Muslim Target employee refuses to handle pork product at checkout

[pepperbear]

http://www.buzz.mn/?q=node/898

I don't know how to feel about this one. I have a problem with Christians who refuse to fill certain doctor-prescribed medicines and to me, this is no different. The one consolation is that it appears every effort was made to find a cashier who would touch the pork product.

What I definitely don't like is the collective freep response:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1800322/posts

They see a huge difference between a Christian who refuses to fill Birth Control prescriptions and this employee. I do not.

What say you, DU?

[Ron Green]

1. It's a legal product, customarily sold in this country. He's got to handle it if he wants to

work at that store.

[liberaldemocrat7]

101. If other employees can handle pork then it doesn't matter if he does not want to

handle pork. Respect his religious belief and get another employee to do the handling of the pork.

This appears different than birth control. Usually the pharmacy in the case of birth control has one main pharmacist and if this person won't fill prescriptions the woman appears very limited.

In the case of pork, let the moslem employee get another employee to do the work.

[napi21]

137. That is total BS! If there is a part of a job you won't, can't, or don't want

to do, then DON'T TAKE THE DAMN JOB! It is NOT up to the employer to disrupt what should be a very smooth transaction because one of their employees says "eeeewwww" tosomeitem they don't want to touch.

Quite some time ago, I worked for a company in SC that made vitamin pills. If you worked on the packing line, you had to go up a set of stairs(about 8 ft high) to fill the hopper. We had several "christians" who refused to do THAT part of the job because their religion said they had to only wear skirts, or dresses, but NO jeans, or slacks, and if they climbed the ladder, some deviate MEN would look up under their skirt! SAME BS! You either want to do theWHOLE JOB, or you don't. If you don't, then apply somewhere else!

[Freddie Stubbs]

190. Federal law requires employers to make 'reasonable' accomdations

for employees religious beliefs. If these employers are willing to make the accomodations, I don't see what the problem is.

[Skittles]

144. I don't agree with this

if a coworker's religious beliefs makes me have to do some of their duties then they need to find another g.d. job.....preferably in the religion field

[goodhue]

195. Doesn't matter if you agree with the Civil Rights Act of 1964

It is the law under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for a person's religious practices if it doesn't impose an undue hardship. A customer's personal preferences is usually not a factor in deciding whether a religious practice is protected in the workplace. In most cases, a cashier should be able to call over another cashier who can scan a product and the shopper shouldn't be inconvenienced.

[Skittles]

228. I don't find refusing to handle meat reasonable

IN A PLACE THAT SELLS MEAT

[Mike Daniels]

159. And how much time do customers spend waiting for a fill-in?

Presuming that other clerks are ringing up their transactions the pork-buying customer has to wait until another person is free before they can finalize their shopping.

Even if there's a perpetual floater, who's to say he's not going to be occupied in one line when the same situation arises in another line.

People who take jobs knowing that there are going to be responsibilities that they'll refuse on religious grounds need to consider finding another line of work.

[goodhue]

196. not long

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1052945.html

Jonathan Sigelman, a local attorney, said he wasn't bothered when a cashier called for assistance after he showed up at the checkout lane with a package of turkey bacon. He explained to the cashier that turkey bacon did not contain pork, and the cashier agreed to scan it.

"It might have delayed my purchase 15 seconds at the most," Sigelman said.

[LostinVA]

150. Agreed

I could possibly understand this if they had to TOUCH the actual meat, but they don't. It's wrapped.

I ahd an employee once who refused to handle GBLT and Pagan books. I let them go.

[goodhue]

172. He is a she, and no she doesn't have to handle pork to work at Target

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1052945.html

* * *

Target released this statement in response: "Providing guests with consistently fast checkouts is a key, fundamental part of our business and our guest service commitment. As always, we continue to explore reasonable solutions that consider the concerns of team members while ensuring that we maintain our ability to provide the highest level of guest service."

* * *

Retailers have accommodated other religious groups over the years. In the Twin Cities, these include those who don't want to sell lottery tickets or work on Saturdays, said Bernie Hesse, local organizer for United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 789. Supermarkets in particular have been good about recognizing their employees' religious observances, he said.

* * *

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for a person's religious practices if it doesn't impose an undue hardship.

A customer's personal preferences is usually not a factor in deciding whether a religious practice is protected in the workplace, noted Khadija Athman, national civil rights manager for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington.

In most cases, a cashier should be able to call over another cashier who can scan a product and the shopper shouldn't be inconvenienced, Athman noted. "If the employee is rude and gasps at the sight of pork, then it's a different situation," she said.

* * *

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1052945.html

[geardaddy]

179. But, but, but

CAIR is a terrorist organization! At least Alan (Larry) Fine said so!

:sarcasm:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. I see a huge difference between the two.

One doesn't want to provide adequate medical care to his patients, the other doesn't want to touch pork.

[Roy]

3. You said so much with so few words.....

[5X]

5. Nevermind, typo. Fixed. n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Thanks

fixed the typo

[JHB]

163. It's not about touching pork...

The cashier claims she can't even touch the sealed packaging.

I daresay there are plenty of muslims in this country (and others) who don't interpret their dietary prohibitions to quite that level.

[IanBean]

208. semantics

One doesn't want to kill babies, the other is withholding nutrition from people.

[demobabe]

211. semantics again

One wants to force their religious beliefs on a person, whereas the other wants to adhere to their religious beliefs. The guy who doesn't want to handle pork is not telling you that YOU CAN'T touch or purchase pork or that you MUST become a Muslim, just that he doesn't want to touch it.

By saying "one doesn't want to kill babies," what you're saying is that the pharmacist is making a religious decision for these women against their wishes or their own religious preferences and that they have to accept Christianity as their faith.

We're supposed to have freedom of religion - and freedom FROM religion in this country...

[IanBean]

212. Doesn't add up

Not killing babies =/= saying that you have to accept Christianity as their faith.

Kinda obvious when you put it like that.

Also,

Not touching pork + working late at night when there is only one checker left = customer not being able to purchase pork and being FORCED to steal.

I should know I used to work as a cashier (a long time ago) in a Target like store. (Basically like target except more grocery oriented and smaller)

[demobabe]

223. You're proving my point

> Not killing babies =/= saying that you have to accept Christianity as their faith.

It's a religious decision forced upon another person, which as an American citizen, we're supposed to be able to make our own religious decisions. And if you want to get Biblical about it, the Bible also says we're supposed to obey the local laws, which at this point do not make abortion or birth control illegal. So the pharmacist should be working to change the law instead of taking the law into his own hands and going against God, for starters.

If a person cannot buy pork, they are not forced to steal. That's plain stupid. They can buy something else.

However, a person forced into having an unwanted pregnancy is not comparable to a day's meal. You have some nerve to trivialize parenthood and the seriousness of such a commitment by making such a horrific comparison.

I have a baby, and he is the most wonderful thing in my life, and I never for a second ever considered abortion. It isn't for me. I've never had one, and never plan to in the event I ever become pregnant again. I look in his eyes, and he's the most precious, most special, and wonderful boy - there is nothing I wouldn't do for him.

But I'm not going to tell other women that my personal choice is the best one for them, under any circumstance. Everybody has their own life and circumstances, and must make their own decisions.

[redwitch]

221. Right.

:sarcasm:

[hobbit709]

4. Was he directly touching the pork

or was it wrapped and packaged?

[LostinVA]

155. It's wrapped, that's why I think they need to get over it

It's not FLESH they are touching, but packaging. Jews can't handle or eat pork and I'm betting there are many Jewish cashiers who ring up pepperoni pizza and bacon every day at grocery stores.


on edit: The Freepers are wrong: this is exactly like the so-called Christian pharmacists who refuse BC and MA pills to women.

[goodhue]

173. He is a she

[kenny blankenship]

7. Get a job where handling pork isn't part of the job. Sorry.

Target sells all kinds of stuff including food. Here in Amrika, pork is good food according to a huge % of the population--a strong opinion that stretches waaaay back in our history. Maybe Target has a job where you won't come into any kind of contact with pork. Maybe they'll be nice and switch you to it. If not, good luck with the job search.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. The target near me doesn't sell pork.

It doesn't sell groceries at all.

Perhaps this person was hired before they were required to be handling pork.

[tammywammy]

69. I suspect it's a Super Target

They sell groceries, including produce and meat.

[gravity]

8. Its the same

If he is unwilling to perform his duty, then he should get another job.

Stores should make reasonable accommodations for their employees, but this crosses the line. How is Target going to accommodate that?

