Sharia in Minneapolis?
We have all heard the controversy at the Minneapolis airport with the taxi drivers. However, there is a new workplace clash of civilizations happening here in Minneapolis.
"I'm a reporter who covers Target for the Star Tribune and the other day, I got a call from someone who said that an employee at the Target store downtown refused to run his bacon through a scanning machine. He was mighty upset, arguing that the cashier had "no right to work as a cashier at Target" if she wasn't prepared to swipe his groceries.
But he was a little vague on the details, so I decided to check it out myself. At the Target store on E. Lake Street, a cashier wearing a hijab looked uncomfortable when I showed up at the cash register with a frozen pepperoni pizza. She immediately called for help, and another employee rang up the pizza and placed it in the basket.
I asked her if it was because she was Muslim, and she nodded her head. "I can't even touch it," she said.
The E. Lake store has only has a few aisles of food. How do Muslim workers adapt in Super Targets where there are full-fledged grocery sections? And is anyone other than this caller bothered by this? Are there some Muslim workers at Target who feel they have to suppress their beliefs to avoid conflicts? "
The comments were almost as instructive as the post itself was. A majority of my fellow Minnesotans said "if you can't do the job, you should look for other employment". That is a logical statement. When a bunch of Christian pharmacists said that they would not fill a prescription for RU486, a lot of lefties said (along with yours truly) "if you can't do the job, you should look for other employment". That is the logical answer to that particular complaint. However, there were many in the comments who just not understand that logic. Their response to the above logic was to call those that said it "racists" and worse!
The beauty of this country is that you are not forced to work in one job versus another. You can chose to apply to all kinds of jobs. If your religion prohibits contact (versus consumption) of alcohol, don't take a job at the local liquor store! Likewise if you can not touch a vacuum sealed package of pork or a pepperoni pizza, don't work in a grocery store. Find a video store or a fast food outlet (most fast food outlets do not serve pork as a safety precaution) to work for. For me, I can not work part time in my chosen industry, so because I need to have the flexibilty to work part time, I took a different job. It is one of the daily choices that millions of Americans have to make every day.
It's a matter of priorities. There is no "right" under the Constitution to have a job. There is a right to practice ones religion as one sees fit. If your religous dictates are more important, then so be it.
"I'm a reporter who covers Target for the Star Tribune and the other day, I got a call from someone who said that an employee at the Target store downtown refused to run his bacon through a scanning machine. He was mighty upset, arguing that the cashier had "no right to work as a cashier at Target" if she wasn't prepared to swipe his groceries.
But he was a little vague on the details, so I decided to check it out myself. At the Target store on E. Lake Street, a cashier wearing a hijab looked uncomfortable when I showed up at the cash register with a frozen pepperoni pizza. She immediately called for help, and another employee rang up the pizza and placed it in the basket.
I asked her if it was because she was Muslim, and she nodded her head. "I can't even touch it," she said.
The E. Lake store has only has a few aisles of food. How do Muslim workers adapt in Super Targets where there are full-fledged grocery sections? And is anyone other than this caller bothered by this? Are there some Muslim workers at Target who feel they have to suppress their beliefs to avoid conflicts? "
The comments were almost as instructive as the post itself was. A majority of my fellow Minnesotans said "if you can't do the job, you should look for other employment". That is a logical statement. When a bunch of Christian pharmacists said that they would not fill a prescription for RU486, a lot of lefties said (along with yours truly) "if you can't do the job, you should look for other employment". That is the logical answer to that particular complaint. However, there were many in the comments who just not understand that logic. Their response to the above logic was to call those that said it "racists" and worse!
The beauty of this country is that you are not forced to work in one job versus another. You can chose to apply to all kinds of jobs. If your religion prohibits contact (versus consumption) of alcohol, don't take a job at the local liquor store! Likewise if you can not touch a vacuum sealed package of pork or a pepperoni pizza, don't work in a grocery store. Find a video store or a fast food outlet (most fast food outlets do not serve pork as a safety precaution) to work for. For me, I can not work part time in my chosen industry, so because I need to have the flexibilty to work part time, I took a different job. It is one of the daily choices that millions of Americans have to make every day.
It's a matter of priorities. There is no "right" under the Constitution to have a job. There is a right to practice ones religion as one sees fit. If your religous dictates are more important, then so be it.
Labels: Christianity, Islam
posted by The Lady Logician at
6:04 PM
14 Comments:
That's the problem with political correctness. In trying to eliminate any possibility of discrimination -- unfair treatment because of some immutable characteristic -- we sometimes fall all over ourselves trying to avoid the kind of discrimination -- distinguishing between things that are objectively different -- that common sense and civil society require. So it is here.
