Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
If A Christian Couple Can Be Fined For Refusing To Sell Something They Believe Is Against Their Religion Then Why No Action Against This Person?
435 Answers
OK, so IMHO religion is the root of most evil but lets forget that bit because what I am trying to understand is why there seems to be one rule for one and another for a certain other religion we all have to bend ovcer backwards to accommodate?
http:// www.dai lymail. co.uk/n ews/art icle-40 70144/M uslim-T esco-ca shier-r efuses- sell-bo ttle-wi ne-shop per-aga inst-re ligion. html
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - //Andy, All staff who work on check out have received the appropriate training (otherwise they wouldn't be able to do it, would they). Why would you train somebody to do something with no intention of actually making use of that acquired "skill".
This is just a case of weak management. Probably somebody bricking it because he is terrified of being accused of being a racist if he does what common sense says he should do. //
Neither you or I know, but I am willing to surmise, that at some time during this employee's pre-job interview and / or during her induction, the subject of selling alcohol was raised.
I think it unlikely that she pretended that selling alcohol would be OK, and then decided one day that it wasn't so we can reasonably assume that her faith constraints were considered, and she was employed on the basis that the firm would work around them. This is borne out by the management comments that the lady is not normally in a role where alcohol is sold.
So, she is put into a position where she is required to handle a bottle containing alcohol, and she refused, and the store handled the situation without making her feel she is an 'oxygen thief', or feeling it necessary to save its perceived reputation as a 'hard man' employer by dismissing her.
It is nothing to do with bending to the will of a minority, as you seem to be inferring.
This is just a case of weak management. Probably somebody bricking it because he is terrified of being accused of being a racist if he does what common sense says he should do. //
Neither you or I know, but I am willing to surmise, that at some time during this employee's pre-job interview and / or during her induction, the subject of selling alcohol was raised.
I think it unlikely that she pretended that selling alcohol would be OK, and then decided one day that it wasn't so we can reasonably assume that her faith constraints were considered, and she was employed on the basis that the firm would work around them. This is borne out by the management comments that the lady is not normally in a role where alcohol is sold.
So, she is put into a position where she is required to handle a bottle containing alcohol, and she refused, and the store handled the situation without making her feel she is an 'oxygen thief', or feeling it necessary to save its perceived reputation as a 'hard man' employer by dismissing her.
It is nothing to do with bending to the will of a minority, as you seem to be inferring.
Mushou were correct about nutmeg apparently....its banned because of its possible use as a stimulent :::
https:/ /islamq a.info/ en/3940 8
Bloody hell......what do Muslims do for fun ?
https:/
Bloody hell......what do Muslims do for fun ?
-- answer removed --
divebuddy - //Andy. You can surmise what you like. But that's all it is, "surmise".
I still say, if you don't want to handle bottles of alcohol, packets of bacon, whatever, don't get a job where that's part of it. //
Fair point - but it appears that this lady has been given a job on the basis that handling those products is not part of it - hence the situation.
You cannot give someone a job where a specific aspect is avoided then put them in the situation where that aspect is unavoidable, and then blame them for it.
That is why Tesco have admitted that the responsibility for the incident tis theirs, not hers - otherwise they would have dismissed her, and rightly so.
I still say, if you don't want to handle bottles of alcohol, packets of bacon, whatever, don't get a job where that's part of it. //
Fair point - but it appears that this lady has been given a job on the basis that handling those products is not part of it - hence the situation.
You cannot give someone a job where a specific aspect is avoided then put them in the situation where that aspect is unavoidable, and then blame them for it.
That is why Tesco have admitted that the responsibility for the incident tis theirs, not hers - otherwise they would have dismissed her, and rightly so.
grasscarp....I think you are correct there !
It happened to me in the States once. The boy on the check-out did look a tad on the young side but had to get a nod from an over 21 at the check-out next door before he could press the appropriate button on the register.
I maintained that the purchase was only American beer, and Budlite at that, but my protest was met with the usual incomprehension that is often encountered over there, when it comes to discussions re alcohol
It happened to me in the States once. The boy on the check-out did look a tad on the young side but had to get a nod from an over 21 at the check-out next door before he could press the appropriate button on the register.
I maintained that the purchase was only American beer, and Budlite at that, but my protest was met with the usual incomprehension that is often encountered over there, when it comes to discussions re alcohol
icherkeria - //How so we know Tesco would not make the same allowances for someone else for a different religion? //
We don't know, but as a modern twenty-first century employer with millions of employees, I am sure they are sensitive to the different aspects of their employees' lives for various reasons, and work around them where possible. If it was unable to do so, then those individuals would not be employees in the first place.
We don't know, but as a modern twenty-first century employer with millions of employees, I am sure they are sensitive to the different aspects of their employees' lives for various reasons, and work around them where possible. If it was unable to do so, then those individuals would not be employees in the first place.
-- answer removed --
"as a modern twenty-first century employer with millions of employees, I am sure they are sensitive to the different aspects of their employees' lives for various reasons, and work around them where possible. If it was unable to do so, then those individuals would not be employees in the first place. "
I agree. So provided there is not one rule for one groupp of people and another for another group of people there isn't really a problem as far as I can see.
I agree. So provided there is not one rule for one groupp of people and another for another group of people there isn't really a problem as far as I can see.
divebuddy - //Andy. Wasn't there a recent "case" of a Muslim air hostess who didn't want to serve drinks. The airline tried to work around her wishes but in the end "she had to go" because her fellow air hostesses got fed up with (in effect) doing her job for her. //
There was - but I am unsure of the relevance of that situation to this one - ?
There was - but I am unsure of the relevance of that situation to this one - ?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.