• 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

it takes a REAL sense of entitlement, to take a job at a place that you KNOW sells alcohol & pork, and to then tell the boss "oh, btw, I can't touch any pork or alcohol. I can't even touch a bottle that contains alcohol or a container that has pork, so keep that **** away from me cause I aint touching it".

You know, like asking your Catholic employer to pay for your birth control or abortafacients.
 
She hired on to do a job; she needs to do the job.

I understand that in some (all, maybe?) states it's illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to sell alcohol. But, this girl knew she would have to sell alcohol and pork products to customers, so she needs to either suck it up, or find another job.

I hate it when I agree with apdst but am not so harsh as him. I guess it is admirable for the store to try and accomodate her but it seems that would be quite hard to run a business.
If a high percentage of shoppers had alcholol or pork and that isn't too wild of a possibility then some clerks could be have lines 5-6 shoppers while she just had one. Human nature being what it is , I think that is going to bring on resentment. Perhaps she should have obtained a different position in the store such as working in produce. Or does working for a store that sells pork and beer violate her religion?
 
This is between the employer and the employee. There have been zero customer complaints, so it looks like the store made a good decision that keeps everyone happy. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this.

Also, I heart Wegmans. :)
 
I hate it when I agree with apdst but am not so harsh as him. I guess it is admirable for the store to try and accomodate her but it seems that would be quite hard to run a business.

The manager didn't pull this arrangement out of his back-side -- he had used it at another store, with good results. In other words, he's experienced and knows what he's doing.
 
what an ignorant, pathetic, and stupid comparison.

congrats.

That's funny right there. How many people have to tell you?
 
God forbid her boss show some compassion in a way that hurts absolutely no one without a stick up their ass. It's not like this is a private agreement between two people that doesn't cost money. No, let's make a huge issue about this and get all butt-hurt, because what goes on in some Wegmen's that I'll never visit in upstate New York has such a huge impact on both mine life and the lives of others. Please, let's drag this thread out for another 35 pages to discuss how the Liberal-Peacenik-Pinko-Secular Fascists are teaming up with the Islamo-Nazis.
 
it takes a REAL sense of entitlement, to take a job at a place that you KNOW sells alcohol & pork, and to then tell the boss "oh, btw, I can't touch any pork or alcohol. I can't even touch a bottle that contains alcohol or a container that has pork, so keep that **** away from me cause I aint touching it".

You know, like asking your Catholic employer to pay for your birth control or abortafacients.

what an ignorant, pathetic, and stupid comparison.

congrats.

What an ignorant, pathetic and stupid response to an entirely accurate comparison.

Congrats.

Interesting contrast in Thunder's position here.

On one hand, we have a situation in which an employer and an employee agreed to a requested accommodation for the employee's religious beliefs, which was acceptable to both parties, and which does not appear to have involved any form of coercion against either. Thunder seems to have a big problem with this.

On the other hand, a new law that requires employers to pay for certain benefits for their employees which, to many employers, is perceived as immoral and a serious violation of their religious beliefs. Here, Thunder defends and supports the idea of using government force to compel employers to violate their deeply-held religious and moral beliefs.

None of this really tells us anything about Thunder that we didn't already know. It's just another very good example that illustrates how repugnant the concepts of freedom and personal responsibility are to him, and how much he loves excessive use of government force against individual freedom and responsibility.
 
religion here and there, if you work the check-out you have to do all the work there. Nobody is forcing the kid to drink or eat pork but scanning them should not be a problem.
 
religion here and there, if you work the check-out you have to do all the work there. Nobody is forcing the kid to drink or eat pork but scanning them should not be a problem.

Apparently, the employer feels no need to force her to handle those products at all. He has chosen to make this accommodation for her.

If the story was about her demanding this accommodation, him not choosing to grant it, and a big court fight ensuing over this dispute, then that would be one thing. We could then be having a debate, arguing over whether or not the employer ought to be compelled against his will to make the requested accommodation, or whether the employee, if she has a problem handling certain products, should not expect to work in a place where those products are sold.

But there is no dispute. The employer and the employee came to this agreement freely. I do not see why anyone else thinks this should be a problem, except for those of a mind to want government to stick its nose into matters like this, even when there is no need for it to do so.
 
Apparently, the employer feels no need to force her to handle those products at all. He has chosen to make this accommodation for her.

If the story was about her demanding this accommodation, him not choosing to grant it, and a big court fight ensuing over this dispute, then that would be one thing. We could then be having a debate, arguing over whether or not the employer ought to be compelled against his will to make the requested accommodation, or whether the employee, if she has a problem handling certain products, should not expect to work in a place where those products are sold.

But there is no dispute. The employer and the employee came to this agreement freely. I do not see why anyone else thinks this should be a problem, except for those of a mind to want government to stick its nose into matters like this, even when there is no need for it to do so.

I wasn't aware I wrote that I wanted the government to be involved in it. I just think it is not very economical, now this person can never handle the registry area themselves, they will always need backup from another employee just in case someone has pork in their shopping.
 
I wasn't aware I wrote that I wanted the government to be involved in it. I just think it is not very economical, now this person can never handle the registry area themselves, they will always need backup from another employee just in case someone has pork in their shopping.


Well, I don't see a problem with the managers decision here. He is giving the teenage girl a chance, and that is great especially with unemployment such that it is, this young lady has a chance to work, and see that America is not the ghoulish, intolerant portrait that many of its own citizenry would like to put forth.

Just because radical muslims have declared war on us, doesn't mean that the entirety of the people have.


j-mac
 
Interesting contrast in Thunder's position here.

On one hand, we have a situation in which an employer and an employee agreed to a requested accommodation for the employee's religious beliefs, which was acceptable to both parties, and which does not appear to have involved any form of coercion against either. Thunder seems to have a big problem with this.

