• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sign at Wegmans draws attention

Well, I hope you've never asked for time off, a pay raise, a change in schedule, a transfer in department, or anything else of the sort for any reason at all -- because asking for something for religious reasons is exactly the same as asking for that same something for any other reason whatsoever.

ive never asked for anything special at any job I have ever had, due to my faith.
 
I'm skeptical about this. If an employee does something 'on whimsy', they should expect to be fired for it by management. If the management are in cahoots with the 'whimsy', then the business itself may well suffer from it - but that's a problem for the business, rather than anything else; the free market will take care of it. I agree it would be a ridiculous situation to have a single cashier in a shop who refuses to sell products that are on offer in the shop. But any business which tries that model isn't going to survive for long.

The exceptions I would make for this rule are when it involves something like racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc - or when it results in harm to the customer. So a pharmacist who refuses to serve a gay man buying condoms, a waiter who refuses to serve a mixed-race couple etc - they get rightfully sued. And a Jehovah's Witness shouldn't be working at a hospital if they plan on boycotting blood transfusions. Apart from that, though - private company, private rules.

How is it any different to refuse service based upon the person not being the same religion as you? That's basically what this is. If you aren't Muslim and thus eating the way she eats, she will refuse you service.

Like I said, I'm not saying they don't have the right to do it. They certainly do. But it's obviously and outrightly allowing an employee to be discriminatory in the workplace.

You represent the company when you are at work, not your own personal beliefs.
 
…Most people think it's a good thing when people can come to such an agreement without invoking outside authorities. It's only people like you who think that's a bad thing.

you're lying again Bob, as I've said nothing about govt. or govt. stepping in.

Did you, or did you not write the following?

its too bad the owner agreed to make accomodations for her "needs".

id love to have seen this in court.
 
Well, I hope you've never asked for time off, a pay raise, a change in schedule, a transfer in department, or anything else of the sort for any reason at all -- because asking for something for religious reasons is exactly the same as asking for that same something for any other reason whatsoever.

None of those things are the same.

If you ask for time off or a schedule change based on religious requirements, you are changing the time at which you represent the company. When you are not there, you don't represent the company.

If you ask for a change in department to accommodate your religious requirements, you are asking to be moved somewhere where there will be no conflict between your beliefs and your job.

What she is doing is asking to stay at the same job, but be permitted to deny service based on her beliefs.
 
How is it any different to refuse service based upon the person not being the same religion as you? That's basically what this is. If you aren't Muslim and thus eating the way she eats, she will refuse you service....

indeed, if you eat in a way that conficts with her religious beliefs, she will not provide you with the service she was hired to do.

that's not right.
 
How is it any different to refuse service based upon the person not being the same religion as you? That's basically what this is. If you aren't Muslim and thus eating the way she eats, she will refuse you service.

Like I said, I'm not saying they don't have the right to do it. They certainly do. But it's obviously and outrightly allowing an employee to be discriminatory in the workplace.

You represent the company when you are at work, not your own personal beliefs.
No, that's not accurate. If she was discriminating on religious grounds, that would be a wrist-slap, fair enough. But it's a pretty far stretch to go from her position to your inference. She's not refusing people because of their religion, she's asking to avoid handling produce which is obviously non-halal. If I went in and brought a tube of toothpaste, she wouldn't refuse to serve me; even if I needed it to clean the bacon out from where it was stuck in my teeth.
 
…Most people think it's a good thing when people can come to such an agreement without invoking outside authorities. It's only people like you who think that's a bad thing.

you're lying again Bob, as I've said nothing about govt. or govt. stepping in.

Did you, or did you not write the following?

its too bad the owner agreed to make accomodations for her "needs".

id love to have seen this in court.

that doesn't mean I want the government to legislate on this issue.

You're moving the goalposts. I don't think either of us had yet said anything about legislation before this point.

You said that you would “…love to have seen this in court.”

