She wouldn't touch my bacon.

[KentuckyWoman]

Went to Kroger. Among the groceries was bacon. Mmmmmmmmm Bacon.

The cashier asked me very kindly to push it over the scanner to the bagger belt because she can't touch it. It's unclean. She was apologetic, normally she calls for customer service to come but the store was packed and everyone was busy.

I paid her in cash that my hands touched after touching the bacon so I'm not sure she's really safe but no big deal. I got my bacon and she kept her dignity. Big fat nothing. If they can do it for underage cashiers and alcohol they can do it for pork.

But the thing is. I as able to get my bacon.


There are pharmacies in Kentucky that allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription for a drug they do carry on religious grounds. Not one of your customers give a fat fig about your pharmacist one way or the other. Just make sure people can get prescriptions filled somehow with dignity and we'll all go on with our day.

And that is the problem with Kim Davis. This is not about her beliefs. In fact it's not about Kim Davis at all. It is about issuing marriage licenses. That's it. Just issue the damn things and let us all go on with our day.....

[yeoman6987]

1. I really don't like anyone having exceptions

Either do the whole job or quit. It is getting over the top now. Can't touch bacon? Don't work in a grocery store. If we don't stop it now, our children will be constantly bombarded with all sorts of exceptions that their coworkers won't do that they will have to pick up the slack for with no additional pay. I think you should have gotten 10 percent off your purchases for having to do that.

[KentuckyWoman]

3. I disagree with you in the strongest terms

Your way would mean almost no one with a disability would be contributing to the work needing done in our communities. It would mean even more restrictions on where teen workers can be employed.

Not only that but it would mean no vacations or sick days or even achy days when you can't quite bring it 100% for anyone. Either show up and work like a robot every week or get fired.

The fact is we accommodate each other all the time. People tend to work as a team and as long as everyone feels like it evens out then it's cool.

[A Little Weird]

61. Really?

Do you think refusing to do something on religious grounds is the same as a disability? I don't think one has anything to do with the other. I certainly don't see any connection to sick leave or vacation days.

[KentuckyWoman]

84. You'll have to talk to Yeoman about that.

Yeoman said they don't like anyone getting a break either do the whole job or get out. Yeoman clearly said no exceptions. NO EXCEPTIONS.

You've not at all comprehended what I mean with my response. Not at all.

[Ms. Toad]

94. Legally, it is.

Religious Accommodation

An employer is required to reasonably accommodate the religious belief of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

[MellowDem]

136. Which is freaking stupid

Religion has way too much privilege in our society.

[Ms. Toad]

138. The free exercise of religion is part of the first amendment to the constitution.

It is not likely to receive less protection than disabilities, which are not part of the constitution.

[MellowDem]

142. I know, but the protection...

is meant for free exercise, not freedom to push on others, which is all this does. And the fact that making a belief religious suddenly entails it to special rights is a violation of the Constitution IMHO.

What if a person has a strong belief that touching bacon is gross, should their be legal exemptions for them? If not, why does making the belief religious make a difference?

It's just a leftover from a system of institutionalize do religious privilege.

[Ms. Toad]

143. Because freedom from feeling "gross" is not part of the constitution.

And people did not flee to this country because of persecution and imprisonment in their homelands, and were not hanged in this country, because of their beliefs that touching bacon was gross. They were on the basis of the exercise of religion.

Like it or not, belonging to the wrong religion (or to no religion at all) has been the basis of government and private persecution both in the countries most early non-native settlers came from, and in this country. The first amendment and non-discrimination laws prohibit that. Exercising one's faith is not limited to one day a week, and when the exercise of faith and work/government requirements overlap the government/employers are required to offer reasonable accommodations. It is the same set of laws which protects non-believers from - for example - being forced to participate in religious activities as part of their employment. Something, presumably, that you believe is essential.