On the other hand, a new law that requires employers to pay for certain benefits for their employees which, to many employers, is perceived as immoral and a serious violation of their religious beliefs. Here, Thunder defends and supports the idea of using government force to compel employers to violate their deeply-held religious and moral beliefs.

None of this really tells us anything about Thunder that we didn't already know. It's just another very good example that illustrates how repugnant the concepts of freedom and personal responsibility are to him, and how much he loves excessive use of government force against individual freedom and responsibility.

that's pretty ironic, considering you want the govt. to throw women in prison &/or execute them for having control over their own bodies.
 
Just plain WOW,
I wandered away from this thread for a bit and came back to this?

I figured a few 'isn't this nice' and good to see two people in different positions in life and religious belief having an easy, simple solution to a request.

Comparing a teenager's request to not handle pork or booze with the rather contorted fight over insurance covering birth control is going a bit far afield I would think.

I guess it is only a matter of time before tar sands and UFOs get drug into this...
 
Just plain WOW,
I wandered away from this thread for a bit and came back to this?

I figured a few 'isn't this nice' and good to see two people in different positions in life and religious belief having an easy, simple solution to a request.

Comparing a teenager's request to not handle pork or booze with the rather contorted fight over insurance covering birth control is going a bit far afield I would think.

I guess it is only a matter of time before tar sands and UFOs get drug into this...

You . . . missed the point entirely. Oy.
 
On it's face it seems fairly innocuous but is an unusual accommodation and unfortunate precedent.
There was similar problem a few years ago in Minneapolis, when Somali cab drivers refused to pick up passengers carrying alcohol.

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-01-25/us/oppenheim.cabbies_1_muslim-american-society-cab-drivers-cabbies?_s=PM:US said:
"...Adan is not alone. About three quarters of the 900 cabbies serving the airport are Muslim, and many have been regularly refusing passengers carrying beer, wine or liquor.

In the past five years, 5,400 would-be taxi passengers at the airport were refused service for this very reason
, said the Metropolitan Airport Commission, or MAC. Last May, passenger Bob Dildine says he waited for 20 minutes, and five cab drivers would not give him and his daughter a ride. He was carrying wine he bought on vacation.

"They're here to provide service to people," said Dildine. "We were a lawful customer, and we were denied service. That's not our way of doing things."
[.....]
Last September, airport officials sought a compromise, and suggested that distinctive lights could be put on the roofs of cabs operated by drivers who will not transport alcohol. That way, taxi starters -- airport staff who direct people into cabs -- could send passengers with alcohol to those drivers who have no objection."..."
Anyone have a problem with 3/4 of cab drivers serving a large airport who won't pick you up? Resulting in at last 5400 turned down fares? I do.
And as Captain America pointed out, are devout Christians asking to not sell any birth control products at drug stores?
What happens when Wegmans hires two more similar employees?
If you take a job in a public-serving place, you should do so without prejudice.
 
Last edited:
On the fence about this.
First, I think it's fine that the employer and employee came to an agreement and it works well.
On the other hand, you don't get a job serving the general public and ask for all kinds of exemptions.

If your religion forbids you from handling certain things, maybe it's time to find a new line of work.
 
I don't have a problem with this. She asked her employer for an exception to be made. Her employer granted it for whatever reason. I'm sure this isn't the only sort of exception this place makes for its employees and this doesn't seem like it would affect anyone other than people who want to complain about something.
 
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.
Of course, your unwillingness to submit to multiculturalist special privileges makes you a bigot. Or a survivor. We shall soon see who is left standing, those who lie down and enjoy it or those who stand up to it.
 
OH NO! TOLERANCE! ACCOMMODATION OF THE VIEWS OF OTHERS! A HAPPY RESOLUTION ACHIEVED FOR ALL! WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!

...ahem.

If a employee makes a request of her employer, her employer makes a small change to accommodate that request, and there are no customer fall-outs as a result, I really don't see the problem here; in fact, I applaud it entirely. If she had tried to bring a lawsuit enforcing her requests, that would have been out of line; but that's not what's happened here.

Thunder et al, you have no idea how the cashier in question would react to being asked to process something non-halal. Getting ragefull over something that you're only assuming to be true seems a little unnecessary, to me.
 
its one thing, for a private business to do this.

but what happens when folks start suing their employers, claiming religious discrimination?

"he required me to touch a box of pork. my civil rights are being violated"
 
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.

allowing an employee to have their own special "no alcohol or pork" check out line, I think is going waaay too far.

just like the Muslim tax drivers in Minnesota, who want to be able to refuse to transport folks from the airport who have alcohol in their luggage in the trunk of the car. that's just bull****.

what's next? Kosher-only taxis? no beef-product checkout lines for Hindus?
It's a version of the ruling class's traditional Divide and Conquer tactic by forcing in divisive elements, using the formerly restricted Melting Pot to create a meltdown.
 
OH NO! TOLERANCE! ACCOMMODATION OF THE VIEWS OF OTHERS! A HAPPY RESOLUTION ACHIEVED FOR ALL! WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!

...ahem.

If a employee makes a request of her employer, her employer makes a small change to accommodate that request, and there are no customer fall-outs as a result, I really don't see the problem here; in fact, I applaud it entirely. If she had tried to bring a lawsuit enforcing her requests, that would have been out of line; but that's not what's happened here.

Thunder et al, you have no idea how the cashier in question would react to being asked to process something non-halal. Getting ragefull over something that you're only assuming to be true seems a little unnecessary, to me.

Tolerance is a two way street.
She could of been more tolerant of the general community at large and not asked for the exemption.
 
Back
Top Bottom