. Like I said, I knew some Muslims in Britain and they were very nice people - they weren't oppressive to others when it came to their beliefs, but I'm sure just as in any religion, there are those that do.

[MADem]

300. I've lived in the Middle East and gone to some of the most holy sites in (shi'a) Islam.

During Ashura. For services. Back in the days when you could get hit by flying blood from the whips and chains with nails in 'em.

I have also been to midnight mass at the Vatican.

I'm pretty much live and let live when it comes to matters of faith, and I'm not a "Freedom FROM Religion" advocate, but I do think that when a person is hired to do a job, they should be able to DO that job, and they shouldn't expect their beliefs to take precedence over the job they were hired to do.

[OwnedByCats]

301. I'm the same way, I don't mind what other people believe -

Whether they believe in religion or no religion. I have my own beliefs in faith but I have no desire to shove them down other people's throats and I appreciate the same in return. If any aspect of your job description is compromised because of your faith, don't work there. As long as people are not forced into specific employment, that can be avoided and the last time I checked, the British government were not requiring Muslims to work at M&S.

[Scootaloo]

95. Well, they're Muslims, see?

So DU'ers feel entitled to froth and rant and rage, all the while ignoring two realities of the situation.

1) It just means a momentary staff change at the stations
2) The company chose to institute the policy.

Where it comes to Islam, DU is as much of an ignorant hate site as FreeRepublic.

[cbayer]

99. I guess I've managed to avoid most of these discussions,

and perhaps that is for the best.

Are people here generally aware of what is going on in the UK in regard to Muslims and how the tabloids are feeding it?

[Scootaloo]

100. I would really be surprised if they were

Might actually be a decent subject for an OP though.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

115. Sadly....

I would have to agree with everything you say here

[Douglas Carpenter]

120. "Where it comes to Islam, DU is as much of an ignorant hate site as FreeRepublic." you are so right

and it has only gotten worse.

So a company initiated a policy that says if some clerk is uncomfortable for religious reasons filling an order for pork or alcohol - they ask another cashier or clerk to ring up the cumsomer - the same way - sometimes here someone under 21 asks another clerk to ring up the customer who has purchased alcohol. This is Marks and Spencer's company policy - what's the big deal?

[cbayer]

130. I have found this thread fairly shocking.

I guess I was willfully ignorant of where many DUers were on an issue such as this.

But, hey! The comments are right in line with those in the Daily Mail article. Go figure..

[Douglas Carpenter]

131. sadly I have to say DU Admin has long been extremely tolerant of anti-Muslim bigotry and things have

simply gotten worse and worse in that regard. I alerted on one of the most blatantly hateful posts here and a jury voted 0-6 to let it stand. The DU community would not have tolerated threads like this a few years ago. But something truly crazy has happen and we see almost Nazi level hatred and vitriol tolerated and even praised in what suppose to be a "liberal forum".

[cbayer]

135. I think its broader than that, though I can see the problem in this thread.

I think there is a degree of anti-religious intolerance in general and these threads seem to attract the same group of members.

It's really hit or miss with juries.

To be fair, I think there are other groups on DU who see intolerance and even bigotry when it comes to things that they pay closer attention to.

It is what it is, I guess, but I am sad to see it flourish here.

Not surprised necessarily, but saddened.

We have some friends in the UK that we have had to distance ourselves from because they have become infected with this rather nationalistic islamophobia that has become such an issue there. This article just feeds that fire starting with it's headline.

At any rate, this is not the kind of liberal/progressive idealism that I hold dear.

[hrmjustin]

149. Sometimes I wonder if a new poster who is progressive and a person of faith really feels welcome

here. I am not talking about the admins or people who question my faith, but those who go out of there way to be extra mean to believers.

[Douglas Carpenter]

159. unfortunately you are quite correct. Even if a person doesn't hold to any belief system - it is

common decency not to be disrespectful to those things that run the deepest inside a person - As my grandmother used to say, "Never make fun of a person's family, country or religion." And then on a purely political calculation - it is simply not possible to build any kind of progressive majority that shuns religious people. The numbers and demographics are not there and never will be there.

[hrmjustin]

160. Agreed.

[Bluenorthwest]

236. Others see only one's actions, not the 'belief' or 'faith' another might claim.

Jesus, the character Christians claim to worship, warned his followers clearly that they would face 'extra mean people' as well as actual persecution for beliving in him. Jesus orderd his followers to rejoice and be 'exceeding glad' when such oppression occured. He did not say 'whine ye about the extra mean others, stamp ye thine feet and demand for yourselves respect'. Why is it that the words of Jesus are ignored, rejected and replaced with gripes he did not sanction, with actions he forbade? Was he wrong? Is that part of your 'belief' as well, that Jesus fucked up so 'believers' have to wing it and whine endlessly when they feel slighted for their faith?
No Scriptural standing for whining about 'extra mean people'. The command was to rejoice when you meet the extra mean. But Jesus, he was a botcher of the job! Refused to attack gays, kept on saying to give money away, says don't pray in public when we want to pray in pubic, says 'call no man father' when we know Francis is the Holy Father of all humans, God is not, Francis is!!!!!!
I think most people 'of faith' are just bigots who use fancy Jesus words as weapons, they sure as fuck don't follow what Jesus told them to do.

[hrmjustin]

237. "Most people of faith are bigots". Wow talk about a broad brush.

I don't feel persecuted for my faith. My concern is people of faith are not always welcome here.

[Violet_Crumble]

166. Hi Douglas. I totally agree with you and have noticed things are getting worse, not better n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

185. a lot worse ... DU Admin doesn't seem to think there is anything wrong with even the most hateful

and blatant bashing of Muslim people. I think the message is loud and clear.

[MADem]

187. It violates state law in USA for someone under 21 to ring up alcohol.

(Don't think that applies in UK...)

MandS are free to do what they like, and their customers are free to voice their dissatisfaction with having to "profile" the cash register operator before getting in a line....and woe be it if you're halfway up the queue and the cashier takes a break!

Also, the policy as stated in the article is that the customer has to go to another line...not that they wait for someone else to bounce in just to touch the offending items.

They're getting pushback because it's just absurd. The way one can avoid touching haram items is with a glove, and if one can't bear working around these products, one shouldn't take a paycheck that is generated by profiting from the sale of them.

[Douglas Carpenter]

193. If Marks and Spencer's finds a way to accommodate the sensitivities of some of the staff while

fulfilling the wishes of its customers - I think win - win situations are a good thing

[MADem]

195. They're doing it by inconveniencing the customers, apparently.

Per the article, they're being asked to go to another line. This means that the customers have to size up the cashier before getting in the line, determining if the person is a religious Muslim by looking for visual cues, and hoping that the cashier they pray will ring up their bacon and beer doesn't go on break and be replaced by a devout observer before they load their purchases on the belt.

As I will iterate once more, these people with "objections" to haram products have no similar objections to taking their paychecks, which are generated based on sales of haram products. It's extreme hypocrisy. They can avoid touching haram products with a glove on their hand. Problem solved.

I've travelled and lived in nations where Islam is the predominant faith, and have been sold and served haram products by people who were Muslims. This is just "special snowflake" territory at MandS, IMO. The Qu'ran addresses issues of assimilation, too, in fact, and this kind of conduct contravenes those teachings.

Of course, Islam has no "Pope," so the arbiter of what is "acceptable" depends on the POV of the person, or the person's religious overseer (imam, spouse, parent, what-have-you).

[Douglas Carpenter]

200. so far there has been no evidence of customers complaining of inconvenience - there are many people

who work in enterprises that may be involved in some things that many employees don't participate in and may not approve of - but are still part of the enterprise's source of income. Marks and Spencer's are not being forced to do anything. If for example a business is open on Saturday's - but a number of Seventh Day Adventist or for that matter Ultra-Orthodox Jews work there - and it is possible to accommodate the needs of the business by asking those who don't approve of working on Saturdays to work on Sunday's instead when others might prefer to have that day off rather than Saturday - why not? I cannot imagine why this is even a story except for the sake of a crude attempt to further some xenophobic notion about Sharia Law taking over while Europe sleeps.

[smirkymonkey]

271. Did you read the Daily Mail comments?

Numerous customers are outraged and are taking their business elsewhere. There are well over a thousand comments on this article w/ about 98 percent opposing this policy.

[cbayer]

273. Do you know who reads the Daily Mail?

The comments are not in the least surprising. What is surprising is that the DU comments mirror them to such a large extent.

[Codeine]

216. Some states. It's perfectly legal in California. nt

[MADem]

169. That's silly. It's no different than the Catholic pharmacist refusing to hand the

15 year old the OTC PLAN B that's stashed behind the counter, or fill the birth control prescription.

That's not right, either.

Do the damn job. Leave the personal morals out of it. If the person doesn't like the behavior they shouldn't indulge themselves, but if they want to collect a paycheck from a place that makes a profit by selling pig and booze, they need to get correct with their attitudes and understand that the money they receive in their paychecks is "tainted" by pork and alcohol.

No getting around that.

[Scootaloo]

176. It's absolutely not the same.

1) The pharmacist is controlling the purchasing ability of a customer. These cashiers are not, they simply swap out for another cashier to handle the material in question. If you can't grasp the difference between "I refuse to sell you this medicine" and "let me get someone else to ring up your beer" then I hate to say it, but you must be a very stupid fucking person.

2) This is an arrangement arrived between the store and its employees. If it offends you so much that the owner of the store has made this accommodation for his employees, then you are free to decide to not shop there. You don't get to pound your chest and scream to the heavens about what these employees should or should not do or think or ask for because, because it's not your call to make. You are simply not involved.

3) Think for a moment what it means that you are so outraged, so angry that an employer has decided to respect their employees wishes for an allowance to get another employee to ring up an item for them. What a trivial thing for you to be upset about - especially when we realize that holy shit, you live in the US and this franchise is in the motherfucking UK so what does it fucking matter to you ANYWAY.

So just a tally.

