• 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

What's there to be hysterical about, though?

I really don't see how anyone, regardless of their political lean, could be bothered by this. It's the perfect union between the liberal ideal of social justice and the conservative ideal of free enterprise.

I'm not hysterical about it.
I don't mind the employer making concessions to the employee like this, nor do I believe there should be a law requiring or not requiring this.

My problem is that this person applied for a job, where she had the knowledge, that she would come into contact with these things.
She then asked for an exemption, after the fact.
That's my problem.

Pointedly, you shouldn't get a job at a place, where you will have trouble fulfilling the basic requirements of the job.
 
My problem is that this person applied for a job, where she had the knowledge, that she would come into contact with these things.
She then asked for an exemption, after the fact.

I haven't been able to find a source which definitively pinpoints when she asked for an exemption. For all we know, it happened during the interview process.
 
It's kind of like applying for a bartender job, getting it, then saying you can't serve the liquor due to your religion so another bartender has to get the beer, wine, mixed drinks and you will only serve the 7-ups, virgin pina coladas, shirley temples.
Why apply then??? And what about the other bartenders taking on the load?

I know. Strawmen galore. :mrgreen:
 
I haven't been able to find a source which definitively pinpoints when she asked for an exemption. For all we know, it happened during the interview process.

Still, it's a general public grocery store.
You should have to fulfill the job duties, just like everyone else.
 
My problem is that this person applied for a job, where she had the knowledge, that she would come into contact with these things.
She then asked for an exemption, after the fact.

How do you know it was after the fact?

Pointedly, you shouldn't get a job at a place, where you will have trouble fulfilling the basic requirements of the job.

Obviously her employers do not feel that she has trouble fulfilling the basic requirements of her job. Why exactly do you take issue with their assessment of things?
 
Last edited:
How do you know it was after the fact?

I don't, but I kinda got the feelings that is how it happened from reading the story.
I could be wrong.

Obviously her employers do not feel that she has trouble fulfilling the basic requirements of her job. Why exactly do you take issue with their assessment of things?

I don't take issue with them, I take issue with her.
If I were to look for jobs and I knew working at a specific place could compromise some belief I had, I'd look for work elsewhere.
 
The term "give an inch, take a mile" comes to mind in this activist society we now live in. This has gotten national media attention now, and all it takes is for one or two pot stir'ers to mix it up a bit. Wegman's cannot possibly hope to accomodate every Jew, or Muslim with a food problem.. :)

What happens Coz you darn well know it's going too happen) when people reading about this walk on over to the Lyle Ave Wegman's and look for this Muslim JUST so they can mess with her and check out their pork, and alcohol despite having other lanes to check out from? Wegman's is only asking that their customers use another line, NOT that they MUST use another line. If the girl is ok with occassionally checking out the pork roast or chop, and occassianl bottle of wine from time to time, then there shouldn't be an issue, but this is America and people love to **** with others just for the sake of ****ing with them. :)

Myself included..


Tim-
 
Still, it's a general public grocery store.
You should have to fulfill the job duties, just like everyone else.

LOL! Dude, it's not a government store! They can give anyone any job duties or whatever they want. It isn't about everyone having equal duties.

When I was a teenager I worked for my grandfather. He busted my ass. I got crap jobs and if anyone general purpose person worked late or had to work on a weekend it was always me. I didn't make a dime more than anyone doing equal work. I once told my grandfather that it wasn't fair that I got most of the bad work.

"Fair", he laughed. "Did we ever discuss me being fair when you asked me for a job? You are my grandson so you will always work harder and longer than every one else. They'll be looking for favoritism. They aren't going to find it." then he explained that it was his business and he didn't have to be fair although he was. He also told me that it was none of my business what he expected of anyone else or what he paid them. He said not to believe everything I heard from coworkers and that not everything was as it appeared.

Wise man.

We don't know the things Wegmans and the Muslim lady have discussed. Her employment and her religious accommodation is Wegmans decision and probably a Wegmans business decision. Maybe she is making less money. Maybe she is doing more than working checkout. Maybe she is in dire straits. Maybe Wegmans decided that it wanted to be the change it wanted to see in the world.
 
I think what this thread proves is that some people think that having money entitles them to subject people to their will
 
We don't know the things Wegmans and the Muslim lady have discussed. Her employment and her religious accommodation is Wegmans decision and probably a Wegmans business decision. Maybe she is making less money. Maybe she is doing more than working checkout. Maybe she is in dire straits. Maybe Wegmans decided that it wanted to be the change it wanted to see in the world.

I didn't think of that. Maybe there was a company meeting with all employees and they all agreed to her request. Who knows?

See? Learn a new thought every day here, I do!
 
I didn't think of that. Maybe there was a company meeting with all employees and they all agreed to her request. Who knows?

See? Learn a new thought every day here, I do!