What Kim Davis is doing is not protected by law. Issuing marriage licenses is an essential part of the work of her office. It is not a reasonable accommodation to allow her to alter the function of her office (by refusing to issue any licenses at all). On the other hand, it is a reasonable accommodation to permit a checkout clerk to have someone else scan pork - in the same way checkout clerks who are underage are permitted to have someone else scan alcohol.

[MellowDem]

145. Nothing about the first Amendment...

Requires "reasonable accommodation" of religious beliefs in any way comparable to the disabled, and the comparison is only made seriously because of the pedestal society puts religious beliefs on.

Having to touch bacon as part of a job isn't a violation of the 1st Amendment.

However, allowing a person to get accommodations based on religious and not non-religious grounds is a violation of equal protection clause, IMHO.

[Bluenorthwest]

65. You equate religion to disability? I don't think that is appropirate at all.

To either disabled or religious persons. Religion is a choice.

[Ms. Toad]

95. The obligation to accommodate is the same.

Religious Accommodation

An employer is required to reasonably accommodate the religious belief of an employee or prospective employee, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship.

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

[REP]

100. Here's an interesting not-so-hypothetical:

Supposing the grocery store is set up like everyone I've been to, asking me to reach over and scan my pork products is something I'm unable to do due to my physical disabilities. Do her religious sensibilities trump my rights as a card-carrying gimp to receive service? I specifically go to full-service (they unload, scan, bag, and carry-out) grocery stores due to my disabilities.

[Ms. Toad]

103. The accommodation is to have another worker scan it.

The same as it is for alcohol which underage clerks cannot scan in many states.

In this case, rather than make the customer wait until another clerk could come over, the clerk asked the customer to scan the bacon. If the OP hadn't been willing to, the formal accommodation was still available - to call another clerk over.

In your case, you would have to wait for another clerk to come over (just as you would in many stores if you happened to be purchasing alcohol and had picked the line with the underage clerk).

[REP]

105. yikes

If it was that busy, I can see the torches and pitchforks appearing! Fortunately I live in an area where everyone is about as observant as I am (treyf is delicious).

Years and years ago, I remember seeing at certain stores signs reading "no alcohol this line" if a teenage checker was working, but I haven't seen a teenaged checker in years!

[Ms. Toad]

118. I had one today - and the store was very busy.

The old geezer she got to scan it couldn't scan it (the bar code was light blue rather than black) & neither one of them knew how to type the bar code in so they had to call a third checker.

But I see a clerk looking for someone who is old enough to sell alcohol pretty much every time I go to the grocery store I shop at most frequently.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

76. 'reasonable accommodation'

Grocery stores (as the OP points out) routinely have older people scan alcohol to get around laws about who can sell alcohol while still allowing teenagers to work as cashiers. It adds a few seconds to a few minutes to each order with alcohol that goes through one of those kids' lines. Having a cashier ask you to scan an item or two is going to be a lot quicker than that, and doesn't seem unreasonable to me. After all, you've already touched it, you're probably planning to eat it.

[840high]

102. I'm with you.

[Hortensis]

140. Too extreme the other way? How about no religious exemptions for

functions intrinsic to the job? (Like serving alcohol for a flight attendant.)

And how about religious accommodations expected to be made when the function is not expected to be a normal part of a job? (Like serving alcohol for an attorney.)

A test would be how frequently other employees would need to step in to do an employee's work.

[malokvale77]

2. Bullshit!

If you don't want to ring up bacon, go to work where bacon isn't involved.

If all the world had to pander to every religious belief, humankind would die in a nano second.

[Scootaloo]

4. Service was not denied. Bacon was received. Life goes on.

[malokvale77]

5. In this instance.

How far will this go?

[Scootaloo]

6. As far as your desperate imagination will drag it, kicking and screaming, I'm sure.

Fact is, most stores have religious exemptions for their workers. For instance, observant Jews often get to clock out early on Fridays and don't get called in even on tough Saturdays. Yes, there are pharmacies that allow their employee to not dispense particular drugs - provided they then delegate the task to someone who will. So long as the customer is receiving the expected service, it's not a problem.