- Your initial argument is not even remotely based in reality. It is nonsensical hyperbolic scare-mongering, in fact. In which you try to compare birth control to a pork chop, and fail.
- You're angry that employees received a small accommodation they asked from their employer. The bastards!
- Even though you are not the employer, not the employee, nor even a customer.
- All while of course preaching what these people should think and feel and once again slipping into some hyperbolic nonsense about "tainted paychecks."
- and yet you feel entitled to demand that the employees "correct their attitudes."

I think that in your attempt to refute the point I made, you actually only ended up bolstering it.

[MADem]

180. So you're saying that the pharmacist can't call over another pharmacist to do his dirty work?

Sorry-I am not buying your logic, and you haven't bolstered a thing.

All having people on the payroll who will not touch the haram stuff--but who will take a paycheck based on it--is a slowdown in service, an attempt to "shame" the customers for boozing and baconing...and it's bullshit.

You get paid to check people out, that's what you do--otherwise, find another job where one doesn't have to work with--or PROFIT off of--haram products. Enough of this special snowflake crap that is not based on anything in "everyday Islam" but is pandering to fundy, non-mainstream nonsense.

[Violet_Crumble]

211. I'm familiar with the anti-choice pharmacists in the US...

The problem with them, and the difference between them and a cashier in a large supermarket, is there's times when there's only one pharmacist on duty. Also, having encountered one of the 'leading lights' of Pharmacists For Life on another forum away from DU, they flat out refuse to call over another pharmacist if someone asks for birth control because their whole motivation is to stop the person from getting their prescription filled. In the case with M&S, it's alleged that if a cashier doesn't want to handle certain products, another cashier will do it, because the intention of the first cashier isn't to stop everyone else consuming what they have a problem with handling.

It says deep into the article posted that M&S did clarify what their policy was, and that's to move any staff member who has a problem with handling certain items into an area where they don't have to handle them. They've had that policy for years. Would you have a problem with a policy like that? It's a policy that makes sense to me...

[MADem]

258. Delay or deny, the end result is that the customer is disaccommoded.

Customers who are thwarted, be they delayed or denied, don't stick around. They go to another shop to buy their goodies.

I do not think it is unreasonable that, if you hire a person to sell retail products, that they do that. And as I've said elsewhere, the "fundy" interpretation of coming in contact with the haram product is a bit of "too clever by half." Their paychecks are inextricably soaked in the profits engendered by booze and pork sales. If they have an issue with "personally" selling these items, it should extend to working there. It's rather like saying "Well, I only mop the floor in the execution chamber--I'm not really involved in the process."

Marks and Sparks needs to change their hiring processes so that people hired to be cashiers declare before they are employed that they are willing to do their retail duty with regard to all the items for sale in the store. They CAN play the "Didn't touch it" game by donning a glove. They can even be snide and handle the forbidden items with their left hand--that's sufficiently disdainful and it will go right over the head of the bulk of the purchasers. But they shouldn't be hired to interact with the customers and, in essence, critique what they've purchased by refusing to assist them, because that's just not what retail service is all about. If people want to be mocked and criticized, they can probably find someone in their personal life who can fill that role--they shouldn't be expected to put up with that crap as a customer.

[Violet_Crumble]

262. But that's not M&S's policy...

An anonymous shopper claimed on FB that it happened, someone from M&S responded with incorrect information, and M&S quickly clarified what their policy was, which is the same as most large employers in countries like the UK and my own. If that one incident did happen, then as M&S said, their own policy wasn't being followed...

Maybe it's because I live in a country where large employers tend to respect their employees, generally cooperate with unions when it comes to workers rights, and within reason will accommodate employees religious and cultural needs that I'd be appalled at any large employer who took an attitude of 'fuck you. You work for me so yr not working here if you have any special requirements that I could easily accommodate by compromising without inconveniencing customers'. As a customer, there's no way I'd demand that someone who has an issue handling one particular item MUST handle that item to satisfy me as a shopper because I don't give a shit who serves me as long as the end result is I buy what I want with no delays or inconvenience and I'm out of there...

[MADem]

295. "With no delays or inconveniences...."

But that is not what the article says.

The headline reads as follows:

M&S faces boycott as it lets Muslim staff refuse to sell alcohol or pork
*Marks & Spencer's policy applies to Muslim staff in more than 700 stores
*Shoppers are being asked to wait to pay for certain items at different till
*Highlights divide among mainstream food retailers over religious workers

[Scootaloo]

213. I'm saying that they don't do so, and your example acknowledges that reality

Again, if you can't tell the difference between refusing service, and not refusing service, you must be a very stupid person. But then, you're still trying to compare emergency birth control to malt liquor.

I'm a little puzzled that you seem unable to grasp the notion that it's about physical contact with the materials. It doesn't matter that the products are sold; that's not the problem the employees are trying to deal with.

Also your insistence on refusing to acknowledge that it's an arrangement approved by the business, thus negating your whole "do the job you were hired to do and STFU!" isn't helping you any. This allowance is within the parameters of the job they are hired to do, so that argument is baseless.

It's also a rather anti-labor argument you've got going there, what with the assumption that workers should have no right to ask their employer for something.

[MADem]

252. They can be ordered to, but the customer is still affected.

Now TWO jerks behind the counter know her business.

It's not an "anti-labor" argument to expect people in retail sales to engage in that practice, any more than it is anti-labor to expect a carpenter to hammer nails. So, sorry, "No sale."

As for the business, they can make those arrangements, and lose sales, just as JCPenny lost sales when they changed their business model.

The 'haram' aspect of those materials varies from Muslim to Muslim and plenty will handle and even consume these items--by the same token, there are Christians who forswear alcohol as a religious practice, and Jews who forswear pork for the same reason, who nonetheless can manage to be in proximity to these items in a work setting, so trying to place the "religious bigotry" label on this is nonsense. We aren't talking about making provisions for someone with an ADA issue--this is an "I think, therefore I need accommodation" issue.

[ZombieHorde]

179. I have been reading the Religion forum for a long while now,

and this is not limited to Islam. I have seen Christianity and Judaism treated the same as Islam, but Scientology is probably the most hated religion here on DU.

[MADem]

181. If you live in many countries, Scientology is not recognized as a religion.

Canada, Belgium, Brazil, France, Finland, etc. don't regard it as a religion.

Islam doesn't have the same problems with "recognition" as Scientology does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_status_by_country

[ZombieHorde]

182. Yes, Scientology faces a lot of bigotry around the world.

It is not just a DU thing.

[MADem]

183. Well, I think it's a cult, myself. I am not alone in that, either.

I think the tax exempt status of the cult should be revoked. Then again, I don't think any religions should be tax exempt, unless they are doing work that directly impacts social services, like feeding the hungry or housing the homeless.

[ZombieHorde]

184. Thank you for providing an example of Scientology bigotry on DU. nt

[MADem]

186. My view of the cult is based on their published dicta. I merely applied basic reasoning skills. nt

[ZombieHorde]

188. Some atheists, usually called "new atheists,"

use the published documents of the Abramhic religions for their critiques as well. We generally believe our biases are well founded, or we wouldn't hold those biases.

[MADem]

191. Whatever floats your boat. nt

[alarimer]

233. Any criticism is seen as "bigotry" to religions zealots

Religion poisons everything. It always has and it always will, until humans wise up collectively and realize religion is entirely made up and their are no gods/goddesses/flying spaghetti monsters.

[ZombieHorde]

256. Sure, but some is bigotry.

For example, when someone says a religion isn't good enough for the label "religion," then that is bigotry.

[get the red out]

226. No

Liberals are just finally admitting that Islamic extremists are as much of a societal problem as extremist Christians. People have been afraid of being called bigots for calling a spade a spade for way too long. Extremists getting to pick and choose who gets service in what way is just not good in any plural society. I cannot stand that extremist Christian Pharmacists in this country can refuse women their birth control prescriptions; it is disgusting to bend over backward to accommodate extremists.

[Logical]

170. LOL.....

Back at you, what if thier religion prevented then from serving same sex couples? Ok with you?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

206. In many cases (although not this one) yes, absolutely.

The reason this is controversial is because it sets a precedent for religious people refusing to supply birth control.

And that's a belief I think stands on a moral footing with racism (although obviously they're very different beliefs).

I do not think that anyone should ever be forced to perform an abortion. I do, however, think that people who are not willing to do so should not be paid to perform jobs part of which is performing then, so your hypothetical OB-GYN should probably be forced to choose between their religious conviction and their job.

[onpatrol98]

228. OB-GYN should choose a different job???

If I have a great OB-GYN that simply prefers not to do abortions, I'm still keeping the OB-GYN. The good ones are hard to find. You simply go to someone else for that procedure.

I don't want them to pick a different job.

[SidDithers]

223. I would absolutely equate the two...nt

Sid

[Codeine]

26. Because selling pork or booze has nothing to do with their silly-ass Bronze age nonsense.

Nobody is asking them to knock back a Corona over a plate of chicharrones. This about them imposing their beliefs on somebody else's behavior. I don't think we should tolerate that crap from Christian fundies refusing to sell contraception products and I feel the same about Muslims and liquor and swine. I don't but that stuff, but it's not my business if somebody else does. I'm a vegan who never consumes alcohol, but the store I run would go under if I refused to sell meat and beer.

[cbayer]

30. Well that's your opinion.

If they can be accommodated and the customer not inconvenienced, I think that's ok.

There is a massive problem with discrimination against Muslims in the UK which includes random acts of violence.

I don't think they are saying that they care either way if someone chooses to buy pork or alcohol, they are just asking that they be exempt from handling it.

Whether you (and others) find that belief silly or nonsensical is not the issue.

The issue is whether they can be accommodated in a way that does not inconvenience the customer.

Looks like they are working towards that solution.

[Codeine]

43. Having to leave the line I've patiently waited in

because I've accidentally picked a Muslim cashier's line with my Super-Forbidden-By-Some-Goofy-Old-Book items and now have to go wait in another line would inconvenience the shit out of me.

