Is that pork? Alcohol? Sorry, sir, you have to see another cashier.

But this is not a reflection of reality. This has nothing at all to do with somebody telling somebody else to go to another cashier, it's a total misrepresentation and fabrication of how it works.

 

nice side step but I'd like to see you answer the question...

if some Christian employees refused to serve gay people and M&S made it an official policy, that would be fine?

it should be okay right, after all the gay customer can go over to the muslim employee to purchase his item as long as he has no pork or alcohol...

 

From the OP:

 

Either you have comprehension problems or you haven't been following my points on this thread. To repeat, a customer can take it upon himself to to wait an extra 10 seconds, or he has the freedom to shop elsewhere. I know it takes 10 seconds because I've experienced it myself. This entire thread has been exaggerated out of all proportion.

 

The scenario doesn't apply so your hypothetical situation is irrelevant. You are letting bigotry go to your head.

 

Yeah. Personal comments aside, I think everyone agrees on those options. But you're still sidestepping the question: If a hypothetical Christian told a hypothetical gay customer to go to another aisle and wait that same ten seconds for another clerk and the store said they were fine with it, would you be as well?

But that's what we DO here.

 

What you are not understanding is that nobody is telling anybody else to go to another aisle so your hypothetical example is irrelevant and disingenuous.

 

Go to the first post in this thread, and you will find this link here. Within the article you will find this:

Just to be fair, I looked up the definition of "till" and found:

So the very article we're discussing says customers are being asked to go to another cash register - with someone else working it. The OP says that it is happening. I'm at a loss as to why you're denying what the OP clearly says is going on, unless you're simply trying to avoid answering the question while not looking like you are. It's not working, it just looks evasive, unless you can give me some kind of substantive difference between "going to another aisle" to buy stuff and a "going to another till" to buy stuff

So, one more time: If a hypothetical Christian told a hypothetical gay customer to go to another aisle/till and wait that same ten seconds for another clerk and the store said they were fine with it, would you be as well?

 

This has not been my experience.

 

It has not been my experience to give birth either, yet my wife swears it happens and is painful as hell.

I'm just gonna assume you're evading the issue and drop it. You clearly do not want to deal with a question that has an uncomfortable answer.

 

I have shopped at M&S regularly for the last 20 years and I have never been asked to go to another cashier....Never.

 

Both of your hypothetical scenarios involve Muslims refusing to do business with people, based on who they are or what they are wearing. The salient difference in the OP is that Muslims (or Jews) simply do not want to touch specific immaterial objects.

It has nothing to do with the customer, but with certain products.

 

The alcohol is in bottles; the pork is packaged as well. Technically, they aren't touching the pork or the alcohol, much less consuming it. By comparison, they are supposed to shun a woman who is immodestly dressed, which is a lot more relevant to the checkout counter scenario.

 

Forgive me for the rather distatseful analogy, but if a woman was to grab a man's condom-covered penis, does it follow that she touched his penis or the condom (or both)?

 

The analogy would be more like she groped his genitals on the outside of his trousers. How that would be work-related ....

 

Totally agree.

I just want to go on record and state this Jew does not shun a woman who is immodestly dressed. Let's be very clear when we discuss this thread. This was about a specific attempt to placate a certain type of Muslim who has a specific type of fundamentalist belief. I have a hard time believing most Muslims buy into this b.s. any more than the rest of us khafir or infidel.

Also I would point out an ultra-orthodox Jew who was in fact so conservative as to believe they could not touch wine or meat would never work in such a store and neither would a devout Muslim. It is absurd to suggest anyone of any religion who claims to be that fundamentalist would even allow themselves to go work in such a store in the first place.

It makes no sense for someone that orthodox to be in such an unholy place. Simply not touching a bottle of wine or pork in a package is not going to keep them holy. They would be working in a store and assisting it make profit knowing that it makes profit on practices they do not agree with and that is precisely why they would never work in such a store.

This is why this thread is a crock from the get go.

Right someone is so religious they won't touch ham but they will go assist in making profit to people selling ham. Right.:icon_(*)(*)(*)(*)hitsthefan

 

How nice for the company to respect Muslim beliefs. For those who thing this is one step closer for Muslims conquering the world...they have clearly gone demented.

 

^ Apologises. I've made another silly typo. Thing is meant to be think*...

 

I find this strangely inverted: in a free economy, should the companies not make sure the customer gets served in such a fashion he/she will continue to shop there? In this case, having to distinguish between cashiers on basis of religion/ethnicity (which can surely not be a positive) is a detriment to the customer's shopping. Therefore, if possible, the shopper will take his/her business elsewhere, where they do not have to actively search for the queue where they can buy their pork and alcohol. Simple economics really, shows the poli-cor brigade has very little sense.