Muslim Checkout Worker Refused To Serve Man With Alcohol.

by Major Wed Dec 28, 2016 11:03 am

First topic message reminder :

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2486827/shopper-slams-tesco-after-Muslim-woman-on-checkout-refused-to-serve-him-alcohol.

More preferential treatment for Muslims.

by Syl Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:11 pm

Major wrote:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2486827/shopper-slams-tesco-after-Muslim-woman-on-checkout-refused-to-serve-him-alcohol.

More preferential treatment for Muslims.

1..Tesco should not have put the woman on a till where she is unable to perform her duties.
2..The assistant was wrong to tell the man to go to another checkout....he was in the right place, she was not.
3...Serves him right for drinking Echo falls...it's crap.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:16 pm

Ziz wrote:Like tobacco, the purchase of alcohol is subject to legal checks - this may limit the places it can be purchased.

That was not the case here, otherwise they would have said that it's illegal to sell alcohol at the kiosk.

Our colleague works on the kiosk as alcohol is generally not purchased in this area.

Nowhere does it say that they weren't allowed to sell alcohol at the kiosk.

“She is aware that you shouldn’t have to queue again in the future if a similar situation occurs.

“She will request another colleague to come and serve.”

So she can request a colleague comes to the kiosk to serve a customer who is buying alcohol.

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:19 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ziz wrote:Like tobacco, the purchase of alcohol is subject to legal checks - this may limit the places it can be purchased.

That was not the case here, otherwise they would have said that it's illegal to sell alcohol at the kiosk.

Our colleague works on the kiosk as alcohol is generally not purchased in this area.

Nowhere does it say that they weren't allowed to sell alcohol at the kiosk.

“She is aware that you shouldn’t have to queue again in the future if a similar situation occurs.

“She will request another colleague to come and serve.”

So she can request a colleague comes to the kiosk to serve a customer who is buying alcohol.

I don't believe the law requires a retailer to specify what they don't sell and where. Though I accept that she was treated exceptionally because of her faith.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:22 pm

Ziz wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That was not the case here, otherwise they would have said that it's illegal to sell alcohol at the kiosk.

Nowhere does it say that they weren't allowed to sell alcohol at the kiosk.

So she can request a colleague comes to the kiosk to serve a customer who is buying alcohol.

I don't believe the law requires a retailer to specify what they don't sell and where.

It's quite clear that it's perfectly possible to sell alcohol at that kiosk, and that the woman is allowed to refuse because of her religious faith.

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:26 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Ziz wrote:

I don't believe the law requires a retailer to specify what they don't sell and where.

It's quite clear that it's perfectly possible to sell alcohol at that kiosk, and that the woman is allowed to refuse because of her religious faith.

It's up to Tesco where and by whom alcohol is sold - the assistant in this case was clearly acting within her contract.

by Syl Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:26 pm

The bottom line is Tesco was remiss in putting a woman they have employed knowing her limitations in a position to make it awkward for the customer.

But looking at his woebedoneto face posing for a publicity pic with the offending bottle of wine, I cant help thinking....TOUGH.

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:27 pm

Syl wrote:The bottom line is Tesco was remiss in putting a woman they have employed knowing her limitations in a position to make it awkward for the customer.

But looking at his woebedoneto face posing for a publicity pic with the offending bottle of wine, I cant help thinking....TOUGH.

Yes, Tesco's problem - not the assistant's.

by eddie Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:30 pm

Could a vegetarian refuse to sell meat?
Just a thought that occurred to me.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:30 pm

Syl wrote:The bottom line is Tesco was remiss in putting a woman they have employed knowing her limitations in a position to make it awkward for the customer.

But looking at his woebedoneto face posing for a publicity pic with the offending bottle of wine, I cant help thinking....TOUGH.

It's better than her being on the general checkouts where a lot of people are probably buying alcohol.

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:31 pm

eddie wrote:Could a vegetarian refuse to sell meat?
Just a thought that occurred to me.

Yes, if the employer agreed to that.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:33 pm

eddie wrote:Could a vegetarian refuse to sell meat?
Just a thought that occurred to me.