I do not believe we have any need or obligation to worry about accommodating religious beliefs in a 21st century workplace. People can deal with the particulars of their chosen superstitions on their own time.

[cbayer]

50. In the only example they actually give, the customer was

told they would get someone who could ring them up. Big deal.

Like I said, this has happened to me at Target when someone under 21 was at the register.

Like others in this thread, I am sure that some of your descriptors would be warmly welcomed by the Daily Mail and others in the UK that are pursuing some really ugly bigotry against Muslims.

[Codeine]

59. My descriptors would be no less disparaging

regarding a Jesus freak refusing me or a family member contraception or similar.

Attempting to declare my general distaste for the religious convictions of others impinging on my day-to-day activities as being evidence of "bigotry" - anti-Muslim or otherwise - is weak sauce, cbayer. Unappreciated in a civil discussion.

I have deeply-held beliefs regarding the morality and decency of meat consumption, but I would never cause or allow that set of beliefs to impinge on the activities of another person, especially in the realm of commerce. I work in a grocery retail environment and I understand that part of my daily job is selling meat to meat eaters. Part of the job of a Muslim clerk at a grocery would be selling pork to pork eaters and beer to beer drinkers. BFD.

[cbayer]

66. The assumption being made is that this is causing an inconvenience.

I haven't seen any evidence to support that.

I apologize if I came across as accusing you of anti-Muslim bigotry, but I object to the kind of ugly language being used by you and others in this thread to describe people with religious beliefs. I would suggest that a civil debate would also include the recognition that there are religious believers who post here and to needlessly offend them with this kind of language might be considered uncivil.

And I particularly object when the story is about an area where anti-Muslim bigotry is a serious problem and which some of the local rags are feeding in order to sell papers to their target populations.

[CJCRANE]

46. But why is this suddenly a problem

when it hasn't been before and these products are sold in many muslim majority countries?

[cbayer]

51. These products are sold in many muslim majority countries?

Like which ones?

[CJCRANE]

55. Read the comments at the link. Lots of people chipping in about this.

It's probably easier if you tell me which ones ban alcohol and pork.

Obviously Saudi Arabia but as AFAIK I think you can get them in all the other countries.

[cbayer]

69. Some of the comments are frankly disgusting, but

they reflect an attitude held by some in the UK that is outright bigotry against Muslims.

But, then again, they aren't so different than some of the comments in this thread, so go figure.

[CJCRANE]

72. It's kind of a vicious circle...religious fundamentalism elicits a reaction which then increases the

fundamentalism...which produces a reaction etc.

Which is just how the 1%ers want it to be.

Don't forget that mass religious fundamentalism is a relatively new phenomenon.

That's why I object to ths policy. I don't like to see secular values eroded.

[cbayer]

76. I think it's important to make a distinction that defines extremism

and note what kinds of fundamentalist beliefs represent a threat to others.

I don't like to see secular values eroded either and am a strong secularist. This is an area where the UK has very serious problems because of their lack of anything like our 1st amendment protections.

OTOH, "secularism" is being used to actively discriminate against people with certain religious beliefs. For example, the proposed laws about religious dress in Quebec.

These are clearly aimed at non-Christians and an attempt to keep Quebec homogenous. The same things are happening in the UK and France and other places.

The distinction I would make in this case is that it is about accommodating and not about discriminating, as the Daily Mail's headline states.

[MADem]

189. Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey....

I used to buy canadian bacon and wine in Iran, but no more.

[brentspeak]

104. "There is a massive problem with discrimination against Muslims in the UK"

"which includes random acts of violence."

Random acts of violence? Like the random act of violence earlier this year in London when two Muslim converts beheaded a British soldier in broad daylight?

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/19/lee-rigby-killing-woolwich-verdict-convicted-murder

You mean that kind of random act of violence?

The hilariously over-the-top and discriminatory serving policy that Marks & Spencer just stupidly foisted on their own business will do much to further English empathy and understanding towards UK Muslims...(sacarsm)

[cbayer]

106. Are you not aware of the violence that has been perpetrated against

non-extremist Muslims in the UK?

I doubt that this will further English "empathy and understanding" towards UK Muslims, but maybe the store chooses not to cater to bigots.

There is an extremist element of Islamophobics in the UK that is just as bad as the extremist elements in any society, including those that beheaded the soldier.

I don't think this is discrimination, I think it's accommodation.

And I doubt that the Marks & Spencer management is stupid.

[brentspeak]

108. "I doubt that the Marks & Spencer management is stupid"

I don't doubt their management is stupid; I know they are stupid.

This bizarre PC policy will quickly be reversed after the chains' liquor sales plummet significantly.

[cbayer]

109. We shall see, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Violet_Crumble]

214. I know it's not M&S that are stupid...

Did you read the entire article? Or try finding something on it from a source that's not a bigoted RW rag like The Daily Mail? Because even the Daily Mail article pointed out a few things you either missed or are ignoring...

From the article:

'Last night, Marks & Spencer said the advice had been given in error and was not consistent with its national policy.'

and

'An M&S spokesman said: 'Customer service is our priority. Where we have an employee whose religious beliefs restrict food or drink they can handle, we work closely with our member of staff to place them in a suitable role, such as in our clothing department or bakery.

'We regret that in the case highlighted today we were not following our own policy.

'As a secular business we have an inclusive policy that welcomes all religious beliefs.

'This policy has been in place for many years, and when followed correctly, we do not believe that it should compromise our ability to offer the highest level of customer service. We apologise that this policy was not followed in the case reported.'

So, what 'bizarre PC policy' are you getting all upset about? Is it one that actually exists?

[muriel_volestrangler]

259. The Daily Mail's headline and subheadline are highly misleading

so it's not surprising people think there is a 'bizarre PC policy'. The headline says "M&S faces boycott as it lets Muslim staff refuse to sell alcohol or pork"; "Marks & Spencer's policy applies to Muslim staff in more than 700 stores" - these both implies this applies at all M&S stores; then it says "Shoppers are being asked to wait to pay for certain items at different till". That happened at just one store, and M&S say, buried in the article, that was a mistake. But the headline and sub-headlines together imply this happens in all the stores.

And, of course, the Mail is only too happy to give that misleading impression. Such controversy is what it thrives on.

[CJCRANE]

136. What about the non-fundamentalist muslims who want to buy a beer?

How do you think they will feel when someone refuses to serve them?

In general I agree with trying to cater to someone's religious sensibilities but this opens the door to other religious people refusing to serve various products such as kosher/halal food or non-vegan food etc.

This policy just (inadvertantly) causes more separation.

There are no easy answers because these beliefs are strongly held but even just 10 years ago muslims never asked for this kind of special treatment. It's a side-effect of neocon policies.

[cbayer]

139. No one is preventing them from buying a beer.

They just will get another cashier. So what? That will happen because the cashier has a prohibition about selling intoxicants, not because the customer is anything in particular.

Why would someone refuse to server kosher/halal food? And if an employer can accommodate a vegan who doesn't want to touch meat, why shouldn't they.

They never asked? Wow.

[Bluenorthwest]

240. It's a thin pose. If one's wages are a portion of profits from selling intoxicants

then in one violates that prohibition by working for that company. To pretend such prohibitions are not about refusing to take part in a corrupt system and are instead about personalized drama about not touching an item one gladly profits from is to me highly dishonest. If I did not 'believe' in alcohol, I'd not be part of Team Alcohol at all. To say 'I won't touch it, but I will take the resulting financial security coming from others touching it' is to me hypocrisy and so shallow that calling it 'faith' is a mockery of faith. 'I oppose selling smack, so I just sell needles at the smack store, I am of faith'. 'I am against serving alcohol, so I merely rent my propery to bars, I would never touch a bottle of wine!'
Of course my opinion is informed by being a minority that is legally discriminated against in 29 US States because of religious intolerance, as well as in every single Muslim country, some of whom execute my people, all the while humming about their 'faith' and their own holiness. Phil the Duck Guy, Pope Frank, the raving imams and heads of religious states all claim their various religions as reason for their own actions. They all claim to be ultra holy. They all attack others in the name of their faith.

[edhopper]

27. No

it says the customers are being asked to go to a different till. That is go wait in another line to buy these items.
So after waiting on line, you go wait on another line. Or do you look at all the cashiers and play "Whose the Mulsim?"
Or do they put up "Muslim Cashier" signs?
It's a ridiculous arrangement.

[cbayer]

31. That's not what it says in the text of the article, so I think

the information at the top has been altered to be more inflammatory.

[geek tragedy]

33. It does say that.

Instead, shoppers are being asked to wait to pay for certain items at a different till.

I guess they want their customers to profile the checkout clerks ("uh oh, she has a head scarf, better get into a different line&quot

Sorry, if you can't do the job, you should be fired.

[cbayer]

41. I would guess that the store is quite sensitive to this issue

and is doing what they can to accommodate both their employees and their customers.

Should a jew that observes Shabat be forced to work on a Saturday if accommodations can be made?

There was an uproar on this site about people being forced to work on Thanksgiving.

Should an OB-GYN who hold strong personal views about abortion be forced to perform them if alternatives are available?

It's about reasonable accommodation. The piece is intentionally inflammatory, but I can't find anything indicating that customers are actually being put out or even complaining.

[geek tragedy]

44. An OB-GYN who refuses to dispense birth control should not be licensed.

There is nothing in Islam that forbids people from touching a bottle of champagne or touching a bag that has pork inside.

This actively inconveniences customers. Same deal happened at the airport in Minneapolis, where Somali fundyloon taxi drivers refused to pick up passengers carrying alcohol.

This is ignorant fundyclowns being coddled.

[cbayer]

47. I didn't ask about birth control. I asked about abortions.

Apparently there are rules in Islam about selling intoxicants and touching pork products.

The UK is having massive problems with prejudice and even violence against Muslims. You calling them ignorant fundyclowns would probably be warmly received there. Maybe the Daily Mail will pick up on that particular descriptor. They love pouring gasoline on this.

[geek tragedy]

65. No, this is not Islam, it's childish fundamentalism.

Allah is not going to bar them from heaven because they scanned a barcode on a bottle of booze.

