Me neither.

Earlier in the thread, the subject of taxi cab drivers refusing service to people carrying alcohol was raised.

I'd like to point out that unlike the cashier, the cab operator is a public licensee, and has a legal obligation not to discriminate in who he or she transports.

Here, the law is clear, and the obligations known to the individual before they begin work. There is not, and should not be, any equivocation about a public licensee engaging in discrimination based on religion, creed, gender, race, etc.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

I have often spoken about the courtesy and kindness of Muslim taxi-drivers towards myself.

I was travelling with my elderly aunt (as I am not young imagine how old my aunties are!) in a taxi driven by a Muslim. Being a friendly type my aunt had some chocolates in her bag and offered one to me and one to the taxi-driver. As I bit into mine I realised they were chocolate liqueurs. How to say something to the driver without offending my kindly aunt?

I need not have worried. The driver gently asked my aunt if the chocolates had alcohol in them. My aunt replied that they certainly did. He then said that though he appreciated her giving him the chocolate that if he happened to be pulled over by the police and they smelt alcohol on his breath they would insist on breathalysing him. And if it showed anything he would lose his license as taxi-drivers must have zero alcohol.

Now you might say that that was a valid excuse, but I also know that this man was a strict Muslim as he has been driving me around for over twenty years, and I have had several discussions regarding religion with him.

Later my aunt was telling her husband about how she had forgotten about the chocolates being liqueurs and the gracious way the taxi-driver refused them.

Now I don't know about these Muslims working for Target, however, the only way we can make this a better and less stressful place is to compromise and show a bit of tolerance towards others' beliefs. As an atheist I very rarely make mock of someone's religion, if I can desist then so can YOU!

__________________
Lucky is he (sic) who has been able to understand the causes of things
Virgil

There is a difference - a vast difference - between declining an offered piece of chocolate and refusing to pick up a passenger because they have a box of chocolates with liqueur in them.

How would you have reacted if he stopped the cab, informed you that he could not transport anyone who had alcohol with them, and left you on the side of the road?

Or if the next time you and your aunt need a ride, he won't pick you up because you had alcohol with you on this prior occasion?

OK, let's show a little tolerance on both sides, and just ring up the pork?

Show some tolerance for my lack of belief in the stricture against pork.

I'm not mocking anyone's religion, I am just asking to keep it out of my grocery bag.

Where religious beliefs conflict, I feel that the appropriate course is to proceed in a totally secular way. Since the store sells pork, the cashier should ring it up and move on as though God / Buddah / Allah / The Green Mother / The Great Spirit weren't watching.

Besides, as was pointed out earlier, the stricture isn't against handling pork, but against eating it.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

If any person feels that they cannot do part of their job due to their own religious views, they are themselves at fault for taking that job.

For example, Jews don't take jobs that required them to work on Saturdays. If being required to work on Saturday is part of the normal job function, that is the Jew's problem, not the company's.

Likewise with the Muslim cashiers. If their religion precludes them from touching pork, that's their business. It is up to them to quit their jobs and find alternative employment that does not conflict with their religion.

Indeed, Christians formerly refused to work in the business of banking and finance due to religious prohibitions against usury.

Mormans might (quite rightly) refuse to take a job as a bartender.

The solution in every case is that one's religion is a private matter. No company ought to be required to change their normative (legal, safe) business practices to accomodate the religious views of employees.

In any case, refusal to carry out the normative tasks assigned to you by your employer in the act of doing your job function is 'just cause' for job termination. I cannot see anything wrong with this at all.

If I ran a company that hired people to only work on Saturdays, and a Jew was hired and then refused to work on a Saturday, I'd fire that person. It has nothing to do with religion, bias or discrimination.

Indeed, at the company that I do run, I had to let go a low level employee who refused to do their proper job function for a particular client that he had religious objections to serving. We checked out labour law on this one. The employee didn't have any kind of a case. It was ruled 'insubordination' and termination was thus legal.

This appears to be one of those very rare instances where I'm on the same page as Matt Larson and Rakkasan ...

Exactly. I agree. Those folks should not be working at a meat store if they can't bring themselves to check out pork ... not unless that meat store allows them to selectively check out items, which I don't think any store does.

The cashier also has an obligation, maybe not legal, but certainly an obligation to his employer to serve all customers regardless of what they purchase IMO. As for cabs refusing to carry passengers that carry liqor, thats absolute nonsense, just as much as a cashier refusing to scan pork for a customer. What's in my suitcase or bag ain't no-one else's business.

Though you've probably already said that once ...

That's not necessarily true...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

So long as it doesn't cause any harm to the general public, it isn't. And I'm not referring to flying - I'm referring to sittin in a taxi with a six pack of a beer in my bag. Please don't tell me you agree with a Muslim cab driver refusing to give you a ride just b/c you carry alcohol in your bag?

That's purely subjective. Obviously the cabbies and the cashiers don't see it that way.

And, as has been said before, it's irrelevant. It doesn't what one believes these people should or should not do. What they do is simply reality, plain and simple.

Yes, they do. I used to work in a call center where certain people refused to work on Sundays, even though that was a job requirement, and the co. made accomodations for them--they didn't have to work on Sundays.

Whenever there is a shortage of employees for a particular type of work, the employees have the edge, i. e. the organizations that hire them are at their mercy.

That's why the cashiers and cabbies can do what they do, and discriminate against purchases.

It's silly and immature to complain about minor inconveniences that you can do nothing about, and to argue about why those minor inconveniences shouldn't be there.

The grown-up thing to do is learn to adapt to your environment and deal with it.

__________________
Life only becomes meaningful at its extremes

-- S

It's silly and immature to refuse to do your job, not to mention dishonest.

The grown up thing for these cashiers to do is learn to adapt to their environment and deal with it.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Correct. However, there is no law against discriminating against what a person is carrying with him/her.

__________________
Life only becomes meaningful at its extremes

-- S

You know you've made a pretty useless argument when it works equally well against your point as for it....

That's purely subjective. Obviously the companies firing the cabbies and the cashiers don't see it that way.

And, as has been said before, it's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what one believes these companies should or should not do. What they do (fire employees who don't cooperate) is reality, plain and simple.

__________________
"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

They have adapted to their environment. They're getting what they want in the environment in which they work, which means they've adapted.

A failure to adapt implies not getting what you want in the environment in which you live.

__________________
Life only becomes meaningful at its extremes

-- S

They're not getting fired. If they were, then you'd have nothing to complain about.

They're not being fired. This thread would not exist if they were

__________________
Life only becomes meaningful at its extremes

-- S