As far as I’m concerned, refusing to do something based on religious principles should hold no more or less weight than “I just don’t want to”.
You don’t like dogs? Fine, out of courtesy I’ll do my best to keep mine away from you. You refuse to sell me any particular item for no good reason, you’re being an asshole.
Most of my post (which you ignored) was a possible explanation of the conservative nature of the Somali community in Minnesota. Most Muslims I know are more educated & chose to come to the USA to better themselves. Most of the Somalis fled their homes as refugees.
Target has arranged to put conservative Muslim employees in posts where no customer in a tearing hurry to bring home the bacon will be inconvenienced. As a Minnesota-based company, Target is trying to help these people without disrupting their business. (I’m sure the Somali grandmothers are already lamenting that their grandchildren are becoming too “American.” It’s an old story.)
http://wcco.com/local/local_story_076144841.html
I didn’t say that bigotry is the primary reason for the Minnesota Controversies. But that bigotry does exist. (In Maine, as well.)
http://austin.indymedia.org/newswire/display/10241/index.php
I have always defended Muslims when I thought they were being maligned unfairly… but seriously, folks. Religion is no excuse for this bratty behavior. Grow up.
On the other hand, I have known Muslims who majored in American literature. If they said “I would prefer not to,” I would at least have to give them points for erudition.
Fact: The blood libel was the invention of Christians, and for its first 19 centuries it was exclusively Christian propaganda. It was only transferred to the Muslim world along with other Christian anti-Semitic inventions like the Protocols in the 20th century. What was it about the 20th century? That old stuff would have died out by now if it hadn’t been recycled by Muslims. What bothers me is Muslims got along fine without that stuff for so many centuries and only in the last century started importing it.
Some time ago, one of my threads turned into a six-page train wreck when I posted about a Muslim student who gave me hell because he thought he had a divine right to be half an hour late, or more, to every class meeting. The class met at two, but since he had religious services that ended at two in another city, he could never be in class on time. When I asked why he had chosen to take a class that conflicted with his schedule, he insisted that his actions were protected by law (which is b.s., BTW) and that I should accommodate him. When I asked for proof of said law, he never brought any in–for obvious reasons.
Unprofessional behavior. I’m all about accommodating people’s religions, reasonably, but dragging it to school or work I just find extremely unprofessional. At the place I work at I’m sure you could find at least 10 different religions represented; trying to accommodate all of them would be a backbreaking endeavor. Therefore, we, as professionals, attempt to rearrange our lives so that we can spend our eight hours at work, have our eight hours of rest, and do everything else we need to do in our eight hours of “recreation” time. Those eight hours essentially belong to my employer until the day I quit or they stop paying me.
That’s not to say that I should just lay there and let them beat me up over shit, either. I’m just saying that professionals do not intermix personal life with work life. Religion is personal life, not work life.
~Tasha
It wasn’t my intention to ignore the rest of your post. It’s just that I wasn’t unclear about what you were trying to say with the conservative nature of the local Somali community. I only quoted the part where I was looking for some clarification.
Honestly, I don’t think the bacon thing is any big deal, as you are rightly pointing out. The alcohol or guide dogs in cabs are a much greater concern to me, as they are more likely to have a real impact on a non-Muslim. (I think the bacon is worthy of an eyeroll, but so much in this world is, including some things I do myself.)
Thanks for clarifying. I wasn’t sure quite what you were getting at, which was why I said I hoped I was misunderstanding. I was, and I’m glad to discover that.
BFD. SomeONE had to scan and sack their own bacon. The world will come to an end. This thing has legs for one reason only. It is politically and socially correct in most circles to hate Muslims or those that one thinks are Muslims in the US after 911. If it were a Jew refusing pork service, since they have about the same pork phobia when they feel serious about being Jewish, this never would have made the internet.
I wouldn’t want some filthy dog in my cab either. And I’m a non-pracitising Baptist. I live in a dry county, no legal booze sales at all. The booze phobia certainly isn’t religion specific.
At least bitch about something serious, like important medicine that some Christian medical professionals won’t dispense.
Here is the question I have to ask, if I’m going to scan my own bacon, why shouldn’t Target put self service scans in for all purchases - or at least lanes, and just lay off the clerks? If I can scan my own stuff, the control of having a checkout clerk scan and bag to deter shoplifiting starts to look like someone standing over the register watching to make sure I don’t steal something. And when we go there, a camera and a bank of monitors does the job just as well for a lot cheaper. No one needs to touch what someone else is purchasing.