The pork is already wrapped in plastic, so he isn't even directly touching it.

[mondo joe]

10. Only difference is that the pharmacy thing is so much worse.

Denying someone access to prescription medication is worse than not touching pork products.

That said, they are both failing to fulfill the basic functions of their job.

[11 Bravo]

11. I see no difference at all.

In each instance an individual is refusing to facilitate the sale of a legal product as a result of their own religious beliefs. If one is unwilling to fulfill the terms of one's employment (and presumably selling the fucking products the store carries meets that standard) then one might be well-advised to seek employment elsewhere.

on edit: I see no difference at all in terms of whether or not the individual in question should retain their job. I see an obvious difference in the refusal to provide adequate medical care and the refusal to handle a religiously proscribed food item.

[demosincebirth]

12. Let her find a job with a pork free enviroment.

[Deja Q]

I must agree.

If the environment is so hostile, seeking another job is surely the most logical course of action?

And I don't think it's hostile. besides, if Target really is community-based, they'd be able to appease this worker - any given Target has oodles of employees and, as I said elsewhere, he is not touching the meat so I don't understand where the problem is. He is touching plastic and plastic is, unlike a slab of pig, ubiquitous. Does he have a problem with plastic; the side he's handling that has had no contact with the pig piece?

[demosincebirth]

220. Maybe the sight of pork is offensive to her...thats tough shit.

What they probably want is to outlaw pork all together.

[karlrschneider]

121. Better yet, move to a fucking pork-free PLANET

:grr: :mad:

[WorseBeforeBetter]

13. "I got a call from someone who said that an employee at the Target store downtown...

refused to run his bacon through a scanning machine." Is this story even true? Regardless, I agree with you. If someone has a problem with selling pork, BCPs, whatever - find another job!

[ComerPerro]

134. my reaction is, "offer to scan it yourself, lazy freeper"

[Mike Daniels]

161. Why should he?

If he chose a service line vs. a self-service line he should expect service. Not a refusal to scan one of his purchased items due to religious beliefs.

[ComerPerro]

165. its true that its abusurd not to do your job, but its not as severe as being denied meds

[ToeBot]

175. mispost

[manic expression]

14. He could just put on gloves n/t

[dysfunctional press]

127. wouldn't the pork already be wrapped in plastic anyway?

nt.

[Solo_in_MD]

15. I do see a difference...

They see a huge difference between a Christian who refuses to fill Birth Control prescriptions and this employee. I do not.


A store owner can refuse to carry a particular product, and I believe that laws that requrie them to stock a particular item, be it medicine or anything else are wrong. However an employee should have no choice as a condition of employment and can go elsewhere. Some employers choose to make accomodations by choice or due to necessity, but it should not be requried to by law.

The several pharmicists I know said that their employers told them they would dispense all drugs stocked upon reciept of a prescription or they would work elsewhere. I see no difference with them and this case or the airport cab drivers.

[uppityperson]

31. I see a big difference also but won't copy/paste what you wrote.

That said, I can also understand someone refusing to handle pork. I can understand why someone might not want to sell cigarettes also, or drive people around who have been drinking.. However, I see a big difference between refusing to give someone a legally prescribed medicine and having them step to the next counter to buy food products.

[Solo_in_MD]

37. Not as an employee it shouldn't be, but I believe that it is the right of the business owner not to

to carry merchandise of thier choosing, whether its birthcontrol pills or pork

[uppityperson]

38. I think that pharmacies should be under more control as to what they offer.

Health issues, medicine such as choloesterol lowering meds, take priority over whether or not you can buy canned ginger, for instance.

Edited to add that I am glad to see that they got someone else to help ring up groceries.

[Solo_in_MD]

45. I don't mostly because of the cost of goods associated with medical items

For example, if they aren't getting requests for prescription medicine X, they should not be forced to carry it, for all values of X. Otherwise the state is requiring that they lose money without compensation. I do not believe in any mandate for over the counter meds, anymore than I would a mandate to carry candy or soda.

I fully concur with a mandate for referral if they do not carry a requested prescription medication, again, regardless of what it is.

[uppityperson]

47. Well, I'm talking about prescriptions, like BCPs/Plan B

Do they sell birth control pills? Do they get Rx's for them? Then they should sell PlanB also since it is the same medicine just packaged differently and for a slightly different usage. Of course I also feel things like bcps/ocs (oral contraceptives) need to be funded partially at least by the gvt (state or fed) to help make up the cost. But then I'm a librul with loose moral values too!

[Solo_in_MD]

Even with those, I do not agree with a direct government mandate

But IIRC several prescription drug plans require supplying BCPs and Plan B or you can not be a preferred provider. Those plans could include the equivalent to Med-i-CAL. There it is a business decision on the part of the business owner, and not a state mandate.

States license pharmicists, but really don't control pharmacies in terms of locations, density, prices, etc. For that reason (and others) I really don't see a justification for controlling what they carry in terms of legal products. If one gets stupid, the market will sort it out soon enough.

[Marrah_G]

95. Birth control is prescribed for other health issues

My daughter has to take it. If she doesn't she gets big ovarian cysts that cause her to have to have surgery. She already has internal damage to her reproductive system. It is not up to a pharmacist to make health decisions for my child.

[Solo_in_MD]

97. One of mine takes them too.

And I agree that a pharmicist should not make those decisions. If the pharmacy carries them, they should dispense them, and if it does not (or is out of stock) refer to another pharmacy.

That is a different issue than forcing a business to carry particular products

[sandnsea]

90. Doctors can refuse to treat based on race?

Prescribed medicine requires a license issued by WE the PEOPLE, wherein we entrust individuals to have ALL the customary medications prescribed by a medical doctor that WE THE PEOPLE also entrust with the knowledge to prescribe. A doctor cannot choose to "carry" his service to particular individuals based on his moral beliefs. He has to treat everyone, just as a pharmacist has to dispense all customary medication. The license that WE regulate makes this different from food, wherein people can do whatever they want based on economics or personal choice.

[Solo_in_MD]

123. Think you missed a couple of points

There is no requirement that a pharmacy carry all customary medications and many don't for reasons of cost. Nothing wrong with that. The catalog of available drugs is massive. Even a large well stocked pharmacy may not carry everything. Its happened to me a few times. Next time you are in a WalMart/CVS/Save-on/Walgreen, look at how much room there isn't in the pharmacy. Same goes for doctors. Recently I could not find one nearby who had meningitis vaccine in stock when my daughter was required to have it, I had to go to the big city, and even then it was a self search.

Doctors can refuse to accept a patient, and many do. There is no requirement to document why. They can refuse patients without insurance which can be argued has a disproportionate impact on minorities. They can refuse them due to prior medical history or prior legal history (as in litigation). I believe it would be illegal to do it based on race, but proving it would be a PITA. Bottom line, doctors can and do pick their patients.

If a pharmacy has a medication in stock they should indeed dispense it upon receipt of a valid prescription. IMO if they don't carry it or it is out of stock, they should have a duty to refer to others that may carry it. It ends there.

[sandnsea]

132. No you missed a couple points

Nobody can refuse to serve anybody based on race, religion, or gender. I don't know where you got the idea a doctor could refuse to treat someone based on race. It's unconstitutional. On that basis, we obviously have the right to regulate business. That's what state licenses do, amongst other things, guarantee equality of service. The licenses are for OUR benefit, not the licensee. Doctors and pharmacists are required to do the job the license allows, and do it without prejudice. THEIR personal views do not enter into the equation. The benefit is to US, the patients. I am sure the manufacturer of Plan B knows the number of prescriptions written in any given area. If it's customary, the pharmacist needs to have it in stock and dispense it. End of story.

WE own the country. US. The customer, the consumer, the taxpayer, the citizen. YOU. ME. WE are the deciders.

[Solo_in_MD]

138. I suggest you reread what I wrote

I agree that it is against the state and federal law (not the constitution BTW) for a doctor to refuse service based on race. That does not mean it does not happen. Its never overt, and a PITA to prove, since there are always other reasons out there to provide a fig leaf. I know of no doctor who has faced license action in the last decade for racism, but it is clearly out there. There are those that claim requiring insurance is inherently racist, but the courts have not agreed. Espouse the theoretical if you wish, but the reality is different.

