Muslim cashiers won't ring up pork - Page 8 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

drgoodtrips · #**106** (**permalink**) 03-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

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

I have nothing to complain about either way. I was merely pointing out that your argument had no substance whatsoever, which you have subsequently, tacitly verified by squabbling over irrelevant semantics. I'm actually sort of entertained by watching you use so many words to say absolutely nothing.

I mean... "It's subjective. It doesn't matter what one believes they should do, because it's reality that counts." Did you pull that out of a fortune cookie or something?

solletica · #**107** (**permalink**) 03-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

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?

That wouldn't happen because all you would have to do is ditch the alcohol and stay on board for the rest of the ride

Quote:

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?

Then just show him bags and let him see there's no alcholol inside.

If a person is willing to forego a taxi ride because he must carry alcohol, it seems he/she has other issues he/she must deal with.

Quote:

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

It is far more a sacrifice to compromise one's religious sensibilities than it is for someone to scan a purchase himself.

Therefore, in this case, the person who ideally should show tolerance is the pork buyer, not the Muslim cashier.

drgoodtrips · #**108** (**permalink**) 03-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

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

I agree, which is why I would frequent another store if I were subject to selective check-out practices at the whim of a clerk's religion. I wouldn't raise a stink, I wouldn't get a manager, I wouldn't call anyone names... I just wouldn't go back to the store because they wasted my time.

The discussion isn't about the "adult" thing to do or about living with multiculturalism - the meat of the issue is employee rights with respect to religion (or lack thereof). That's the interesting thing here. How groovy you are with people of other faiths does not interest me in the slightest.

solletica · #**109** (**permalink**) 03-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I have nothing to complain about either way. I was merely pointing out that your argument had no substance whatsoever, which you have subsequently, tacitly verified by squabbling over irrelevant semantics. I'm actually sort of entertained by watching you use so many words to say absolutely nothing.

I mean... "It's subjective. It doesn't matter what one believes they should do, because it's reality that counts." Did you pull that out of a fortune cookie or something?

No, it's the truth. The non-pork ringing cashiers disagree with you, or else they wouldn't be working there.

And when there is disagreement on what one is obliged to do, then the obligation is subjective.

And in the end, reality is the only thing that counts. Try buying pork at one of these stores and arguing about the cashier not doing his/her job by not ringing up the purchase, and see where it gets you.

drgoodtrips · #**110** (**permalink**) 03-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

It is far more a sacrifice to compromise one's religious sensibilities than it is for someone to scan a purchase himself.

Therefore, in this case, the person who ideally should show tolerance is the pork buyer, not the Muslim cashier.

What if my religion requires women to bare their breasts? Wouldn't you say it's reasonable that I refuse to check people out until they remove all of their clothing? If you say no, you're intolerant of my religion and you have quite a to learn about multiculturalism.

drgoodtrips · #**111** (**permalink**) 03-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

No, it's the truth. The non-pork ringing cashiers disagree with you, or else they wouldn't be working there.

And when there is disagreement on what one is obliged to do, then the obligation is subjective.

And in the end, reality is the only thing that counts. Try buying pork at one of these stores and arguing about the cashier not doing his/her job by not ringing up the purchase, and see where it gets you.

Why would I argue with the cashier? I simply wouldn't go back to that store. And, when enough people followed suit, the store would lose business. This would, in turn, prompt the store manager to relieve the clerks of their jobs (all things being equal). So, I guess it works out in the end.

Because, to use your fortune cookie philosophy, obligation is subjective, I guess the ultimate arbiter of obligation is the employer and your ideas about tolerance are completely irrelevant.

solletica · #**112** (**permalink**) 03-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

What if my religion requires women to bare their breasts? Wouldn't you say it's reasonable that I refuse to check people out until they remove all of their clothing? If you say no, you're intolerant of my religion and you have quite a to learn about multiculturalism.

Actually, to certain women (moi included), this would not be an unreasonable requirement. They would simply use it as an opportunity to indulge their exhibitionist fantasies.

To other women, however, it would violate their religious sensibilities, and therefore be unreasonable.

Note, however, that asking a non-Muslim cashier to ring up a purchase or scanning the purchase in self-checkout does not usu. violate anyone's religious sensibilities.

solletica · #**113** (**permalink**) 03-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Why would I argue with the cashier? I simply wouldn't go back to that store. And, when enough people followed suit, the store would lose business.

That wouldn't happen, of course. Most grocery stores are placed such that they are geographic monopolies. You know what they say in the business: localtion, location, location!.

Most likely, those who live around the store would eventually learn to live with the minor inconvenience, i. e. they would adapt, although I'm certain most Americans there would bitch loudly about it first and try to boycott the store, go to city hall, protest etc.

Quote:

This would, in turn, prompt the store manager to relieve the clerks of their jobs (all things being equal). So, I guess it works out in the end.

See above for reality check.

trailblazer · #**114** (**permalink**) 03-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

It is far more a sacrifice to compromise one's religious sensibilities than it is for someone to scan a purchase himself.

Apparently you missed my last post about this, so I'll give you a quick recap of it.

There is no provision in any Islamic text against handling pork.

[end of recap]

That said, it's certainly plausible that some of these cashiers, having been raised all their lives to think that pork is gross, might still have a psychological hangup about handling it. But it's not a religious issue, and if anyone's pretending it is, they're simply being dishonest.

drgoodtrips · #**115** (**permalink**) 03-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

Actually, to certain women (moi included), this would not be an unreasonable requirement. They would simply use it as an opportunity to indulge their exhibitionist fantasies.

