Muslim Checkout Worker Refused To Serve Man With Alcohol.

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.

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

Oh dear. I thought you wanted debate on this forum, not posts which encourage others to slag off a poster. This thread was going well until the usual suspects turned up to slate the Major.

Raggamuffin wrote:

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

Oh dear. I thought you wanted debate on this forum, not posts which encourage others to slag off a poster. This thread was going well until the usual suspects turned up to slate the Major.

You mean until decent people turned up to slate a racist while you licked his boots - again.

sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh dear. I thought you wanted debate on this forum, not posts which encourage others to slag off a poster. This thread was going well until the usual suspects turned up to slate the Major.

You mean until decent people turned up to slate a racist while you licked his boots - again.

No, I mean until you and Scrat turned up to disrupt yet another thread because you have nothing intelligent to say.

Raggamuffin wrote:

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

Oh dear. I thought you wanted debate on this forum, not posts which encourage others to slag off a poster. This thread was going well until the usual suspects turned up to slate the Major.

How am I slagging off him? I just quoted him!

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

no worries Penfold, sleep well!

Tommy Monk wrote: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...?

You'd have to take it up with the nursery, right?

Do the British just not understand businesses setting their own policies on these things or something?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh dear. I thought you wanted debate on this forum, not posts which encourage others to slag off a poster. This thread was going well until the usual suspects turned up to slate the Major.

How am I slagging off him? I just quoted him!

I said you were encouraging others to slag him off. You keep on and on and on saying you want a forum where people debate the news. Well that's what you got tonight until Sassy and Scrat turned up.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote: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...?

You'd have to take it up with the nursery, right?

Do the British just not understand businesses setting their own policies on these things or something?

Why do you generalise in that manner? I've been talking about businesses setting their own policies on this thread, and I'm British.

All the Muslim shops near me sell alcohol, and serve it.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote: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...?

You'd have to take it up with the nursery, right?

Do the British just not understand businesses setting their own policies on these things or something?

Are you saying both examples are justified...?


Regardless of the law?


Isnt it more the case that both examples could be 'religiously accommodated', with concessions given to both, and other staff within the wider available number of employees, could have in both cases, been made able to carry out job required tasks...?


Are you saying that employment rights should not be equal for people of all religious groups...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote: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...?

You'd have to take it up with the nursery, right?

Do the British just not understand businesses setting their own policies on these things or something?

Are you saying both examples are justified...?


Regardless of the law?


Isnt it more the case that both examples could be 'religiously accommodated', with concessions given to both, and other staff within the wider available number of employees, could have in both cases, been made able to carry out job required tasks...?


Are you saying that employment rights should not be equal for people of all religious groups...?

I believe your citation of the law was already proven to have been misapplied, so ... to that.

I don't believe any business or organization should be allowed to deny services to someone based on the religious beliefs of employees or customers.

But nobody has been denied service, now, have they, Tommy? Have they? Have they?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Are you saying both examples are justified...?


Regardless of the law?


Isnt it more the case that both examples could be 'religiously accommodated', with concessions given to both, and other staff within the wider available number of employees, could have in both cases, been made able to carry out job required tasks...?


Are you saying that employment rights should not be equal for people of all religious groups...?

I believe your citation of the law was already proven to have been misapplied, so ... to that.

I don't believe any business or organization should be allowed to deny services to someone based on the religious beliefs of employees or customers.

But nobody has been denied service, now, have they, Tommy? Have they? Have they?

Well... technically only the Muslim woman has denied service... while the Christian woman had only said she wouldn't be comfortable reading pro homosexual content children's books to the children...


Both could have kept their jobs through 'religious accommodation"... but we see two completely different outcomes here...

HoratioTarr wrote:All the Muslim shops near me sell alcohol, and serve it.

Same here, I suppose some people put business before faith.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Are you saying both examples are justified...?


Regardless of the law?


Isnt it more the case that both examples could be 'religiously accommodated', with concessions given to both, and other staff within the wider available number of employees, could have in both cases, been made able to carry out job required tasks...?


Are you saying that employment rights should not be equal for people of all religious groups...?

I believe your citation of the law was already proven to have been misapplied, so ... to that.

I don't believe any business or organization should be allowed to deny services to someone based on the religious beliefs of employees or customers.

But nobody has been denied service, now, have they, Tommy? Have they? Have they?