You need to revisit your understanding of licensing laws. They are for quality control and revenue, not social engineering. In most locales pharmacies are not licensed markedly differently than any other retail establishments. There are also not controlled in number and location like liquor stores are in many areas. Pharmacists who are licensed as individuals and often they do not own the business or determine which merchandise is carried. That is true especially true for the big chains. How can you insist that they carry all customary medications and determine which ones qualify? Its not possible or appropriate for the government to interfere at that level. Mandating referrals to other pharmacies in case they can not fill a prescription is a reasonable. Its happened to me a few times though it was not for Plan B.

I am not endorsing pharmacists making ethical decisions for patients, since that would be wrong. If they have it in stock, there is an obligation to dispense. That is clear and I believe unarguged, at least by me. However, there is no reasonable legal approach that would mandate pharmacies carry certain medication. They are independent businesses and can and should make their own decisions. Your approach is nearly indentured servitude, and not found in any state or anywhere else in the medical profession.

Consider this: A stand alone pharmacy opens in a large retirement community which is age restricted. Why would they carry Plan B or maternity vitamins? Their rack space would be better used on products that their customers would much more likely be using.



The following is from the State of California WRT to Pharmacy Licensing...


Businesses Requiring License: As above.

Fees: Application: $400; Examination: none; Fingerprint processing: $42 each; License: $250.

Examination Frequency: N/A.

Examination Locations: N/A.

Experience Requirement: None.

Average Time to Process Application: 60 days, once application is completed.

Fee Period: Annually.

Authority: Business and Professions Code, Sec. 4000, et seq.; Cal. Admin. Code, Title 16, Chap. 17.

Other Special License Requirements: Application to list pharmacist in charge and include fingerprints and affidavits of owners, officers, and directors (incorporated) and any shareholder holding more than 10% of stock. There must be on record a designated pharmacist in charge to instruct nonpharmacist owners (if any) that they may not enter certain areas, may not have a key to the secured area, and may not interfere with his or her professional duties. Must register with Federal Drug Enforcement Agency to obtain DEA number to purchase and dispense controlled drugs.

Comments: License needed for retail and hospital pharmacies. Physician ownership restricted.

Information and Applications: See Intern.

[sandnsea]

143. Customary

I've repeated the word numerous times and you refuse to acknowledge it. Customary for the area. Refusing to carry Plan B is a violation of women's civil rights. Provided it is customary for the area which can be proven with pharmaceutical records.

[Solo_in_MD]

213. Which rights would that be?

- The right to use/posses/obtain does not require any person to have it to sell. Just beacuse you want to buy something does not mean that a local merchant must carry it for you to purchase, or carry it at a price you can afford.

- There is no legal precedent for the state to require a merchant to carry particular merchandise. If that is done and they forced to carry it at a loss who will make it up?

This is not a rights violation in any sense of the word.

[sandnsea]

214. Deprivation of a woman's right to medicine

Business has been coming up with excuses for discrimination for centuries. You're enabling them. I do not understand this country's obsession with protecting business at the expense of real live people. It's sick.

[Solo_in_MD]

216. What violation of rights...they would still be available elsewhere

Your approach smacks of indentured servitude.

If they carry them it should be dispensed.
If they don't carry them or are out of stock, they should refer.

This should be true for any drug, not just BCPs or Plan B.

[sandnsea]

219. Black people can drink at that other fountain

What violation of rights???

Good grief. Stand up for your damn self.

[Solo_in_MD]

224. False analogy

since the position is that if its available, its available to all.

Again, you have not shown any violation of rights by any reasonable standard.

[sandnsea]

227. Schools, restaurants, employment

Was available to whites and not blacks. Medication. Not provided due to people putting their personal views over women's rights. Discrimination. If you are licensed to fill subscriptions, you have to fill them all and carry medication that would customarily be asked for. Otherwise you aren't meeting your obligation to the community, which is why you were given a license in the first place.

[Solo_in_MD]

237. Licensing does not create a must serve condition

otherwise it would be indentured servitude. The must serve argument could only be valid if it was exclusive source and life threatening, as in public utilities. Pharmicies are not public utilities, they are private businesses.

[kestrel91316]

16. I see no difference whatsoever. If he doesn't want to handle pork

products, WTF is he doing working where he will be expected to handle pork products????

Leave your religous fascism at home folks.

[guitar man]

17. whether it's the pharmacist or the cashier

either do the job or get out of the way for someone who will.

[ima_sinnic]

18. since you asked, I find the whole taboo against pork ridiculous.

Prohibitions against eating pork might have made sense hundreds of years ago, when refrigeration and sanitation were nonexistent.
Now it is nothing more than superstitious "hog"wash.
Pork? Get over it.
So, yes, the employee needs to find a different job where his superstitions are respected, just as the "Christian" pharmacist needs to find a different job for the same reason.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Do you eat dog meat?

:shrug:

[Solo_in_MD]

49. Let me be the first to post the link to the infamous poster

"Dog, the other white meat"

http://www.dumbentia.com/pdflib/dogmeat.pdf

[gravity]

86. Hell, we euthanize them anyway

Can't let all that meat go to waste when they are children starving in Africa.

:evilgrin:

[ComerPerro]

135. when you said "poster" I thought you meant me, cause of my name, lol

[slackmaster]

77. A dog is a filthy animal too

[gravity]

22. I think they are just doing it for the attention

[geardaddy]

32. What? n/t

[gravity]

44. I think they are just trying to make a political statement

Thats all.

I doubt they were really that offended by scanning a piece of pork wrapped up in plastic.

[Catherine Vincent]

23. "Pork? Get over it!"

That would be a great bumper sticker. I have close friends that are muslims and they just turn their nose up if I'm frying bacon at my house. One of them went so far as grabbing my can of lysol from the bathroom and sprayed it because she didn't like the smell of bacon.

[Catherine Vincent]

19. They can't even touch it?

What are they afraid of? That they'll turn into a pig?

[uppityperson]

33. It is a religous thing, to not handle pork.

That was a rather rude question there, by the way. Edited to clarify, not very tolerant of someone else's beliefs. And I do not cook loud smelling meat products when vegetarians are coming over to dinner so as to not offend. I consider that just good manners.

[Solo_in_MD]

82. So opening BBQ next to a mosque would be a bad thing?

Here I was thinking that it would be a good idea and most likely the only one in the neighborhood.

[uppityperson]

89. put it between the mosque and a synagogue and see how good local business is.

Though I have known more jewish than muslim people to eat pork. I find it interesting the Judeo/Christian/Islam evolutions.

[Catherine Vincent]

103. I wasn't trying to be rude.

And I know it's a religious thing for them not to eat pork, I didn't know about their beliefs on handling it. It's not like they are working in a pork warehouse. As the others said, it's wrapped in plastic. How hard could it be to pick it up for a second and scan it and slide it down? And you are incorrect of my not being tolerant of other's beliefs.

[uppityperson]

104. I think they can touch but not eat, but not sure. It was this bit...

Not talking about any general tolerance as generally I agree with what you write, but this statement: "What are they afraid of? That they'll turn into a pig?"

Seemed like saying about Catholics, "what are they afraid of? That they'll turn into a fish?"

[Catherine Vincent]

105. Well after reading the following comment, that is what prompt me to

ask that snarky question:

I asked her if it was because she was Muslim, and she nodded her head. "I can't even touch it," she said.

I was really trying to be funny but no one laughed. :)

[QC]

209. Can they play football? n/t

[uppityperson]

226. Too funny. Here is another article with a tiny bit more I think

These incidents sound like funamentalists, those going further than is necessary. Tossing the old pigskin around? You made me laugh. Thank you.

I did a search and can come up with only articles linking back to the buzz one, like this:
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nation/16897385.htm

...In the latest example of religious beliefs creating tension in the workplace, some Muslims in the Twin Cities are adhering to a strict interpretation of the Quran that prohibits the handling of pork products. Instead of swiping the items themselves, they are asking non-Muslim employees or shoppers to do it for them.

It has set off a firestorm of comments - more than 400, as of Tuesday evening - on the Star Tribune's community blog, www.buzz.mn. People called the newspaper from as far as Tokyo to voice their opinion. It remains unclear how many Muslim cashiers in the Twin Cities are declining to ring up pork sales.

The Twin Cities area has become a hotbed for such conflicts because of its burgeoning population of Somali immigrants, many of whom are orthodox Muslims. Last year, Somali cabdrivers at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport attracted national attention when some refused to carry passengers toting alcohol.