I would argue that you have three different issues here, and that you should not prescribe the same solution -- find a different job -- for all them. In the case of the Muslim Target clerk, I would argue that she isn't being asked to "touch" the pork products at all, since they're all wrapped. If her religion (in her opinion alone) does not allow this "special dispensation," then she should find another job-- in the store or elsewhere.
The muslim cab drivers are another story. They are not even being asked to "touch" the alcohol, or its container, or even the bag the container may be in, or even the person carrying the bag. Their objection is that they are "facilitating the sin" of another person. The problem is, it isn't a sin for that person (one assumes). Refusing them service is inconveniencing them for not following Muslum observance-- and that's not acceptable. I think that they can be allowed the latitude, however, under one special circumstance-- if there is another cab readily available, and if they leave the station without a fare and go to the rear of the line. Exercising your religion sometimes costs. {I should also note that, with 70% of the drivers Muslim, this solution isn't really very workable.)
Now, the case of the pharmacist is troubling because, at first blush, it appears to be an inconsistency in thinking. It is not. The difference is that, in this case, it is not the individual employee making the decision, but the owner of the establishment (though they may sometimes be the same). This private business has decided what "business" they are in, and have the right to decide what products they will or will not offer for sale. You cannot go into a gas station demanding a new pair of shoes; they aren't in that business, regardless of how they made that decision. You have no right to demand that the local drug store carry your brand of mouthwash, or any mouthwash at all. If you don't like it, go to another store. Just that simple.
Please, try to be more discriminating. :-)
By
Anonymous, at 10:17 AM
All three have the same genesis...employees are deeming that their religion dictates that they can not a) touch pork, b) have alcohol in their vehicle or c) aid an abortion by filling a legal prescription for an abortofascant.
By your own admission, the Target clerk and the taxi drivers are not being asked to "touch" the product in question so, by your logic, the admonition to "find other employment" does indeed fit. In the case of the cab drivers, they are hired by the taxi company and the airport to transport passenger from point a to point b. If the taxi driver is unwilling to perform the functions that he is hired to do....
The pharmacists in question (in my example) were also employees. They were not the business owners. It is in their job description to fill legal prescriptions. Period end of discussion. Just as the Target clerk is paid to ring purchases or the taxi driver is paid to drive passengers.
Suppose I, as a Christian in a customer service field, refused to assist Planned Parenthood as a customer of mine. Would my employer not be well within their rights to terminate my employment for not fulfilling my assigned duties? The same can and should be said for the pharmacists. Then there is the whole state licensing issue to deal with. As a state licensed entity a pharmacist (or taxi driver) must abide by the non-discrimination rules set aside by the state!
See your problem is that you are discriminating where none should exist. When you work for an employer, you have to abide by the workplace rules. If you are a state licensed entity, you must abide by the state rules for your chosen profession. If you can not...
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 11:17 AM
I think there is a difference in degree between the Target clerk and the cab driver, in that the Target clerk's "objection" is more immediate-- still not something which a reasonable interpretation of her religion should proscribe, in my opinion-- but it affects her directly. The cab driver is not trying to avoid touching alcohol, but rather to prevent someone else from possessing it-- forcing their view on others. And I agree, the public should not be asked to "accommodate" their religion if the public is inconvenienced. The cab company and MAC have the authority to demand otherwise, and so far have stuck to their guns. I don't know what's going to happen there, but I'm far more concerned by this than by one Target clerk.
OK, if the pharmacist is not doing what his/her employer requires, it's the same as the Target clerk, with the minor difference that the Target customer simply must wait a few seconds for a different clerk, while the pharmacy customer must find another store (and the store actually loses a customer). IF, however, as I believe to be the case, the OWNER says that "we do not carry that drug," that is or should be entirely their perogative and the pharmacist IS following the rules of the establishment. The State should not be involved in any way. Any pharmacist whose license is threatened has a solid lawsuit based on the first amendment. And the customer has no right other than to go elsewhere.
J. Ewing
By
Anonymous, at 6:22 PM
Well, it looks like Target has identified the problem and solved it, according to today's Star Tribune. It turns out that the Target clerks were not objecting to handling the pork, but to "assisting in the Sin" of others having pork. In other words, they were trying to force other people to live according to their own religion, and they don't have a right to do that.
Target offered them the opportunity to wear gloves or to accept a transfer to another department where they would not have to handle pork. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, but let's wait and see if the ACLU files a lawsuit. :-(
By
Anonymous, at 6:49 PM
"In the Muslim world, there is even a stronger taboo against pork than alcohol, said Owais Bayunus, an imam at the Abu Khudra Mosque in Columbia Heights. Wearing gloves will not solve the issue, he said. "There is a school of thought within the Muslim community that if you sell pork or alcohol to someone, then you are contributing to the propagation of a sinful activity," he said. "Many Muslims do not want to see non-Muslims involved in a sinful product."
http://www.startribune.com/535/story/1061103.html
Which puts this SQUARELY in the same category as the pharmacists who did not want to fill prescriptions for RU-486...as I suspected.
