snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Non-UL Chat > Business Bytes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #141  
Old 03 January 2014, 07:49 PM
Atlanta Jake's Avatar
Atlanta Jake Atlanta Jake is offline
 
Join Date: 12 September 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,539
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew of Ware View Post
I'm not sure whether it is in the link in the OP or in another article I read, but M and S said that this worker does not usually work in the food section and was put on that till either by mistake or because they were short staffed there.
And that is a very important part of the story, if true.

In all my hijacking of this thread, I failed to comment: I am on the side of those who feel that the inconvenience sounds minimal, but who wondered why the employee took a job that inevitably would have caused this situation to arise. If what Andrew of Ware said is true, that explains quite a bit.

Jake
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 03 January 2014, 08:07 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,363
Default

Yes. A very reasonable approach.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 03 January 2014, 08:21 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

It is and it seemed to get lost in all the fallout. People determined to take offense though aren't usually prepared to acknowledge that sometimes a mistake is just a mistake.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 03 January 2014, 08:26 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,363
Default

The information wasn't in the OP article. It doesn't mean someone is determined to take offense if they find one set of circumstances problematic but not another.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 03 January 2014, 09:52 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanta Jake View Post
And that is a very important part of the story, if true.

In all my hijacking of this thread, I failed to comment: I am on the side of those who feel that the inconvenience sounds minimal, but who wondered why the employee took a job that inevitably would have caused this situation to arise. If what Andrew of Ware said is true, that explains quite a bit.

Jake
An applicant might also assume that if they're offered the job after being honest with the employer, the employer has no problem with it, so why should they?
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 23 February 2014, 09:17 PM
JoeBentley's Avatar
JoeBentley JoeBentley is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 21,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by erwins View Post
That said, I think it should be the store's decision whether to accommodate or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylvanz View Post
I just don't get all the hand wringing about a couple of min. to call another cashier. I don't think that is an unreasonable accommodation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
It doesn't matter to me at all. The brief delay required to accommodate it doesn't matter to me, either.
So I'm assuming this is also everyone's opinion of the recent law just passed in Arizona that allows individual members of business to refuse to serve gays provided the invoke a religious reason for it?

I mean as long as there is someone else at the location who will serve you it's all good, it doesn't take long to get another cashier, it's not an unreasonable accommodation, and so forth and so forth.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 23 February 2014, 09:36 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,585
Default

I'm not.

A Muslim cashier who won't sell alcohol to any customer is not discriminating against any customer.
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 24 February 2014, 02:12 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is offline
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,885
Default

The difference is that the cashier who won't handle alcohol (for anybody) is choosing to apply a religious rule to him/herself.

The person who will happily provide goods or a service to a straight person but not to a gay one is trying to apply a religious rule to other persons.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 24 February 2014, 02:23 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
So I'm assuming this is also everyone's opinion of the recent law just passed in Arizona that allows individual members of business to refuse to serve gays provided the invoke a religious reason for it?
It hasn't been passed into law, the governor hasn't signed it. She vetoed a similar law already, but this one has removed the part that she voiced an objection too. So it is not certain if she will or won't veto this version.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 24 February 2014, 02:27 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,585
Default

Further, AIUI, the law would allow whole businesses to discriminate, not just individual employees of a business.
Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 24 February 2014, 03:01 PM
Hero_Mike's Avatar
Hero_Mike Hero_Mike is offline
 
 
Join Date: 06 April 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ & Hamilton, ON
Posts: 7,267
Canada

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
A Muslim cashier who won't sell alcohol to any customer is not discriminating against any customer.
Precisely. They are objecting to the action of selling (and consuming) alcohol, insofar as they can. I imagine that very devout Muslims would object to the sale of alcohol, anywhere, to anyone, but that by taking the job they are implicitly agreeing not to disrupt or sabotage their employer's "objectionable" action while employed. This doesn't mean that they can't campaign for or vote for prohibition, but they agree not to damage the alcohol being sold by their employer.

How does that compare to the case of the pharmacist refusing to dispense certain medications because of religious beliefs? Is it not the goal, for some of those people, to ensure that the consumer can't get what they need *anywhere*? The Muslim cashier who won't handle alcohol doesn't actively try to prevent someone else from making that sale...
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 24 February 2014, 03:14 PM
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline
 
Join Date: 26 December 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 9,210
Default

While I agree with those who've responded to Joe so far in terms of the difference between refusing to sell a specific product as opposed to refusing to serve a specific person I do still feel it's wrong. While a Muslim cashier refusing to handle alcohol may not be refusing to sell alcohol, that does seem to be drawing a mighty fine line. They are still benefiting from that sale in that those sales are helping the store stay in business and are keeping them employed. :shrug: it's a distinction that just annoys me for some reason.

Last edited by Sue; 24 February 2014 at 03:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Retailer Brooks Brothers to open steakhouse Il-Mari The Bad Gastronomer 0 08 October 2013 11:33 PM
Ireland apologises for Magdalene laundries Horse Chestnut Social Studies 2 05 February 2013 08:01 PM
Hungarian apologises for 9/11 hoax (9/11 Tourist Guy) TallGeekyGirl Fauxtography 2 09 September 2011 03:36 PM
Henry Ford refused credit Hedon Business 4 11 March 2011 04:34 PM
Presidents who refused salary snopes History 11 24 September 2008 09:13 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.