Courts are part of government. This only would have wound up in court if the two sides couldn't agree, and felt a need to bring government in to try to force each other. And only people like you think that that's better than the situation in which two people freely agree to a compromise that suits both of them, without having to resort to outside authority to try to force one to comply with the other's wishes.
 
asking for special favors at a job, due to religious reasons, makes one uppity, in my view.
That's not what you said in post #12.
oh, that's very different.
giving someone Rosh Hashanah, or Easter, or Id, or some other very important holiday off, is just common courtesy & respect.

Common courtesy and respect, just not to a Muslim. Duly noted.

has such a favor been granted to ANYONE else at the store?
Why don't you investigate that and get back to us?
 
This is a decision made by an employer of a private business, and as such they have the right to allow whatever exceptions they want. If this was going to come up, I'm glad it was dealt with personally rather than governmentally.

But as others have brought up, there's a really bad precedent for this. People being refused service for all kinds of reasons. What if she's the only person working the register? Are you just supposed to go home, or drive however many miles to go somewhere else, even though the store sells pork/alcohol which you are supposed to be allowed to purchase?

How many people missed their flights and flushed a few hundred dollars down the drain because Muslim taxi drivers refused to transport their luggage if it contained alcohol?

How many girls had preventable unwanted pregnancies because they were denied access to emergency contraception by Christian pharm techs?

When you do a job, you are not representing yourself. You are representing the company you work for. If you cannot in good conscious do that, you should not work there.

It's all good and well to be tolerant towards employees with different lifestyles and beliefs. But what about being tolerant towards CUSTOMERS with different lifestyles and beliefs?

The customer can't help who happens to be the only person working the register, or the taxi driver they happened to run into, or the pharm tech they happened to run into. Why is it ok to discriminate against the customer, and deny them possibly vital service?

Why are they offering a service that the customer can be denied access to at the whimsy of an employee?

What's really ironic about this is that I'm on another thread about tattoos, and people are arguing that if you're going to display your personal beliefs with a tattoo, you should expect to be turned down for jobs.

Yet if you express your personal beliefs by denying your customers services that you are supposed to offer, you should expect special treatment?

I don't get this.
And what happens when a second (3rd/4th) girl shows up in a Hijab wanting a job at Wegmans?
They're going to say to Themselves.. 'we can't afford another Muslim checkout girl'.
And they'd be right.
Lawsuits for discrimination against employing Muslims?

There's a germane phrase that has come up many times re Europe on this problem:
'Tolerating the Intolerant'.
School Curriculums have been changed (many Muslims find the Holocaust offensive), signs removed, an all manner of jumping through hoops for people that should themselves be doing the accommodating. America has generally avoided the kowtowing that has been done in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.

And to TED, Handling pork Is part of the job description as a checkout girl, even if products aren't named.
I don't recall such problems or favors granted to other religions. (Pork for Jewish employees, or Beef for Hindu ones)
The situation I pointed to previous in Minneapolis is very problematic and of course, not acknowledged by opponents.
 
Last edited:
....You're moving the goalposts. I don't think either of us had yet said anything about legislation before this point.....

I don't want this legislated on. But I'd love to see a court tell this girl that her lawsuit is frivolous.

Now my view is clear.
 
No, that's not accurate. If she was discriminating on religious grounds, that would be a wrist-slap, fair enough. But it's a pretty far stretch to go from her position to your inference. She's not refusing people because of their religion, she's asking to avoid handling produce which is obviously non-halal. If I went in and brought a tube of toothpaste, she wouldn't refuse to serve me; even if I needed it to clean the bacon out from where it was stuck in my teeth.

She doesn't drink or eat pork because of her religious beliefs. How is this NOT discrimination on religious grounds?

She doesn't have to be discriminating against a SPECIFIC religion for it to be religious discrimination. She is discriminating against ALL non-Muslims. It's still discrimination. Just like a white person not discriminating against specifically black people, but rather ALL non-whites is still discrimination.

Whether she's discriminating based on all of her religious requirements is also not relevant. She is still discriminating based on two of them - no drinking, and no pork.
 