[malokvale77]

10. First of all...

My imagination is not desperate. What a silly reply.

I'm not being dragged kicking and screaming anywhere.
I've been ahead of this game for decades.

Keep your religion to yourself and your place of worship. It's not that hard.

[Scootaloo]

25. Those who rely on slippery slope arguments are always desperate.

1) Supermarket clerk is not a career choice for most people. I imagine this includes hte lady in question; I may be wrong, but odds are she's behind that counter because she needed work, and this store gave her a call back on her application.

2) The store obviously has a policy allowing her - and one imagine, other employees - to call in a supervisor or other employee to serve a customer for certain products.

3) In this day, the store was apparently so busy that the supervisor was unavailable, so she asked the customer to take the very brief, very minor action of whipping that bacon over the scanner.

4) Which he did, with no complaint. Bacon was received, a small courtesy was performed, and life went on with absolutely no one anywhere being harmed at all.

Remidnsm e of a job I had in Alaska, working at AC (the local supermarket.) being the bush, people would bring in game to be processed, and one day this dude brings in a black bear. I tell my supervisor that I can't butcher a bear. Did he fire me? No. Did he howl and rage at me? No. Did he throat-punch me and throw me bodily out the bay door? Nope. he said "okay, I'll get Alvin to do it," and I went and picked up what Alvin was doing instead. Didn't even ask why I wasn't touching the bear (I can best describe it as "religious reasons.&quot But the bear did get butchered, and the hamburger got made at the same time.

Where I currently work, we have a packing line and a production line. Early mornings on the packing line is a guy who can't operate the forklift. he's not physically unable, and there's no religious reason, he's just really scared of smashing into the wall or product or something. So when it's forklift time, he comes and asks one of the guys on the production line to handle it. And they trade up, so that forklift guy is doing production while production guy is doing forklift. Our stuff is made, and the end result gets loaded on a truck.

[malokvale77]

44. That is your slippery slope...

not mine.

[Scootaloo]

48. "The demise of humankind in a nano-second"

is your response to a cashier asking a customer to scan a package of bacon.

[malokvale77]

52. I think you missed a little...

Between one thing and another, but OK.

Have it your way.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. It was your slippery slope

You wrote: "In this instance. How far will this go?"

That's the absolute classic 'slippery slope' argument - saying "there's not a problem now, but where will this lead?"

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Unfortunately, w/a lot of these pharmacist "conscience" cases, people DON'T get the expected service

sure, there are places that work out accommodations and make sure that all service is covered, etc. But you get it in your head that state-licensed pharmacists can pick and choose which prescriptions they're "morally comfortable" with filling, and that's how you end up with the woman who shows up at the only Walgreens in 300 miles 45 minutes before closing time, and the Pharmacist won't fill her Birth Control prescription because she doesn't have a wedding ring on.

These are not hypotheticals, they're actual incidences.

So as a general principle, I tend towards the side of "don't sign up to do a job which contains a major component that may be so morally objectionable to you that you refuse to perform it--- find a different line of work"

That doesn't mean it applies in every instance, but it's my starting point for these questions.

[Scootaloo]

28. And that difference is the core of the OP's point

The difference between denying service and providing service.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. problem is, that distinction can get lost on the woman who can't get her pills because the only open

pharmacy has one of these nimjobs who refuses to enable extramarital fornication or whatnot.

[Scootaloo]

41. See the posts below on that very subject. At least, in Washington.

Also keep in mind that we're still talking about a customer being asked to scan their own bacon on a busy day. To mix a metaphor, you're moving your goalposts really far down that slippery slope, Warren.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. I said myself, this is an instance where I probably wouldn't give a shit, personally.

This particular instance.

But like I also said, my baseline starting point on this whole thing is, people shouldn't take a job if some decent chunk of the job involves something they find morally objectionable*



*to the RW apologetics who would say that someone like Kim Davis didn't know she would "have to" marry Gay couples when she took the gig, what she did sign on to was issuing marriage licenses to those the state deems qualified.

