snopes.com  

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 27 December 2013, 06:17 PM
1958Fury's Avatar
1958Fury 1958Fury is offline
 
Join Date: 05 October 2005
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 4,666
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imjustasteph View Post
If you have a religious belief against handling some of my items, that's okay too. I think it's silly, but not a problem.
Yeah, I hate to criticize anyone's beliefs, but it's silly to me too. What's so symbolic about the act of running the bottle over a scanner? You're not the one actually selling it to them, the store is. The store is just using your hands. And those hands aren't actually touching alcohol. You're touching the bottle that's touching the alcohol. How many degrees do we need to remove before it's safe? What if we shrinkwrap the bottle, so you're touching the shrinkwrap that's touching the bottle that's touching the alcohol? I mean, every time you touch the cash register, you're touching the register that's touching the counter that's touching the floor that's touching the shelves that the bottle sat on.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 27 December 2013, 06:32 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,585
Default

Silly stuff's not limited to religion, either, of course. I already pointed out the silliness of not letting an under-21 cashier scan a sealed container of alcohol. One day, trying to be helpful, DD picked up the bag of groceries and six-pack of beer I'd just bought, to carry them to the car. The clerk said she couldn't carry the beer because she wasn't 21.

I didn't feel like arguing with her, so I took the six-pack until we got out the door.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 27 December 2013, 06:58 PM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 7,055
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1958Fury View Post
How many degrees do we need to remove before it's safe? What if we shrinkwrap the bottle, so you're touching the shrinkwrap that's touching the bottle that's touching the alcohol? I mean, every time you touch the cash register, you're touching the register that's touching the counter that's touching the floor that's touching the shelves that the bottle sat on.
I thought that, too. I wouldn't be upset if a cashier asked me to wait for a different employee for whatever personal/religious reason, but I don't actually understand the justification of applying for a job that pays your salary with the sale of items you can't touch. Aren't you tithing with those alcohol profits?

If child porn were legal and I needed a job, my moral solution wouldn't be to work at a store that sells it but just never touch it with my fingers. What would be the difference between that and being a makeup artist for the production and using really long brushes?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 27 December 2013, 07:02 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,695
Default

It would be like being a makeup artist, but only doing the makeup on the 18+ actors I'd say.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 27 December 2013, 07:12 PM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 7,055
Default

If you're standing next to the artist doing the makeup of the 6 year old.

Last edited by Little Pink Pill; 27 December 2013 at 07:30 PM. Reason: GenYus made a good point.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 27 December 2013, 07:16 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 26,695
Default

I'd have phrased it "doing [the makeup of] the 6 year old", but otherwise I agree.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 27 December 2013, 11:03 PM
imjustasteph's Avatar
imjustasteph imjustasteph is offline
 
Join Date: 31 May 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,207
Default

There are endless silly rules within law and religion both, of course.

A thing I wonder, though. We do a significant amount of discussing whether those who say they can't sell birth control or those who say they can't allow the insurance company their business contracts to sell insurance to their employees to provide birth control have any basis- does Christianity really, even the reading of it that forbids birth control, forbid providing it or allowing it?

But I know nothing at all about the origins of Muslim beliefs- I wonder, if we dug back to their holy book and the scriptures that are read as 'don't even handle the package that contains pork chops' if we'd agree that it forbade that, or if we'd think t was an over-the-top interpretation.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 27 December 2013, 11:55 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is online now
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imjustasteph View Post
I know nothing at all about the origins of Muslim beliefs- I wonder, if we dug back to their holy book and the scriptures that are read as 'don't even handle the package that contains pork chops' if we'd agree that it forbade that, or if we'd think t was an over-the-top interpretation.
I suspect that, if they dug back into the original scriptures behind the Jewish kosher laws, most non-Jews would think it was an over-the-top interpretation of "thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk" to require not eating any meat and dairy items together, even if from different species and/or if not cooked together.

That is nevertheless the way it's been interpreted by countless rabbis for the last I-don't-know-how-many hundreds of years.

I don't know anything about the details of Muslim practice, either; and I don't know whether either physically handling liquor bottles and/or pork, or being the one to ring them up, are considered settled issues within the religion (as the fact that eating milk and meat together isn't kosher is a settled issue within Judaism, at least as much as anything is ever a settled issue within Judaism); or whether they're matters of debate, with different groups and/or individuals holding out for different interpretations. However, I seriously doubt that in either case anyone's going to get very far by coming in, from outside the religion, and telling either believers in general or any specific person that they're interpreting their scriptures wrong.