To other women, however, it would violate their religious sensibilities, and therefore be unreasonable.

Note, however, that asking a non-Muslim cashier to ring up a purchase or scanning the purchase in self-checkout does not usu. violate anyone's religious sensibilities.

So, what you're saying is that there is nothing that I shouldn't do to accommodate the religion of everyone around me, unless it violates my own religion to do so? Doesn't that seem kind of... ridiculous? And, what happens when religions collide? What if my God mandates that my pork and my frozen pizzas be rung up by the same person and the clerks God mandates that this cannot happen?

Quote:

That wouldn't happen, of course. Most grocery stores are placed such that they are geographic monopolies. You know what they say in the business: localtion, location, location!.

Well, then the store doesn't shut down, and everyone is happy, I suppose. Works for me.

Quote:

Most likely, those who live around the store would eventually learn to live with the minor inconvenience, i. e. they would adapt, although I'm certain most Americans there would bitch loudly about it first and try to boycott the store, go to city hall, protest etc.

That all seems like a waste of time to me. I would just go somewhere else. I make decisions like that all the time, and religion doesn't factor into it one iota. I actually drive to a grocery store slightly farther from my house because the service at the one across the street sucks. I stood in a line for ten minutes to buy a bottle of booze and had the cashier inform me that she was too young to ring me up, right when I got up there, and then she sent me to another ten minute line (as opposed to warning me from the get-go or having someone else ring me up). That was pretty much the last time I shopped there. To me, it's a matter of convenience, and to employers, I'd imagine that it's a matter of business practicality. If these clerks were doing this in my store, I would try to accommodate them, if possible. But, if I thought it were costing my business, I would fire them without a whiff of remorse.

solletica · #**116** (**permalink**) 03-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by enigma2

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!

That is 100% true. However, it seems that's not the American way to deal with it.

The American way is to stand there like an idiot and cry, scream loudly about "ragheads coming to the country, and destroying the rights of passengers," and making an all out scene right in front of the cabbie, or in a newspaper, or. . .

drgoodtrips · #**117** (**permalink**) 03-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

That is 100% true. However, it seems that's not the American way to deal with it.

The American way is to stand there like an idiot and cry, scream loudly about "ragheads coming to the country, and destroying the rights of passengers," and making an all out scene right in front of the cabbie, or in a newspaper, or. . .

What do you think of Christian doctors who won't perform abortions on rape victims? How about Catholic pharmacists or clerks who will not permit the sale of birth control? Do you think that raped women should have those babies so as not to offend the Christian doctor's religion?

solletica · #**118** (**permalink**) 03-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by trailblazer

Apparently you missed my last post about this, so I'll give you a quick recap of it.

There is no provision in any Islamic text against handling pork.

[end of recap]

That said, it's certainly plausible that some of these cashiers, having been raised all their lives to think that pork is gross, might still have a psychological hangup about handling it. But it's not a religious issue, and if anyone's pretending it is, they're simply being dishonest.

That may be the case, but it may not be the case. People who claim to be members of the same religion will often disagree as to what that religion entails or what their religious text says. Some Christians deem homosexuality to be a sin strictly forbidden in the Bible. Yet there are many Christians, including homosexual Christians, who think that's hogwash.

In the end, a person's stated religious affiliation says nothing about his/her beliefs or values.

solletica · #**119** (**permalink**) 03-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

What do you think of Christian doctors who won't perform abortions on rape victims? How about Catholic pharmacists or clerks who will not permit the sale of birth control? Do you think that raped women should have those babies so as not to offend the Christian doctor's religion?

A doctor like that would not perform abortions, period. He/she could do other medical procedures, though.

And in that case, the rape victim is very unlikely to end up with such a doctor. People would now about it beforehand, and she would be led to another doctor.

There are Christians who work as pharmacists who do not dispense birth control. Some Christians do. In the former case, it isn't a major inconvenience for the customer to ask for another pharmacist to dispense it for him/her.

You're under the impression that these religious restrictions are somehow going to monumentally terrorize consumers. And, that just isn't the case.

drgoodtrips · #**120** (**permalink**) 03-22-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by solletica

A doctor like that would not perform abortions, period. He/she could do other medical procedures, though.

And in that case, the rape victim is very unlikely to end up with such a doctor. People would now about it beforehand, and she would be led to another doctor.

There are Christians who work as pharmacists who do not dispense birth control. Some Christians do. In the former case, it isn't a major inconvenience for the customer to ask for another pharmacist to dispense it for him/her.

You're under the impression that these religious restrictions are somehow going to monumentally terrorize consumers. And, that just isn't the case.

I'm not under that impression at all. I recognize the realities of the situation. I'm attempting to construct scenarios (albeit likely hypothetical) that show me how much of your one-worldy-tolerance you actually believe. It seems to me that you're making a statement about how tolerant we should be of Islam (and perhaps not of Christianity, though I don't know this) that is quite far reaching in scope. And, when scenarios are constructed to test this logical framework, you obfuscate by suggesting that said scenarios could not happen.

So, instead of working in the hypothetical, why not discuss it like this: Do you think that it is each person's obligation to go out of their way so that the religion's of others are accommodated? If so, should it apply only to Islam and other "minority" (in the US) religions, or would Christianity be included as well?

And, here are a couple of non-hypothetical situations that I'm curious about your feelings on:

Do you believe that homosexual behavior should be allowed in the curriculum in public schools (say, health class), since allowing it is intolerant of Islam and Christianity?

Do you believe that blue laws should be kept or re-instated because having car dealerships and bars open on Sundays is intolerant of Christianity?