I think that would probably be impractical on a general checkout, but I guess a lot of people don't buy meat at a kiosk. A vegetarian employee could certainly ask to be exempt from selling meat.

by Syl Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:The bottom line is Tesco was remiss in putting a woman they have employed knowing her limitations in a position to make it awkward for the customer.

But looking at his woebedoneto face posing for a publicity pic with the offending bottle of wine, I cant help thinking....TOUGH.

It's better than her being on the general checkouts where a lot of people are probably buying alcohol.

Well obviously, if they agree to employ someone who refuses to sell certain items they should make sure she is never in the position where this may crop up...they are at fault.

She should have been aware though that it was not her place to ask him to use another checkout...it was handled badly all round..

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:40 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:Could a vegetarian refuse to sell meat?
Just a thought that occurred to me.

I think that would probably be impractical on a general checkout, but I guess a lot of people don't buy meat at a kiosk. A vegetarian employee could certainly ask to be exempt from selling meat.

Undoubtedly in the case of a supermarket.

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:41 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's better than her being on the general checkouts where a lot of people are probably buying alcohol.

Well obviously, if they agree to employ someone who refuses to sell certain items they should make sure she is never in the position where this may crop up...they are at fault.

She should have been aware though that it was not her place to ask him to use another checkout...it was handled badly all round..

It was - but that's the fault of Tesco's management, not the assistant.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:42 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's better than her being on the general checkouts where a lot of people are probably buying alcohol.

Well obviously, if they agree to employ someone who refuses to sell certain items they should make sure she is never in the position where this may crop up...they are at fault.

She should have been aware though that it was not her place to ask him to use another checkout...it was handled badly all round..

They might not have been aware at the time they offered her a job though. She told them when she started working for them, so what were they to do - sack her?

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Well obviously, if they agree to employ someone who refuses to sell certain items they should make sure she is never in the position where this may crop up...they are at fault.

She should have been aware though that it was not her place to ask him to use another checkout...it was handled badly all round..

They might not have been aware at the time they offered her a job though. She told them when she started working for them, so what were they to do - sack her?

If that's the case then she has breached her contract of employment and could be subject to sanction.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:45 pm

I wish supermarket employees would refuse to serve those who queue up at the ten items or less till with more than ten items. Laughing

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:46 pm

Ziz wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They might not have been aware at the time they offered her a job though. She told them when she started working for them, so what were they to do - sack her?

If that's the case then she has breached her contract of employment and could be subject to sanction.

Why? She was not obliged to tell them about her objections to selling alcohol was she? I presume they didn't ask her at the time.

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:46 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:I wish supermarket employees would refuse to serve those who queue up at the ten items or less till with more than ten items.

Use the self-serve for those.

by Syl Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Well obviously, if they agree to employ someone who refuses to sell certain items they should make sure she is never in the position where this may crop up...they are at fault.

She should have been aware though that it was not her place to ask him to use another checkout...it was handled badly all round..

They might not have been aware at the time they offered her a job though. She told them when she started working for them, so what were they to do - sack her?

Well...yes. Laughing

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:49 pm

She should have asked to see his ID to make sure he was over 18, and then refused to sell him the wine when he didn't have it. Laughing

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:50 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

They might not have been aware at the time they offered her a job though. She told them when she started working for them, so what were they to do - sack her?

Well...yes.

That's so harsh! Laughing

by Syl Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:53 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Syl wrote:

Well...yes.

That's so harsh!

Actually, as the girl wasn't the one to go rushing to the press I would probably rather ban the customer this time. Razz

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 7:54 pm

Syl wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That's so harsh!

Actually, as the girl wasn't the one to go rushing to the press I would probably rather ban the customer this time.

Exactly - silly man!

by eddie Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:08 pm

Ziz wrote:
eddie wrote:Could a vegetarian refuse to sell meat?
Just a thought that occurred to me.

Yes, if the employer agreed to that.

Then what's the problem if someone doesn't want to sell something due to religious beliefs?
If a vegetarian refused to serve me meat but said he'd go get someone else I'd be fine with that. Likewise with a Muslim serving me alcohol.
Long as I go at served I wouldn't care who it was by. scratch

by Victorismyhero Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:14 pm

eddie wrote:
Ziz wrote:
eddie wrote:Could a vegetarian refuse to sell meat?
Just a thought that occurred to me.