Just like Duck Dynasty is not about Christianity, it's about crazytown fundamentalism.

[cbayer]

67. From what I understand there is a prohibition against selling intoxicants.

Again, my only point is that if this can be accommodated, that's a good thing.

Crazy fundamentalism is vandalizing a store that sells the products or physically attacking those that do. It's not about allowing your employees to follow their beliefs in a way that does not inconvenience or harm your business.

Frankly, this thread is kind of scary and I think I will step out.

[MADem]

302. One of the best places in the middle east for good 'abejo' used to be Iran.

(Abejo=beer.)

They had very nice wines, too.

Made by Muslims in many cases. Sold by Muslims at the "beverage store."

Purchased by Muslims.

I used to give my Persian (and Muslim) neighbors "Johnny Walker" as New Year's gifts. They loved the stuff.

Everything in moderation.

[edhopper]

36. Quote from the article.

"The chain has granted checkout workers in more than 700 stores permission to politely decline to serve customers for religious reasons.

Instead, shoppers are being asked to wait to pay for certain items at a different till."

So that is exactly what it says. What you describe was only at one M&S. What is described above is the policy.

A different till is a different line. It does not say how they will inform the shoppers of which line is which. It says the cashier will tell the customer they won't ring up certain items. And how long do you think they, and all the other people in that line should wait until it is deemed inconvenient?2 mins, 5 mins. 10 mins?

[cbayer]

45. However, the one example they give is of a customer being told that they

would get a check out person who could ring her up.

I feel certain that M & S is doing this in a way that will cause little to no inconvenience to their customers. The article is lacking in much evidence that actual customers are complaining.

Until someone has more actual information on how they are handling this, I think speculation based on an article in the Daily Mail about something happening in a country where prejudice against the Muslim population has reached alarming levels might be best taken with a grain of salt.

[edhopper]

49. First you say there is nothing wrong with what M&S are doing

based on this article.
Then you say the article is BS.
Get your story straight.
You always you are fine with any belief as long as it doesn't impact others.
Well this bullshit will inconvenience a lot of people. And further fuel prejudice against Muslims.
Or do you think somebody who has to wait because the cashier won't touch their ungodly purchase will make people feel better about Muslims?
It is not a good thing.

[cbayer]

54. Agreeing with the policy of the store and seeing the article

and how it is presenting the information as typical inflammatory Daily Mail crap are two entirely different things.

Yes, I am always fine with any belief that doesn't impact others. I am also fine with accommodating religions beliefs when it is possible to do so.

I see no evidence that customers feel they are being inconvenienced. Should some become available, I would be interested in seeing it and how the store will deal with it.

They are not stupid and they are apparently not doing this under duress.

It is possibly a great example of how different cultures can be integrated in a way that respects all.

The Daily Mail would hate that.

[Dash87]

80. CBayer - would you be okay with this situation happening?

In the US, a woman goes into a pharmacy to buy birth control. The pharmacist refuses to sell her the birth control because it's against his religion, and asks her to either go to another pharmacy or come back later when the other pharmacist is working.

How is the above any different from this story? Would you be okay with this happening, and why?

[cbayer]

84. I have posted about this before and I recognize that I am not in the majority

on this, but I would be ok as long as the woman had other alternatives.

If there is no other convenient pharmacy or if her insurance only covers this one place, then I think the pharmacist has an obligation to serve her. I don't think she should have to return later, but if there is always someone available to serve her, then I do think the individual pharmacist has the right to excuse himself from doing it him/herself.

However, if there is not a readily available alternative, I don't think he has that right ethically or professionally.

I feel the same way about practitioners who choose not to provide abortions.

There are pharmacies that won't sell controlled substances for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with religion. Do people with legitimate pain and legitimate prescriptions have the right to access their medications anywhere and anytime? Of does the pharmacist have the right to decide that s/he won't dispense them?

[Dash87]

91. Fair enough, but I think your last point is a little different.

If a doctor prescribes you something (birth control or pain medication), then isn't it the pharmacist's job to give it to you, granted that there's a valid medical reason for doing so and it won't hurt or kill the recipient? Religion or personal reasons aren't really legitimate reasons to deny somebody medication, as it's their job to dispense medication to those that need it. If they aren't willing to do their job, then they shouldn't be doing it.

[cbayer]

94. What if your store is in a high crime district where pharmacies that have

controlled substances are being robbed?

What if you know that there is a prescription mill down the street that is selling Rx's for controlled substances and you don't believe that is right?

What if you believe that certain things will harm people, even though the recipient doesn't think so?

I think these might all be legitimate reasons, but I reiterate that it would only be ethical to do so if the customer had reasonable alternatives.

There are stores that won't sell tobacco even though it is a legal substance. Is not doing so an unwillingness to do their job or a personal decision?

[Warren DeMontague]

133. It is not your job to enforce drug laws. If there's a prescription mill, call the DEA.

Seems to me they're awfully eager to justify their gravy train, now that Americans are calling bullshit on 60 Billion a year to fill our prisons with pot smokers.

[cbayer]

137. Not sure what you mean by this.

There are prescription mills and the DEA does what they can, but it's more a state licensing problem.

But that's not really relevant. I am in no way justifying putting pot smokers in jail and I don't know how we got there.

[Warren DeMontague]

138. Okay, exactly. State licensing.

And pharmacists are licensed by the state to fill legal prescriptions. Its not the state-licensed pharmacist's job to take the moral inventory, say, of a woman who has a birth control prescription and decide not to fill it because she doesn't have a wedding ring, for instance.

Although this has, actually, happened.

If a pharmacist is licensed by the state to fill prescriptions, that's their job and they need to do that state-licensed job, putting aside their own religious prejudices and whatnot.

[cbayer]

141. Do you think an OB-GYN who has a personal position about abortion should be forced

to perform abortions?

As I have said elsewhere in this thread, if there is not an alternative, then I think the pharmacist or other practitioner has an ethical obligation to either provide the service or provide an alternative.

[Warren DeMontague]

144. It depends on whether performing abortions is central to their state-licensed function.

Filling prescriptions is what pharmacists do, and they are licensed by the state to do so.

If they can't do that when presented with a valid prescription, due to their own arbitrary criteria, they should find another line of work.

[cbayer]

147. There is leeway in licensing that permits people to not do certain things

due to their personal objections.

Accommodation is key, as is assuring that patients can get what they need in light of some practitioner's choice not to provide that particular service.

Your idea of what is arbitrary is only yours.

If someone has a conscientious objection to war, should they not be permitted to exercise this at a time when the draft is instituted?

I believe that the 1st amendment provides both for protection against a state sponsored religion and protection for individuals to practice their chosen religion.

And I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Warren DeMontague]

150. The draft is not voluntary. Becoming a pharmacist is.

The 1st Amendment protects a lot of things, but if people can't do their state-licensed job because of their religion, they need to find another job.

[cbayer]

153. Well, we will just have to agree to disagree on this.

If their individual beliefs can be reasonably accommodated, then they should be, imo. If not, then I will agree with you.

[Humanist_Activist]

254. I still don't understand this, you think people have the right to NOT do their job because of...

their religion, but only if a "reasonable accommodation" can be made, despite any inconveniences or necessities of the patient/customer?

What the fuck?

[cbayer]

263. I think that if a conscientious objection is valid and can be

accommodated without significant inconvenience to the patient/customer, it should be.

I don't care if their objection is religious or not.

I have said many times that if the customer is significantly inconvenienced or a patient unable to obtain the services they are entitled to, then the objection becomes secondary and should not be accommodated.

What the fuck, indeed.

[Humanist_Activist]

268. Conscientious objection only makes sense if you are asked to do something unlawful...

dangerous to yourself and others, or because the situation you are put in was one you had no choice in, such as the draft.

[cbayer]

269. No, conscientious objection is much more than that.

A true CO will object even if he is offered a position that does not involve danger to themselves or others. Their objection is to the act of war.

[Humanist_Activist]

251. I'm sorry, this is just a bullshit argument, I work with pharmacists every day, and frankly...

my personal convictions would be to aid everyone in getting their valid prescriptions regardless of circumstance or status of coverage of that prescription, yet if I did do that, I would not be reporting into work the next day. Why the fuck should pharmacists get a free out when the rest of us don't?

[cbayer]

264. Do you think that an OB-Gyn who personally objects to abortions

should be forced to perform them?

Do you think someone with a conscientious objection to war should be forced to fight?

There are many circumstance in which ones moral/ethical/religious standards cause them to object to certain aspects of what they are being asked to do. If that can be accommodated without harm or inconvenience to others, I think it's good if an employer will do that.

Your dismissing my POV as bullshit, doesn't make it bullshit.

[Humanist_Activist]

267. If they are hired in an office that performs them, and was aware that they may have...

to perform them as a condition of employment, yes.

Do you think the on-call surgeon at a hospital(not OB-GYN) has the right to refuse to perform an abortion on a tubal pregnancy to save the life of a woman in an emergency situation?

[cbayer]

270. Almost everyone, including licensing boards and professional

medical associations, disagree with you on this. OB-GYN's who choose not to perform abortions are generally exempted from this procedure both in training and in practice.

It's never going to be a condition for employment unless the facility only performs abortions and does nothing else.

There is a stark difference between a therapeutic and an elective abortion. I have never met a physician who would refuse to do a therapeutic abortion when the life of the mother is at risk.

There are facilities where this has been a problem, and there may have been a rare and isolated case involving a physician (I honestly don't know). But, yes, I would think that would be unethical at the very least, and more likely gross malpractice.

Selling alcohol and pork is not in any way comparable to saving a woman's life who has a ruptured tubal pregnancy.

[Humanist_Activist]

272. I didn't mention the OP's subject, I will say its stupid, and apparently an exaggeration by the...

Daily Fail, so I don't really give a shit about that.

I have a different question, does an OB-GYN have the right to refuse to prescribe birth control pills? Since you are so keen on them being allowed to refuse to do something they are only rarely(if ever) asked to do, as you just pointed out, why not something they are routinely asked to do?

