Jump to content


Photo

What next?


160 replies to this topic

#1 Robin Of House Hill

Robin Of House Hill

    Social Justice Chimera

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,647 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 11:31 AM

http://www.jihadwatc...if-they-ha.html

A grocery store has a Muslim cashier who is uncomfortable handling pork and alcohol products, so the store puts up a sign, when she is on duty, asking customers to use a different checkout, if they have such products in their carts.

So, what next? Should we put up signs for Jewish cashiers for pork and having both meat and dairy products in the same cart? No beef products for Hindu cashiers? No meat for vegetarians and no animal products for vegans?

Where does it end?

#2 IheartTesla

IheartTesla

    I hate Edison

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,569 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 11:35 AM

I believe the next step is pharmacy folks refusing to hand out contraception because their religious preferences preclude it, and we go to the next town to get our medication.

#3 peterbound

peterbound

    .04%'er

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,898 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 11:41 AM

I believe the next step is pharmacy folks refusing to hand out contraception because their religious preferences preclude it, and we go to the next town to get our medication.


/thread

#4 IheartTesla

IheartTesla

    I hate Edison

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,569 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 11:43 AM

If you want a serious answer, the starting point has not been 'radical Islamic fundamentalism', but rather since the formation of the Union, when religion has had tensions with public policy.

For instance, many of the conscientious objectors to WWII (or indeed war in general) came from one particular religious denomination. And that was when military service was near compulsary for males! Here you have exemptions for a particular religion when the state is an interested party. As far as I can tell Wegmans is privately owned and can have all kinds of latitude in what they choose to do with their personnel. No, this will not lead to Sharia law in the US. You are welcome to take your business elsewhere (like Walmart)

#5 Shryke

Shryke

    The Wood of the Morning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 40,090 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 12:13 PM

Hey, new relevance for this story!

Nearly one in five U.S. pharmacies gave out misinformation to researchers posing as 17-year-old girls seeking emergency contraception, often saying that it was "impossible" for girls to get the pill, a new study finds.

About 3 percent of researchers posing as physicians also received wrong information about the availability of emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after" pill.

The findings show that 17-year-olds in need of emergency contraception to prevent unintended pregnancy face significant barriers in accessing it, the study authors said. According to U.S. federal regulations, girls 17 and older can buy emergency contraception without a prescription if they show proof of age, while girls 16 and younger need a doctor's prescription.

"What we found was that emergency contraception was pretty available, in that 80 percent had it on the shelf that day," said lead study author Dr. Tracey Wilkinson, a general pediatrics fellow at Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center. "However, when teenagers asked if they could get the medicine, they were [sometimes] told they couldn't get it at all, not with a prescription, not over-the-counter, just simply based on their age."

http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/1-5-pharmacies-hinders-teens-access-morning-pill-130248952.html?orig_host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

So yeah, glass houses, throwing stones, etc.

#6 Robin Of House Hill

Robin Of House Hill

    Social Justice Chimera

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,647 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 12:18 PM

IhT,

Yes, it is the employer's option, and nothing "radical" appears to be involved. The conscientious objector analogy is off target because it pertains to government. There are a few thoughts about this that come to mind. Muslims may not consume pork or alcohol, but I can find nothing about handling such items. In any event the type of gloves used by food handlers would seem to solve the problem. Also, does the employer have the right to terminate an employee that cannot meet the requirements of the job, without being sued for discrimination?

Edited by Robin Hill, 01 April 2012 - 12:19 PM.


#7 IheartTesla

IheartTesla

    I hate Edison

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,569 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 12:26 PM

Government rules are supposed to (in theory) be equally applied to everyone, and hence exceptions to those are more cause for outrage. Private employers do not need to (or their latitude in this regard is much much more), and hence this case does not cause as much (in my case none) outrage. Hence me bringing in the state.

The wonderful invisible hand of the free market will cause multi billion dollar company Wegmans to go bankrupt if enough jihad watchers boycott it.

By the way, Wegman's touts itself as an employee friendly company. They send their bakers for special workshops and whatnot, just as an example. It wouldnt surprise me if they decided to give this employee a little leeway (if the story is true, consider the source etc etc). Nothing here surprises me. Once they decide to fire this employee, we can cross the bridge of discrimination. I''m not too worried about corporations being sued at any rate.

Edited by IheartTesla, 01 April 2012 - 12:42 PM.


#8 Robin Of House Hill

Robin Of House Hill

    Social Justice Chimera

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,647 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 12:33 PM

BTW, the reason one might want to avoid Walmart. http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ /rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' />

#9 DanteGabriel

DanteGabriel

    There's No Social Justice, There's Just Us

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,801 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 12:34 PM

BTW, the reason one might want to avoid Walmart. http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/ /rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':rolleyes:' />

Nice save from getting the premise of your thread turned upside down within one post.

Edited by DanteGabriel, 01 April 2012 - 12:35 PM.


#10 Robin Of House Hill

Robin Of House Hill

    Social Justice Chimera

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,647 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 12:51 PM

Nice save from getting the premise of your thread turned upside down within one post.

IhT invoked the, "play nice", mode, so I accommodated him. You, on the other hand....

#11 peterbound

peterbound

    .04%'er

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,898 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 01:01 PM

IhT invoked the, "play nice", mode, so I accommodated him. You, on the other hand....