Well... technically only the Muslim woman has denied service... while the Christian woman had only said she wouldn't be comfortable reading pro homosexual content children's books to the children...


Both could have kept their jobs through 'religious accommodation"... but we see two completely different outcomes here...

Yes, two completely different outcomes from two completely different companies.

Yeah...I have to say, the system worked.

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.

Sounds like her employers didn't make it clear to her that if someone did come to her till with alcohol that rather than tell that person to go and queue at another till that she should request a colleague to come and serve the customer.

They stated in the article they are an inclusive employer meaning that they will accommodate their employees personal preferences (like your vegan not wanting to work on the meat counter) as much as they can and they clearly employed her knowing her preference not to sell alcohol so placed her on the kiosk where people don't usually purchase it.

The article doesn't say how long she has worked there but it is quite possible that for some while this agreement worked perfectly well until someone did the unusual and approached the kiosk with a bottle of wine.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ziz wrote:

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.

It could well be part of their interview process to inform people that they are within their rights to request not to work on certain departments once they have been offered a job.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

You'd have to take it up with the nursery, right?

Do the British just not understand businesses setting their own policies on these things or something?

Are you saying both examples are justified...?


Regardless of the law?


Isnt it more the case that both examples could be 'religiously accommodated', with concessions given to both, and other staff within the wider available number of employees, could have in both cases, been made able to carry out job required tasks...?


Are you saying that employment rights should not be equal for people of all religious groups...?

Yes they could, but it would very much depend on the policies of the employers.

No one was really inconvenienced here, I believe the man just wanted to get his face in the paper and maybe a few freebies to cheer his Christmas up.
I don't complain when an underage cashier cant sell me alcohol and has to buzz for another colleague to OK the transaction....it takes a couple of minutes out of my day, hardly important.

The alternative would be to never employ someone under 18 to work in a food department where wine is sold........or separate till points for people who wanted to purchase alcohol.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:All the Muslim shops near me sell alcohol, and serve it.

Same here, I suppose some people put business before faith.

Of course they do. That's the hypocrisy. You can get a bacon butty in most tourist cafes in Turkey.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Same here, I suppose some people put business before faith.

Of course they do.  That's the hypocrisy.  You can get a bacon butty in most tourist cafes in Turkey.  

I know, but people differ in every faith, some take it a lot more seriously than others.

Spindleshanks wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Are you saying both examples are justified...?


Regardless of the law?


Isnt it more the case that both examples could be 'religiously accommodated', with concessions given to both, and other staff within the wider available number of employees, could have in both cases, been made able to carry out job required tasks...?


Are you saying that employment rights should not be equal for people of all religious groups...?

Yes they could, but it would very much depend on the policies of the employers.

One refused to perform a task on religious grounds and was allowed to do so... the other refused to perform a task and was sacked...


Are you saying that it is entirely up to the business whether it is ok to refuse to perform a task on religious grounds or not...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Yes they could, but it would very much depend on the policies of the employers.

One refused to perform a task on religious grounds and was allowed to do so... the other refused to perform a task and was sacked...


Are you saying that it is entirely up to the business whether it is ok to refuse to perform a task on religious grounds or not...?

I know what you're getting at Tommy. You really need to familiarise yourself with the rules relating to discrimination.

For example, a business giving an individual employee dispensation to not serve alcohol because their religious beliefs is not the same thing as a business refusing to serve a customer based on their sexual orientation.

If your Christian lady took on a job with the knowledge that her religious beliefs would be over ridden by the requirement to teach children about same sex relationships then she has no leg to stand on if she then refuses to do so.

The same thing would apply to the Supermarket lady, had she taken on the job knowing that despite her religious beliefs she would be expected to serve alcohol and then refused to do so, she could be sacked for misconduct.

Neither of them would be forced to take the job if any aspect of it went against their religious beliefs.

Syl wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Of course they do.  That's the hypocrisy.  You can get a bacon butty in most tourist cafes in Turkey.  

I know, but people differ in every faith, some take it a lot more seriously than others.

Of course. But in that case, why work in a store where you're going to come into contact with products that are haram?

I don't know HT.
I have no sympathy for people who refuse to do the job they are paid for because it encroaches on their personal or religious beliefs, but I think in this case it was a management oversight putting her in that position.