ON EDIT: I just realized this, you are basically saying that a pro-life OB-GYN can apparently lie their way into getting hired at a Planned Parenthood where abortions are performed, and has every right to NOT do the job they were hired for, and not suffer repurcussions from not doing their job?

[cbayer]

274. What an Ob-Gyn does or does not do is generally up to them as individuals.

Lots of physicians limit their practices in some way, be it for religious, personal, ethical or practical reasons.

However, if they are employed, they would most likely have to agree to do certain things.

FWIW, the scenario you describe would not happen. Any physicians hired by Planned Parenthood would have to contractually agree to provide the services that the clinic provides. If they then refused, they would be immediately, and legally, terminated (no pun intended).

[Humanist_Activist]

276. So now you agree with me?

Any pharmacist hired by a pharmacy would have to contractually agree to provide the services that the pharmacy provides. If they then refused, they would be immediately and legally, terminated(no pun intended).

[cbayer]

281. I don't think I have disagreed with you.

It would be up to the employer as to whether to provide the pharmacist with an accommodation or not.

I'm not sure, but I don't think that's been the issue. I think it's when the pharmacist owns the pharmacy, refuses to provide certain things and there are no other alternatives for patients, that it has been an issue.

Perhaps I was not clear, but I don't think any employee should be permitted to just refuse to do things they essentially agreed to do when they were hired.

I do, however, make the argument for reasonable accommodation by the employer when it is feasible to do so.

In the case outlined in the OP, the employer chose to do just that.

[Humanist_Activist]

283. Actually, there have been issues at chains such as CVS with pharmacists refusing...

to dispense birth control, and it leading to disciplinary action on the employee by the employer, that's part of the reason why "conscience clauses" are being passed in various state, to basically give pharmacists free leave to not do their jobs because to do otherwise would be religious persecution. I'm assuming you don't support such legislative efforts?

Would you also agree that an employer can ask a prospective pharmacist if they are comfortable filling birth control or Plan B, and the way they answer can influence the employer's hiring decision?

[cbayer]

286. I'm not sure it should be codified, but I don't know enough

about it to take a position at this point.

It's the voluntary and mutually agreed upon solutions that I am in favor of.

I would indeed agree that an employer could (and should) ask a potential employee if they have any restrictions, religious or otherwise, that might interfere with their ability to perform the usual duties of the job. I would hope that it is legal to do so.

It's not a disability, so I can't see how there would be any cause to claim discrimination.

But, again, I'm not really knowledgable about this.

[Humanist_Activist]

287. Solutions to a problem that is wholly created by the intractable anti-choice...

anti-women movement. Give them an inch, and they will take the proverbial mile.

Look at these two issues, this is not a small problem:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=pharmacies-mislead-teens-morning-after-pill&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20111222

http://www.cfah.org/hbns/2013/pharmacy-staff-frequently-misinform-teens-seeking-emergency-contraception

No compromises, there is NO issue here beyond what the anti-choicers create themselves, and they are willing to even lie about it.

[MADem]

163. Birth control--of the PLAN B variety--is an OTC medication.

It's expensive, so one may have to get it from behind the counter--a function to avoid potential theft more than anything else, I should imagine. "Give me one of those" is all the customer has to say. If the pharmacist can't manage to do that, on "Don't kill the baby" grounds, they need to go do something that doesn't involve serving the public in a pharmaceutical fashion, IMO.

[Warren DeMontague]

132. Pharmacies are licensed by the state to dispense medication.

Therefore, that's what they need to do.

Running down a list of arbitrary criteria with which some Jesus-drunk pharmacist can decide "I don't feel like filling your birth control prescription"... sorry, no. What if the woman took the bus? What if she doesn't have time to go to the "readily available alternative"?

If a pharmacist can't do their state-licensed job of dispensing appropriately prescribed medication, they should get out of the state-licensed pharmacy business.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

89. I am flabbergasted...

so, according to what you wrote, it's not a big deal to sit at the back of the bus, because you still get to ride the bus.....right?

[cbayer]

93. No, that's not what I said at all.

I don't see this as discrimination, as the inflammatory title states, but as accommodation.

The store, I feel sure, is not so stupid as to implement a policy that customers would see as discriminatory or force them "to the back of the bus".

In the only example they give, the customer was told they would accommodate with another cashier.

So what? Should those under 21 not be permitted to work in places that sell alcohol? Or should the store just put in place a policy that accommodates them?

I am flabbergasted by some of the responses here.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

98. This is what you wrote;

"As long as the store has a plan to provide service at little or no inconvenience to the customer, why would it matter"?

Humiliating customers and treating them like second class citizens does matter. Nobody was prevented from riding a bus, but people were only "inconvenienced" according to you.

Bloody disgusting.

[cbayer]

101. How does it humiliate the customer?

Have you read anything that would indicate that a customer has felt humiliated?

Would you feel humiliated if the Target cashier said they had to get someone else to ring up your alcohol purchase.

Again, I think the store owners are likely to do whatever they need to to accommodate both their employees and their customers.

I doubt that humiliating either would be a part of that plan.

You are again putting words in my mouth. People riding in the back of the bus were not being inconvenienced, they were being actively discriminated against. There is no comparison.

Should an observant jew be forced to work on Saturday if they can be accommodated? Should an OB-GYN be forced to perform abortions if there is someone available to provide patients with safe and legal services?

[Bluenorthwest]

241. So what if the anti choice OB-GYN refuses, and the only alternative is an observant

Jew and it's a Saturday? Which religion wins that day? Do you 'force' a doctor to use the skills he volunteered to get over many years of training or do you 'force' another to betray his most holy Sabbath?
Perhaps if we discuss it long enough, the patient will die and we can rest easily knowing God was served....

[cbayer]

242. A few thoughts on this question.

First, OB-Gyn's who do not perform abortions are not necessarily anti-choice. They very often believe in a woman's right to choose and that the decision should be made between a woman and her doctor. Her issue is personal and she is exercising her own right to choose by not performing abortions.

Second, if a woman is at risk, both the Jewish doctor and the Ob-Gyn would do whatever they had to despite their personal religious beliefs. Performing a medically necessary abortion is generally not an issue for any Ob-Gyn and there are accommodations and exceptions for observant jews when it comes to essential services.

Glad to see you back, BNW. Hope you are doing ok.

[rucky]

201. I agree.

it's no big deal. If there's a way to accommodate both the customer and clerk, then it's a non-issue.

[politichew]

21. Christian and Muslim fundamentalists are always making things difficult for the average person. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

29. Fundamentalists = superstitious dullards with no place in modern society.

I sure wish these assclowns would just go live "off the grid" somewhere where they aren't screwing things up for everyone else. Not an option in the UK, I realize, but still...

[Marrah_G]

25. There was a hindu man at my old grocery store who had an easy solution

Last edited Sun Dec 22, 2013, 12:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Since he did not want to touch the meat, he just put a plastic bag over his hand to pick it up.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

90. If I had to work at a store that sold meat

that is what I would do.

[etherealtruth]

134. My ex-husband is a Muslim

When young and going to school he worked in an upscale restaurant in Ann Arbor MI ...alcohol, pork and various shell fish were everywhere ... he served it, didn't consume it

[muriel_volestrangler]

260. No till operator would be touching the meat itself anyway

That would be a health and safety violation. They don't have sinks to wash their hand in after. It will already be wrapped or packaged (in an M&S store, almost certainly pre-packaged - I've never seen one with a fresh meat counter).

[dipsydoodle]

277. Never seen alcohol sold by Marks and Sparks not in a bottle or can either.

Last edited Tue Dec 24, 2013, 04:24 AM - Edit history (1)

.

[muriel_volestrangler]

282. I bought some today

Plenty of wine (in 'dinner for two' offers too), a bit of spirits. Not sure if they do beer.

[dipsydoodle]

291. I missed out "not" in that post.......doh.

Now edited.

I'm not sure if they sell beer but they may have cans of whatever which contain alcohol - Bucks Fizz / Mimosa ?

There are visibly Muslim girls in the local Sainsbury's and there are no issues. I think this was actually an isolated event brought to light only by the customer harping on about it.

Merry Christmas.

[muriel_volestrangler]

292. Ah yes - I thought it was a strange thing to say!

I'd guess they do sell beer, but they normally don't sell anything branded by someone else, so it'll just be a bit of 'specially brewed for M&S', and won't be a big range.

Merry Christmas!

[jessie04]

34. Who are we to judge?

It's arrogant not to respect other cultures or religions.

We shouldn't offend them.

[Codeine]

37. Why not? They offend me every fucking day with their goofy-ass Skydaddy tripe.

Fuck 'em.

[edhopper]

42. Sure

if a culture wants to let young girls die in a fire, because their religion tells them men can't touch them, who are we to judge?
Or that homosexuals should be burned to death, why not?
Or that baby girls can be put into lifetime slavery at a temple? Hey that's just their beliefs.

[RedCappedBandit]

78. Bullshit

It's not arrogant to disrespect other cultures or religions when said cultures or religions aren't worthy of respect.

If your religion says offensive shit, I'm not going to respect it.

What if they decided they can't serve gay people? Is that fine and dandy because it's their religious belief? No, it isn't.

If they don't want to sell booze, they shouldn't work at a store that sells booze.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

81. It's arrogant to expect as a customer to get rung up by a person hired to ring me up?

[Comrade Grumpy]

82. Slick move, and you got three DUers to jump.

[delta17]

102. I'm new here, but I can tell what they are up to.

It is pretty obvious.

[Logical]

171. Wow, you are clever! And arrogant it sounds! nt

[Scootaloo]

177. No, JihadWatch Jessie is just that transparent. n/t

[delta17]

207. Thanks for the warm welcome. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

220. Ignore them. They were incredibly nasty to you...

I'll give you a genuine welcome to DU, and agree with you on what you've noticed about that one. Someone would have to have their head and shoulders buried in sand not to have an inkling about what they're up to

[delta17]

234. Thanks!

Have a great Holiday season!