Dr. Shah Khan, a spokesman for the Islamic Center of Minnesota in Fridley, said the Somali Muslim community is divided between those who believe it is wrong only to eat pork and more orthodox Muslims who believe the prohibition extends to selling, touching or handling the meat. He urged people to remember the extraordinary adjustments many Somalis have made. "Many of these people are refugees. They may have been tortured. And they came here having never held a book in English," he said. "They're already adapting to our society. We need to adapt to them, too."

...

[Marrah_G]

21. Get another job

If my religion keeps me from doing part of my job then it's time to find a new one. I would make a HUGE scene in the store and make sure the main office knew about it too. I don't give a rats ass if it's a christian not wanting to dispense birth control or a muslim not wanting to touch pork.

[judaspriestess]

24. I don't know

I'm kinda confused why someone, anyone would emigrate to a country/culture knowing how different the culture is and typically goes against their religion to begin with. If someone is so offended by the culture because of their religious aspect, why bother? Yes, I know its money driven and a better life, they have the opportunity, etc and best wishes to them but...........
Many Westerners eat pork, they have seeing eye dogs etc (cab drivers refusing to allow dogs in cabs because of religion)


Its the same thing with the Christians from hell as I like to call them, just reverse and its only going to breed more misunderstandings and hate.

[bridgit]

25. low grade hypocrisy imo...

[Duppers]

26. I'm with you PepperBear!

I'm sick of the double-standards!!

[pepperbear]

30. well hey hey hey there, duppers! LTNS! n/t

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[11 Bravo]

34. Enjoy your stay. Hey, at least you got to 100 posts.

[uppityperson]

39. another case in which search is instructive

[pepperbear]

35. gee booboo, then it would just be DU. your point? n/t

[Parche]

28. Hippokrits

I love this one.......


This is typical of the nonsense that Muslims in America want to perpetrate on us.

I say, get the hell back to where you came from if you don't want to deal with our way of life.

How long are we going to put with this crap?

What about separation of church and state? Scan the damn bacon, towel heads.


So freepers what about seperation of church and state?
you cry when you cant pray, you cry when you cant hold the phony bible
you cry when the 10 commandments are not visible......hippokrits

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. whoops

Totally misread your post

[Horse with no Name]

36. Do we verify stories anymore or do we just jump on obvious freeper fodder?

I don't believe the story, sorry.
Muslims can handle pork, they just can't eat it.
Big difference.
Sounds like a "how do you like the shoe on the other foot" type story.
I'm not buying it.

On edit:
Here is the "history" of the author

Chris_Serres
History

Member for
14 weeks 5 days
Audio
listen to Chris_Serres's recent audio files
Blog
view recent blog entries

[geardaddy]

40. Apparantly the author is a reporter

for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, who specifically covers Target. As a resident of Minneapolis, I think Target is crap.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

41. She's their Top Target Correspondent, eh?

Oookay...

[Horse with no Name]

46. It's one of those blog-type things that some newspapers provide

to their readers to "get the news out there".

[geardaddy]

109. I know. I agree.

I'm just quoting what the person who posted said:

"Submitted by Chris Serres, Star Tribune Staff Writer on Mon, 03/12/2007 - 5:21pm.
How would you feel if a cashier made you swipe your own groceries because of his/her religious beliefs?

If you have an opinion on the matter, feel free to call me at [phone].

I'm a reporter who covers Target for the Star Tribune and the other day, I got a call from someone who said that an employee at the Target store downtown refused to run his bacon through a scanning machine. He was mighty upset, arguing that the cashier had "no right to work as a cashier at Target" if she wasn't prepared to swipe his groceries."

Emphasis mine.

I don't know why the Strib would have to have a reporter dedicated to Target.

[wellst0nev0ter]

139. Huh, I Thought James Lileks Was Their Permanent Target Correspondent

(eom)

[geardaddy]

147. lol n/t

[JHB]

168. Looking at his other articles...

...it seems more like he's covering local businesses:

a story about a bowling alley keeping the mural it put up (winning a fight with building inspectors)...

a video store succumbing to changes in the market...

parking issues at a Trader Joe's...

a development plan for uptown...

[geardaddy]

107. Yeah...

Because everyone knows that Target and Best Buy need to make the news daily.

Sometimes I hate this burg.

[Horse with no Name]

42. It looks more like a blog than a newspaper

Sorry I still don't believe it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

48. More to the point...

if it is true, than it would appear that the store has no problem with her as an employee.

[blogslut]

65. I think you may be right

This story sounds like a blog post. The author claimed to have interviewed the Muslim Target employee but did not get her name? Mmm Hmmm.

[ComerPerro]

136. Jeff Gannon was a reporter, too

[geardaddy]

149. Yep.

I don't doubt there's some Taxpayer's League type claiming to be a Strib reporter just to badmouth the Somali community.

[majorjohn]

234. Thank you! n/t

[sendero]

43. Find another job..

... jackass.

[Richard Steele]

50. No one should take a job if they aren't willing to DO the job for ANY reason, religious or otherwise

If this was a story about a Muslim who QUIT that position
because they felt they shouldn't ring up bacon, I would
have a lot of respect for that person. The person who placed
their FAITH higher than their paycheck. That would deserve respect.

But this is a person who refuses to do their job (on a regular basis),
and makes other employees take the time to do their job for them
when these occasions arise, yet still expects to draw the same pay
as everyone who actually DOES the job?

Sorry, that's some seriously fucked-up NONSENSE.

[SoCalDem]

51. He should be working in an Islamic business if he "fears" touching

stuff he's not "allowed" to.

I'm all for accomodating people, but sheez louise.. what if he were a truck driver and refused to load the cartons of bacon that a grocery store had ordered and paid for.? Do they have to send a special "pork truck" ?

People who LEAVE their culture should be prepared to adjust their new lives to the culture there...or gather in enclaves of their own culture that exist already within the US.

I would suspect that the "pork product" had a wrapping on it..I have never seen raw pig carcasses hanging at Target..nor are there customers hacking off a pigfoot here and there, and taking it to registers, as they leave a trail of pig blood in the aisles..

[uppityperson]

52. article says it was a pizza

[SoCalDem]

56. Target does not sell UNWRAPPED pizzas n/t

[uppityperson]

60. I'm suspicious of the whole thing.

looked for another source but couldn't find one.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Why is everybody assuming...

that this person is an immigrant?

[SoCalDem]

55. maybe HE isn't but his cultural proclivities ARE.

:)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

58. It's a woman.

Try reading the article.

And last I checked, there was nothing about this country that says one has to handle pork. In fact, there are all sorts of people, of all cultural proclivities, going out of their way to avoid meat products of any kind.

[SoCalDem]

84. As a former grocery-checker, I would have LOVED to have not had to "handle" some stuff

the LAMB'S HEADS grossed me out, and the 50 lb bags of dog food did my back in, but hey.. that was my job :)

[Madspirit]

63. Bornaginhooligan

"Why is everybody assuming the person is an immigrant?"


I was wondering the same thing exactly. We do have American born Muslims.

I just PMed you an apology, btw.
Lee

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

67. I got it, and I thank you.

:hi:

[uppityperson]

68. not everybody.

Thanks for saying that also, by the way. We have lots of people of all sorts of religions in the USA.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. Well, no.

Just the people who are "outraged" and think "he should get another job."

1. The store seems fine with accomadating the employee, assuming it's even true.

2. Who the hell would even get upset over this? Layla asks Joe from checkout aisle #2 to come over and sweep and bag the pizza, Joe goes back to his register, problem solved and it doesn't take ten seconds. What the big deal? You'd think Virgil Goode posted here.

[uppityperson]

73. yeah, it's not like someone got really put out by it, like by having to

bag their own groceries or get an abortion/have a baby. (no comparison between thoes 2, but more of a statement on the fact I consider very different outcomes of difference between this and pharmacy thing).

[Madspirit]

76. Good point

It just shows how we all over-react. I thought and probably still think it would be better if they got a different job but the way we are all reacting you would think, we think...it will all be chaos...CHAOS, I tell you, if they had to accommodate an employee. It sounds so simple when you put it the way you do.

STOP making me think. I am tired today.
Lee

[Tyrone Slothrop]

240. Re:#2

Exactly.

I worked at a grocery store in high school; our state had a law that you couldn't sell alcohol unless you were 19 (maybe 18). Anyway, a good number of our cashiers were still in high school and couldn't legally scan beer/wine. They'd have to have an older cashier come and do it.

And you know what? There were never any problems or outcrys.

[geardaddy]

110. Exactly.

Minneapolis has a large Somali population, and even though there's a chance that this employee was born in East Africa there's also just as much chance that she was born here.