...Common courtesy and respect, just not to a Muslim. Duly noted.

Why don't you investigate that and get back to us?

trying to snake in a way of accusing me of anti-Muslim bigotry, is pretty dishonest of you.

getting a day off for a Muslim holiday is perfectly fine with me, as long as she doesn't get MORE days off than other employees. that would be discrimination.

however, wanting an accomodation at her job for her religious views, that has a clear & tangible effect on the store's customers ability to shop, crosses the line in my view.

I don't care if you're a Jew who doesn't want to touch pork, a Muslim who doesn't want to touch wine, a Hindu that doesn't want to touch beef, or a Mormon who doesn't want to touch cigarettes.

if the accomodation you require has a significant effect on the shopping ability of your customers, than it goes too far.

stores are there to make money and sell stuff. and if you lose a whole checkout line, your shoppers may go elsewhere.

or they could be a bunch of bleeding heart do-gooders, more than happy to wait on line an extra five minutes, so poor little girl doesn't have to touch a cardboard package around a plastic package, that has ham in it.
 
Last edited:
Good for Wegmans! It is their choice, their business and their policy. Good on them!
 
trying to snake in a way of accusing me of anti-Muslim bigotry, is pretty dishonest of you.
I quoted exactly what you said in a previous post that contradicts what you said at a later stage. Feel free to debate on that instead of this nonsense.
 
How far does she expect to be protected? Full-blown pork products like bacon? That seems obvious. How about partial pork products like cheap hots dogs that contain some pork along with other meats? How about gelatin?
 
sorry to be the contrarian here, but I think this is absolutely ridiculous.

as a Jew, if I had problems touching a box or plastic package with pork or shellfish inside it, I would NOT work at a store that sold pork or shellfish.

I think this girl is wrong to ask to not have to handle pork or alcohol containing packages, and the store is even more wrong in enabling such an attitude of entitlement.

ugggg.

It's not often that Thunder and I see eye-to-eye on anything, but we're on the same page, here.

This girl was hired to do a job. She knew her job would include selling alcohol and pork products. If she can't do that, she needs to find another job.
 
She doesn't drink or eat pork because of her religious beliefs. How is this NOT discrimination on religious grounds?

She doesn't have to be discriminating against a SPECIFIC religion for it to be religious discrimination. She is discriminating against ALL non-Muslims. It's still discrimination. Just like a white person not discriminating against specifically black people, but rather ALL non-whites is still discrimination.

Whether she's discriminating based on all of her religious requirements is also not relevant. She is still discriminating based on two of them - no drinking, and no pork.
She isn't discriminating against people because of their religious beliefs. That's what 'discrimination on religious grounds' means. She is reluctant to handle certain items because of her religious beliefs - but that only means she doesn't want to serve you if you're buying those items at the time, not depending on what your beliefs are.
 
Incidentally: the law in the UK.

Indirect discrimination would occur if a butcher stated that job applicants must be willing to handle pork and pork products. This would indirectly discriminate against Muslims and Jews, who regard pork meat as unclean. However, this could be justified if the butcher could show that:

*This requirement was absolutely necessary
*There was no way that the job holder could avoid handling pork
 
She isn't discriminating against people because of their religious beliefs. That's what 'discrimination on religious grounds' means. She is reluctant to handle certain items because of her religious beliefs - but that only means she doesn't want to serve you if you're buying those items at the time, not depending on what your beliefs are.

as I stated before, Jews are required to drink alcohol during Passover and other holidays.

this means that this lady will NOT be serving many Jews during this week.
 
I don't want this legislated on. But I'd love to see a court tell this girl that her lawsuit is frivolous.

Now my view is clear.

Yes. It's exactly what I said it was to begin with.

You'd rather have seen this decision made by government than by a freely-reached agreement between the parties involved.
 
as I stated before, Jews are required to drink alcohol during Passover and other holidays.

this means that this lady will NOT be serving many Jews during this week.
...because Jews are required to buy alcohol every time they go shopping?
 
Back
Top Bottom