Yes, if the employer agreed to that.

Then what's the problem if someone doesn't want to sell something due to religious beliefs?
If a vegetarian refused to serve me meat but said he'd go get someone else I'd be fine with that. Likewise with a Muslim serving me alcohol.
Long as I go at served I wouldn't care who it was by.

THAT...depends on how long you end up waiting for "someone else"

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:18 pm

eddie wrote:
Ziz wrote:

Yes, if the employer agreed to that.

Then what's the problem if someone doesn't want to sell something due to religious beliefs?
If a vegetarian refused to serve me meat but said he'd go get someone else I'd be fine with that. Likewise with a Muslim serving me alcohol.
Long as I go at served I wouldn't care who it was by.

No problem - the question of who serves is a matter for the vendor.

by Syl Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:28 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
eddie wrote:

Then what's the problem if someone doesn't want to sell something due to religious beliefs?
If a vegetarian refused to serve me meat but said he'd go get someone else I'd be fine with that. Likewise with a Muslim serving me alcohol.
Long as I go at served I wouldn't care who it was by.

THAT...depends on how long you end up waiting for "someone else"

M&S employ people on check outs under 18, so they always have to ring for another cashier if a customer has wine or spirits....it's not a big deal really.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:30 pm

Syl wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:

THAT...depends on how long you end up waiting for "someone else"

M&S employ people on check outs under 18, so they always have to ring for another cashier if a customer has wine or spirits....it's not a big deal really.

Hmmm, they don't have to get someone else to sell the alcohol, they just need another adult member of staff present at the time to kind of agree to the sale. Can't they just ask the person at the next till to do that?

by Victorismyhero Thu Dec 29, 2016 8:39 pm

Syl wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:
eddie wrote:

Then what's the problem if someone doesn't want to sell something due to religious beliefs?
If a vegetarian refused to serve me meat but said he'd go get someone else I'd be fine with that. Likewise with a Muslim serving me alcohol.
Long as I go at served I wouldn't care who it was by.

THAT...depends on how long you end up waiting for "someone else"

M&S employ people on check outs under 18, so they always have to ring for another cashier if a customer has wine or spirits....it's not a big deal really.

remind me to avoid M&S for my booze purchases....

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:09 pm

Lord Foul wrote:
Syl wrote:

M&S employ people on check outs under 18, so they always have to ring for another cashier if a customer has wine or spirits....it's not a big deal really.

remind me to avoid M&S for my booze purchases....

They are obliged by law to make sure that any employer under the age of 18 is supervised when selling alcohol. However, the degree of supervision isn't specified, so having to actually get someone over to sell the booze is a bit unnecessary.

by Original Quill Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:18 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
scrat wrote:Nothing to do with reality, simply more racial attacks by a proud racist.

Just because his "Britain first" remit is tolerated elsewhere must we be forced to witness such bitter hatred on here.

This poster sets out to insult minorities, can we please have a Bin for his hate mongering!

There was absolutely nothing out-of-bounds about his post.

Well, it did involve a bit of deception and trickery. But that's best dealt with by cross-examination.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:22 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:

There was absolutely nothing out-of-bounds about his post.

Well, it did involve a bit of deception and trickery. But that's best dealt with by cross-examination.

Where was the deception and trickery?

by Original Quill Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:27 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Well, it did involve a bit of deception and trickery. But that's best dealt with by cross-examination.

Where was the deception and trickery?

"Preferential treatment." I don't think the story was about preference in treatment. Religious accommodation is the common practice in the workplace. Certainly conservatives are making a big deal of it in the US these days.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:30 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Where was the deception and trickery?

"Preferential treatment." I don't think the story was about preference in treatment. Religious accommodation is the common practice in the workplace. Certainly conservatives are making a big deal of it in the US these days.

To some people "religious accommodation" is the same as "preferential treatment". I don't think there was any deception or trickery.

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:34 pm

Major wrote:
scrat wrote:
you're correct unlike some I don't want any poster banned, I'm simply trying to ascertain why this "Britain first" racist posts racist nonsense and why those who defend this "Britain first" racist are claiming victim status when challenged.

