Muslim cashiers won't ring up bacon

In My Humble Opinion
121

[QUOTE=ivylass]
As I said, it’s the principle. In most grocery stores here, there are baggers who will bag your food for you. That’s what they get paid for. Sometimes they will even push your cart out to your car and help you load your groceries into the trunk of your car, which if you are elderly or disabled, can be a big help. Being asked to do something even though it is the cashiers/baggers job is a bit :dubious: .

Basically, the cashier is imposing her religious beliefs on the customer.
[/QUOTE]

I think that more importantly, the principle is that we live in (in theory) a secular society (or at least should be aiming to live in one, so I don’t see the value in working to get rid of Christian theocracy just to replace it with Muslim theocracy), and one’s freedom of religion ends when it infringes on my right to freedom from religion.

122

[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
Minnesotan generosity towards Somalis led to the large community. But–could it be that some Minnesotans don’t care for these newcomers? After all–they aren’t just Muslims. They’re Africans!
[/QUOTE]
Damn those intolerant Minnesotans, tricking the Somalis into being cabbies and then having the gall to expect them to carry legal merchandise.

[Yakov Smirnoff]In Christian nations Muslims can work at Target. In Muslim nations Christians *are *targets.[/Yakov Smirnoff]

123

This whole thread is reminding me of one of my most embarrassing moments ever. I went into a new deli in my neighborhood in the Bronx and only realized it was kosher after I asked for a sausage, egg and cheese sandwich and the counterperson just shook his head. :smack: :o

124

[QUOTE=Annie-Xmas]
A Christian refusng to ring up a book on the history of witchcraft? Or a set of Tarot cards or a Ouija board?
…
[/QUOTE]

Now that’s just silly. How else is a good Christian supposed get supplies for a proper book burning? Stealing is a sin after all.

125

[QUOTE=alphaboi867]
Now that’s just silly. How else is a good Christian supposed get supplies for a proper book burning? Stealing is a sin after all.
[/QUOTE]
I went into a Christian Supply store once and asked if they sold Christians I could feed to my lion (no, not really).

126

You know, I was actually in this situation once.

For one week just after I graduated from college I worked as a temporary receptionist replacement (the usual lady was going on vacation for a week) at a free AIDS clinic in the stricken part of town. It was an unbelievably wonderful experience and one I actually miss, scary people and all.

Part of my job was handing out kits. The safe sex kit was cool – condoms, lube, spermicide, all tucked into a plastic bag with a brochure.

There was also a drug kit there with everything you needed to sterilize needles. Might have been a clean syringe inside too, I can’t remember.

I remember when I gave out the first one of those. It gave me a chill the sex kit didn’t, even when I knew I was giving the sex kit to a prostitute. I didn’t like enabling this woman to kill herself slowly, to waste her money and her body on a few hours of forgetting where she was and how she felt.

I did it anyway. It was part of the job. I consoled myself with the knowledge that at least she wouldn’t be killing herself with AIDS or Hep C, and while she could quit the drugs one day, quitting AIDS and Hep C isn’t exactly doable.

Still, I think comparing this to bacon is kind of laughable. Even if you think the bacon is unclean. All the bacon I’ve ever seen is vacuum-sealed, so you aren’t getting any evil pig germs on you. If you’re really concerned, wear those medical gloves when you work. I’ve seen grocery store cashiers wearing those – often black or Middle-Eastern looking individuals, too, so there might be something to that…

127

[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Nah, ice was invented around 1870. I read that somewhere.
[/QUOTE]
No, you’re thinking of sex.

128

[QUOTE=Bridget Burke]
Minnesotan generosity towards Somalis led to the large community. But–could it be that some Minnesotans don’t care for these newcomers? After all–they aren’t just Muslims. They’re Africans!
[/QUOTE]

That sounds to me like you’re implying that the primary reason to object to the cab restrictions is bigotry, and not simply objecting to having someone else’s religious restrictions imposed on a person who does not share that faith. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, and I hope so. The latter is certainly a legitimate point of view, and I’d hope a person wouldn’t be accused of bigotry for it.

129

I’m…uh, totally astounded at this.

I find it extremely unprofessional to bring religion to work. I can see asking for a holy day off, or a break to pray to Mecca, or something like that. But refusing to transport people carrying alcohol or with guide dogs? Refusing to scan bacon? That’s absolutely unprofessional.

