Is that pork? Alcohol? Sorry, sir, you have to see another cashier.

Well, in the given instance, a major chain store, yes, those products are isolated from human contact until the packaging is opened. But it doesn't change anything if the employee was working in a butcher shop or applying for a bartender's job. The employee has to handle the merchanize, and, open or closed, if they won't do that, the employer should always have the right to tell the former employee to get the hell out of his establishment.

 

Absolutely agree. But let's make it easy for the Islamobots to understand: If a Jew working at a fast-food joint were to not serve cheeseburgers because they're not Kosher, the manager has every right to give this guy a performance evaluation on the spot, deem him unable to do the job he and his customers expect him to do and pay him for, and show him the door.

Furthermore, thee same Islamobots, were they to go to some food joint and be told by the waiter that they were gonna have to wait on that cheeseburger because they'd have to find someone else to serve it to them, you just KNOW they wouldn't be singing the praises of multiculturalism. They'd be cursing "Filthy Jew!" So I don't take them too seriously in this regard.

You gotta explain it to them using their own language.

 

Your hypothetical example is silly.

 

They already have that right, so what's the point of your strawman?

 

This issue isn't complicated. M&S have implemented a policy that does not discriminate against any religious sensibility. Their policy is an exception not the rule and it's not one that's obligatory under the law. Firms are free to do as they wish. Most enlightened individuals would agree that's it's a policy that's progressive and ought to be welcomed. Your anti-Muslim shtick is tiresome.

 

It's true that there's no law FORCING them to do so. But howzabout I put my annoyance at this this way: It's decades ago and I'm back working at Carl's Jr. I've got a line of people and the Muslim employee next to me has a customer ordering a Western bacon Chesseburger. Now I have to drop what I'm doing and take the order on her register while I'm also doing my own. It's a minor annoyance for the customer, and taking time out of MY job to do hers because the job entails dealing with that kind of stuff and she's out there clutching her pearls. Or there I am working fries and the cook next to me says we need more bacon. The Muslim working the drink station who is free again clutches her pearls and says "Oh no! I dare not touch that!" So off I run to the freezer to snag it.

The thing is, a well-run store/restaurant/whatever runs on teamwork, and when you have someone using an excuse for not doing the same work everyone else is expected to do, it ain't good.

 

Strawman. You are conflating two entirely different situations. This is not about a fast-food restaurant which is why no sensible establishment of that kind worth their salt would introduce the policy of that implemented by M&S. I repeat, the policy adopted by M&S is an exception not the rule.

 

You realize that nonsense describes about 95% of human history, right? Some fool will say "Hey, if they did it there, we can do it here!" It's inevitable.

So what if it is? It's still a dumb business model and still worthy of being mocked.

 

M&S are a big company. They clearly think their business model clearly works for them otherwise they wouldn't have introduced the policy. As to your first point, I haven't a clue what you are banging on about.

 

So, cashiers have the right to discriminate customers by their eating and drinking preferences... lol

What an absurd interpretation of the discrimination law. This law was given to avoid "preferences or conditions" not so to provide them against others.

So, lets do it before the Muslim worker gets the job: the manager who discriminates religious people can politely ask the Muslim applicant to wait for another supervisor or for next open vacancy when he is not present or working anymore in the company, so the Muslim applicant might try to get the job next time...

 

Your Muslim bigotry notwithstanding, the policy is not a Muslim only policy.

 

Yes it is...unless there is another group that gets to decide people who like bacon and beer should be denied service....if there is one, I am unaware of it.

Simply put, if a cashier denied me service based on what I wanted to buy.....I would never go to that store again.

 

M&S have been clear in saying that their policy has implications as far as other religions are concerned. This is not a muslim-bashing thread. You are totally missing the point here. The situation wouldn't happen in the way you are depicting it. This whole issue has been exaggerated out of all proportion. Anyway, extrapolating your idiotic scenario, should you not decide to shop there again, that would be your choice. Clearly M&S policy has not had an adverse affect on their business, otherwise they would have ended the said policy. I don't understand why many people are not able to grasp this issue.

 

"Idiodic" as you feel I am, and regardless of your opinion on societal changes...allowing a religion to dictate policy is inappropriate and to me at least, reason enough to avoid any form of support. If a Christian corporation tried to impose their beliefs upon me I would also avoid it.

I also avid Papa Johns pizza because I think he is an ass.

