If A Christian Couple Can Be Fined For Refusing To Sell Something They Believe Is Against Their Religion Then Why No Action Against This Person?

[youngmafbog]

OK, so IMHO religion is the root of most evil but lets forget that bit because what I am trying to understand is why there seems to be one rule for one and another for a certain other religion we all have to bend ovcer backwards to accommodate?


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4070144/Muslim-Tesco-cashier-refuses-sell-bottle-wine-shopper-against-religion.html

[-Talbot-]

It's a non-sequitur, Talbot. Nothing to do with what's happened here.



Yeah ... it never happens on other threads does it .....................

[New Judge]

"...and that it was Tesco who slipped up on this occasion?"

Yes they did. By developing a policy that allows some of their employees to opt out of handling goods they regularly sell.

It has nothing to do with "reflecting diversity of their customers". Muslims do not need to be served by other Muslims (and if they do they should go elsewhere). But many of Tescos' customers want to buy alcohol and pork. They should not have to carefully select which till they use and the supermarket manager should not have to fanny about shuffling his staff around to accommodate their foibles. People are not "out of touch" with the way businesses work. They are out of touch with the way employers bend over backwards, unnecessarily, to accommodate religious inanities. Tesco does not need to employ people who cannot (or more properly will not) fulfill the full range of duties required. There are people queuing up to work for them. They do so because they are infected with the same pernicious nonsense that seems to infect most of government and business. Tescos will not suddenly become uncompetitive if they do not employ people who will not handle alcohol. In fact they may find that removing the additional bother associated with accommodating this nonsense will save them a few bob and will have no affect of their customer base.

"The point is that it is not a requirement of her religion, other than in her fevered imagination."

Quite so. Most "Indian" restaurants in the UK are run by Bangladeshis. Nearly all Bangladeshis are Muslims. None that I have ever encountered has ever refused to serve me a bottle of Cobra - even happily pouring it for me - and most offer me a brandy at the end of my meal. It doesn't seem to consign them to hell and everlasting damnation. Why does ringing up a bottle of vodka through her till cause this person so much concern?

[Zacs-Master]

Can we keep this in perspective? It's just one incident.

[Mamyalynne]

That added a couple of minutes to a man's shopping trip - same with the examples I gace earlier.

[Mamyalynne]

^ gave

[Zacs-Master]

She hasn't 'played' anything. Her employers knew of her unwillingness to handle alcohol and employed her in a role which should have meant she didn't.

[Mamyalynne]

It's not the point , ok - I submit.

I cannot for the life of me understand all the hoo ha in this particular case.

[Mamyalynne]

I hope his LED lights worked or he'll be back in the news tomorrow.

[Baldric]

///The store confirmed the member of staff worked on a kiosk where alcohol is 'generally not purchased' and would request another colleague's help if the situation arose again in the future///

Looks like they had placed in in an appropriate position.
There is no mention that they moved her to a different position as has been suggested in the thread.

Looks like the customer presented himself at her till and she simply refused to serve him instead of calling another member of Staff to assist which suggests she was at fault although maybe due to lack of guidance from her Supervisor.

[New Judge]

Which could all have been avoided had she not taken employment where it was likely she would have to handle alcohol. Or, if her prospective employers had said to her, before engaging her, that she would be expected to handle alcohol and no concessions would be made to accommodate her "requirements".

"I cannot for the life of me understand all the hoo ha in this particular case."

It's not this particular case, mamy. It is the principle involved.

[Baldric]

Our local Waitrose has a number of Muslim Staff, one of whom is a Checkout Operator in her early/mid 20's. She does not bat an eyelid at what goes through the till, although she does take the mickey out of me for the Alcohol in the basket (we're regulars) if one can do it, what's the problem?

[Mamyalynne]

As I have been mentioned , I'll respond - when I comment on a thread, I comment on the incident within it as a rule .

That's the way I operate - it's fine for those who wish to broaden things out.

[anneasquith]

A bottle of wine? Why didn't he use the self scanner ? Much quicker.

[Mamyalynne]

Thank you.

[fiction-factory]

>People are not "out of touch" with the way businesses work. They are out of touch with the way employers bend over backwards, unnecessarily, to accommodate religious inanities.

You say tomayto I saw tomato.

It's their business. I'm pretty certain I know it better than you or I do. As a manager i would have found it inconvenient but if it was an a employee I valued and could make it work, or if it was simply company policy, I would be happy to do so.

You may disagree with Diversity in the workplace, NJ, but it's here to stay as many employers see the many benefits- although I realise there will be those who just say it's political correctness gone mad.
The term 'religious inanities' is interesting. Presumably it applies to all religions in your view.