I also don't know whether Muslims think that non-Muslims are also prohibited from using liquor or eating pork. Most Jews don't think there's anything wrong about non-Jews eating pork. If Muslims, or at least those Muslims working at stores that sell alcohol etc., have a similar attitude, then the child-porn analogy fails; a more accurate analogy might be to saying that person A, who has taken vows of celibacy, shouldn't have sex; but there's nothing wrong with person B, who has taken no such vows, doing so.

-- I'm with the people who say that there are all sorts of reasons one might have to wait an extra minute or two at the checkout, and, as long as someone comes to check out the item within a reasonable length of time, I don't see what the big deal is. I might have to wait because the scanner's having trouble with a particular item, because the person in front of me can't find their card or is slow counting out their cash, because they're asking for a lottery card, because the store requires the cashier to try to talk customers into a "loyalty" card -- I find that last one quite annoying, but I don't think I'm entitled to sue the store about it.

A question for those of you objecting to religious cashiers calling a different cashier to handle alcohol but not objecting to other reasons for delays: suppose the particular grocery store just doesn't carry alcohol (in a state/country that permits them to.) Do you think they should be required to? If so, do those think the store should only be required to carry alcohol if their objections are religious, and not if their objections are on some other grounds?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 27 December 2013, 11:58 PM
Em's Avatar
Em Em is offline
 
Join Date: 11 July 2005
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 2,976
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imjustasteph View Post
Also, more as a thought experiment than any kind of suggestion, what if lines had signs above them? ... I wonder how that would work?
Given the number of people I've seen with a full trolley in the "15 items or less" line, I'm going to go with "poorly".
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 28 December 2013, 01:25 AM
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
A question for those of you objecting to religious cashiers calling a different cashier to handle alcohol but not objecting to other reasons for delays: suppose the particular grocery store just doesn't carry alcohol (in a state/country that permits them to.) Do you think they should be required to? If so, do those think the store should only be required to carry alcohol if their objections are religious, and not if their objections are on some other grounds?
I can say with a sigh degrees of certainty that nobody wants to force retailers to sell things that they do not want to sell. That should be up to management - so long of course that the rule gets applied legally and consistently. A retailer cannot just set a random rule. They can restrict product sales based on legal requirements, but nothing else. They canít decide to sell milk - but only to adults since there is no law that restricts sale of milk to certain individuals.

Nobody I have ever spoken to has ever said that retailers must be forced to sell anything. If a retailer doesnít want to sell a particular product, that is their choice and their risk if the market demands it. My local bar doesnít sell me my favorite beer. I can suggest that they should sell it, but if the manager doesnít want to order it, thatís his prerogative.

Heck, even with the pharmacists not providing contraceptives stories, I recall that people were OK with the idea of a pharmacy that did not want to stock them at all. What we had an issue with was when individual employees decided to interject as to what the managers wanted to legally distribute.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 28 December 2013, 01:49 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is online now
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,915
Default

In cases in which the pharmacy is the only one in town, I'd have a problem with them refusing to fill any prescription.

If there's another one in the next block, then I'd agree that it's up to them.

But that's a medical issue, and so IMO in another category.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 28 December 2013, 02:24 AM
Latiam's Avatar
Latiam Latiam is offline
 
Join Date: 19 June 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by imjustasteph View Post
There are endless silly rules within law and religion both, of course.

But I know nothing at all about the origins of Muslim beliefs- I wonder, if we dug back to their holy book and the scriptures that are read as 'don't even handle the package that contains pork chops' if we'd agree that it forbade that, or if we'd think t was an over-the-top interpretation.
I don't know about scriptures themselves, but I can tell you that just as there are varying degrees of "devoutness," if you will, in Christianity, there are the same in the Muslim religion. I have Muslim kids in my class who are okay with no pork and only beef gelatin. I have ones who will not eat gelatin at all. I have ones who will only eat halal meat.