[Boudica the Lyoness]

92. lol

You are joking right?

[tritsofme]

114. Isn't this clearly a two-way street?

Seems arrogant and disrespectful that another culture must change to suit yours.

[Niceguy1]

157. I bet you don't say that for the fundies to

working in pharmacies that refuse to dispense the morning after pill.

[99Forever]

38. Another strong argument for Oppressive Religion.

Do I really need the sarcasm thingie?


Hey, magic ISN'T real.

[CJCRANE]

39. This holier-than-thou behavior is getting a little over the top.

I wouldn't want to be made to feel like a sinner every time I go shopping.

[MADem]

53. It's UK, not us, but I think it's horseshit.

The rules for working in the job oughta be that you check people out if they buy something in the store--argument DONE.

If they don't want to touch the pork, they can wear nice sweaty latex gloves so their delicate paws don't touch the bacon.

I think Marks-n-Sparks needs to change their job requirements, and not hire people who CAN'T DO THE JOB!

[Zorra]

56. "Will your religion cause you to discriminate against our customers in any way?"

If I was running a company, this would be a question on the company job application.

Anyone who answered yes would not be considered for employment.

I would also add a caveat at the end of the application:

"You are hereby advised that if you are employed by this company and attempt to discriminate against any customer, your employment with this company will be terminated immediately."

Sign here X________________

[freshwest]

172. Yes, I think the customers have cause to say they are being discriminated against, especially if the

aisles for checking out are not prominently marked like:

'We cannot check pork or alcohol products in this line. Please take those items to the checkout line marked for them. Thanks for your cooperation.'

Sort of like the express lanes of 15 items or less. If not notified, it's intended to shame the person buying pork or alcohol.

That's discrimination, separate but equal, but flying under the flag of religious rights. This has gotten out of hand in the USA.

And out of hand across the world as governments are being defunded and the authority over people's lives are falling under the control of fundies and corporations who could care less about civil rights.

JHMO.

[Zorra]

246. I agree. It's getting way out of hand.

If an employee doesn't want to sell the products that their employer sells to her/his customers, customers who want and/or need them, then they should just go find another job, or better yet, not even consider applying at an establishment where they expect everyone else to change just to suit their religious beliefs. Why don't they just apply for jobs where they won't needlessly inconvenience others with their own special religious needs? I don't get it.

Job Search 101:

*If you don't want to sell birth control medication or birth control devices because it is against your beliefs, then don't apply for a job in a pharmacy

*If you are a vegan, and don't want to handle meat, then don't apply for a job flipping burgers at the Burger Emporium*

*If you don't want to sell pork because it is against your beliefs, then don't apply for a job in a butcher shop*

*If you don't want to sell beer because it is against your beliefs, then for cryin' out friggin' loud, don't apply for a job as a bartender.*

Example:

Customer: "Hey bartender, can I please get a beer?"

Pseudo-bartender: "No, sorry, I can't sell you beer, it's against my religion."

Customer: "WTF? lol. Are you kidding me? OK. I'll go down the street with my business."

Ya know? Isn't that not reasonable, like, just plain old fashioned simple common sense?

[jessie04]

261. I don't think you understand multi- culturalism.

nt

[Zorra]

297. Let's see...I'm female -check- dark skinned multiethnic -check- LGBT - check

have lived in a Third World country - check -...huh, seems to me that I live multi-culturalism.

Maybe the problem here is that you don't understand the concept of separation of church and state?

[RainDog]

299. I don't think someone could ask that of a potential employee

however, jobs have duties and people who post jobs post those duties and those who apply for jobs are applying with the understanding that they can perform those duties - some of them are simple like "Can you lift boxes of up to 40lbs?" (This is a standard on job descriptions for libraries, museums, etc.)

Someone who applied for the job and said he or she could do this, then refused to do it would be lying in his/her job interview and that's grounds for termination.

It seems to me that the duties of a job can and should be listed, including the ability to handle certain products. If someone cannot, then that person is not the person for the job.

I find it troublesome that someone claims religious exemption in a job for which the performance of it requires certain things - as in the pharmacist/birth control issue.

I don't want to stop someone from practicing any particular religion, but, as a business owner, I wouldn't hire someone whose religion made it impossible to do the job for which they were hired.

[left is right]

57. I would leave all my groceries on the conveyor belt and /or in the cart and walk out.

I would not pay for any groceries rung up to that point and i would not care about spoilage of their meat or dairy products. I bet it would only take 20 or so customers to change this ridiculous and offensive policy. And if I managed the business, I would remove any fundie asking for such special privilege, no matter what his religion, from the check out line. I am not saying fire them, mind you, surly there is a stocking job in produce or canned goods. But i am not concerned about any reduction in pay for them

[RedCappedBandit]

79. As would I.

They're essentially choosing not to serve others based on their religious beliefs. That's pretty damn offensive, IMO.

[appal_jack]

96. Yup, this.

I would leave all my groceries on the conveyor belt and /or in the cart and walk out.

I would not pay for any groceries rung up to that point and i would not care about spoilage of their meat or dairy products. I bet it would only take 20 or so customers to change this ridiculous and offensive policy.

I'd be right beside you, left is right.

Real multiculturalism and respect means live and let live. I have a job where I routinely serve people whose political and religious beliefs are exactly opposite mine. You know what I do in that context? Serve them politely and cheerfully as I do everyone else...

-app

[LiberalElite]

60. So now are they

going to set up lines specifically stating "no pork or alcohol"? I bet this is going to be problematic judging from all the folks who bring loads of items to the "12 items or less" lines here.

[edhopper]

61. sounds more like you won't know

until you check out.

[LiberalElite]

62. Then what I'd do is -

look for the headscarf or knitted skull cap (don't know proper names) and get on another line.

[Codeine]

68. The policy invites - nearly requires, actually - profiling based on appearance.

I'm not sure how this helps anyone.

[LiberalElite]

71. I do think M&S has gotten onto a slippery slope -

If someone doesn't like or approve of what's sold, then don't work there!

[smirkymonkey]

278. The problem is, what if they have 10 tills open one day and 8 Muslims working that shift.

Therefore, all those people who want to purchase pork and /or alcohol need to queue up in the remaining 2 tills, causing quite a backup. This could get to be a problem.

The impression I get from reading a number of British newspapers regularly - even very liberal ones - is that many Brits find their culture being increasingly eroded by the demand of Muslims that the British must cater more and more to Muslim religious beliefs and practices and their is a huge amount of anger over it.

[JustAnotherGen]

63. As Long as it doesn't

Get exported to the US - I'm okay. Liquor is one thing - but if pushed I would say if we need to reduce that age to 18 across the board. I don't want the religious beliefs of anyone to hurt commerce in the US - that includes a situation like this, the abortion pill, etc etc.

Perhaps because we have a high percentage of those who practice Judaism in my area - but this is like a Jewish cashier at Wegmans not wanting to ring up Non-Kosher items. Or a Mormon or Born Again Christian refusing to ring up cigarettes. Or a Jehovah's witness refusing to ring up a Birthday card.

I'm not so arrogant as to tell the people of GB what should or should not be allowed - expand that to Israel and Muslim Majority countries - but I can read this and feel the same way towards a store as I do Hobby Lobby and Chik-Fil-A about a store in the USA catering to this.

Note - I'm a Unitarian. Tolerance towards the beliefs and practices of all - even if in my day to day belief I find some things utterly offensive - I zip lips and carry on. . . To include the insult of In God We Trust on a human invention called money, and One Nation Under God in my pledge, and the antiquated practice of swearing on a bible when our highest "word" in the land is a working and changeable document called The Constituion.

[dionysus]

148. I buy Hebrew National hot dogs for just that reason.

actually not, they're just awesome fucking hot dogs...
OTT, Wegmans is awesome.

[JustAnotherGen]

222. Hey now!

If you have wegmans - then you need a Zweigel White Hot! Down with Hebrew up with the Zweigel!

[dionysus]

238. i live in the home of Zweigles... love me some red and white pop-opens... BUT

I consider Hebrew and Nathan's a whole separate category of dog...

now I'm going to have to buy all 3 and do an impromptu taste test comparison!

[JustAnotherGen]

288. My first boss out of Unversity

Was a Zweigle - his grandmother was the "heir". Every Frday out at York Snow inBushnell's Basin he would grill us some dogs!

My mom is coming down on Thursday and bringing us a few packs! . Abbots pumpkin pie custard and some country sweet sauce. I'd like to ask her to stop at Tom Wahls in Avon and bring me a Hollywood and root beer but I don't think it will be that great after the 4.5 hours drive toNJ.

[dionysus]

303. holy cow, i pass by that Wahls in Avon every time i go golfing at Farview!!!!!

(to me, Wahls is a Bill Grays clone, or vice versa)

sadly, most if not all Country Sweet joints closed down... BUT.. you can still get the sauce at Wegmans!

[LittleBlue]

73. It's not really a big deal

Whoever doesn't like the decision can stop shopping there.

[RedCappedBandit]

75. I would walk the fuck out of that store and never return. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

85. No coercion involved. Everyone has choice here.

The clerks choose not to sell alcohol.

The store chooses to accommodate its employees.

Customers choose to put up with the hassle or not.

Internet posters thousands of miles away choose to grumble.

[Igel]

86. Probably because of their clientele.

If you're in NYC you want to have the staff at a store "look like" the clientele.

So you accommodate the community you're in. A frequent enough line. It has consequences if you really believe it.

I've gone to stores where wait staff wasn't able to help me in the dominant language. Heavily non-English-speaking area, it was important for the wait staff to be absolutely fluent in the community language and culturally savvy. Had to wait for assistance. Then wait to pay. If the help had been truly bilingual, they'd have probably found better jobs.

If you're in parts of London with a heavy Asian presence, you want the staff to have a significant Asian representation. Many are Muslims. Some are fairly conservative, for a wide variety of reasons (ranging from what they believed as they were raised to what they choose, for whatever reason, to accept now).