[goodhue]

178. He is a she

She wore a hijab. Probably a young Somali woman.

[shain from kane]

54. Have you heard of the Sepoy Rebellion?

The sepoys (from sipahi, Hindi for soldier, used for native Indian soldiers) of the Bengal Army had their own list of grievances against the Company Raj, mainly caused by the ethnic gulf between the British officers and their Indian troops. It was also rumoured that the British had started to issue new gunpowder cartridges that had cow and pig fat on them, which insulted both Hindus and Muslims.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Yes.

Big, bloody rebellion that occurred in Victorian India. After a long standing series of grievances, the straw that broke the camel's back was a rumor that the British had tricked muslims and hindus into eating pork and beef fat.

[The Stranger]

59. Let him use a scooper or some tongs.

Next question.

[Madspirit]

61. If you can't

If you cannot fulfill the requirements of your job, get another job.
Lee

[WinkyDink]

62. Hey, it's the AMERICAN culture here. We are officially a SECULAR nation.

If religion gets in the way of a secular job---ANY secular job---the person can find a job more in line with their beliefs.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

75. That's right! THIS IS AMERICA!

Go back to france, hippies!

[WinkyDink]

91. Har-de-har. Why? Have "hippies" made a big deal about not wanting to perform aspects of the jobs

they APPLIED VOLUNTARILY for?

I happen to like it here, the current political atmosphere notwithstanding. (P.S. I love France, too. Buy me a pied-a-terre, and I'll consider moving!)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

99. Sure.

There are lots of godless hippies that don't like not any pork, but beef, chicken, eggs, fish...

Now that I think about it, those heathens don't like any meat at all!

"I happen to like it here, the current political atmosphere notwithstanding."

Really? You seem to do a lot of complaining.

(btw, what makes you think this particular Target sold pork producs when the employee applied?)

[WinkyDink]

206. I 'complain' about morons and Republicans, not necessarily at the same time.

But thanks for keeping track!

[supernova]

64. I hope the pharmacist who refuses any woman her BC

tries to buy bacon from this woman.

[uppityperson]

66. In 1 case your breakfast plans may be ruined.

In the other your life plans may be ruined.

[supernova]

79. Missing my point

that said pharm would realize what a pain it is to have an employee REFUSE to perform their fucking job.

[uppityperson]

85. I got that point. Taking it a step further also though.

If you can't perform your job, have someone else right there that can or change jobs. If you have reynaud's disease and can't bag frozen foods, be able to switch places with someone who can. If you have a back condition and cannot lift 20# bags of groceries, have someone standing by who can or give this person another lighter duty job. If you do not want to full perscription of some sort, have another pharmacist there who can. If you do not want to scan or bag a certain type food or cigarettes, have someone who will. Or give them another job.

I was taking it a step further since, as OP asks, is there a difference between having a planned meal ruined and getting pregnant.

[shain from kane]

88. Morning sickness can ruin your breakfast plans, too.

[goodhue]

183. different than taxi drivers and pharmacists

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1052945.html

* * *

Some legal experts said cashiers who avoid pork in a checkout line are different from taxi drivers at the airport who refuse customers carrying alcohol. "I think in general we expect taxi drivers to pick up all fares," said Eric Janus, the vice dean of William Mitchell College of Law. "That's part of what it means to be a taxi driver."

A supermarket cashier, on the other hand, is not under the same legal obligation to serve all customers, though the store may be. As long as another cashier is available to serve the customer, there should be no problem, said Janus.

The cashiers' example holds a similar legal ground to pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control or morning-after pills, a practice that has led to differing legal opinions in some states as many legislatures decide to take on the issue.

"It gets a little more difficult in the pharmacy world if you're dealing with a 24-hour pharmacy and the only pharmacist on duty is refusing to fill prescriptions," said Stephen Befort, a professor at the University of Minnesota College of Law.

* * *

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1052945.html

[slackmaster]

70. I don't see any difference at all

They see a huge difference between a Christian who refuses to fill Birth Control prescriptions and this employee. I do not.

What say you, DU?

If I were the General Manager and the employee was otherwise doing a good job, I'd try to find a position where he or she didn't have to deal with the "offensive" product. Hiring people is expensive.

If a reassignment was not practical, I'd terminate the employee. If they want to file for unemployment benefits and claim religious persecution, I wouldn't argue about it. (Not worth the negative publicity.)

[tammywammy]

74. I agree with you 100%

[Madspirit]

72. Oh My God

I checked the Freeper responses. Those people are just flaming racists. "Towelhead" "Get them the hell out of our country." God, those people have no integrity at all.

I think the person should find a more appropriate job but I certainly can respect their feelings and even if I don't, I don't have to resort to racist retorts. What is wrong with the Right? Man...they are an ugly bunch.
Lee

[Hatalles]

78. There's nothing against touching pork in Islam.

There is a dietary restriction on eating swine -- but even that is fine if one is forced to eat it by necessity.

[Deja Q]

81. The Jewish faith also speaks of pork.

Now I'm no expert on religions, obviously, but to my knowledge it's about not eating. Not about not touching. Maybe I'm missing something big?

:shrug:

[Hatalles]

92. Yeah, it's only a dietary thing...

But there are always some people who will take it to extremes and don't want to even touch it... as is the case here. It seems like an innocent enough incident to me... the girl got herself in a bit of a dilemma, some local blogger posted on it, and now FR and DU are all over it. Chances are she'll either get someone else to cover for her at the checkout when she feels it is necessary or she'll eventually realize there's nothing wrong with touching pork products.

[Critters2]

164. In Judaism, touching it makes one unclean, too

but this person wasn't touching it--it was wrapped in plastic.

[Deja Q]

80. The guy isn't touching the meat. He's touching the plastic wrapping.

Why can't the worker wear gloves? Besides, the meat is already packaged. So he is not technically touching it or violating any religious edict.

And, no, I didn't click the link.

But I too have a problem with Christians refusing to fill certain prescriptions. They can stand aside and let a coworker fill it; they are not relevant to know why it is being prescribed and it may be different from what they are presuming. The pharmacy could be rightfully sued under those circumstances. If the pharmacist has religious issues, why can't they fill it and then tell the one purchasing their issue with it and let the one taking the meds decide?

[Marrah_G]

93. The presciption thing really irritates me

My teen age daughter HAS to take birth control. Otherwise she gets huge Ovarian cysts. She already lost one fallopian tube, she could end up losing an ovary if she has a cyst that twists. She wants kids, and god help any pharmacist that refuses to dispense it because of THEIR assumption she is having sex. I would stand outside that store with a big ass sign that said "This pharmacy purposefully endangered the life of my child".

[goodhue]

184. It's not a guy

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1052945.html

[left is right]

83. Just as they have lines for 12 items or less

maybe they could accomodate this worker with a pork free line. :think:

[goodhue]

186. Actually, Targets like this have self-serve lanes, where customer scans everything

So cashier probably didn't think it was terribly untoward for customer to self-scan

[Beaverhausen]

87. I'd be OK scanning an item or two at the checkout

all you do is run the item over the thing with the lights till it beeps then put it in a bag. What is the big deal anyway?

[Beaverhausen]

94. There is a huge difference between the two-being able to take the item home

at the pharmacy, NO. At Target, YES.

[hogwyld]

96. Target should accomodate her beliefs

Many restaurants now place a pork insignia next to a dish on the menu, so employers must respect the cultural sensitivities of Muslims. If they're not willing to do that, then don't hire them in the first place.

[Solo_in_MD]

98. In most places you are not allowed to discriminate based on religion

All the employer can do is declare the conditions of employment. If the customer refuses, they can and should be let go.

[The Stranger]

125. Reasonable accomodation is actually more likely the law.

[Solo_in_MD]

131. Unlike ADA, reasonable religous accomodation means $0 cost to the company

A cut and paste from several places, note that IANAL:

Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), an employer must accommodate the religious beliefs of an employee or an applicant unless it imposes an “undue hardship” on the conduct of the employer’s business. Examples of accommodations suggested by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) include using voluntary substitutes, swaps, flexible schedules, lateral transfers, and changing job assignments. Any accommodation that requires more than a de minimis (i.e., nominal) cost is considered an undue hardship by the courts. Thus, if the employer can show that a particular accommodation will result in more than a nominal cost or disruption to its operations, the employer does not have to provide the accommodation. For example, one court (in Beadle v. City of Tampa, 42 F.3d 633 (11th Cir. 1995)) determined that removing a new employee from a rotating schedule to accommodate his inability to work on the Sabbath created more than a de minimis cost for the employer and therefore was not reasonable. This is Federal law which applies only to companies with more than 15 employees, state’s law may protect employees of smaller companies.