So the world isn’t coming to an end, but the her job may. I hate to see people create their own obsolence.
(I’m dealing with this at my job right now, a bunch of system administrators who fight every decision and won’t follow process are really tempting to replace with a more centralized model with appliances - its really frustrating for me to watch these people make running the business so difficult that they become tempting to replace with automation and outsourced staff.)
So you won’t let blind people ride in your cab with their seeing-eye dogs?
Wrong. I’d be just as irked. Religious beliefs should be private. Believe what you want, but don’t inconvenience me because of whatever dogma gives you comfort.
I’m totally comfortable with a law that orders pharmacists to fill any valid prescription. The patient has a prescription. For a legal drug. I can think of no valid reason for the pharmacist to refuse to dispense it, or for the company that owns the pharmacy to order him to so refuse.
Valid to who? I don’t want to rehash the debate which has been covered elsewhere, but the validity is a subjective thing.
I’ve had a prescription refused. Seems that the new prescription would interact quite strongly with one of my regular prescriptions. I had to taper off of my antidepressant drug in order to take an antibiotic. However, that was a valid MEDICAL reason, and I’m OK with that. I’m not OK with a pharmacist refusing to fill a prescription because s/he has moral objections.
Is it really necessary to accuse everybody of bigotry when there’s no evidence for it?
Yeah, why aren’t we talking about that…
I agree totally.
Healthcare is vital to everyone. Most (all) people in the healthcare professions are licensed: doctors, nurses, pharmacists, pharmacies, etc. When you enter these professions/businesses, you commit to providing the healthcare service for which your have been given a license. Honor it. Any pharmacy/pharmacist who refuses to do their job (fill prescriptions) for non-health threatening reasons (conflicts in prescriptions, fraud by the requestor, etc.) should be in a position to have their licenses yanked.
The same essentially goes for cab drivers. In New York City, they are licensed by the City and, therefore, implicitly contracted to provide a public service. Unless a specific city law is passed prohibiting (reasonable types of) animals or transport of alcohol in cabs, passengers should have to be accomodated under the licensing edicts, by Muslims and anyone else (non-animal lovers, teetotalers).
Much the same goes for the bacon issue. If the way you conduct yourself on the job creates a hardship for the employer, you should be in a position to be fired, if it comes to that. I don’t think it’s a big deal to ask someone to scan their own bacon (or other pork products). I can see how others would think differently though. If these people make enough fuss, the employer might then be put in a position to have to decide if transferring or firing is warranted. I also think it is a subtle, roundabout, if not ncessarily intentional commentary by the cashier on my non-Muslim dietary habits and beliefs.
I also think this needs to essentially be nipped in the bud – because of some of the logical, theoretical and fantastical scenarios other posters have posited upthread. Where would it end? If you don’t want to touch bacon don’t work in a store or an area in that store where that is part of the job description.
In my neighborhood, at least 75% of the corner stores/delis are owned by Muslim men. Only one of those stores that I know of will sell ham sandwiches (although they do at least stock and sell Spam). Fine. You don’t won’t to touch ham, don’t stock it. However, these same store owners stock and sell beer and cigarettes and hand them over or bag them freely.* Huh?
*One teenaged worker in one store would ring up beer and take the money but he wouldn’t put it in the bag. To me, you’re not living up to whatever tenet of Islam that prohibits you from stocking and selling pork products, etc. if you’re still willing to take the profit from selling any of these other things.
Should doctors and nurses in obstetrics be forced to perform elective abortions against their will, or have their licenses yanked?
This is a very good question, Walloon, and one I will have to give further, serious thought to. However, my initial answer is that it seems like the practice of medicine allows doctors to specialize (or not) and, thereby, include (or not include) procedures in their specialization as they see fit. The dispensing of medicine and the licensing of that dispensing does not (and should not) have as much of an allowance for such specialization.
Would we tolerate a pharmacist refusing to dispense medication to an AIDS patient because the pharmacist is opposed to homosexuality?
Would we tolerate a pharmacist refusing to give medication to someone suffering from lung cancer, because their religion prohibits smoking?
Would we tolerate a pharmacist refusing to give medication to someone suffering from liver disease because his/her religion prohibits drinking?
What about when insulin was derived from pigs, should a Jewish or muslim pharmacist have the right to refuse to dispense that, since it’s “unclean”?
Is a muslim cashier allowed to not ring up the purchases of an unescorted female (since that’s against the rules as well, according to some)?