Period, end of story.

[Scootaloo]

55. If only everyone had jobs lined out for them like an employment buffet.

Unfortunately it often doesn't work out that way. reality is somewhat messier than the platonic ideals we often find ourselves discussing around here. And businesses, existing in reality, will often have to make accommodations to account for that reality.

Another of the many, many, many, many differences between "cashier at kroger's" and "elected public official."

[Warren DeMontague]

56. Certainly.

Businesses have to accommodate to a certain, reasonable standard, and so I would argue do individuals. I'd suggest that the person already is making accommodations to their belief system by working in a place that has pork at all, because even if they don't touch the bacon package, they're touching the money. Or maybe the belt the thing sat on. And the bacon is wrapped (hopefully, right) anyway. Maybe they touch the display case. The line, to me, seems a bit arbitrary.

To me it all -religions putting these sorts of demands on people- sounds like a big ol' case of OCD with the added disadvantage of having to fork over 10% of your paycheck to an organization that doesn't even have to pay taxes.

But, then, there are a lot of behaviors of the human animal I don't totally understand.

[TipTok]

144. How is it moving goal posts when it has already happened?

[PoliticAverse]

30. A Federal Court recently ruled against pharmacists in Washington State...

Last edited Sat Sep 12, 2015, 05:31 AM - Edit history (1)

See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/24/us/washington-court-rules-against-pharmacies.html?_r=0
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/24/usa-contraception-ruling-idUSL1N10328I20150724

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Good.

Another reason I like this corner of the country. (They upheld a WA state law mandating pharmacists fill valid prescriptions)

A pharmacy in Olympia and two pharmacists sued on religious rights grounds, and argued that they should be allowed to refer patients to a nearby drugstore. But the appeals judges said that was not good enough. Judge Susan P. Graber wrote that speed was a consideration. “The time taken to travel to another pharmacy, especially in rural areas where pharmacies are sparse, may reduce the efficacy of those drugs,” she wrote.

[Scootaloo]

40. Yup. I live here, I aknow.

The rules said pharmacies must fulfill lawful prescriptions, but allowed pharmacists with moral objections to refer patients to another pharmacist at the store

The lawsuit was over sending customers to another store - which was rightly deemed a denial of service by the court, and was denied.

A business must provide its advertised services without discrimination. However, a given individual may "opt out", so long as the service is still being provided to the customer by that business. if this becomes a problem for the business, they can handle it on their own.

[malokvale77]

35. Thank you Warren...

for giving just one example of where I was coming from.

[Major Nikon]

33. Business should accommodate all employees when it's reasonable

However, if they are required to do so as a matter of public policy, then that public policy should be subject to debate. If there is no problem, then there shouldn't be much of a debate, but often there are problems with such accommodations. Let's say one employee wants off on their Sabbath, but another employee only gets to see their kids on the same day. If one of those employees has a legal recourse for lack of an accommodation, guess which one is going to win every single time?

[Scootaloo]

36. We're talking about a store policy.

Feel free to avoid said store.

[Major Nikon]

58. The reason stores have these policies is because religious accommodation is enshrined in Title VII

[Travis_0004]

128. Or just use self checkout and avoid the cashier

[lovemydog]

31. Long after the thrill of bacon is gone.

[jberryhill]

77. But after the bacon, I'm still in love with you

[branford]

47. Actually, service was indeed denied.

The cashier wouldn't ring-up all the OP's groceries, and the OP was forced to do so herself (himself?).

The fact that the cashier was apologetic and the OP consented without objection does not change the fundamental situation. The cashier even admitted that under normal circumstances, another employee would process a transaction involving pork products, but no one else was available. If the OP did not want to process her own groceries, she would still be in the right, and the matter far more complicated and potentially uncivil.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions concerning the need for and nature of accommodations for religion or anything else, whether concerning commercial transactions, housing, employment, public accommodation, etc., but many of the standards you've offered as fact in this thread are simply not reflected in the law in most jurisdictions. As an attorney with a practice that includes many of these matters, I would note that accommodation and discrimination issues represent very large, complex, specialized and evolving areas of law involving various legal disciplines.