Employees have some role in this as well. Employees seeking to observe their religious beliefs and practices have a responsibility to do their part to help resolve conflicts between job duties and religious needs. To this end, an employee should tell his or her employer about the religious commitment at the time the job is accepted or immediately upon becoming observant if he or she becomes more observant while employed. Some states have laws requiring the employee to notify his or her employer a certain number of days before each absence. Moreover, the employee should arrange to take religious holy days as vacation days or unpaid personal days. Interestingly enough, employees do not have to justify or prove anything about their religious belief to the employer (for example, the employee need not provide a note from clergy): an employer is required to accommodate — subject to the undue hardship rule — any of the employee’s religious beliefs.

Dress codes and safety rules that come into play. Unusual hairstyles, beards, and some kinds of clothing can be banned and not subject to accomodation. For example, if a job requires the use of a respirator mask, and the incumbent decides to grow a beard for religious reasons, there is may not be any requirement for accomodation.
A key point to remember is that the employer is not under any onus to provide the accomodation of the employees chosing, including shift, hours, type of job or payrate.

I am somewhat surprised that no one has posted a question about why Target does not have a dress code that prohibts the wearing of any kind of head covering, including the hijab. As I understand it, it would be legal.


In this case, Target could easily say that her refusal to handle pork products means that addtional cashier hours are required. That fails the de minimis standard. She can be dismissed without a comeback, and IMO should be since it would have been clear than handling pork products was reasonably foreseeable in the job of cashier, or anywhere else in the store.

[Laurier]

106. Yes, Target should accommodate her beliefs and fire her

if she refuses to do the job she signed up for.

We're talking about a store checkout here.

If the person doesn't want to be in contact with pork products, isn't the simple answer that she not apply for a job in a store that sells pork products? The store certainly should not be expected to create separate lines for "pork products" and "non pork products" for its customers.

This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot, in my opinion.

[mondo joe]

114. Sensitivities are personal, not uniform. The individual has to decide if he or she

is willing to do the job.

[TX-RAT]

162. employers must respect the cultural sensitivities of Muslims.

What if I'm an atheist and choose not to be sensitive to any religion.

[Solo_in_MD]

242. Only if it is achievable at no cost

At least that is the current employment law.

[goodhue]

176. Indeed, and I believe they will

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1052945.html

* * *

Target released this statement in response: "Providing guests with consistently fast checkouts is a key, fundamental part of our business and our guest service commitment. As always, we continue to explore reasonable solutions that consider the concerns of team members while ensuring that we maintain our ability to provide the highest level of guest service."

* * *

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for a person's religious practices if it doesn't impose an undue hardship.

* * *

Some legal experts said cashiers who avoid pork in a checkout line are different from taxi drivers at the airport who refuse customers carrying alcohol. "I think in general we expect taxi drivers to pick up all fares," said Eric Janus, the vice dean of William Mitchell College of Law. "That's part of what it means to be a taxi driver."

A supermarket cashier, on the other hand, is not under the same legal obligation to serve all customers, though the store may be. As long as another cashier is available to serve the customer, there should be no problem, said Janus.

* * *

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1052945.html

[RB TexLa]

100. So can I refuse to handle beef, chicken and such on Fridays during Lent?

[majorjohn]

232. There is a difference

You can't eat meat during Lent because it is part of your fasting, and does not mean you can't touch it.

[The Straight Story]

102. Fire em and get someone who will do the job they were hired to do

In both aforementioned cases.

[Colobo]

108. If you can't do your job, let it be filling birth control pills or

handling pork, quit or be fired. Your religion or your personal beliefs are not my problem.

[GrantDem]

111. I guess I don't see the big deal???

I am assuming this person is a cashier. Why couldn't he/she ask the customer to scan the item? Here in Indiana cashiers under 21 cannot handle alcohol. I have been asked to scan it before.

If it is that major of an issue - maybe there is a non-pork-handling duty they could give him/her.


:shrug:

[Colobo]

113. The person needs to do his/her job, period.

[Hunky Dunky]

112. So basically, these numbnuts are stating

That they want to be hired and paid for doing a job that they refuse to do. Where the fuck can I get a job like that? I'll work overtime at it! LOL!!

[lynne]

115. She refused to ring up bacon??

So I'm thinking she also refuses to ring up pork rinds, canned/frozen BBQ, hot dogs, vienna sausage, bologna and any frozen dinner containing pork - not to mention footballs and natural bristle hair brushes?

The girl needs to find a new job in a pork-free environment and working in any retail store IS NOT IT.

[goodhue]

187. She refused to handle bacon, it was "rung up" when scanned by customer

The law will be on her side with this one, as Target needs to provide reasonable accomodation so long as it doesn't cause undue hardship.

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for a person's religious practices if it doesn't impose an undue hardship. A customer's personal preference is not a factor. In most cases, a cashier should be able to call over another cashier who can scan a product and the shopper shouldn't be inconvenienced.

[bling bling]

116. God is mean.

All these poor stressed out people who choose to make a spectacle of themselves at work out of utter fear of the retributions of God if they merely touch a package while doing their jobs.

I'm glad the God I believe in isn't some bully asshole on a power trip.

Just saying. Sorry to whoever is offended. But not really. It's truly what I think when I see stories like this.

[notadmblnd]

117. No difference.

if you can't do the job you were hired to do, find another job.

[kitty1]

118. Just curious; What if an X rated DVD came thru the till....

Would he be able to handle that. Is women's lingerie off limits. I would think that something promiscuous like a Teddy would be a bigger nono than a can of Spam.

[ComerPerro]

140. LOL, you can buy porn at Target? not at the one where I live

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clark2008]

120. How about just letting the customer scan it?

Customers can't fill their own prescriptions, by law, but, as evidenced by self-scanning machines, there's nothing to keep Mohammed Citizen from telling Joe Citizen that he cannot touch pork and could he scan his bacon and ham through the machine - but let Mohammed get the rest.

:shrug:

[NMMNG]

122. If he doesn't want to perform the duties of the job he should get another job

On the other hand, I don't see why Target couldn't reassign him, really, considering there are dozens of other positions in the store.


They see a huge difference between a Christian who refuses to fill Birth Control prescriptions and this employee. I do not.


I don't either. :shrug:

[Hunky Dunky]

126. It's not Target's responsibility

to reassign someone a different job based on their religious beliefs. How would you feel if government jobs were assigned that way? Target's resposibility to the stockholders (owners)takes precedence. It's the employee's responsibility to decide and/agree to participate in the coporate culture of the organization. If they are unable or unwilling, they must go elsewhere.

[slackmaster]

154. It's often a good policy to accomodate your employees' personal preferences

If reasonable accomodations can be made without too much cost or hassle.

Hiring replacements is expensive.

[NMMNG]

158. Jebus

How is sending the guy to stock shelves instead of checking out customers going to damage Target's bottom line?


How would you feel if government jobs were assigned that way?

If keeping some bigoted wingnut from making prejudicial decisions that affect my life by assigning them to a different job that won't conflict with their cherished beliefs is all it takes I'm all for it.

[Hunky Dunky]

169. Sorry, I disagree

You are arguing for the employee to pick and choose what they will do. I doesn't work that way. In my company, I decide, or let my managers decide what my employees will do. And I pay my employees very well for following orders. If they don't want to follow the rules of my company, they can work elsewhere. Of course, they are welcome and encouraged to make suggestions, ask questions, and participate towards goal achievement in other ways, but they are not allowed to make up the rules. That's my job.

[NMMNG]

171. Who said anything about making up rules?

As I said, if there's only one job available (or if there's only one job the employee wishes to do) and the person cannot/will not perform the functions they need to go. If, however, there are multiple positions it's ludicrous for the company to insist an employee take a job they're not appropriate for just to make a point. Employees are not automatons and to treat them as such will get employers nowhere.


BTW, Ayn Rand is not worshipped here.

[ContraBass Black]

124. Refusing to pick up a ham doesn't force a woman to become pregnant.

That's the difference.

[dysfunctional press]

128. not filling prescriptions for birth control pills doesn't "force" a woman to become pregnant, either

if i remember sex ed correctly, there's another step involved.

