Target Controversy over selling pork

[ck27]

Target stores reassign Muslim cashiers who avoid pork - 03/19/2007 - MiamiHerald.com
Customer service and faith clash at registers

In Minnesota there is a big controversy over some branches of islam that refuse to sell/handle pork when they work as a cashier.
"
Beryl Dsouza was late and in no mood for delays when she stopped at a Target store after work two weeks ago for milk, bread and bacon.

So Dsouza was taken aback when the cashier -- who had on the traditional headscarf, or hijab, worn by many Muslim women -- refused to swipe the bacon through the checkout scanner.

"She made me scan the bacon. Then she opened the bag and made me put it in the bag," said Dsouza, 53, of Minneapolis. "It made me wonder why this person took a job as a cashier."
"

So basically thats what is going on. Do you think they should have the right because of personal religion beliefs to refuse to sell pork or do you think they have to because its part of there job description? Also should stores accommodate to them and switch them to other departments or do you think they should be let go because they cannot do there job if there is no room in other departments?

I might of posted this in the wrong area.

[freeztar]

I'd say it was a sensible move by Target.
They enacted a solution that satisfied both opposing views.

I'm not a religious fanatic so I can't claim to understand the motives of the cashiers in question, but statements like this disturb me (from first link above):

Many Muslims believe the pig is an unclean animal and consider it a sin to eat pork. It is so core to their beliefs that some consider it sinful to sell the meat, because that encourages others to participate in a sinful act.

I could understand if you own a store and have convictions about certain products. That is a sensible practice. But to be an employee of an enormous corporation, it seems silly to me to take a job that conflicts with your religious beliefs.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by ck27

Do you think they [Moslem store employees] should have the right because of personal religion beliefs to refuse to sell pork or do you think they have to because its part of there job description?

It’s important, I think, to note that in none of the linked-to news stories, did any person refuse to sell pork to a customer, only refuse to themselves handle the packaged meat. In the cases reported, the cashier either had the customer handle the meat, or summoned a coworker to do it.

In my opinion, as long as these employees coworkers are not offended by their religiously-imposed limitations, no problem exists. The delay and any affront suffered by the customer is not, I think, important. Such affront, I suspect, is likely more a reflection of personal prejudice on the part of the customer, or underlying ethnic tension in their community.

Also should stores accommodate to them and switch them to other departments or do you think they should be let go because they cannot do there job if there is no room in other departments?

Unless a devout Moslem is employed in a pork-packing plant or similar establishment, or a store that has only a single employee on duty at a time, I don’t think such a switch would be necessary.

Though the principle is, I believe, the same, a far more troubling difficulty arises when, for personal religious reasons, pharmacists refuse to dispense contraceptives (ie: Pharmacists' Rights at Front Of New Debate (washingtonpost.com)). It is common for even large stores to have only a single pharmacist on duty at a time, and refusal to dispense contraceptives, especially emergency contraceptives, or any controlled medication of device, may be health or even life threatening. Also, I believe that as trained and licensed medical professionals, it is reasonable to require that pharmacists behave in accordance with established medical principles, and, if those principles conflict with their religious principles, find employment in a role where such conflict cannot arise (such as a large pharmacy that can assure that a capable pharmacist will always be available for any patients’ needs).

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by CraigD

In my opinion, as long as these employees coworkers are not offended by their religiously-imposed limitations, no problem exists. The delay and any affront suffered by the customer is not, I think, important.

Not important to who?

Originally Posted by CraigD

I believe that as trained and licensed medical professionals, it is reasonable to require that pharmacists behave in accordance with established medical principles, and, if those principles conflict with their religious principles, find employment in a role where such conflict cannot arise

I agree 100%!

[Edella]

We have a similar problem with Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis who are refusing to accept passengers transporting alcohol or service dogs. If you drink, some cabbies won't drive - CNN.com Last year, airport officials said alcohol-bearing passengers were being refused service an average of 77 times a month, though that figure dropped drastically after new airplane travel safety rules prohibited liquids in carry-on luggage.

The Somali drivers argue that because there are so many cabs at the airport, if a cab driver passes up a fare, he can just go to the cab a few feet down the aisle. No one would ever be stranded without a ride, or coerced into conforming to the cab drivers religious belief or practice. But, according to airport spokesman Patrick Hogan, the number of Somali drivers make up three-quarters of MSP's 900 cabdrivers. (So finding a cab to transport your dog or case of Schlitz Malt Liquor might still be problematic.) Driving a taxi means dealing with all kinds of people. Where do we draw the line? Could Catholics refuse service to anyone carrying condoms? Whose rights should take precedence here?

The Airport Commission was considering a simple solution, a colored light that the driver would place on his cab while it was in line, indicating a refusal to take fares carrying alcohol. One problem noted is that it might invite anti-Muslim bigotry. Passengers may choose to pass up a cab because they knew that the driver was Muslim.

This was found on the MSPairport.com web site under ordinance 102, chapter 7.4; Trip Refusal...pages 23 and 24 of 48: "No Taxicab driver shall refuse or neglect to convey any person or persons and their reasonable and legal property upon request to their destinations provided such person or persons agree to pay the legal rate of fare."


It seems simple enough to me.

[HydrogenBond]

The idea of not handling pork for a Mulim cashier is going to be tricky. If the pork is in a package like bacon, one is not technically handling the pork but the package. If the package is important, than that package of bacon was in the cart touching other packages. Is there a two package rule in affect or only a one package rule?