All I know is that Wegman's is annually voted one of the top 100 best companies to work for. The family owned business was established in 1916 and the founder and his son and now grandson as well as other family members apparently have a history of community involvement, community service and community support. While the family is Roman Catholic and supports a Catholic school and such, they also seem to make an effort to support people in the community regardless of faith.

They own 75 stores and other interests including wine stores and a wine/liquor distribution business, I think. They can certainly afford to hire a Muslim lady who isn't comfortable handling pork and alcohol, and why shouldn't they if they want to.

There are good people who actually do care about other people and are in the position financially and socially to take risks and set good examples for their neighbors and their community. Seems to me the Wegman's are such people. Good on them. It's nice to know about nice people for a change. :applaud
 
LOL! Dude, it's not a government store! They can give anyone any job duties or whatever they want. It isn't about everyone having equal duties.

When I was a teenager I worked for my grandfather. He busted my ass. I got crap jobs and if anyone general purpose person worked late or had to work on a weekend it was always me. I didn't make a dime more than anyone doing equal work. I once told my grandfather that it wasn't fair that I got most of the bad work.

"Fair", he laughed. "Did we ever discuss me being fair when you asked me for a job? You are my grandson so you will always work harder and longer than every one else. They'll be looking for favoritism. They aren't going to find it." then he explained that it was his business and he didn't have to be fair although he was. He also told me that it was none of my business what he expected of anyone else or what he paid them. He said not to believe everything I heard from coworkers and that not everything was as it appeared.

Wise man.

We don't know the things Wegmans and the Muslim lady have discussed. Her employment and her religious accommodation is Wegmans decision and probably a Wegmans business decision. Maybe she is making less money. Maybe she is doing more than working checkout. Maybe she is in dire straits. Maybe Wegmans decided that it wanted to be the change it wanted to see in the world.

You guys aren't getting what I'm saying, at all.

Generally speaking, the work place isn't an area for one to practice their religion, it's a religiously neutral area.
Where religion is not practiced, no matter the faith or lack there of.
That's how I view it.

Going from that, the girl should leave her religious qualms at the door or find somewhere else to work.
So, if your religion prevents you from servicing all customers, you shouldn't be dealing with customers in the first place.
 
I don't, but I kinda got the feelings that is how it happened from reading the story.
I could be wrong.

What part of the story gave that impression? I can't even tell if she actually said she couldn't work with these items or simply mentioned that she preferred to not to work with them. Many grocery stores have a universal application system as well. She might have been applying for a different position that wouldn't put her in contact with those products, but they were only hiring cashiers.


I don't take issue with them, I take issue with her.

But you must be taking issue with them because they don't feel that scanning pork and alcohol products qualifies as the basic requirements of that particular job, whereas you have decided all on your own that it is a basic requirement of that job.

Obviously the issue isn't what she requested, but your perception of what the basic requirements of that particular job.

If her employer actually felt that her request would prevent her from fulfilling the basic requirements of the job, they'd either put her in another position at the store where contact with such products was not a basic requirement or they wouldn't have hired her.

****, the alcohol thing isn't all that different from what happens with clerks who are under 21 in Illinois. They cannot legally sell alcohol, and they can't even come into contact with the product (not even to place it into a bag for the customer). They must, in all cases, call for someone who is over the age of 21 to perform these tasks for them. What we see here is identical except that the same behaviors are applied to pork products as well.

So, using the logic you have described, do you believe that anybody under 21 that applies for a job as a cashier in Illinois is doing something morally wrong simply because it doesn't match up with your perception of the basic requirements of that job? If not, please explain why these "basic" job requirements appear to shift based on the person performing the job.

If I were to look for jobs and I knew working at a specific place could compromise some belief I had, I'd look for work elsewhere.

Interesting. Personally, I believe every job as having that kind of potential. Some far worse than others, but every one of them has the potential. Does that mean I am morally wrong for working anywhere?

Also, are there any jobs that you believe could potentially compromise a belief you have?

Conversely, are there any jobs you believe have no potential to compromise a belief you have? If so, which ones?
 
Generally speaking, the work place isn't an area for one to practice their religion, it's a religiously neutral area.

religiously neutral =/= not a place to practice one's own religious beliefs.

To explain: if a person decides to wear a crucifix underneath their clothing, or carry one in their pocket while they work, or even say a silent prayer very 15 minutes, they are not violating the religious neutrality of the workplace.

People are free to practice their beliefs so long as the employer feels it does not interfere with their capacity to fulfill their work duties.

Keyword: Employer. Unless you are their employer, your opinion of what those work duties actually are is totally and completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Thus, your real issue here is not with this woman at all, but with the fact her employers don't seem to give a **** about your opinion of what her duties are.

So, if your religion prevents you from servicing all customers, you shouldn't be dealing with customers in the first place.

She is capable of serving all customers. Pork and alcohol are not customers. No individual would be denied her service based on any intrinsic characteristic of that person.
 
Last edited:
This is just a hypothesis of mine and it isn't directed at anyone specific, but I'd be willing to bet good money that if the issue here was that the cashier had an allergy to a specific food, and the employer made their own decision to make an identical accommodation by putting such a request sign up, we'd see far fewer people complaining.

