• 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

mike2810 said:
Yes, but we are also to blend or mix in. That is I accept your culture and religion, and you are to accept mine. When only one side has to "make exceptions", then we have lost what your laws are all about.
Click to expand...

She isn't berating people or calling them infadels. She just doesn't want to handle foods that her religion frowns upon. Maintaining that doesn't mean she isn't blending in.

Also, one side didn't have to make exceptions, an exception was requested and granted. People across this country make requests of their employers and neighbors that are designed to accommodate their own lifestyle.
 
Thunder said:
first halaal-only taxi cabs, now this.

slipery slope, my friend.
Click to expand...
So you're saying a private company shouldn't do what it feels is best for it's employees and customers?



you're not supposed to move to a new country...to change the country. YOU are supposed to assimilate with it.
Click to expand...
A teenage girl asked a favor that was granted by her employers. She's clearly Mujahadeen.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
She isn't berating people or calling them infadels. She just doesn't want to handle foods that her religion frowns upon. Maintaining that doesn't mean she isn't blending in.

Also, one side didn't have to make exceptions, an exception was requested and granted. People across this country make requests of their employers and neighbors that are designed to accommodate their own lifestyle.
Click to expand...

I was looking at it from a broader situation, not just this case.
 
Lokiate said:
So you're saying a private company shouldn't do what it feels is best for it's employees and customers?...
Click to expand...

I don't believe that enabling such a sense of entitlement, is what's best for this employee


...A teenage girl asked a favor that was granted by her employers. She's clearly Mujahadeen.
Click to expand...

don't go there, friend. I've made no such accusation and for you to bring this down to that level, is pretty ****ing pathetic & dishonest of you.
 
Thunder said:
I don't believe that enabling such a sense of entitlement, is what's best for this employee
Click to expand...
What sense of entitlement? If a Jew, or a Hindu employee of mine had a similar request of accommodation, I'd see no reason why it shouldn't be granted. Hell, I'd even accommodate Christians Wiccans and Atheists, but I'm a nice guy.

don't go there, friend. I've made no such accusation and for you to bring this down to that level, is pretty ****ing pathetic & dishonest of you.
Click to expand...
It's alright for you to blow this up into some huge slippery slope scenario, but you can't take sarcastic humor. You might want to do something about that, because I got jokes.
 
Lokiate said:
....It's alright for you to blow this up into some huge slippery slope scenario, but you can't take sarcastic humor. You might want to do something about that, because I got jokes.
Click to expand...

oh, you were being sarcastic.

I thought you werre accusing me of hating Muslims.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
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?....
Click to expand...

indeed.

if a supermarket has 4 lines, and one becomes halaal-only, that's 25% of the lines that are now inaccessable to anyone who wants to buy ham sandwhich meat for their kids or beer for the ball game.

....just becuase one uppity worker who think she's special, doesn't want to touch a piece of cardboard that is surrounding a piece of plastic that has ham inside of it.
 
Thunder said:
its too bad the owner agreed to make accomodations [sic] for her "needs".

id love to have seen this in court.
Click to expand...

Pretty much proves what I said earlier. Your problem with this is that the two parties involved were able to come to an agreement that they both found acceptable, without either side having to go run crying to government to step in and try to force the other side.

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.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
....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.
Click to expand...

you're lying again Bob, as I've said nothing about govt. or govt. stepping in.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yet if you express your personal beliefs by denying your customers services that you are supposed to offer, you should expect special treatment?
Click to expand...

The point that I think keeps getting missed is that, from the way the story was written, she wasn't expecting special treatment, she just asked for it. The manager could just as easily given her a job working in the produce section or stocking isles or working the customer service desk.
 
No customer was denied anything; they were just asked politely to use a different line.

In any case, that's between the store and the customer.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
The point that I think keeps getting missed is that, from the way the story was written, she wasn't expecting special treatment, she just asked for it. The manager could just as easily given her a job working in the produce section or stocking isles or working the customer service desk.
Click to expand...

Like I said, they have every right to grant it. I'm arguing against the concept.
 
Harshaw said:
No customer was denied anything; they were just asked politely to use a different line.

In any case, that's between the store and the customer.
Click to expand...

well, I guess "the customer is always right", is now in the toilet.

stores exist to sell people stuff.

if you make it harder for folks to buy things, they will shop elsewhere.
 
Thunder said:
well, I guess "the customer is always right", is now in the toilet.
Click to expand...

How is the customer wrong?

stores exist to sell people stuff.

if you make it harder for folks to buy things, they will shop elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Then that's the risk they take. It needn't concern you.
 
Thunder said:
just becuase one uppity worker who think she's special.......
Click to expand...

Uppity?

She wasn't expecting special treatment. As an employee she asked her employer for something and it was granted.

Perhaps you should explain your reasons behind the use of the word uppity here........
 
I have no problem with the stores actions. My question is, how long will it be before the push to enshrine this in federal law shows up?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Serenity said:
Uppity?

She wasn't expecting special treatment. As an employee she asked her employer for something and it was granted.

Perhaps you should explain your reasons behind the use of the word uppity here........
Click to expand...

asking for special favors at a job, due to religious reasons, makes one uppity, in my view.

has such a favor been granted to ANYONE else at the store?
 
Thunder said:
asking for special favors at a job, due to religious reasons, makes one uppity, in my view.

has such a favor been granted to ANYONE else at the store?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom