There is an interesting controversy in England over a policy of U.K. retailer Marks and Spencer, which has allowed Muslim employees to refuse to help customers buying dishes with pork or alcohol. The result was long lines of shoppers who were told to wait for a non-Muslim employee to check them out. With huge numbers of people buying champagne for the holiday, customers are irate as they stood around for another cashier without religious objections to appear. There is now a Facebook page to boycott the store over the policy. However, the Obama Administration is supporting a similar claim in a U.S. case.
On Monday, the company apologized for the incident. However, the company did not say it would change its policy but rather said “[r]equests are considered on a case by case basis and may lead to an individual working in a department where conflicts wouldn’t arise, such as in clothing or bakery in foods.” In the meantime, Muslim groups have supported the policy and encouraged more stores to adopt it. Salman Farsi, media officer of the East London Mosque Trust “[w]e respect Marks & Spencer as a retailer that allows its employees to observe their religious values.” Farsi said.
We have faced the same conflicts in the United States, including a few that have gone to court. One repeated conflict is the demand by Muslim taxi drivers that they have a right to refuse to carry passengers carrying alcohol like wine from a store or dogs (which some Muslim view as “unclean” animals).
There is a recent case brought by the Obama Administration that could result in greater attention to this issue. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued a trucking company, Star Transport, Inc., in Morton, Ill., for not accommodating the refusal of Muslim truck drivers to deliver any product containing alcohol. EEOC District Director John P. Rowe announced that “Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees’ Islamic religion.” John Hendrickson, the EEOC Regional Attorney for the Chicago District Office added “Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don’t get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so.”
While I am highly supportive of free exercise rights, I fail to see why this is not a bona fide occupational qualification for employees. If you are a cashier or a taxi driver, those positions require the interaction of people of different cultures and values. It depends how you define hardship. It seems to be that trying to track and accommodate the various religious views and preferences of employees is a hardship. It would also require companies to inquire as to the religion of drivers to be sure that it has enough non-Muslim drivers to make deliveries. That itself could be viewed as discrimination. Moreover, the company may have short notice of deliveries or the content of shipping. Moreover, drivers may want to confirm the contents of shipments, causing delay. It seems reasonable to expect people with such religious views to find employment that will not cause such conflicts.
What do you think?
Reblogged this on nfocus4youblog and commented:
hmmmm
Wait…. We wouldn’t allow that to happen here…. We have laws that say so…. Can not be refused service based upon…. And the commerce clause was used to integrate that stuff….. Oh my…
This reminds me of pharmacists in the US who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. If you don’t like a major part of the job, don’t take the job? If you don’t like guns, don’t be a cop?
Bron This is the same kind of crap I used to hear from segregationists against the Civil Rights bill. Once any business gets state licenses, benefits, and governmental money and services, it ceases to be a private business. It must conform to all the laws regarding wages, hours, benefits. The law does NOT require that those who are against birth control take the pill. As others have pointed out, if you allow for employers to force their religious beliefs on their customers, and workers, they lose their civil rights which ARE legally guaranteed by our laws. If a business wants to avoid having to conform with the law, they can operate as an unincorporated small business or go out of business. The business has the same right to not conform as your suggestion that the employees go elsewhere for employment. The business can go out of business or sell the business.
I think some people don’t understand the idea of pluralism or what constitutes a hardship.
I suspect there is something more at play here. As others have suggested why would someone with deep religious convictions work in a place that sells products contrary to their convictions. However, I have encountered many Muslims who work in liquor stores for instance and there is no reason why they shouldn’t. Orthodox Jews who have stronger dietary laws than Halal, have little problem selling non-Kosher products and why should they? By selling a product you are not endorsing its use.
This is why I suspect that the hidden motive here is one of people trying to enforce their religious beliefs upon the majority. Bron touches on it by talking about birth control, but gets it completely wrong. The spectrum of religious belief, even within many religions, is so wide that society simply cannot accommodate everyone’s religious perspectives without those perspectives themselves becoming oppressive. As an employer you should not have the right to enforce your religious beliefs on your employee, nor should the employee require an employer to accommodate their religious beliefs.
mr ed, I see that you don’t have any horse sense since none of us denigrate a persons thoughts. The problem is the actions of Muslims to DICTATE to others how their businesses and personal lives will be run. You forget that the issue of minors is a state law as to what they may sell. It applies to ALL, Muslim, Jews, Christians, atheists, etc.. IN this situation it is up to the choice of the clerk as to what they will or will not process. This as was noted, leads to anarchy and long lines.
