Marks & Spencer Muslim Staff Can Refuse-To Serve

[trt]

you, if you are buying Pork or Alcohol.

Well that's another store off my list.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10532782/Muslim-staff-at-Marks-and-Spencer-can-refuse-to-sell-alcohol-and-pork.html

[TWR]

And that's what is happening in this case Naomi.

[Zacs-Master]

Actually it's illegal to use religion 'or a similar belief' as a reason not to employ someone.

[TWR]

"T" 01.48, that's exactly what I would do.

[ToraToraTora]

all this religious cobras is getting out of hand. It's easily sorted, just don't hire them, end of.

[sp1814]

Can I ask everyone who plans on boycotting M&S whether their policy of not forcing Christians to work on Sundays also influences your decision?

[sunny-dave]

Does no-one actually ever pay attention ??

This is a story from THREE YEARS AGO the by-line is :

Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter

10:00PM GMT 21 Dec 2013

M&S responded within 24 hours to apologise, clarify and reassure customers

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10534294/MandS-apology-over-Muslim-staff-policy.html

[Mamyalynne]

Going well as I expected - anyone seen the OP?

[Zacs-Master]

Sunny D - it was pointed out 3 posts in.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// Can I ask everyone who plans on boycotting M&S whether their policy of not forcing Christians to work on Sundays also influences your decision? ///

I am sure they would have many non practising Christian prepared to work on Sundays, so how on earth would that effect one's shopping experience?

[sunny-dave]

Yes Zacs - and again by me in the middle of the night.

But it appears that no-one reads through threads, just knee-jerks to the flawed OP.

So I thought I'd make the point (yet) again that this is stale news.

[Mamyalynne]

It's often futile to try Dave isn't it?

[fiction-factory]

Naomi at 9:02 you said what i said wasn't true- and then made a point that supported what I'd said. "

Anyway, an employer who really didn't want to appoint someone on grounds of religion etc but is aware of employment law issues can usually find a way of justifying it without referring to religion/ race/sex/disability.

[naomi24]

Zacs-Master at 09:08 Sat re my post at 09:02:

This from ACAS: //In some limited circumstances, indirect discrimination may be justified if it is necessary for the business to work. For example an employer may not employ someone who insists on having certain times off for religious observance, when the time they want off is the employer's busiest time, and all staff are needed to ensure customers' orders are met.//

And before anyone repeats that the link in the OP is an old one, I know. Just clarifying the question of employment law that’s been raised.

[naomi24]

fiction-factory, I didn't support what you said. You said an employer is //at liberty not to appoint them if it decides that on balance it would rather have full flexibility of staff regardless of any other factors//, which indicates a free choice. Employers do not have a free choice. See my post above.

[THECORBYLOON]

I am sure there are many Muslims and non-practising Muslims who are happy to handle alcohol. As with any religion, there will be folk at both ends of a faith with those who are strict adherents taking a strong line on particular aspects of that faith, ones at the other end being more liberal or relaxed and all shades in between.

[Zacs-Master]

Sunny D, and mamya, the thread has moved on in the usual way, discussing points of employment law etc. The anachronistic OP was a catalyst for this.

[Mamyalynne]

True Zacs - like a circle in a spiral.

[naomi24]

It's generated discussion. I can't see a problem with that.

[jd_1984]

If the alcohol is contained within a bottle and the Pork presumably in proper packaging - they aren't actually handling it. Could that technicality be argued?

[fiction-factory]

naomi. You may not like to say it but we are saying the same thing here so why say you disagree? My statement is saying the same as yours. I said "if it decides that on balance it would rather have full flexibility of staff". You said "if it is necessary for the business to work".
Okay if I change the words "rather have" to "it is necessary to have" or add the words "for business reasons" would you still say you disagree with me?