[Scootaloo]

49. "and the matter far more complicated and potentially uncivil."

And thus it comes down to the "don't be a D-bag" clause of the social contract.

But thank you for the technical clarification

[Ms. Toad]

96. If the OP didn't want to scan the bacon,

the cashier would have called over another employee so the OP didn't have to scan the bacon - just as they do with alcohol. Offering to allow the customer to scan the bacon was a courtesy so the customer didn't have to wait until another worker was free.

[aidbo]

112. I can't resist. Not when you wrote the phrase 'bacon was recieved'.

[Rose Siding]

81. Kindness and tolerance prevailed in this instance

No one will ever agree to anybody's absolutes (see what I did there? a tricky absolute or the trickiest absolute? ha did it again)

The best I ever hope is that kindness and tolerance, of those with or without religion, prevail.

[Skittles]

124. or maybe they just wanted to get the transaction done

it's pure bullshit

if you can't work with bacon, get a job that does not involve bacon

[Behind the Aegis]

7. It is about Kim Davis and it is about her bigotry.

Rationalize it anyway you want, but she refused to do her job and gay people were DENIED their LEGAL...EQUAL...marriage license. If she wants a religious exemption (BTW, would that make it about her religion?!), then she needed to allow someone to do it for her until the KY law changed. She is a homophobic bigot, got called on her shit, and now is a darling of homophobes everywhere...and I mean everywhere!

[Major Nikon]

19. It's also about being an asshole

If your religion tells you gay marriage is wrong, don't get one. If your religion tells you pork is unclean, don't eat it.

A person using whatever limited and unjustified power they have to force their beliefs on others is a total festering asshole and if more people pointed out their assholery and called them out, there would be less of it.

[malokvale77]

46. Bingo (nt)

[smirkymonkey]

72. Thank YOU!

I am getting so tired of this religious bullshit! If you can't do your job, let your church/shrine/mosque support you.

[xmas74]

139. The difference with the bacon

is that the customer was not denied bacon. The clerk asked the customer if they would scan it. Normally another clerk would scan the pork products but the place was very busy at the time. If the customer didn't want to scan they could have waited for another clerk. Either way, they were not denied a service.

Kim Davis, otoh, denied service. Not only did she refuse to assign licenses but also refused to allow any other clerks in her office the opportunity to issue a license. Couples had to travel to another county to receive services. If Davis had just assigned another clerk in the office to issue licenses the bacon incident would be more like what happened in her office. Instead, because of Davis, no one could have a license. At the grocery store no one was denied bacon.

Two different instances.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

79. There's a distinction here.

The cashier didn't deny the author the right to buy bacon. The transaction occurred, the bacon was purchased. So no, this wasn't really a Kim Davis situation.

[DJ13]

8. I've had women refuse to touch my sausage, but bacon is a new one to me

[Major Nikon]

15. Virtually every hand you shake has touched a sausage

Food for thought.

[DJ13]

16. ewwwwwwww

[Juicy_Bellows]

9. Is the first part true or a literary device? Nt.

[KentuckyWoman]

85. LOL

DU cracks me up.

Yes, It actually happened. What someone of a religion that considers bacon unclean is doing in this little corner of Kentucky is a mystery though..... She is certainly a minority to say the least.

[Juicy_Bellows]

88. Well in all my years I've never heard of such a thing.

I thought the point of your OP was good but I was genuinely curious how someone in Kentucky could hold a job down with that kind of conviction system.

Thanks for taking the time - I can't imagine that cashier will be there very long. You didn't say anything but I would wager a good portion of people would throw a shit fit.

Cheers!