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 7:03 PM
With the exception that the Target clerks are employees refusing (making it difficult) for the employer to sell a product that the employer wants to sell. If the employer of the pharmacists decides, for any reason whatsoever, not to sell a certain product, that is their right and their employees, the pharmacists, are duty-bound to follow that policy. Employers in both cases have the right to fire or transfer the employee. Also in both cases the customers have the right to complain or take their business elsewhere. They do NOT have the right to insist that government FORCE the store to accommodate their wishes.
J. Ewing
By
Anonymous, at 10:45 AM
In other words, if Target decides not to sell pork products, for any reason, that is their right, and government has no business telling them they must. Neither does government have any business telling Target that they may not fire clerks who choose not to perform the jobs for which they were hired.
So long as this issue is resolved between buyers and sellers, I have no problem. The minute government gets involved, somebody's freedom is "gonna get whacked" as Tony Soprano might say.
JE
By
Anonymous, at 10:50 AM
Lady, your ignorance is again showing. RU-486 is not dispensed by pharmacists, but by medical clinics. You have confused an abortificant (RU-486) with emergency contraceptiong, which prevents ovulation and thus pregnancy.
By
Anonymous, at 4:12 PM
No Anonymous...you show YOUR ignorance!
"Illinois Pharmacists Balk at Contraception
By JIM SUHR, AP Business Writer Wed Nov 30, 3:26 PM ET
ST. LOUIS - Walgreen Co. said it has put four Illinois pharmacists in the St. Louis area on unpaid leave for refusing to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception in violation of a state rule.
The four cited religious or moral objections to filling prescriptions for the morning-after pill and "have said they would like to maintain their right to refuse to dispense, and in Illinois that is not an option," Walgreen spokeswoman Tiffani Bruce said."
The last I looked, Walgreens was not medical clinic.
Nice try though...
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 3:49 PM
Oh, for crying out loud, let's make this simple.
"Plan B" and "Emergency contraception" and "Morning after pill" are the same thing, and they are dispensed by pharmacists in places like Walgreens. These drugs are taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse and prevent ovulation.
RU-486 is a true abortificant, and is administered by doctors in medical clinics, not pharmacists. There are several drugs that must be taken at specific times, and must be more closely monitored. No one - including the state of Illinois - is making them disburse these drugs because they can't.
How many kids do you have, LL, given your ignorance of such basic female health information?
By
Anonymous, at 3:50 PM
So because I don't know all the different ways to kill an unborn baby I know nothing about women's reproduction? Yeah whatever....
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 5:50 PM
I knew I'd find this one eventually!
Here is an explanation as to why you're wrong that Plan B emergency contraception is NOT an abortificant:
http://www.scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/04/why_the_wingnuts_hate_plan_b.php
It stops UNFERTILIZED EGGS from popping out, not "babies."
By
Anonymous, at 1:15 PM
And what does that have to do with the argument that certain Christian pharmacists find that to be as offensive to their religion as Muslims find pork?
LL
By
The Lady Logician, at 5:25 PM
"And what does that have to do with the argument that certain Christian pharmacists find that to be as offensive to their religion as Muslims find pork?"
Because the argument that they're advancing - and you're buying into - is that emergency contraception "kills babies" when that's patently false. When your argument is that destruction of a fertilized egg is akin to offing your Aunt Mabel, you'd better make sure that you're talking about a fertilized egg, not an undispensed, unfertilized egg.
Here's a simple logical equivalent: I could go about my life refusing to ride in an automobile because I was told by my preacher that the gasoline was derived from the blood of martyred Christians. Untrue, but no big deal because it's my life and my inconvenience. But suppose I started a campaign to stop all people from riding in all cars because *I* believed that gasoline was derived from the blood of martyred Christians. Not only that, I took on a job to dispense gasoline and then refused to sell it because because *I* believed that gasoline was derived from the blood of martyred Christians.
But, you say, gasoline isn't derived from the blood of martyred Christians, every fool knows that.
Your response - apparently - is "Tough luck. Scientific fact is meaningless. *I* believe it, so no gas for you."
So when a pharmacist (someone who one would hope is learned in the basics of science) refuses to dispense legal medication because of some ostensible moral objection, wouldn't it be best if the objection were based on something that is, in fact, true?
By
Anonymous, at 9:40 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home