If I knew where she worked I wud go there and purchase pork pize, pork sossidgiz, some white spirit, a trifle with sherry.
I wonder which toilets she uziz as there are a lot of wine drinkuz theze datz.? lol

Major wrote:If I knew where she worked I wud go there and purchase pork pize, pork sossidgiz, some white spirit, a trifle with sherry.
I wonder which toilets she uziz as there are a lot of wine drinkuz theze datz.? lol

And after they got someone else to sell it to you, would you run to the papers?

Bit of a storm in a teacup this one must have been a slow news day.  He got his wine after all, no need for such a big fuss.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Major wrote:If I knew where she worked I wud go there and purchase pork pize, pork sossidgiz, some white spirit, a trifle with sherry.
I wonder which toilets she uziz as there are a lot of wine drinkuz theze datz.? lol

And after they got someone else to sell it to you, would you run to the papers?

After downing all that he will probably run to the toilet.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Major wrote:If I knew where she worked I wud go there and purchase pork pize, pork sossidgiz, some white spirit, a trifle with sherry.
I wonder which toilets she uziz as there are a lot of wine drinkuz theze datz.? lol

And after they got someone else to sell it to you, would you run to the papers?

No no no, Ben, no papuz.

By the time I had put the manager through his/her paces I would leave the shop with some freebiz/goodiz of some sort.

feelthelove wrote:Bit of a storm in a teacup this one must have been a slow news day.  He got his wine after all, no need for such a big fuss.

Lol....your smileys always cheer me up.
Do you know...it was only a couple of weeks ago I found out that there were more than one page of smileys on here.
The whole world opened up for me.

Major wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

And after they got someone else to sell it to you, would you run to the papers?

No no no, Ben, no papuz.

By the time I had put the manager through his/her paces I would leave the shop with some freebiz/goodiz of some sort.

I bet this bloke with the bottle of undrinkable wine hoped for that too.
I hope he got sod all.

Syl wrote:

feelthelove wrote:Bit of a storm in a teacup this one must have been a slow news day.  He got his wine after all, no need for such a big fuss.

Lol....your smileys always cheer me up.
Do you know...it was only a couple of weeks ago I found out that there were more than one page of smileys on here.
The whole world opened up for me.

Hahaha!  Where have you been???!!!!! I'm glad you like them, it's been a life's work but I love the little devils x

He had his photo in the paper, Syl, I would not want that.

Major wrote:He had his photo in the paper, Syl, I would not want that.

I saw it....the sad expression in the eyes, the hurt yet bewildered look of a man who has been through hell...the Echo falls tightly grasped in his hand for fear the cashier will take it back.....
He must have been taking lessons from breast mothers who run to the papers because they cant breast feed whilst driving....cos it's their babies RIGHT to feed on demand, even if it does cause a multi pileup.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Spindleshanks wrote:

Yes they could, but it would very much depend on the policies of the employers.

One refused to perform a task on religious grounds and was allowed to do so... the other refused to perform a task and was sacked...


Are you saying that it is entirely up to the business whether it is ok to refuse to perform a task on religious grounds or not...?

First of all, Tesco isn't obliged to let this lady refuse to sell wine, unless it's specified in her contract. They have chosen to let her refuse, but if it became a problem they may well change their minds. Didn't that happen re an airline in the US lately?

Secondly, gay rights trump religious rights.

Major wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

And after they got someone else to sell it to you, would you run to the papers?

No no no, Ben, no papuz.

By the time I had put the manager through his/her paces I would leave the shop with some freebiz/goodiz of some sort.

I think you would have said nowt and moved on quick step because if you acted in the manner you act on here you would've been arrested and charged under the race relations act, they may well have investigated you over the crime you alleged regarding that attack on a defenceless female Muslim you keep bragging about.

My guess is you keep a low profile, because you're already flagged as a POI.

Major wrote:If I knew where she worked I wud go there and purchase pork pize, pork sossidgiz, some white spirit, a trifle with sherry.
I wonder which toilets she uziz as there are a lot of wine drinkuz theze datz.? lol

You fucking mental case! LOL

HoratioTarr wrote:

Major wrote:If I knew where she worked I wud go there and purchase pork pize, pork sossidgiz, some white spirit, a trifle with sherry.
I wonder which toilets she uziz as there are a lot of wine drinkuz theze datz.? lol

You fucking mental case!   LOL

My word young man, you are so emotional and rude, you will not go to heaven.

scrat wrote:

Major wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

And after they got someone else to sell it to you, would you run to the papers?

No no no, Ben, no papuz.