[CBGLuthier]

11. I think I would be a little offended if some religious nut told me what I was eating was UNCLEAN

but that it was OK so long as only I touched it. Think through the logic there.

I

[840high]

104. Especially if we told that

person the same thing.

[Skittles]

12. so, she is fine working for a store that sells unclean food

alrighty then

[Major Nikon]

13. ...

[Behind the Aegis]

14. +1

[yeoman6987]

71. Too funny

[Warren DeMontague]

17. file me under "if you can't do the job because of your religion, get a different job".

but this is not exactly an egregious example of it.

If she's got a workaround and no one cares, then whatever.

[Behind the Aegis]

20. I agree and disagree.

I agree with your subject line, but disagree this isn't an "egregious" example. IF a workaround is created, then, yes, I agree, who should give a flip? However, none existed and she forced her religion onto others despite their equal rights were being denied. To me, that is egregious. Of course, you remember, I just got married. I haven't even had my first anniversary yet because it wasn't legal. When we went for our license, we were prepared to get turned down because it was happening in other parts of Oklahoma. If the law has made it legal, then no one's religious beliefs should trump our legal rights. Thankfully, that didn't happen and the person who issued our license was sweet as pie and even congratulated us.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. My go-to position is in this post;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027163619#post18

I mean I think the mentality that we have to leave the door open to this sort of thing, because "discrimination" (a misuse of the concept if ever there was one) is itself a problem.

I'm visualizing it, in this particular instance I'd probably just move the bacon myself (since I'm a nice guy, generally, despite my reputation to the contrary ) and not make a stink about it.. but like with the FA on the airplane refusing to serve alcohol, It seems pretty easy to start down that road and end up in a whole ton of situations where the religion is being made everyone else's problem.

And that's not even getting into the situations with the refusal of services to guys like you, which is far more egregious IMNSHO.

So in short, I agree.

[Behind the Aegis]

26. Yup, we agree.

I, too, would have just pushed the bacon along (shhh...don't tell no one; it was a Kosher pig; I swear!). But, yeah, there are more than a few who are self-projecting their "victimhood" onto themselves, when they are the actual ones creating the victim. Of course, who can forget the ones who make excuses for them by saying "but what about so-and-so group".

[Major Nikon]

22. Back in July I attended a wedding ceremony in Oklahoma of a gay couple

It was even held in a church. The times they are a changin', and those who resist will be judged by history just like the anti-miscegenation assholes who used their religion to further their assholery.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. Well, I must honestly say, I am sorry I missed the chance to meet you.

Of course, you could have been in Gotebo, which isn't even remotely close to me. I hope it was fun and the weather acted good. I also agree, there will come a time when these people will be looked down upon with scorn instead of elevated to heroes.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Fuckin A, Bubba.

[betsuni]

23. I thought "She wouldn't touch my bacon" was going to be about a country music song. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

24. I was just gonna say, the OP gets a perfect score on crafting a fine click-bait-y header.

WELL DONE!

[Art_from_Ark]

54. "Her rebel flag earrings was blazin' in the light

Last edited Sat Sep 12, 2015, 07:12 AM - Edit history (1)

At the honky tonk last Saturday night
And her spider tattoos was really out of sight
So I knew this gal was gonna do me right
So I sauntered up and told her, Honey you and me
Are meant to be together for eternity-y-y-y

And before long it'll be sweet love we'll be makin'
So won't you come home with me and touch my bacon?

[betsuni]

110. Heh. The other day I heard a country song, "The liquor store came first"

and I can't get it out of my head. Liquor first, then the bacon.

[840high]

106. I thought it was a new name for

something else. lol

[quickesst]

29. Haha kind of silly

I don't even touch my bacon until I get it home and open the package. Don't think I would shop at a store that sold bacon without it.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. "I don't even touch my bacon until I get it home and open the package."

[quickesst]

59. haha

kinda stepped into that one, didn't I?

[TreasonousBastard]

39. I was thinking that...

she's not touching bacon, she's touching a package that contains bacon.