[Marrah_G]

129. In some cases the opposite may happen

If my daughter doesn't take them she risks losing the ability to have children permenantly and also risk future emrgency surgeries. Birth control is not just for avoiding pregnancy. FDortuately I live in an area that isn't ruled by fundies with a social agenda.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

130. Is it common among Moslems to avoid even the touching of pork?

I confess my ignorance of the finer points of their faith, but it seems to me to be a bit extreme if they don't even want to touch pork. Touching it and eating it to me are two very different things. Is this perhaps a more fundamentalist side of Islam than the mainstream? How about shaking the hand of someone who eats pork and touches pork all the time? If I had a ham sandwich in one hand and shifted it to the other at the cash register, would this person also refuse to take money from the hand that had touched the sandwich? Would that also be against their faith? It seems a little extreme to me.

[ComerPerro]

133. There is a difference between this and pharmacists who won't fill perscriptions

not in the morality of it. Honestly, if a job goes against your religious beliefs or personal moral code, get another job.

But it is different in one sense. As a customer, if the cashier tells me it is not appropriate for him to handle the pork chops I bought, I can always offer to scan it myself and bag it myself, or read him the UPC code and bag it myself.

Perscriptions, in the meanwhile, must be administered, rationed, and dispensed by a qualified pharmacist. So I can't just say, "I'll get it myself". Moreover, when you deny perscriptions, you aren't just inconveniencing the person. You're fucking with their health.

[goodhue]

174. Indeed

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1052945.html

* * *

Some legal experts said cashiers who avoid pork in a checkout line are different from taxi drivers at the airport who refuse customers carrying alcohol. "I think in general we expect taxi drivers to pick up all fares," said Eric Janus, the vice dean of William Mitchell College of Law. "That's part of what it means to be a taxi driver."

A supermarket cashier, on the other hand, is not under the same legal obligation to serve all customers, though the store may be. As long as another cashier is available to serve the customer, there should be no problem, said Janus.

The cashiers' example holds a similar legal ground to pharmacists who refuse to dispense birth control or morning-after pills, a practice that has led to differing legal opinions in some states as many legislatures decide to take on the issue.

"It gets a little more difficult in the pharmacy world if you're dealing with a 24-hour pharmacy and the only pharmacist on duty is refusing to fill prescriptions," said Stephen Befort, a professor at the University of Minnesota College of Law.

* * *

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1052945.html

[ComerPerro]

185. Is it legal to drink in a taxi cab, though? I don't know

[goodhue]

189. Somali cab drivers at Minneapolis-St. Paul airport refusing clients

Because they may be carrying alcohol.

[ComerPerro]

194. I know, but my question is, is it legal to consume alcohol in a cab? I don't know

[upi402]

141. free to worhsip but folks need their pork

religion is sooo whacked out to me anymore. we seem to be heading to a 2nd dark ages.

[wellst0nev0ter]

142. Ferchrissakes.

As a DUer, I say the cashier is full of shit. In my lifetime as a cashier working in the Twin Cities area, I have known plenty of Muslim cashiers who had no goddamn problem handling pork products, alcohol, tobacco, or other non-halal products when doing their jobs. This person is just playing martyr for attention. Omar Jamal of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center has said that muslims in this country can't impose their religious beliefs on their employers, and he's right.

[CJCRANE]

180. Exactly!!! Good point n/t

[krispos42]

145. If he can't do the job, he should move on

He's not in a Muslim country. Our country's Christian roots include eating pork, drinking alcohol, and smoking tobacco. If you are not willing to do the job, then move on.

If you are not willing to change adult diapers, do not work in a nursing home. If you are against war, don't join the Army. If you hate water, don't join the Coast Guard.

And if you can't touch pork, don't work in a place that sells it.

If this person can't put on a latex glove or grab a pair of tongs to handle the offensive item, then don't work there.

[NuttyFluffers]

146. muslims sold us pork in saudi arabia, naturally on the downlow...

and muslims in several african countries, as well as asian and island countries done the same -- often openly if they aren't a muslim kingdom/theocracy like SA. and i've seen videos, heard first-hand accounts from professors/classmates/family friends about their multi-religious extended family, and read about muslims directly involved in the slaughter, dressing, and selling of pork products. there are some though who went through a clensing ceremony before and after to remove 'taint' before rejoining their community. they shouldn't, but sometimes life is like that, you do what you don't wanna do. i hear/see/read that they don't eat it, but they will do what they have to do to make a living where they can.

so let me just say here: he's full of shit. muslims are not fragile flowers that'll wither in the presence of anything not halal. if he feels like saying a prayer and doing a ritual before and after work on his own time, fine, it's his life and his faith. but other than that shut up and do your f***ing job. plenty of other muslims around the world, in far worse and oppresive conditions i might add, had and have been doing so.

[goodhue]

203. She is a young somali refugee

[Beelzebud]

148. If you can't do your job you shouldn't have it...

This applies to muslims and christians.

[gollygee]

151. The birth control thing is worse, but it's the same basic idea

When you're looking at jobs, only look at ones you're able to fulfill. Simple.

[RebelOne]

152. While I was surfing over at RaptureReady.com for my daily amusement,

I happened upon this post. A similar incident happened at Wal-Mart.

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=295496

[geardaddy]

153. Crappy reporting.

Here's the actual Star Tribune story

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1052945.html

but it's more of a story on the blog entry than anything else. Still no mention of the offending cashier's name.

My guess is the customer made it up.

Also, why can't SuperTargets set up a halal lane? That would take care of it.

[Solo_in_MD]

241. Rules for reasonable accomodation for religous issues mean no cost to the company

A halal only lane would be added cost, so the company can use that as an excuse to fire a cashier who insisted on handling only halal food.

Its perfectly reasonable if the company decided to have a ha;a; or kosher lane if saw a need or would be a competitive advantage. It might also piss off other customers who would go elsewhere. Regardless of path chosen, its the merchants call.

Given the publicity over this I assume the issue has been settled by Target and the cashier has either capitulated or is no longer a cashier.

Anyone know if that Target is unionized?

[LostinVA]

156. I JUST asked a Muslim colleague about this

She said she'd have no problem with ringing up the bacon or pizza. She wouldn't be eating the pork nor butchering it/preparing the pork.

[BoneDaddy]

157. I don't care what your religious view on a subject is

if you take a job where this is going to be a problem, this is YOUR problem and not the person who hires you. Case closed.

If people what to have irrational religious views that is totally their right. What they are not allowed to do is push that view onto the rest of rational America because of it. They made a choice to come to this country, knowing we do not have the same social mores and taboos as their country of origin.

I would NEVER think of going to any country and instilling my tribal beliefs upon them.

The christian pharmacists who refuse to give out the pill fall into the same camp as this person.

[newportdadde]

160. He will never experience a thinly sliced ham BBQ sandwhich or burnt ends, thats punishment enough.

[Tektonik]

166. get another job

eom

[ieoeja]

167. Was this maybe a liberal protest?

When pharmacists started using religion as an excuse to not hand out birth control a lot of DUers said Jews and Muslims should start refusing to sell ham.

When someone finally does refuse to sell ham... DU memory fails.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

170. It's a bit ironic...

that most of the people posting "if he doesn't do the job, he needs to get another job" apparently haven't read the article.

If you're not going to read the article, find another thread.

[Bridget Burke]

191. Yup. They don't know that "he" was really "she"

Anyone who actually follows the link will also realize that this is not really "journalism."

The Twin Cities are already having a controversy about Somali cab drivers who won't carry liquor. It does appear that many of these Somali refugees in Minnesota are very conservative. Most Muslim immigrants decide to leave their homes looking for better lives--not to avoid being slaughtered. I've known many (from other countries) who speak English well & are highly educated. They came for their careers or to become entrepreneurs. And they often disagree with the more conservative elements back in The Old Country, although they consider themselves good Muslims.

Here's an interesting study abstract. How will Lake Woebegone accept these "foreigners"? (Of course, you don't see racism & xenophobia in big cities!)

Thousands of Somali refugees have settled in the Twin Cities since Somalia's civil war erupted in 1991. Minneapolis-St. Paul has become the de facto "capital" of the Somali community in North America. Somalis have arrived directly from refugee camps, or in secondary migrations from other U.S. cities, drawn by an attractive urban job market and refugee service agencies.

More recently, many Twin Cities Somalis have begun to settle in smaller cities and towns around southern Minnesota and western Wisconsin, in a classic case of hierarchical diffusion of an immigrant community. They have been drawn by meat processing plants (and other industries that do not require advanced English language skills) in small Minnesota cities such as Rochester, Saint Cloud, Owatonna, and Marshall, and the Wisconsin towns of Barron and Hudson.