What about by-products and partial ingredients. For example, animal fat is used in many prepared foods. Who knows where pork fat ends up. Is there a percentage rule in affect or is there zero tolerance. What about if a store sells cooked food and uses the same oven for barbecue and chicken. Is the chicken also not suppose to be handled. It there a time rule or is it done with the sense of smell?

Say you buy dog or cat food and your animal likes a mixed bag, do they read the ingredients on each can or just look at the front label to see if the advertized ingredient is pork. Say the manufacturing actually has artificial pork flavor does that count as pork or does it have to be natural?

Deli meat and sausage going to be a nightmare, especially since beef, pork, turkey and chicken are often substituted in bolga. Say you get a deli sandwich, will they ask you to open it up so they can see which meat you put on it? Or is quick visual inspection good enough?

What about footballs. Can they handle the ole "pig skin" since it is not used for food. This is tricky one. Since the football will be kicked around with all the disrespect this dirty animal deserves.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The idea of not handling pork for a Mulim cashier is going to be tricky.
...
What about if a store sells cooked food and uses the same oven for barbecue and chicken. Is the chicken also not suppose to be handled.
...
Say you buy dog or cat food and your animal likes a mixed bag, do they read the ingredients on each can or just look at the front label to see if the advertized ingredient is pork.
...
Say the manufacturing actually has artificial pork flavor does that count as pork or does it have to be natural?
...
Say you get a deli sandwich, will they ask you to open it up so they can see which meat you put on it?

HydrogenBond, you ask some very interesting and important questions about this issue. Unfortunately, you’ve chosen to do so in a bigoted and ignorant manner.

So, instead of addressing your thoughts and furthering what could be a very good discussion about the true parameters of the issue, I’m going to inform all readers that these individuals likely only eat Halal foods. This seems especially likely considering the handling of pork is an issue for them and their faith.

What that means for those who care not to do the research themselves is that the individual who refuses to handle pork would not likely be eating store cooked BBQ/roasted chicken, prepared foods, deli meats from anything but a Halal counter, nor would they eat dog food (where do you come up with this garbage HB?).

Anyway, think “kosher” for Muslims. That’s Halal.

Now, if someone cares to explore the limits of this handling pork issue, they would do well to remember that not all Muslims share one set of attributes, and individual differences will supersede any broad sweeping generalizations you make.

[Boerseun]

I believe that it should be stated in the employee's employment contract that the job entails handling packaged pork. The employee agrees to the terms of service before taking the job. And that should be that, I guess.

There are plenty jobs out there that includes stuff that grosses me out. I simply won't take that job. That, for instance, is why I never studied medicine. I can't take blood and guts, and that's part of the job. So, I won't do it. End of story.

I can be grossed out because I've got a queasy stomach, or because my religion tells me to be grossed out. But being grossed out is being grossed out.

I can't in all honesty go work in a hospital and then refuse to handle anyone who's bleeding. I knew what I let myself in for. If those employees refuse to handle pork, whether it's stated in their employment contracts or not, its clearly not a Halaal shop, and the employees knew what they let themselves in for.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

I believe that it should be stated in the employee's employment contract that the job entails handling packaged pork. The employee agrees to the terms of service before taking the job. And that should be that, I guess.

In the various states of the US, employers have no legal obligation to actually provide job applicants with a document or explanation of their precise terms of employment. In practice, only upper-level management actually negotiate and sign a legal contract document with their employer. For most employees, this contract is considered “implied”.

I’ve worked for several food-service businesses, and though some provided me with fairly detailed job description documents, none were specific about such things as the kinds of meat I would be expected to handle. I doubt that Target cashiers have such duties described to them in detail before they are hired, and doubt they will – the legal risk of including information that be construed as in any way discriminating against a particular religion as part of the hiring process is, I suspect, greater than that of requiring they perform tasks that conflict with their religious principles after they are hired.

This about.com article provides a brief explanation of explicit and implied employment contracts.

[Cedars]

There are several issues being brought up in this thread regarding religion and jobs and discrimination.

What is occuring is the public display of the religious idealism that is impacting people who do not follow that individuals religious idealism and are being inconvienced and even discriminated against by these practices. Technically you cannot discriminate against someone because of their religion.

Should the general population have an expectation (and a right) that when they walk into a public and voluntarily licensed pharmacy, that if you hold a legally obtained permit (prescription) for an item, that you will not be discriminated against because the person behind the counter (also holding a legally and voluntarily obtained permit) their license to dispense medicine, holds a personal belief that conflicts with the profession they have VOLUNTARILY undertaken?

And what about the blind person who is discriminated against because of her seeing eye dog? The blind also have rights to be treated as equally as a seeing person.

No one makes another human being (in america) become a cashier.
No one makes another human being (in america) become a taxi cab driver.
No one in america makes another human being become a pharmacist.

But in the above cases, a private citizen in a public place is being discriminated against by persons who have a voluntary position due to the differences of religion. It is not the religion of the private person that is in question here, it is a voluntary employee who is publicly discriminating against another. Its a clear cut issue when a pharmacy refuses to fill the prescriptions of ALL Women. Its a clear cut issue when an employee refuses to fill the prescriptions of ALL black people. Why isnt this so clear when ALL women who use a certain product are being discriminated against by ONE person. Why isnt it as clear when a blind person is refused a service? Why isnt it as clear when a customer has to do the work of the employee? Can a cashier refused to scan a overweight persons groceries or would you as an employer decide this person is refusing to do the job they were hired for? Whos religious idealism takes precidence? The voluntary employees or the public person who has a right not to be discriminated against?