I think the fact that this is based on religion, and an unpopular religion at that, makes this a more contentious issue than it would be if it was based on some other reason.
 
This is just a hypothesis of mine and it isn't directed at anyone specific, but I'd be willing to bet good money that if the issue here was that the cashier had an allergy to a specific food, and the employer made their own decision to make an identical accommodation by putting such a request sign up, we'd see far fewer people complaining.

I think the fact that this is based on religion, and an unpopular religion at that, makes this a more contentious issue than it would be if it was based on some other reason.

I have a sneaking suspicion that some people might also object to a store owner's policy if, say, the employee in question was Christian and had requested people buying rubbers and other contraceptives use a different register.

Or, for example, if the employee was an orthodox Jew who requested not to be scheduled on Saturdays?

I worked in-house (as a freelancer) at a studio for a while where one of the artists was orthodox. He made a deal with the employer where he left every night before sundown he never worked on Saturdays. This was a broadcast studio where you could had frequent short deadlines and many of us had to work late into the night and through weekends. I was surprised that his coworkers didn't seem to have problems with it when they were digging in for a late-night crush and this guy was packing his bags at 5 pm. Why would they? The studio made the deal because the guy was very talented and did great work during his regular hours.

I've had similar situations working at law firms that hired contract attorneys. Often they're young mothers who want to keep working, but only 9-5 and sometimes just 3-4 days/week. That can be a little irritating to the regular attnys who are working 60-70 hrs./wk, but everyone understands that it's the deal the associate and the firm cut.
 
Last edited:
I understand why the manager did what he did.

He wants to appear tolerant of other faiths, and understanding of the needs of his workers.

However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
I understand why the manager did what he did.

He wants to appear tolerant of other faiths, and understanding of the needs of his workers.

However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

How do you know that was their reason? Isn't it possible that she was just a very good employee and they didn't want to lose her?

How would you feel if she was an orthodox Jew and the employer insisted that she work on Saturdays?
 
How do you know that was their reason? Isn't it possible that she was just a very good employee and they didn't want to lose her?

How would you feel if she was an orthodox Jew and the employer insisted that she work on Saturdays?

isn't she a semi-new employee?
 
I have a sneaking suspicion that some people might also object to a store owner's policy if, say, the employee in question was Christian and had requested people buying rubbers and other contraceptives use a different register.

Or, for example, if the employee was an orthodox Jew who requested not to be scheduled on Saturdays?

I'm sure some people would have issues with those things. People often treat religious reasons for doing/not doing certain things differently than would if it was due to some other cause.

It's up to the employer if they want to accommodate those things, though.


I worked in-house (as a freelancer) at a studio for a while where one of the artists was orthodox. He made a deal with the employer where he left every night before sundown he never worked on Saturdays. This was a broadcast studio where you could had frequent short deadlines and many of us had to work late into the night and through weekends. I was surprised that his coworkers didn't seem to have problems with it when they were digging in for a late-night crush and this guy was packing his bags at 5 pm. Why would they? The studio made the deal because the guy was very talented and did great work during his regular hours.

I've had similar situations working at law firms that hired contract attorneys. Often they're young mothers who want to keep working, but only 9-5 and sometimes just 3-4 days/week. That can be a little irritating to the regular attnys who are working 60-70 hrs./wk, but everyone understands that it's the deal the associate and the firm cut.

When I was running my construction company I had one guy who worked for me that always had to leave an hour earlier than everyone else because he had to pick up his kids from school. He also had to take off on days when his kids were off school. I made accommodations for him because he was an excellent worker.
 
Damn, I thought the road to Heaven was paved with good acts, seems the boss was laying a few good acts paving stones on that path.

Thinking you can come up with 1,496 reasons why not, but that one reason to do so is because it is the right thing and that should be enough.

I don't have to like it, it doesn't involve me. This is their business and ought to remain so. As mentioned many times above, many folks get 'special' treatment on a CASE BY CASE basis. Not just for religion, or marital status, union rule, sexual preference or gender.

But because the boss wanted to keep the employee, shouldn't be a novel concept. Anything can be taken to an extreme, 'what if'd' to death.

Seems like a no-brainer, but then again I was never the sharpest knife in the drawer so simple works for me.
 
I understand why the manager did what he did.

He wants to appear tolerant of other faiths, and understanding of the needs of his workers.

However, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I think you are wrong. I don't think it's about how Wegman's wants to "appear". From what I have read they've been dedicated to their community for almost 100 years. It seems to be the foundation of their business practice. To suggest that this once - because it is a Muslim lady - that Wegman's motivation is "appearance" is ridiculous.

What do you mean the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Flesh that out in the context of the OP.
 
What do you mean the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Flesh that out in the context of the OP.

Step 1: Allow company to make the decision to treat an employee in what all parties involved consider a respectful fashion
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Demonic profit!
 
Back
Top Bottom