The employees needed to check out where they were applying before they applied.

Ringing up merchandise is their job. They don't, as far as I know, have specialist cashiers to ring up just women's clothing, or just kosher products.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

No reason they couldn't. Target can easily afford to hire enough cashiers to open a "no-pork" lane.

__________________

I think that Target has the right to fire them. I just think it's great that they decided that it would be better to shift them around. Showing a little humanity, y'know?

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Yes, Target could attempt to segregate their checkout lines to force me to conform to someone else's religious dogma when I buy my groceries.

Fortunately, they are not that stupid.

But why stop there. We could have a "haram" lane, where female customers must cover their faces, and no pork, alcohol, r-rated movies, etc are permitted.
The next lane could be for baptized Christians only, with communion offered at checkout.
We could have another lane for athiests / agnostics, and one for Satanists.

Or, people could confine their religious doctrines to themselves and keep their Allah, Budda, Jesus, Yaweh, Great Spirit, Mother Earth and the like the fuck out of my grocery bag.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Strange thing is Rakk, it was Liberal Trial Lawyers and The American Communist Liberal Union, that has allowed these minorities to get away with their bullshit!

Now I expect "SOME" will disagree with me, but thats only because the Liberal Badge of Honor is at stake!!

Screw Muslims, wonder if I could hire a few to castarate pigs next year? =LIBERAL BADGE OF HONOR

I was going to post my opinion, but it it totally in line with the comments above. You can take religion completely out of the equation.

A cashier who can't ring up and complete a customer's order is worthless. The reason that they can't do it does not matter.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

Your analogy doesn't hold. Having a no-pork lane is no different from having a lane that doesn't offer candy nearby so that customers in line won't be pestered by their kids.

If you'd rather have candy, go to one of the other lanes. It's still your choice.

__________________

Sorry, but your analogy doesn't hold.

If I go through the lane displaying candy, I don't have to buy it.

If I go through the "haram" lane, I must abide by someone else's religious customs in order to buy my groceries.

Also, you act like the store has 52 lanes open all the time. Not so. I've been in Target here where there were only a couple lanes open. Am I expected to wait in an enormous line at the discrimination-free lane because my purchase might offend Allah?

As I said above, kindly keep your Allah, Budda, Jesus, Yaweh, et al out of my grocery bag.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Why do people accept jobs when they know that, sooner or later, they will have a religeous conflict. Nurses that work in a hospital and refuse to work Sunday's, Moslims that refuse to sell pork, Pharmacists that refuse to fill birth controll prescriptions and, in Europe, officials refusing to marry homosexuals. You know this is going to come up so why accept the job in the first place? Do they just want to be Shit Disturbers?

And what if, God forbid, you have to bend down more than usual when you write your check, because the only lane open had a lower writing stand for the wheelchair-bound? How dare those disabled people inconvenience your shopping?

__________________

Idiotic point.

I'm not being denied service because I don't conform to the person who designed the disabled lane's religion.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Tell you what, Traliblazer. Let's try an experiment.

From now on, your posts will be in the moderation queue. When you post, the text is held away from public view until one of 4 moderators determines it will be approved - rung up, if you will.

Three of these moderators will do their job fairly and approve your posts in turn.

One will check your posts against a randomly selected religious text to ensure you are completely in compliance with their chosen religion.

If your posts are not in compliance with the religion of the day, they don't get approved until a substitute moderator can come approve them.

You must sit by your computer each time you post, until the post is approved to simulate the wait at the store.

Sound like fun to you?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I think that the solution is not to ask people about their religious beliefs, but rather to clearly lay out duties and potential duties of a job. If there are one or more duties that applicants are unable or unwilling to perform, then they should not be hired (or may be retroactively relived of said duties).

If I owned a store and an employee refused to ring up certain types of products, I would look to shuffle people around to accommodate, within reason. If this were not possible, I would explain to the employee that he could either do his job or find another job.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

By "in compliance" do you mean "written as though I'm a believer?" That's much stricter than having a no-pork lane at the store: after all, it takes a lot more than declining to buy pork in order to practice Islam.

__________________

In compliance means the moderator involved must not be forced to approve anything that conflicts with their beliefs.

So if you posted a picture of a park sandwich, the "muslim" moderator would decline your post.

If you talked about premarital sex or birth control, the "catholic" moderator would decline your post.

And so on.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum