Minneapolis Muslim Cashiers refuse to scan pork products

[Caladan 19]

This has nothing to do with rights, on either side of it. There is no right to be hired if you don't want to do the work. There is no right to remain unhassled while buying bacon, though it's a wonder that with the whole extra fifteen seconds the Founding Fathers didn't put that up there with the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Anyone else wondering if maybe the package was leaking? Presumably the cashier hadn't just been hired.

[GaryC 7]

I don't care if the ones making the stink are Muslim, Jewish or Druids. If the area you live in has a settled way of doing things and a minority is insisting that the majority change to accommodate them then it's wrong. I again point to the stink about religious displays at holidays. 90% of the people have no problem with them but because of the 10% my kids can't sing "Silent Night" at the school Christmas play. How is that fair? That kind of discrimination I have experienced. And I see this as the beginning of a new set of discriminations. Sounding off about it now may fend it off.

I know you know Gary, that this part of your argument is about the first amendment- the establishment clause and the question of how tangled can government be with religion. And if the interpretation of the law is that schools can not favor religion through holiday displays and programs, then it is VERY FAIR and in fact the LAW. The majority mght disagree and feel insulted, but you can not get more fair than the law.

The establishment clause was included because to stop the government from imposing a certain religion on the people. It was never meant to totaly prohibit a religious display on puplicly owned proporty. The law has been twisted and the original intent has been changed. Allowing childred to sing a religious song at a school play or a nativity display on the courthouse grounds isn't the same as the government passing a law that says all people will adhere to a certain religion. That is the intent of the establishment clause.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

The cashier in this case should have considered that she was infringing on her employer's religious rights (of course, I'm going with "Target is a corporation: its religion is 'greenbacks worship'"), for which she could easily find herself eliminated ("she drives away customers, and it costs me to pay her--so, good-riddance to her").

[Alex+R 0]

I don't care if the ones making the stink are Muslim, Jewish or Druids. If the area you live in has a settled way of doing things and a minority is insisting that the majority change to accommodate them then it's wrong. I again point to the stink about religious displays at holidays. 90% of the people have no problem with them but because of the 10% my kids can't sing "Silent Night" at the school Christmas play. How is that fair? That kind of discrimination I have experienced. And I see this as the beginning of a new set of discriminations. Sounding off about it now may fend it off.

I know you know Gary, that this part of your argument is about the first amendment- the establishment clause and the question of how tangled can government be with religion. And if the interpretation of the law is that schools can not favor religion through holiday displays and programs, then it is VERY FAIR and in fact the LAW. The majority mght disagree and feel insulted, but you can not get more fair than the law.

The establishment clause was included because to stop the government from imposing a certain religion on the people. It was never meant to totaly prohibit a religious display on puplicly owned proporty. The law has been twisted and the original intent has been changed. Allowing childred to sing a religious song at a school play or a nativity display on the courthouse grounds isn't the same as the government passing a law that says all people will adhere to a certain religion. That is the intent of the establishment clause.

Don't you think singing Silent Night might feel like you are imposing YOUR religion on those who are not Christian? I never had a problem with it as a kid, but a lot of people do and it's their right to have their kids abstain. If the school decides it would rather have full participation than tell certain kids they can't do the play because of their religion.

[GaryC 7]

I don't care if the ones making the stink are Muslim, Jewish or Druids. If the area you live in has a settled way of doing things and a minority is insisting that the majority change to accommodate them then it's wrong. I again point to the stink about religious displays at holidays. 90% of the people have no problem with them but because of the 10% my kids can't sing "Silent Night" at the school Christmas play. How is that fair? That kind of discrimination I have experienced. And I see this as the beginning of a new set of discriminations. Sounding off about it now may fend it off.

I know you know Gary, that this part of your argument is about the first amendment- the establishment clause and the question of how tangled can government be with religion. And if the interpretation of the law is that schools can not favor religion through holiday displays and programs, then it is VERY FAIR and in fact the LAW. The majority mght disagree and feel insulted, but you can not get more fair than the law.

The establishment clause was included because to stop the government from imposing a certain religion on the people. It was never meant to totaly prohibit a religious display on puplicly owned proporty. The law has been twisted and the original intent has been changed. Allowing childred to sing a religious song at a school play or a nativity display on the courthouse grounds isn't the same as the government passing a law that says all people will adhere to a certain religion. That is the intent of the establishment clause.

Don't you think singing Silent Night might feel like you are imposing YOUR religion on those who are not Christian? I never had a problem with it as a kid, but a lot of people do and it's their right to have their kids abstain. If the school decides it would rather have full participation than tell certain kids they can't do the play because of their religion.

We had several Jewish families in my school as a kid. They were not forced to join in. No, I don't think singing a Christian song at a school play is imposing on anyone. Those children still participated in the other parts of the program that didn't have anything to do with Christianity. In fact one year we had a part of the program that featured Hanuka. The point is that no one was forced to join in. So it isn't imposing on anyone.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Personally, If you're buying pork, I think it's awfully rude to step into a checkout lane being manned by someone who is so very obviously Muslim.

You're not actually serious, right? I mean, maybe it's awefully rude for someone who is Muslim to work as a cashier in a place that so very obviously sells pork. To me, that approach would make much more sense - as long as we are living in a customer oriented environment. Otherwise, the stores can just start posting all kinds of signs at the entrance advising the customers which specific rules to follow for which of their employees. I could, otherwise, end up asking the not-so-obvious vegetarian cashier to scan out my meat purchase or the recovering alcoholic to scan my beer. How rude of me...

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

These threads crack me up.

Maybe they could have a "no pork products" line. You know, like that "10 Items or Less line." Or the "No Candy" line.

Oh wait. I get it. They're violating my RIGHTS. It should cost them their little JOBS...

oh yeah and I should SUE !!!!! :dance:

[peezey 0]

These threads crack me up.

Maybe they could have a "no pork products" line. You know, like that "10 Items or Less line." Or the "No Candy" line.

Oh wait. I get it. They're violating my RIGHTS. It should cost them their little JOBS...

oh yeah and I should SUE !!!!! :dance:

Maybe the No-Candy Parents should call out the Candy-is-Ok Parents to the parking lot for a discussion about whose rights are being violated with the No Candy lanes and the Candy lanes, just leave the debit card to the kids to complete check-out, and I guarantee you they'll be thrilled to be allowed to scan their own bacon because it's fun to help out when you're not yet jaded and bitter!

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Yeah and another thing that burns me up. When there's no bag boy to sack up my groceries. It's my RIGHT. Someone should be fired.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The fact this bacon scanning thing made the news is insulting to journalists and publishers everywhere, not to mention an insult to subscription paying customers of the paper.

Certainly, it's a sensationalist story aimed at a fairly specific audience - the US equivalent of the Daily Mail Reader.

[peezey 0]

Yeah and another thing that burns me up. When there's no bag boy to sack up my groceries. It's my RIGHT. Someone should be fired.

What about those Trader Joe's communists that don't even have plastic bags in the store, and actually want you to pay 99 cents for a reusable bag? Freaking rights tramplers.

[cbd2cai 0]

Yeah and another thing that burns me up. When there's no bag boy to sack up my groceries. It's my RIGHT. Someone should be fired.

What about those Trader Joe's communists that don't even have plastic bags in the store, and actually want you to pay 99 cents for a reusable bag? Freaking rights tramplers.

LOL, Ikea is starting to charge .05 (one nickel) for plastic bags . . . seems like the resource squandering Americans are using 70 million bags a year. So when you go, it is Bring Your Own Bag (BYOB) to Ikea . . if you don't want to pay that is!!

Edited March 18, 2007 by cbd2cai