 

Sorry, I didn't mean that personally. You are one of the better posters' which is why I was surprised at your post. A religion is not dictating policy. M&S executives initiated the policy. The client base of M&S consists of a wide-ranging demographic, and they (rightly, in my view) have decided that such a policy is beneficial to their business and commercial interests. They are free to do so just as other businesses are free not to do so. That's their choice. Clearly, such a policy would not be appropriate to everybody and in fact, the majority of businesses haven't introduced such a policy. This isn't a one-size-fits all. Your suggestion that you would be denied service is a red-herring because somebody would put your bottle of wine through the checkout albeit it wouldn't be a Muslim.

 

Just as I would not walk into a bar for fruit juice....I would avoid any store that might deny my preferred choice of consumption. If this also due to a biased imagined reality.....they do not merit my business.

I admit a certain amount of additional dislike for the Islamic faith due to current and past violence, but the general issue I have is that of ANY religion dictating the ways my life is lived.

 

But in this case you are not being dictated to. If you were to shop at M&S for say a bottle of wine, all that would happen is that the transaction would be handled by a non-Muslim. When I shop at my local Waitrose supermarket store, all members of staff under age 21 are forbidden to handle the transaction. Instead, the check-out worker, most of whom are under 21, calls over a supervisior who handles it. I wait for like 10 seconds before the supervisor comes over and taps in the required code in the till and hey presto, I then walk out of the store with the wine. The same principle applies to M&S policy.

 

Wonderful....I suppose as long as the cashier is dressed in Muslim garb, I will know which line to be in.....hopefully there are more than one cashier working. At least with the under aged It is relatively obvious and accounted for.

Being 16 yr. old is not a choice, and not pertinent in this.....being Muslim IS.

 

Quit being overly melodramatic.

 

Yah but it works both ways. For something to be a good management practice means it has to be REASONABLE and therein lies this debate...what is reasonable.

In law yes we are expected to accommodate the disabled for example, but WITHIN REASON. No if someone wants to be a black jack dealer and has no arms, the employer has no obligation to hire them and then ask them to sit there and have the card players deal the cards out themselves.

That is the point. Is it reasonable for an employee in a PUBLIC store to expect the public to put that employee's individual rights before the rights of the customer?

I don't think that is reasonable. I do not think it is reasonable in a public place to impose preferential treatment for certain employees because of their religion. That would not be reasonable in this case because as posters have stated it opens the door to any kind of religious
accommodation and no that is not good management practice, its the opposite. No an employee can't come to work and make unilateral demands on the grounds of religious beliefs and expect them automatically accommodated not when they directly create hardship to customers or other employees and that is because what we had in this situation is not accommodation but institutionalized discrimination-management was saying, Muslims in this case can refuse certain work everyone else can not.

What next, do they do the same for Jews? They have the same dietary laws. Then what...well vegetarians...on and on it goes-then what...I don't want to serve a non Muslim because my religion says not to touch them or interact with them directly but do it through another Muslim only?

hello? Which genius decided to be selective with Sharia law? Why stop at this one accommodation? If you accommodate this one belief, what about the others in Sharia law-should we then segregate the lines and put Kafir in one line and Muslims in the other? Do we put women in one line, and men in anothe? What next?

You must ask such questions because simply arbitraily selecting just say one belief and not the others opens it up to other requests and that is the point.

It opens the flood-gates...it establishes a precedent for where requests for accommodation might head and that is the real issue.

I argue if you have such strong religious beliefs, go work in a Halal store-end of story. It is unreasonable to expect non Halal stores or stores that serve non Muslims to cater to you as a Muslim employee. The customer has the right to full service. Period.

 

And why should the rest of society be dictated by your own reasoning?

 

It should not, nor am I in any way suggesting it should. Note the phrase "MY life".

 

No, the customer does not have the right in law to a full service. Service is dependent upon the discretion of the retailer. Anyhow, this is a red-herring since service to the customer is not compromised by the stance taken by M&S management. The said policy was introduced for a very good reason and if their bottom-line profits were in anyway compromised by such a policy then they would of abandoned said policy. They didn't clearly because their policy makes good business and commercial sense for THEM. Ultimately that's the point, this arrangement works for them and clearly for their customers too who obviously appreciate the sensitive approach they are taking otherwise the said customers would have shown their disapproval by voting with their feet and shopping elsewhere. This ain't a complicated issue but you appear intent on turning it into one. What's your agenda?

 

Just curious, what's your opinion on pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control or morning after pills because its interferes with their Christian religious beliefs?

 

But you are part of a society. Your viewpoint dictates how society (or particular elements in said society) ought to function.