I also have this apply in other areas. The family of one of my Muslim students does not listen to music, sing, or dance at home due to their religion. There are other things as well. However this is the second son of theirs I have taught and the father recognizes that school is a place where these things are part of the curriculum. So, A was right there with us singing and doing dance movements at the "Christmas" assembly for the parents (our song was about Frosty the Snowman). The father's only request is that we not sing religious songs because that can get confusing for a 7 year old. Since that is the *only* request he has made for accommodation, I am happy to agree.

The Muslim kids in my class actually enjoy the fact that they were encouraged to talk about Eid and everybody learned to write their name in Arabic (hard!) and learned about Ramadan in our Traditions and Celebrations unit. When there is something that applies only to them I preface it with "Our Muslim friends..." and it all goes swimmingly. (Example: "Our Muslim friends can give their gift to their parents tonight but the rest of you should wait until Christmas" )

My mother, who seems to have become a flaming racist in her old age, bristles at the special treatment. I don't really think it's all that different from anyone else with special needs. Maybe they are imposed on them by religion, but we could all do better with a bit more tolerance. A fact I tell myself every time I get behind the wheel.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 28 December 2013, 03:02 AM
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
In cases in which the pharmacy is the only one in town, I'd have a problem with them refusing to fill any prescription.
Would that be an employee or the manager - thatís a big distinction. If the pharmacy doesnít stock or fill certain drugs (lets say that due to demand, they donít have any supply of a really expensive drug), is that a problem?

I honestly donít know the laws surrounding pharmacies and what drugs that they are required to carry, but I doubt that they have to carry everything under the sun. Perhaps they only have an obligation to fill a prescription, but only have to carry the normal regimen of drugs and anything they donít immediately stock they have to order.

I have a problem when an individual employee tries to prevent me from purchasing something that I have a legal right to and that I have the opportunity to. If a manger refuses to stock a particular product for an arbitrary reason, that is their problem and it could cost them a sale. If my local liquor store doesnít sell my favorite bottle of booze because he doesnít want to pay the high costs to sell it, Iíll just go someplace that does sell it.

Pharmacies might be a special case since they sell products that are highly controlled and they are products that might be of medical necessity so the laws may be different. If there are no laws, than I have less of an issue with them refusing to distribute certain drugs so long as there is an alternative that the pharmacy can recommend. This also has to be done at the executive level. No rogue employees creating barriers that management does not themselves erect for valid reasons.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 28 December 2013, 03:11 AM
hoitoider's Avatar
hoitoider hoitoider is offline
 
Join Date: 22 October 2001
Location: Beaufort, SC
Posts: 5,999
Icon13

I know the Ukrop's chain of grocery stores in and around Richmond, VA didn't sell alcohol and wasn't open on Sundays for religious reasons. They sold their stores to another company in 2010. (Never stepped foot in one; just heard about it.)
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 28 December 2013, 03:34 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is online now
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
If the pharmacy doesnít stock or fill certain drugs (lets say that due to demand, they donít have any supply of a really expensive drug), is that a problem?

I honestly donít know the laws surrounding pharmacies and what drugs that they are required to carry, but I doubt that they have to carry everything under the sun. Perhaps they only have an obligation to fill a prescription, but only have to carry the normal regimen of drugs and anything they donít immediately stock they have to order.
I don't know what the laws are either; but, in my experience, they certainly don't routinely carry everything under the sun, but they order in what they don't carry if a customer has a prescription for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
I have a problem when an individual employee tries to prevent me from purchasing something that I have a legal right to and that I have the opportunity to. If a manger refuses to stock a particular product for an arbitrary reason, that is their problem and it could cost them a sale. If my local liquor store doesnít sell my favorite bottle of booze because he doesnít want to pay the high costs to sell it, Iíll just go someplace that does sell it.
That works nicely, for either liquor stores or pharmacies, so long as the customer can readily get to someplace that does sell it. (Besides which, if you can't get your favorite bottle of booze, you're not going to be in medical difficulties.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
Pharmacies might be a special case since they sell products that are highly controlled and they are products that might be of medical necessity so the laws may be different. If there are no laws, than I have less of an issue with them refusing to distribute certain drugs so long as there is an alternative that the pharmacy can recommend. .
Again, I don't know what the laws say. But I do think, speaking for myself, that pharmacies are a special case because they are carrying products of medical necessity (at any rate, they're a special case so far as those products are concerned; if they don't want to sell hair barrettes, that's their call.) Recommending an alternative location that does carry the specific drug is OK, IMO, if and only if the customer can easily get there. Again, there are plenty of towns in the country that have only one drugstore in them, and no public transportation available; and the customer may not have a car, or may not have time to drive ten or fifty miles to the next town.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
This also has to be done at the executive level. No rogue employees creating barriers that management does not themselves erect for valid reasons.
Does the management have to have "valid" reasons? And I agree that the employee needs to follow the business owner's rules; but if the business owner's rules include that an employee with objections, for whatever reasons, to handling a particular product can call over another clerk to do so, and if there is at all times during business hours someone on hand in the store who can and will serve the customer properly, I don't see what's wrong with it. And the employee in that case wouldn't be a "rogue".