By the time I had put the manager through his/her paces I would leave the shop with some freebiz/goodiz of some sort.

I think you would have said nowt and moved on quick step because if you acted in the manner you act on here you would've been arrested and charged under the race relations act, they may well have investigated you over the crime you alleged regarding that attack on a defenceless female Muslim you keep bragging about.

My guess is you keep a low profile, because you're already flagged as a POI.

Yes so listen up people because scratch's guesses are as good as gospel and don't let no one tell you no different cos he knows and when he knows he scratches his nose.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


One refused to perform a task on religious grounds and was allowed to do so... the other refused to perform a task and was sacked...


Are you saying that it is entirely up to the business whether it is ok to refuse to perform a task on religious grounds or not...?

First of all, Tesco isn't obliged to let this lady refuse to sell wine, unless it's specified in her contract. They have chosen to let her refuse, but if it became a problem they may well change their minds. Didn't that happen re an airline in the US lately?

Secondly, gay rights trump religious rights.

So where does 'religious accommodation'/'non discrimination' of an employee start/stop, compared to the refusal of somebody to provide goods/services based soley on religious beliefs...?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

First of all, Tesco isn't obliged to let this lady refuse to sell wine, unless it's specified in her contract. They have chosen to let her refuse, but if it became a problem they may well change their minds. Didn't that happen re an airline in the US lately?

Secondly, gay rights trump religious rights.

So where does 'religious accommodation'/'non discrimination' of an employee start/stop, compared to the refusal of somebody to provide goods/services based soley on religious beliefs...?

Er ... I can't quite follow that question Tommy. Probably because it's Friday night.

eddie wrote:

scrat wrote:
I think you would have said nowt and moved on quick step because if you acted in the manner you act on here you would've been arrested and charged under the race relations act, they may well have investigated you over the crime you alleged regarding that attack on a defenceless female Muslim you keep bragging about.

My guess is you keep a low profile, because you're already flagged as a POI.

Yes so listen up people because scratch's guesses are as good as gospel and don't let no one tell you no different cos he knows and when he knows he scratches his nose.

Do us a favour luv! go stalk someone else, thanks!

Oh have you stopped stalking me now then?
You scare easy

Oi stop stalking scratchy.....thats my job, along with his mate itchy (apparantly)

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

First of all, Tesco isn't obliged to let this lady refuse to sell wine, unless it's specified in her contract. They have chosen to let her refuse, but if it became a problem they may well change their minds. Didn't that happen re an airline in the US lately?

Secondly, gay rights trump religious rights.

So where does 'religious accommodation'/'non discrimination' of an employee start/stop, compared to the refusal of somebody to provide goods/services based soley on religious beliefs...?

Using the topic of abortion as an example Tommy, the NHS provides the service but allows nurses not to participate in the actual procedure if they choose not to however those same nurses will be expected to provide care to the woman before and after the procedure is done. They can't object to the procedure taking place in the hospital they work in but they don't have to be actively involved in it.

In relation to the supermarket, they sell alcohol to customers, ie they provide a service. In this case this particular staff member is allowed to not be involved in the selling of it but as it's a service provided by the company she works for she would be expected not to object to it being sold and would/should be expected to make other provisions for the customer wishing to purchase said alcohol.

However, when it comes to cases like the couple who owned the hotel refusing to allow a gay couple to share a room it became discrimination because based on their religious beliefs they refused to provide a service that is open to everyone else.

Storm in a teacup. To get to the kiosk as far as I'm aware with the layout of Tesco supermarkets he would have had to walk through the standard checkout areas to get to the kiosk in the first place. Items paid for at the kiosk are supposed to be for items purchased in the kiosk area like newspapers and snacks etc.
The guy is a bloody chancer and he's had his 5 minutes of fame and that's all he deserves.

Well do we keep on about it?

Irn Bru wrote:Storm in a teacup. To get to the kiosk as far as I'm aware with the layout of Tesco supermarkets he would have had to walk through the standard checkout areas to get to the kiosk in the first place. Items paid for at the kiosk are supposed to be for items purchased in the kiosk area like newspapers and snacks etc.
The guy is a bloody chancer and he's had his 5 minutes of fame and that's all he deserves.

That makes no sense. Are you suggesting that he deliberately took a bottle of wine to the kiosk in the hope that the woman would refuse to sell it to him? They might have had wine near the kiosk, and he said he had to get a disc for the game or something.