[Deep13]

87. I'm of two minds on this.

One is that one should not expect others to bear the cost of one's religious beliefs. If those employees want to abstain from booze consumption, they are free to do so, but they cannot expect others to modify their own cultural norms to do so. The case is admittedly a lot more compelling in the case of American pharmacists who are against birth control. The customer must bear the heavy responsibility for the pharmacist's sanctimonious beliefs.

On the other hand, I don't think commercial values should necessarily be the default norm. Humans are not merely robots just because they are working for someone else. Bosses should not be able to insist that workers give up all their personal beliefs and values just because they are working for a company that only values profit. Frankly, when I worked retail, I died a little inside everytime I sold someone cigarettes.

[treestar]

97. They can't even sell it?

It's that bad?

[Codeine]

103. Considering most of the small liquor stores in my area

are owned and run by Syrian Muslims who seem to be able to go about their business of selling brewskies and pork rinds with no impact on the practice of their beliefs I'm thinking that it really is a non-issue for most folks of the Islamic persuasion.

[PeteSelman]

105. Why do they keep giving in to this insanity?

Europe is killing itself.

[Codeine]

107. That's a bit over the top.

It's one - admittedly large - UK grocery chain. That's not really tantamount to the commonly-held right wing nightmare of a coming "Eurabia."

Another major grocery chain (Sainsbury's) states in its company policy book that it's perfectly okay for a Muslim to handle pork and alcohol and that they will be expected to do so at the register. Other shops handle the issue by not putting employees who find handling such items problematic on the tills in the first place.

The fact that this chain seems to be handling the situation very poorly (as a customer-service issue as well as from a PR perspective) should not lead anyone to assume that we're six months away from Sharia law and a new Muslim conquest of Europe. That's insanity in the other direction.

[jessie04]

110. That's true.

6 months is for Sweden .
16 months is for UK
6 years for France
16 years for the rest.

[Codeine]

112. You're silly and you should go away. nt

[penultimate]

127. lol... I haven't figured that poster out yet.

Or maybe I'm confusing him with some other one.

[Violet_Crumble]

165. I have...

You could be confusing them with zellie or jimmie, both of whom were nuked for anti-Muslim bigotry. They also believed that Sharia law was imminent in Europe and were fond of the whole Eurabia thing

[Rex]

116. Business has the right to refuse to sell their products to anyone

for any reason? Is there a law to separate church from corporation?

[Deep13]

158. I know it! Will their collective alcoholism ever end?! nt

[Scootaloo]

178. A Mr. Duke of Louisiana called. He wants his talking points back. n/t

[PeteSelman]

209. Talking points, right.

Because nothing sinister is going on over there at all.

[Scootaloo]

210. Sinister, really?

Do tell.

[Violet_Crumble]

212. Yeah, I want to hear more about this sinister stuff that's going on in the UK as well...

It should be really interesting, and I'm taking a guess that some of it will involve claims that Europe is being overrun by Muslims and Sharia Law will be in place in all European countries in the near future.

[Scootaloo]

215. Guh, SPOILERS! n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

217. Oops, sorry. But I did leave out some of them...

Y'know, the links to stuff from JihadWatch and Atlas Shrugs

[PeteSelman]

232. Yeah, really.

Check out what's been going on in Malmö, Sweden. The same sort of thing is going on in a lot of major European cities. These radical nutcases are moving in, refusing to integrate and will eventually use the laws against the natives.

I hesitate to even mention this sort of thing here because we all like to pretend everyone is cool and everyone deserves a fair chance but radical Islamists are very dangerous, very serious people with a goal and an agenda. If Europe isn't careful they're going to look very, very different fifty years from now. And not for the better. It's never better in a theocracy.

[Comrade Grumpy]

257. World history in a nutshell: New people came, things changed.

[PeteSelman]

289. Oh, ok. No problem then.

They don't seem to want to anything about it anyway.

[Scootaloo]

290. Oh, I'm well aware of Malmo

Know why? 'Cause every time some right-wing islamophobic twit wants to start screaming about "eurabia," that's where they start off with. Now, I'm not pointing fingers, but I am letting you know that this isn't my first rodeo Inevitably all the sources are places like "islamversuseurope" or "barenakedislam" or that ol' standby, frontpagemag. None of which are especially reputable sources of news regarding Muslims - nor, for that matter, is the Daily Mail.

But really. don't hesitate. With regards to Islam, there's nothing you can't say on DU.

[JCMach1]

117. Prolly a non-starter article... Marks and Spencer typically has a separate checkout for their food

section...

[hrmjustin]

121. I don't see this as a big deal.

[Nye Bevan]

123. If you are worried that your God will hate you for selling alcohol or pork products,

shouldn't you be worried that your God will hate you for working at a store where such products are sold?

[penultimate]

126. There may be some inconveniences if they don't make it apparent where they

can and cannot buy certain products. Although, I suspect they'll quickly solve any issues by making it clear.

The other issues might be where it could lead to. For example, what if religious individuals refuse serve gays or other religions, or how about if they refuse to sell birth control... Obviously this is the UK, and I'm viewing this from a US perspective. I figure if it's the store doing it and they're not being forced to do it, then whatever. Although I personally think it's silly and I wouldn't implement such a policy if I was in charge of things there.

[Warren DeMontague]

129. If your religion interferes with your ability to perform your job, either get a different job

or get a different religion.

Period.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

143. you know that's illegal, right. if its a non-essential part of your job, your organization

should make a reasonable accommodation for you.

touching pork/alcohol is not essential to working at M&S

[Warren DeMontague]

146. I don't see how selling products that a store has for sale, is not an essential part

of working in a store that sells those products.

I agree about reasonable accomodation; if they can be transferred to, say, the mail room or the shopping cart return area or some part of the store where there is no chance they'll come into contact with the forbidden item, sure.

But if it's such a prohibition, they shouldn't be working in a facility that has anything to do with those items.

I am reminded of the taxi drivers at the Vegas airport, who were refusing to drive people who had alcohol in their luggage.

Or the taxi driver in Portland who left the Lesbian couple on the side of the freeway because of the unacceptable nature of their "lifestyle".

I'm sorry, but people who have JOBS need to deal with the fact that they can't impose their shit on the entire world.

Unfortunately this planet is full of authoritarian control freaks who wake up in the morning with no other agenda than to tell everyone else how to live their lives.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

152. a store sells a milllion products, of which you can't touch two, and neither

is medication or something essential. its the very definition of non-essential function

the taxi driver however refused to perform his basic function. that is not the same thing.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

140. that's reasonable accommodation based on sincerely held religious beliefs

and its nothing like a pharmacist refusing to give someone medication.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

161. Do you really think it's going to stop there?

They knew what M&S sold when they took the job.

If M&S transferred them to clothing, who is to say they wouldn't object to the clothing being too revealing for their religious beliefs, and would refuse to sell it.

[Violet_Crumble]

218. Why is it any of yr business? Do you run M&S?

If a situation as silly as that were to ever arise, the employer would deal with it the way they want to, not the way you want them to. As long as you, if you are a customer, isn't inconvenienced, it's none of yr business where an employer places their employees or for what reasons. I dunno, maybe you could send a cranky email to M&S as well as the many other large companies who have similar staff policies and tell them all about how multiculturalism isn't working in the UK and how bad it is.

[CJCRANE]

145. The thing is: we don't know how many muslim cashiers actually choose to do this.

So it could be a tiny fraction of them, in which case it's not much of an issue.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

162. It actually makes the issue worse

that M&S would inconvenience their customers, to appease a few cashiers, instead of transferring them. They need to be fired for refusing to do their job. They knew what that job was when they applied for it.

Now they have a choice, don't you think all the Muslim cashiers would be pressured into not checking out the customers buying pork products and alcohol.

I'm a vegetarian. If I took a job in a slaughterhouse and refused to do my job based on my beliefs, how long do you think I would be employed there? As they were kicking me out the door they'd remind me that I knew what they did there when I applied for the job.

[Warpy]

151. No kidding, if you can't do the job, work elsewhere

I'm sure there are plenty of places to work in the UK that don't sell pork or alcohol.

When I worked retail, I had to sell things I didn't approve of. However, I realized I wasn't the world's head nanny and sucked it up.

Religious people need to grow some personal boundaries and respect the boundaries of other people and I don't care which god they blame for their intolerance.

[Drunken Irishman]

156. Ridiculous.

[Violet_Crumble]

164. I see the Daily Mail is still peddling its Islamophobic bullshit. But why are you peddling it here?

Some things never change...

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/04/daily-mail-continues-to-publish-inflammatory-headlines/

Why would you, and I'm assuming yr British, take as gospel anything the Daily Mail has to say about Muslims? We have similar rags here, and one thing they all have in common is that they dramatise and build things up, leave out things and generally give a picture that appeals to homegrown bigots and xenophobes. I'd never dream of posting any of their crap here at DU, and I'm wondering why even though the article admitted that if a situation arose, all that'd happen is that the shop assistant would get another staff member to do the transaction, that you ignored that and pretended that they can refuse to serve a shopper outright?

[Nye Bevan]

175. Plenty of other links for this story.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ms-apologises-after-saying-muslim-staff-may-refuse-to-serve-customers-pork-and-alcohol-9020982.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/muslim-marks-spencer-staff-told-2952827

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/faith/article3956718.ece

If the only news source for this story was the Daily Mail then perhaps you would have a point. But the newspapers covering this particular story seem to span the political spectrum.

[JI7]

174. do they refuse paychecks because it's made up of alcohol and pork that has been sold ?

[LeftishBrit]

190. This is the Daily Mail, 'nuff said

People should not inflict their religious views on those who don't share their religion; but if this is just something that 'the Daily Mail can reveal', I think it's probably untrue, or true of a tiny number of people. In particular, the Daily Mail likes to imply that immigrants are taking over the country.