I think the best solution is to bar Muslims from being in those jobs. In India, Muslims are barred from working on or near any airport. If this store does not change its policy, it is time for all non-Muslims to shop elsewhere.
I fail to see how driving a truck with alcohol or pork in it is a hardship. This is the same weak argument that was used by some drug store employees to refuse to sell birth control products to customers. The customer used to always be right.
You cant have it both ways. Making employers provide birth control is basically what the Muslims are doing at Marks and Spencer.
Liberals just think making an employer provide birth control is OK. Its the same thing, forcing your “religious” views on others.
If someone wants birth control, well buy it yourself or find another policy which provides it. Or find another employer who doesnt object to providing birth control as part of their benefits.
In Ohio, and possibly other states, a minor (under 21) can’t ring up your booze order. An older employees must take over. Yet there is a limited pool of people who can/will take these low paying jobs, so the young are hired. Same with M&S, I’m sure.
As far as those who post denigrating a person’s personal thoughts, I find you despicable.
There we are tolerating Muslim intolerance! Work in Marks & Sparks in UK & you should already know what they sell before you take the job. A really holy person would adhere to holy laws for himself & not be so weak as to insist others around him go without too. We need a counter Sharia law: Whatever you forbid for others which we consider not harmful, can be enforced on your intolerant arse, harmful or not in your opinion. Thus the waiting shoppers could insist that the Muslim employee drink the whole bottle of wine & poor it down his throat if he refused. You could also insist he takes the payment for it in care for the store. Maybe they would be a little more humble after that & realize that dictating what others can & cannot do can easily spring back onto themselves.
Smiling Atheist – nice to see such loving troll work is still strong during the holiday season.
To the British…. Didn’t you learn anything during World War 2…. Appeasement doesn’t work! Tell the Muslim subhumans to go back to their desert tents, and SHUT UP!
Muslims…. if you’d like to change the world, kill yourselves and the world will be a better place
beliefs
I just won’t shop in any store that employs Muslims! Believe any damned thing you like…… then keep your police to yourself …I’m not interested
Religious objections to doing your job should not be permitted. While on its face, it seems a minor thing, it is most assuredly not. Taken to its logical conclusion, customers will soon have to accept the religious regulations of the wait staff because the lines will simply be too long. The same can be true of alleged “medical professionals” who decide that this or that procedure or this is objectionable and they will not do it or assist in doing it or that gender or this cannot be touched and they will again refuse to treat.
Consider the suggestion that non Muslim staff can do what the Muslim or other religious objector refuses to do. Can the employer now hire on the basis of religion? If not, a shop or hospital may not have enough or any staff who will perform the tasks which the religious objector will not perform.
Perhaps certain religions would prefer only to wait on co-religious, how would one deal with this.
M&S may think it is doing a good thing or it may be being forced to do a thing that it knows is not a good idea. Either way, the rest of us suffer. I for one am sick of the continung claim that I should suffer or pay for someone else’s religious beliefs.
Where would this end?
Don’t believe in birth control, so refuse to deliver to pharmacies? Vegetarian, so refuse to deliver any meat or meat products? Or feed grain to co-ops or farms? Environmentalist, so refuse to deliver oil or gasoline?
Truck drivers should not be the ones to dictate to an employer what they will or will not deliver. I agree that is part of the job description. As long as the cargo is legal, there should not be a question. Just as being able to lift fifty pounds repeatedly is often a requirement for delivery drivers.
That should be “store,” not “satire.”
I don’t understand why anyone would apply for and accept a job in a satire that sold products they object to. It would be like a Southern Baptist taking a job in a convenience store that sells beer. Or tge pharmacist who objects to certain prescription drungs. Where does it end? Would the next demand be to satire the alcohol in a different building?