We have a 'play nice' mode?

#12 Nasrudin's True Love

Nasrudin's True Love

    Hung like a human

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,420 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 01:17 PM

Where does it end?


According to my calculations: at a 7-11 on Interstate 84, three miles southeast of Boise, ID, at 4:32pm on September 28th, 2016.

Prepare as needed.

#13 Altherion

Altherion

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,871 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 01:18 PM

The wonderful invisible hand of the free market will cause multi billion dollar company Wegmans to go bankrupt if enough jihad watchers boycott it.

They don't need to cause it to go bankrupt, just to make the downside of such policies outweigh whatever motivation is causing Wegmans to implement them. That said, I don't think the people who run that site actually want this to stop -- unless the store only staffs a couple of registers and the policy is strictly enforced (i.e. the girl will tell a customer with an excluded item that she will not serve him or her and cause a scandal), the actual impact of this policy is negligible... but the propaganda value is not. It's always nice to have something that is effectively harmless, but falls within your existing themes and hints at greater things to come -- such things are very useful for inciting hatred.

#14 str8 outta Old Town

str8 outta Old Town

    Council Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 839 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 01:36 PM

http://www.jihadwatc...if-they-ha.html

A grocery store has a Muslim cashier who is uncomfortable handling pork and alcohol products, so the store puts up a sign, when she is on duty, asking customers to use a different checkout, if they have such products in their carts.

So, what next? Should we put up signs for Jewish cashiers for pork and having both meat and dairy products in the same cart? No beef products for Hindu cashiers? No meat for vegetarians and no animal products for vegans?

Where does it end?


Employers in being nice to employees scandal. What next, decent wages?

It's just downright un-American.

#15 Greywolf2375

Greywolf2375

    HIGHLY INTELLIGENT LIBRARIAN

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,659 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 01:45 PM

IhT,

Yes, it is the employer's option, and nothing "radical" appears to be involved. The conscientious objector analogy is off target because it pertains to government. There are a few thoughts about this that come to mind. Muslims may not consume pork or alcohol, but I can find nothing about handling such items. In any event the type of gloves used by food handlers would seem to solve the problem. Also, does the employer have the right to terminate an employee that cannot meet the requirements of the job, without being sued for discrimination?

Well, it isn't really your interpretation that makes a difference - it is the cashier (in this case) & the employer. Wearing gloves covers the skin but doesn't divorce the person from still holding & handling it.

Edited by Greywolf2375, 01 April 2012 - 01:46 PM.


#16 Robin Of House Hill

Robin Of House Hill

    Social Justice Chimera

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,647 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 01:52 PM

But, as far as I can determine, there is no stricture against handling these items, only consuming them.

#17 Sci-2

Sci-2

    The 11th Little Indian + SJWarrior/Mage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,221 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 01:54 PM

G. Willow Wilson has some interesting stats on honor killings that seem relevant:

"Yet the malice in the developed world is no less ominous for being rationalized and rich and dressed-up. Though no one would ever think of using the term honor violence (we reserve that descriptor for brown people who live somewhere else, motivated by religious something-or-other or tribal something-or-other), one-third of women murdered every year in the United States are killed by their intimate partners. In 2005 that amounted to 1,181 women, or three women every day. To put that in perspective, the UN estimates there are 5,000 honor killings every year in the entire world. 5,000 in a world of 6 billion versus nearly 1,200 in a single country of 300 million. In other words, a woman in America runs a greater risk of being killed by her husband or boyfriend than a woman in Pakistan. Those are scary numbers."


ETA: That whole article is boss actually:

Then, at around the same time, the sexual counter-revolution began in grand old halls of American conservatism. A woman who wanted her insurance company to cover birth control was suddenly a slut and a prostitute, whether she was single or married or religious or not. Not only was she a slut and a prostitute, but all three men running for president on the conservative ticket refused to denounce the windbag who called her a slut and a prostitute. (This is the rise of Christianism, by the way. What do you think the rise of Islamism looked like? I watched it happen, so I will tell you. It looked exactly like this.)*


Edited by sciborg2, 01 April 2012 - 01:57 PM.


#18 Robin Of House Hill

Robin Of House Hill

    Social Justice Chimera

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,647 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 02:12 PM

G. Willow Wilson has some interesting stats on honor killings that seem relevant:



ETA: That whole article is boss actually:

Has my brain shut down and failed to show me the connection between super market checkouts and honor killing?

#19 Sci-2

Sci-2

    The 11th Little Indian + SJWarrior/Mage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,221 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 02:19 PM

Well, here's my logic:

It seemed to me that the question this thread raises is what happens when we (according to Jihad Watch) continually give Islam inch after inch?

IhT pointed out that we have much bigger issues with religion infringing on our rights that have nothing to do with Islam. I followed up with Wilson's point that "honor killings", something I assume Jihad Watch believes will "infect" the West if we give in to checkout girls desires not to touch pork, are already happening.

Essentially, the point is sites like Jihad Watch assume that hypothetical external threats are of greater concern than the actual threats of religious fundamentalism and violent misogyny.

#20 Robin Of House Hill

Robin Of House Hill

    Social Justice Chimera

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,647 posts

Posted 01 April 2012 - 02:47 PM

Whew! I didn't make that connection. I had been thinking about it along the lines of what happens if every group wants their own exemptions.



Reply to this topic