Regardless of my personal beliefs, I was hired to do a job. My place of employment has a legal obligation to spell out exactly what my job entails when I am hired and/or transferred. That means that I know ahead of time that I may be doing something I dislike or even downright disagree with, but something my parents taught me (Despite my worktime browsing of the Dope, I do have a really good work ethic; I only do the Dope when I have literally nothing else going on) was that when you are at work, you are work, and work only, unless you have done all of the work that you can possibly do. Those people are paying you to do a job, not to have beliefs or to slack off, or try to get attention for having religion. Essentially, you are on their time, not your time, and therefore, you do not have beliefs.

I format and edit the letters to the editor at the place that I work at. I view this as sort of like me refusing to type up or format Letters that come in that hold views I don’t agree with. That’s not really fair to the letter writer (customer), and it’s not fair to my editor (boss), and it’s not fair to the person who has to do it for me (other coworker).

I live in a right to work state. Here, you can be fired for pretty much anything. I can tell you that if I had a business I’d state right off the bat all of the job requirements to all applicants, and if they registered any problems with it, unless they were reasonable (can’t work Sundays, if I have another person to work Sundays, etc.) they’d never even get the job. If they pulled that crap while on the job they’d be fired, and they could try getting the ACLU on my ass and it wouldn’t work because getting someone else to do my job for me is not a “reasonable accomodation.”

Maybe I’m just old-fashioned, but when you’re at work, you do your freakin’ job, religion or not.

~Tasha

130

[QUOTE=ivylass]
As I said, it’s the principle. In most grocery stores here, there are baggers who will bag your food for you. That’s what they get paid for. Sometimes they will even push your cart out to your car and help you load your groceries into the trunk of your car, which if you are elderly or disabled, can be a big help. Being asked to do something even though it is the cashiers/baggers job is a bit :dubious: .

Basically, the cashier is imposing her religious beliefs on the customer.
[/QUOTE]
Eh. I do get the idea. It’s just that people are bandying about terms like freedom of religion and freedom from religion, or whether it’s acceptable when done by a business owner vs. an employee, and seem to be forgetting all that’s happening is they won’t put bacon in your bag. Now, I get that on a large scale this is important. In principle, people shouldn’t be allowed to infringe on your rights to follow or not follow a religion. It’s just that when I look at this situation, I honestly can’t get all that worked up about it, and I do tend to be the first on the “Damn believers, what’ve they done now?” bandwagon. Put your bacon in your bag, enjoy the fact that every other item has been bagged for you (because it’s not as if the baggers are being paid for nothing), and take your shopping home.

In the interests of admitting bias, I do have to say one thing; I don’t like bacon. :wink:

131

When you interview a potential employee you can’t ask about religion or disabilities however you can ask if there is any reason why they could not perform some of the duties of the job. Now you’re not really supposed to consider this as a reason for not hiring but you do have to consider if you can logistically accomodate their special needs. If they answer “no” in the interview and later they say that they can’t perform some of the duties of the job due to a religious restriction on handling certain food products then they lied on their interview and that is grounds for dismissal.

132

[QUOTE=Wile E]
When you interview a potential employee you can’t ask about religion or disabilities however you can ask if there is any reason why they could not perform some of the duties of the job…
[/QUOTE]

At my last job I’d occasionally help our training coordinator with some of the paperwork. Part of her job was reviewing applications before the store manager looked at them. One of the questions was “Are you willing to work weekends and holidays?”. She was under strict instructions that if any application had “No” checked it was to be thrown away so the SM wouldn’t “waste his time” looking at it. This was done with full knowledge/approval from home office.

133

I could respond to a few more, but I’m going to focus on **DKW ** and beergeek. Remember what you learned in American history? The U.S. was founded on principles of religious freedom and tolerance. Our nation was most definitely not established as a “come to America, where you are free to practice your religion as long as it doesn’t get on anyone else’s nerves” type of place. And beergeek, when did you get to unilaterally set a goal of a secular society? There’s a whole other crowd out there voting for a diverse and tolerant society. (And, of course, a few conservative theocrats who think they get to pick a religion for all of us. They’re off track, too).