-- hoitoider, there are a number of stores around here that aren't open on Sundays for religious reasons; and the local grocery didn't sell alcohol until about three years ago, when it came under new management. A store just across the street sold beer out of one side and other alcohol out of the other (NY rules), so I don't think anybody went without.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 28 December 2013, 10:33 AM
catty5nutz catty5nutz is offline
 
Join Date: 22 January 2007
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 1,649
Default

In one of the supermarkets here, if you buy alcohol from them, and take it up to the checkout, the checkout operator has to call a supervisor, who then inputs a code into the cash register before the sale can go through.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 28 December 2013, 01:53 PM
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,928
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
Does the management have to have "valid" reasons? .
Sure. The manager has a darn good reason to restrict who can sell alcohol at the checkout or sell cigarettes to since they are defined by the license placed on to them by the government.

But If I am 21 and go to a grocery store to by a 6 pack of beer, I shouldnít face any restrictions except what the is placed on the store by a third party or the managers decision to sell the product in general. If the manager doesnít want to stock beer, I donít see a reason to force them to (religious or not). However if they sell a product that is sold to the public in general, they should employ people who know that they may be ringing up things that they donít like or consider working elsewhere. The manager can be accommodating to employees as much as possible, but there shouldnít be delays over things that arenít necessary.

If a cashier cannot be present when product X is being sold in front of them, perhaps retail is not for them.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 28 December 2013, 01:57 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 catty5nutz View Post
In one of the supermarkets here, if you buy alcohol from them, and take it up to the checkout, the checkout operator has to call a supervisor, who then inputs a code into the cash register before the sale can go through.
So it's not an age-related thing, they just require a manager to ring up those sales? Interesting. I wonder if it's a caution to protect against getting in trouble for underage sales.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 28 December 2013, 03:05 PM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust thorny locust is online now
 
Join Date: 27 April 2007
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 9,915
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
If the manager doesnít want to stock beer, I donít see a reason to force them to (religious or not).
OK; I thought you said that the manager had to have what you consider to be a "valid" reason not to sell an item.

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
If I am 21 and go to a grocery store to by a 6 pack of beer, I shouldnít face any restrictions except what the is placed on the store by a third party or the managers decision to sell the product in general. [ . . . ]there shouldnít be delays over things that arenít necessary.
I don't see how it's a restriction on your buying the beer for you to have to wait one or two minutes for a different cashier. Again, when one goes to the store, there are dozens of reasons why one might have to wait a couple of extra minutes in line. That's simply part of the nature of going shopping.

And how, precisely, are we to define "necessary"? Should the store refuse to hire short people because they may need to call someone else, or go get a ladder, in order to help a customer get something from a tall shelf? Should they refuse to hire anyone with no experience running a till because the teaching process delays customers? Should they refuse to hire anyone who's pregnant because she may need more restroom breaks, or she may need to call someone else to ring up smelly items that make her nauseous? Should they refuse to hire anyone who's the relative to call in case of emergency for someone known to be ill, because that person may not show up on short notice, causing longer lines which delay customers? Or is it only religious reasons that bother you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post
If a cashier cannot be present when product X is being sold in front of them, perhaps retail is not for them.
If they can't stand to be in the store at all, then they shouldn't work in that store, or in other stores carrying the product they can't be in the room with. But I don't think anybody's cited a case of someone insisting on working in a store although they can't be anywhere in the area while someone else sells a store product.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 28 December 2013, 11:25 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 Steve View Post
The first part of this sentence is clearly false.
So no, there's no such explicit condition.
I'm giving my opinion here. Is that not obvious?
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 02:06 PM.


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