Surely we can all accept that this "Britain first" racist contributes nothing to this forum bar hatred, let us move on to the motives for this.

Show a QUOTE Scrat to prove your accusations.

You are full of assumptions.

A quote to prove you are a racist Major? Well maybe Scrat can't be bothered, after all we know it already, but I can, easy.

Your words I believe:

Muslim Checkout Worker Refused To Serve Man With Alcohol. - Page 4 5wcCcm0T

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:34 pm

There goes the thread ...

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:36 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:There goes the thread ...

Major asked for a quote, I gave it to him. If he didn't want it he shouldn't have asked. And you really think this thread has any validity?

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:37 pm

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:There goes the thread ...

Major asked for a quote, I gave it to him. If he didn't want it he shouldn't have asked. And you really think this thread has any validity?

Yes. I think it's a very interesting subject, and it's a shame to spoil it by banging on about "racism".

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:48 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:

Major asked for a quote, I gave it to him. If he didn't want it he shouldn't have asked. And you really think this thread has any validity?

Yes. I think it's a very interesting subject, and it's a shame to spoil it by banging on about "racism".

It's only here because of racism.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:52 pm

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes. I think it's a very interesting subject, and it's a shame to spoil it by banging on about "racism".

It's only here because of racism.

It's here because it's a news item - ie, it was in the papers. I don't think it should have been - I disapprove of people running to the press in that manner. However, it's still an interesting subject. How far should businesses go to accommodate religious belief and/or personal objections to certain parts of a job?

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:58 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:

It's only here because of racism.

It's here because it's a news item - ie, it was in the papers. I don't think it should have been - I disapprove of people running to the press in that manner. However, it's still an interesting subject. How far should businesses go to accommodate religious belief and/or personal objections to certain parts of a job?

And Major used it to try and have a go a Muslims. It is a racist thread made for racist reasons by a racist.

by Raggamuffin Thu Dec 29, 2016 9:59 pm

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's here because it's a news item - ie, it was in the papers. I don't think it should have been - I disapprove of people running to the press in that manner. However, it's still an interesting subject. How far should businesses go to accommodate religious belief and/or personal objections to certain parts of a job?

And Major used it to try and have a go a Muslims. It is a racist thread made for racist reasons by a racist.

So all the negative threads you've started about Christians are racist then?

I've tried to get you to discuss the subject, but you're not interested, so I won't waste any more time on you.

by Ben Reilly Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:02 pm

Seriously, Major wrote: "More preferential treatment for Muslims." That tells you all you need to know, right?

by scrat Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:06 pm

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

It's here because it's a news item - ie, it was in the papers. I don't think it should have been - I disapprove of people running to the press in that manner. However, it's still an interesting subject. How far should businesses go to accommodate religious belief and/or personal objections to certain parts of a job?

And Major used it to try and have a go a Muslims. It is a racist thread made for racist reasons by a racist.

Exactly, and the only ones defending racism are racists, they'll punt Private Piles forward to do their bidding, they'll encourage him to post his racist nonsense, they'll fill him up with racist bile off site and point him in this direction to spew it forth on here, when you come to think of it,,,,all racists are cowards!

by nicko Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:07 pm

God scat, you are a stirrer par-excellent.

by Guest Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:09 pm

nicko wrote:God scat, you are a stirrer par-excellent.

What stirring, that's telling the truth, dropping in to have a go at Scrat is stirring.

by Tommy Monk Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:10 pm

Where was the "religious accommodation" here...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10776411/Christian-nursery-worker-sacked-after-refusing-to-read-gay-stories-to-children.html

Surely other members of staff could have been made available here too... and woman could have carried on performing other tasks without being sacked...?

by scrat Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:11 pm

nicko wrote:God scat, you are a stirrer par-excellent.

"god scat" I think you've found the name for Ben's new forum Penfold, well done your medal is in the post, deep down I knew that despite your stupidity one day you'd serve a purpose!

by nicko Thu Dec 29, 2016 10:17 pm

I'm too knackered to think of a suitable reply scat, can we please leave it for later, good night.

by Sponsored content