DKW, I’m referencing you here because these principles of religious freedom and tolerance are part of what the U.S. military fights to defend. So I’m surprised to see you so dismissive of them. Soldiers often acknowledge that they are giving up freedoms to protect the American way of life, and religious freedom and tolerance is a big part of what has made us Americans from the very beginning.

(Non-US Dopers, feel free to provide your comparative perspectives, of course.)

For those of you who are not willing to accommodate, if you ever are actually in the position of denying someone employment due to their religion, either refusing to hire them or terminating their employment, I heartily recommend getting your legal advice from a lawyer, not a message board or your gut instinct.

134

[QUOTE=Wile E]
When you interview a potential employee you can’t ask about religion or disabilities however you can ask if there is any reason why they could not perform some of the duties of the job.
[/QUOTE]

I’m going to respond to this one, too, because you are very close but missing one important detail. The recommended question is “Can you perform these duties with or without reasonable accommodation?”

See cite here, which is based on accommodation of a disability.

"You may ask about a candidate’s ability to perform specific job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, using the essential functions of the position.

Example: ‘This job requires an employee to prepare written reports containing detailed factual summaries and analyses. These reports must frequently be prepared within tight time frames. Can you perform this function with or without a reasonable accommodation?’ (This approach, which requires only a yes or no response, does not require a candidate to indicate whether he or she requires an accommodation.) "

So, no, it is not OK for the employer to put the interviewee in the position of having to disclose the need for accommodation before hire.

What **alphaboi’s ** company was doing sounds like accepting some level of legal risk. That happens in business. If an applicant had indicated that their unavailability on a certain day was due to religion, or had decided to pursue the issue when they weren’t hired, the company’s practice most likely would not have withstood scrutiny.

135

[QUOTE=Harriet the Spry]
I could respond to a few more, but I’m going to focus on **DKW ** and beergeek. Remember what you learned in American history? The U.S. was founded on principles of religious freedom and tolerance. Our nation was most definitely not established as a “come to America, where you are free to practice your religion as long as it doesn’t get on anyone else’s nerves” type of place. And beergeek, when did you get to unilaterally set a goal of a secular society? There’s a whole other crowd out there voting for a diverse and tolerant society. (And, of course, a few conservative theocrats who think they get to pick a religion for all of us. They’re off track, too). .
[/QUOTE]

Nor was America founded as a Judeo-Christian theocracy…the deist (at best) nature of the Founding Fathers has been fairly well established. We didn’t reach theocracy status until we were into the next century when Christianity (edit: preferably of a nice Protestant variety) was established as the de facto state religion.

I don’t see where I ever called for the outright abolition of religion in America…I define a secular society as one where “the powers that be” are neutral towards religion, neither promoting it nor opposing it (which of course is encapsulated in SOCAS, so I’m hardly “unilateral” in that regard).

Of course, an evangelical has the right to “get on my nerves”…they just don’t have the right to have their particular brand of nerve-wracking set into law.

136

[QUOTE=Harriet the Spry]
…What **alphaboi’s ** company was doing sounds like accepting some level of legal risk. That happens in business. If an applicant had indicated that their unavailability on a certain day was due to religion, or had decided to pursue the issue when they weren’t hired, the company’s practice most likely would not have withstood scrutiny.
[/QUOTE]

True, but as you say they most certainly had everything OK’d by house counsel. They also made everyone who handed in an application sign a release stating that basically said “Don’t call us, we’ll call you”; only the people who got interviews ever heard back.

137

Don’t we have enough home grown religious nuts? Do we really need to import more?

138

[QUOTE=kung fu lola]
…Muslims are required to wash any part of themselves that comes into contact with their saliva.
[/QUOTE]

Umm… this here non-Muslim would also wash any part of me that comes in contact with canine saliva. I was brought up to wash my hands even after just touching a dog, and have associated the practice of kissing dogs with strange middle-aged neurotic women.

Dog spit? I’m gonna wash. I’d like to think you’d not need to be a Muslim to do that. Otherwise, I’m converting.

139

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
In the interests of admitting bias, I do have to say one thing; I don’t like bacon. :wink:
[/QUOTE]

Well, there you go. You’ve completely lost all credibility with me and I will heed your words no more. :smiley:

140

Who knew Lucy Van Pelt was a Muslim? Of course, Charles Schultz did grow up in Minnesota, so it all makes sense.

AUCK! DOG GERMS! GET THE DISINFECTANT!