Much like Mexican and Central American meatpackers before them, Somalis have faced racism and cultural gaps in previously monoethnic rural towns. However, these gap are exacerbated by religious differences, and a negative focus on Somali Muslim immigrants after the release of "Black Hawk Down" and September 11.

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/somali.html

Apparently wine is not sold at grocery stores up there. So the people have never seen an underage cashier call for the manager to scan the offending bottle.

Things are different here in Houston. The Pakistani owners of my neighborhood liquor store happily rang up orders & wished everybody "Merry Christmas" last December. And a local food critic recommended a convenience store that sold "home made" lard--made by & for our large Mexican-American community. He asked the Muslim clerk what he thought about selling lard--& beer. The clerk smiled & shrugged his shoulders.

[JHB]

204. How is it not journalism? (yes, I have followed the link)

Actually links (plural), to some of the author's other stories; mostly a local business beat.

Why is this "not really "journalism.""? Do you have more specific information about the writer than the rest of us?

[ToeBot]

177. New Rule: If the checkout clerk won't scan an item - you get it free! n/t

[jmowreader]

181. There's a simple, expedient solution

Move her to softlines (clothing, shoes, linens), hardlines (toys, electronics, housewares) or receiving.

If they fire this cashier you know the papers will be all over this: "Woman fired over religious beliefs." Within days, the EEOC will be at the store, with end result the woman will be reinstated and given back pay plus compensation for "mental anguish."

OTOH, if they leave her on a register this will happen again.

I'd say put her in housewares or menswear. I'm pretty sure the version of the Koran she has, the one that says touching plastic-wrapped pork products is haraam, also says the same thing about short-sleeve women's tops.

Besides, you get far less abuse from the customers if you're not on a register.

Edited because Jim, who doesn't work in a store that sells clothing, lumped too many things into hardlines.

[AZBlue]

182. Does she ring up alcohol? Meat and dairy not prepared by the halal ritual?

This is really absurd.

And Target's now stuck with the problem. They now have to make sure to have a non-Muslim cashier near this person whenever she's scheduled. A non-Muslim cashier who's going to have to ignore their customers at the drop of a hat because she can't touch a cardboard box with pepperoni inside.

A better plan would be to move her to a non-cashier position where she's away from any food. But, unfortunately they can't fire her, even though she can't do the job she was hired to do, because she'll cry religious discrimination.

Same goes for the Christian pharmacists and anyone else who gets away with this B.S. I say fire them all and give the job to someone else who needs it and will fulfill their duties fully.

[geardaddy]

188. No she doesn't, because

in this state alcohol cannot be sold in supermarkets.

So, because of 19th century Lutherans in this state I cannot buy alchohol in supermarkets or buy it (other than 3.2 beer) on Sundays. And since I'm not a Lutheran I should be able to buy it anyway.

[AZBlue]

192. Oh, you have ABC stores there? (or something like that)

I used to live in Virginia and it was that way there too. Kind of a nuisance. And, you're right, if it's not against your religion, then you should be able to buy it whenever and wherever you like.

That is one good thing about Arizona - you can find liquor at the drug store, gas station and drive-thru! And, I think we have the Sunday morning law, but no one pays attention to it. At all.

[goodhue]

193. Certainly not. In MN alcohol is only sold in liquor stores. Comes from religious/cultural beliefs.

Altough if and when they allow wine sales in grocery stories, almost certainly some employees religious beliefs will have to be accomodated.

http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1052945.html

Retailers have accommodated other religious groups over the years. In the Twin Cities, these include those who don't want to sell lottery tickets or work on Saturdays, said Bernie Hesse, local organizer for United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 789. Supermarkets in particular have been good about recognizing their employees' religious observances, he said.

"If we ever get to the point of selling wine in grocery stores, I imagine some folks will be excused from doing that," Hesse said.

[AZBlue]

198. Wow - Arizona's pretty conservative, but I guess not when it comes to alcohol!

It's sold everywhere and by everyone.

[goodhue]

202. Prohibition was actually a progressive movement back in the day

History of Alcohol Prohibition

1870-1913: TOWARD A NATIONAL CONSCIENCE

A series of "isms" was aroused in this era: feminism, unionism, socialism, and progressivism. Prohibition absorbed elements of them all, and vice versa.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/nc/nc2a_4.htm

[AZBlue]

205. Really?! I had no idea - that's so interesting!

Thanks for the link - I've read through a good bit of it and printed to read the rest.

(interesting sentence in there though - relevant to my earlier comment about AZ:
"By 1902, the temperance campaign had permeated the public school systems: every state but Arizona had introduced compulsory temperance education."
Ha, ha!)

[goodhue]

200. self-delete

Posted in wrong spot

[originalpckelly]

197. Pork is not medicine, so I'd say the pork might be a little less important,

but the fella who won't touch it is allowing his religious beliefs to impact his job. I'd fire him on the spot if he did that in my store.

[JerseygirlCT]

199. If you're not willing to do the job find another one.

I don't think any special concessions ought to be made.

No one is asking that the employee *eat* the pork, merely sell it to someone else.

[Mugu]

201. I know three Muslim fellows,

two of them are cooks at a family restaurant and the third guy owns the place. They would all be on the street if they refused to handle pork products. If you can’t or won’t do the work, find another job.

Regards, Mugu

[Geek_Girl]

207. I don't think there is much difference

Other than a pharmacist is a highly paid professional and cashiers make minimum wage.

[IanBean]

210. Quite simple

Do the job, or don't. No one is forcing her to touch bacon but if she expects to get paid then she should do the job.

[Sabriel]

215. The checkout person last night couldn't ring up my beer purchase

She was under 21 and had to call another cashier to do it for her.

So I'm assuming that many of the people on this thread feel she should be fired (or not hired in the first place), rather than accommodate her, because she's unable to do her job in its entirety. No?

Honestly, it's more important to me to give up a measly minute of my time than it is to do away with people's differences. If she had been Muslim, I would feel the same.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

217. But people under 21 are not allowed to purchase alcohol.

But everyone is able to purchase pork.

[Sabriel]

222. Either way (age or religion), the person couldn't do the job

Ultimately, what's more important: accepting differences or being sticklers for efficiency?

The ghost of Frederick Winslow Taylor lives on.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

225. You choose your religion, not your age.

[Solo_in_MD]

218. Not really

The employer knew about her age when she was hired, so there is implied acknowledgement of the limitation.

[goodhue]

229. Target probably knows that young Somali women with hijabs

May likely not handle pork

[Marrah_G]

233. Why would they know that?

They aren't eating pork or even touching pork. They are touching plastic covering pork.

[goodhue]

235. Because they employ 1000s of them in the Twin Cities

It seems to be lost on the national audience that this story, like the Somali cab story of last year, is principally about the challenges of absorbing a huge Somali refugee community in the Twin Cities.

[DeaconBlues]

230. Something similar to this already happens to people who live

in an area where a cashier under 21 has to have someone else ring up alcohol. This routine is ultimately based on our religious beliefs about drinking. It sure doesn't have any basis in rationality.

That said, waiting for a substitute cashier for yet another product certainly would be a pain in the ass.

[majorjohn]

231. It's no big deal!

The cashier did not refuse to "sell" the product, but was unable to "touch it" due to religious beliefs. At that point, the cashier can simply ask for assistance and the customer has no right to yell at the cashier because cashiers ask for assistance all the time!

[majorjohn]

236. Just to put it out there, the bible also states:

"The flesh of these you shall not eat, nor shall you touch their carcasses, because they are unclean to you."
- Leviticus Chapter 11, Verse 8



Most religions are strict about something, yea?

[Hekate]

238. Needs to find a job with no pork on the premises, sorry.

It's a legal product, and this is a necessary part of performing the job.

I'm a big proponant of religious diversity, hiring the disabled, you name it. But every job has irreducible requirements: a warehouse worker has to be able to shift heavy weights safely, and an accountant needs to be competent with spreadsheets. This job requires the employee to ring up (or scan) every product that comes over the counter.

It is in the same category as the pharmacist who decides to be the gatekeeper of your prescription medications by refusing to dispense contraceptives. Such a pharmacist needs to find employment at a strictly religious establishment or find another career. Period.

Hekate

[geardaddy]

239. But this worker isn't forbidding the customer from buying the pork.

She is merely refusing to touch the item that has pork in it. The pharmacist that refuses to sell birth contol pills or other medication is usually doing so because they don't want the customer to have them.

That's the difference.