I live in an area with a significant Muslim population, and quite a lot of people who work in shops here appear to be Muslim; and I have never had trouble obtaining ham or alcohol in Marks and Spencers (was there just a few days ago), or any other shop. The only times when any of my friends have had any trouble buying alcohol were when they looked as though they could be under 18 (legal drinking age here), and were required to show some evidence of age.

[Violet_Crumble]

208. They've got a sensationalised headline done to appeal to people who hate Muslims...

An article about it in the Independent says that it all started from an anonymous shopper claiming a Muslim refused to serve them and that M&S's policy is the same as many large corporations where they try to balance the needs of their staff with providing a quality service. Most people raging in this thread didn't read past the headline and notice that even the Daily Mail article had buried deep in it a clarification from M&S that they don't demand that shoppers go to a different aisle to purchase pork or alcohol, and that the advice given initially was incorrect.

So what it looks like the reality is that *if* M&S had an employee who had an issue with handling a certain product, they do their best to work with the employee and that includes putting them in another position where they don't have to handle that product. What they appear to have stressed is that in no way would any policy of theirs like that inconvenience customers. It seems to be a situation where an employer is being sensitive to the needs of its staff (something that's lacking in quite a few US employers) and not inconveniencing customers, so there shouldn't be any reason for the completely over the top outrage that's happened in this thread...

Somehow I suspect the Daily Mail is opposed to multiculturalism in the UK...

[DFW]

192. Here in Germany most Turkish restaurants serve alcohol

They have their own principles, but they also know where they are and who most of their clientele is.

On the other hand, many Turkish communities here have demanded (and gotten) taxpayer money from the state to finance the building of mosques in Germany and Holland. Imagine asking Erdoğan for funds to build a Unitarian church in Ankara.

I don't consume alcohol or pork, but I would never employ someone who refuses to touch either in an establishment that sells both.

[Notafraidtoo]

196. Its odd

Republicans in this country would be outraged that Muslims would be given this consideration at their workplace, but would go insane if a pharmacist got fired for refusing to distribute birth control because he was Catholic.

At least at DU we seem to be consistent, if your employer is OK with something that we believe harms or inconveniences others we wont use the service.

Its difficult to compare the two because alcohol and pork is far less important than birth control considering some people are prescribed for medical reasons, but one thing is for sure no one should expect their religious beliefs to trump someone else's civil rights in a free society not that a company refusing to sale a product that you do not need medically rises to trumping civil rights.

If i was inconvenienced or the company advocated to deny people basic rights (like gay marriage) i wouldn't shop there.

[OwnedByCats]

198. What I don't get is

in England I knew of several different "corner shops" (aka convenience stores) owned and run by Muslims and they sold pork and alcohol products.

[KG]

203. religion LOL n/t

[Nine]

205. Daily Mail nonsense

I don't care if the story is covered in other outlets. I'm not British and I don't know whether those sources are any better than the Daily Mail, but we know phony stories can even get traction on "legitimate" news outlets. In any case, I looked at those links and they all tell a different story. The Independent sourced the story to a single unnamed complainant on Facebook. The Daily Mail itself writes that the company claims this is not consistent with their national policy. So where's the story? Use your common sense, people. Muslims, pork, alcohol, and grocery stores have all been around a long time. If this was really a problem, don't you think we all would have heard about it before now?

[get the red out]

224. This is incredibly WRONG

If I lived in the UK I would NEVER shop at any of their stores again.

This is the kind of thing that can lead to a lot of problems, the more a society bends over backwards for specific religious beliefs, the more other people will be really discriminated against eventually. Look at what these extremist Christian Pharmacists can do to women in this country in so far as denial of medical care. It is disgusting.

[davidpdx]

225. I sounds like it was a misunderstanding between the corporate office and the store

For Muslims it is very hard to balance following their religion and being involved in customs that may be forbidden. Certainly the store should not put the worker in a role where they are going to have to decline helping a customer. It's a lose-lose situation for everyone involved. I've worked in retail as a manager and can see the problem for both the customer, the employer, and the employee.

From my understanding of their religion there are multiple interpretations of the Koran with some being more liberal and others more conservative.

I'm taking a class through a MOOC right now on the constitutional struggles in the Muslim world and some of the material covers religious beliefs.

[onlyadream]

227. I worked in a factory

I worked in a factory back in the 80s, and a woman (a pacifist), who was just hired, refused to work because she was required to build torpedoes.
Seems to me that something was missed on the interview.

[nilesobek]

229. I'm a cashier

Sometimes there are moral decisions to be made about alcohol transactions regarding serving intoxicated people. Or underage people with fake Ids, and after legal serving/selling times. You don't have to be religious to do your job and limit liability.

[KatyMan]

231. but not doing your job

because your imaginary friend says pork is bad is not the same as limiting liability.

[darkangel218]

230. Oh wow!!

This is a bunch of BS!! I bet M&S are going to be losing loads of costumers over it.

[Sheldon Cooper]

239. If I waited in line for 10-15 minutes only to finally reach the register and then be told

that my cashier refuses to touch my stuff so I have to go stand in another line, I would probably lose my shit. Right there in the line, in front of everyone, and make an ass of myself while hurling abuse at the cashier, the store manager, and anyone else I could target in the moment. It would not go over well.

PS - Although I'm dramatizing the above for effect, let it be known that I would be extremely UN-happy and would no longer patronize that store for any reason.

[Nine]

244. I have to wait for a different cashier almost every time I buy wine at the grocery store.

As I said upthread, this whole story is Daily Mail nonsense. But even if a customer needs to wait for a cashier to fetch a different employee at some stores, is this really such a big deal? Almost every single time I buy wine at my grocery store, I get a kid cashier who has to call "21 to the checkout" over the intercom and then I have to wait while an older employee comes over to do this part of the transaction. Really, this is not the biggest inconvenience in the world.

[GoneOffShore]

245. Daily Mail - tempest in a teacup.

They love to inflame people and spread FUD.

Read the whole story.

[LeftishBrit]

249. Here's a more reliable, less sensationalized version of the story

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25488259

Note:

This was a single individual, and a particular store that didn't deal with the issue effectively.

Marks and Spencers have since apologized.

Just about everyone, including a Muslim lawyer who was consulted about it, thinks that the whole thing is ridiculous, and that employees should be expected to serve their customers without imposing their own beliefs.



Finally, if the DM are not to look like utter hypocrites, they should stop publishing opinion pieces like the following:

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2011/03/britain-not-christian-any-more-official.html

[etherealtruth]

265. This would be great infromation as an OP

"Just about everyone, including a Muslim lawyer who was consulted about it, thinks that the whole thing is ridiculous, and that employees should be expected to serve their customers without imposing their own beliefs. "

I was part of a Muslim family for a decade (through marriage) ... at no time did they even remotely consider it appropriate to foist their religious views on anyone ... nor did (or does it) ever interfere with their work

[haele]

253. If Marks & Spencer had a specified Halal area and separate check-out - I wouldn't have an issue.

Last edited Mon Dec 23, 2013, 02:04 PM - Edit history (2)

On edit - subsequent reading indicates that it was one particular store and manager's action, but my opinion still stands.

If there is a concern about religious sensibilities, there should be a segregated specialty foods area where you could purchase the Kosher or Halal (or, heck - Vegan) items there - or you could pick them up and take it to the regular counter, or do most of your shopping and then check out at the specialty area knowing that there could be a devout/orthodox staff member who might not ring up your bacon or beer at that register if you brought those items there.

If we're talking the regular general cash registers that everyone can go to, no. No "I can't ring that up". These are are not specialty registers or specialty sections.

I worked a register for two months during a lean period between contracts with a rent-mate of mine at the large family bodega she worked at; I hate smoking and am allergic to the smoke itself, but I was still expected to ring up people's nasty habits as I was forced to endure the reek of stale cigarettes all over them when I checked them out. Just as I was expected to help people with the live shellfish the store kept in the meat section - including fishing the damn things out of the murky tank. I have a deathly allergy to shellfish. What do grocery staff who might work at the bakery do if they are deathly allergic to peanuts?

They have food-handler's gloves and aprons at pretty much every store I've been to. That can keep a religious adherent from "touching" the taboo item - or someone who is allergic from item that they are allergic to - and still do their job.

This is a stupidly ridiculous policy. If the store was that concerned about their orthodox staff members and customers, a more efficient policy would be to set up a separate area with a register in the store if there is a significant base with a religious or cultural needs.
Or indicate outright - before any customer would walk in - that the store was Halal, and did not have an alcohol license and would not carry pork. None of this playing roulette with cashiers or section staff or managers.

As for other comments concerning underage clerks and age specific sale items, this is a legal issue rather than a preference issue. In many states, you're not allowed to have an underaged clerk or manager in the store or at the register alone without a legal-aged adult if you serve (or sell) age specific items like alcohol.
Most stores I've shopped out - including many IGAs, local family grocers and the commisary - have a seperate counter for sale of alcohol, cigerette, and adult magazine/items purchases.

If they don't have a seperate counter, the clerk will either be 21 years old, or have someone standing by who will actually handle the age-specific items and bag them while the underage clerk still rings the item up. Our favorite local family grocer (in business since the 1960's, 1500 sq ft with 2 registers and a full butcher) down the street does this; there are six kids/grandkids (one of them a cute 12-year-old who is doing her homework when she's not ringing people up) who often work the register, and either Grandpa, or one of the parents, aunts or uncles are up there with the kids or in the crow's nest office at the back of the counter. The kids know they're not to touch the alcohol or the tobacco items, and don't, no matter how busy the store or long the line - if they see a regular coming up who is going to be asking for ciggies, they're calling for an adult before the customer reaches the register. The longest I've ever waited there was two/three minutes at most.

In a legal age situation, the customer is not asked to go to a different register or leave the line - or go to another store - and the store is not liable for a discrimination suit.

Haele

[Lost_Count]

266. Terrible precedent... Hope they get a backlash...

[Vashta Nerada]

280. Maybe they shouldn't be working there if they don't want to do their job.

Just like pharmacists who don't want to dispense Plan B or birth control because of their religious beliefs. If you don't want to do the job, pick a different profession.