So, where's the line? How close to the actual pig so you have to be? If gloves, or the plastic packaging doesn't protect you from forbidden meat, would even having it on the belt mean you can't touch the belt or scanner? Should you even be in a non-halal store to begin with?

[quickesst]

60. Also...

...wearing the shoes that's touching the floor that's touching the the cart that's that's touching the package that is wrapped around the bacon. I suppose she could break the chain by......learning to fly.

[840high]

107. The flying nun - guess not

[quickesst]

131. funny...

...that according to this site, pork doesn't even make the top ten dirtiest foods you can eat. I am just assuming they are legitimate.

http://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/10-dirtiest-foods-youre-eating

[Scootaloo]

42. Great mental image

A big tub o' bacon, like the loose greens in the produce section.

Blegh.

[C Moon]

43. I would have respected that. I'm not sure why it's so upsetting?

If I was buying tofu, and someone said they don't want to touch the package, I would have been fine with that.
I would have found it strange, but it's none of my business—so long as I leave with what I pay for.
But on the other hand, yeah: if I had a job where I had to avoid touching certain products all day, I'd get out of that line of work.

[Unknown Beatle]

45. She's not touching it if it's

vacuum packed with plastic wrapping shielding the bacon. That's like saying you lost your virginity fully clothed.

[malokvale77]

51. I know...

this whole religious exception thing is getting way out of hand.

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

89. Yep. That's just what I was thinking. So, she was Ok with scanning the other items that touched

the package of bacon?

[Vinca]

53. I assume the bacon was in a package, in which case she wasn't touching it.

Just like Kim Davis was not performing weddings and pharmacists are not prescribing drugs. What foolish things are done or not done in the name of religion.

[CTyankee]

68. but they would say that it is probably "enabling" people to normalize such behavior.

Or something....

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

57. The bigger problem is the religious picking and choosing what religious rules they will follow

This one won't touch packaged pork but will lobster.

This one denies rights to others based upon their religion yet wear mixed fiber clothing which is a religious violation.


I sure hope the grocery store she works at does not sell alcohol which is a big no-no in Islam 'Allah has accursed alcohol, its growers, those who squeeze it [from the grapes], its drinkers, its servers, its buyers, its sellers, those who live on its income, its transporter, and the one to whom it is being transported.” Touching plastic wrapped beacon is the least of her problems if they sell any alcohol.

In this case she won't touch the packaged bacon but will she touch Lard, Jello or any cheese containing rennet? In the USA there are many foods contain products that are considered haram.

Interesting web site on some 'rules' http://www.al-islam.org/a-code-of-practice-for-muslims-in-the-west-ayatullah-sistani

I have no problem with people being pious but how far does the accommodation have to go? If ones religion precludes doing, touching saying or seeing certain things then don't take a job that will require one to violate their religious rules.

[Jamastiene]

125. How long before "reasonable accommodation" means

an ISIS member can move to America and demand the right to stone a woman to death because he saw her ankles and finds her attractive? Or rape her just because he wants to? Or stone gay people to death, just for existing?

Fucking religious beliefs are not disabilities. I'm tired of being expected to be "tolerant" of assholes who would make laws to stone me to death or have me raped until I "submit to the love of God"* if they had half a chance.

*When I got raped for being a lesbian, that was the Baptists' (who held me down to be raped) excuse...for the record.

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

127. The way I see it the religious live in a fantasy world living their lives in fear of the

invisible being that seeks to punish them for violating the rules contained a 2000+ year old books.

One cannot reason with those who do not live in a reality based world, it just does not work at all.

One only has to be civil to them at work, all other times it is easy enough to pretty much avoid them unless they are committing crimes like in your case, where I am willing to guess they can after you.

I am of the opinion that the religious, no matter what flavor it is, have only one goal and that is a theocracy. Religion is not about saving souls it is about power and control, nothing more.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. What if she owned the store and refused to sell bacon?

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

78. No one is required to sell bacon or any product they don't feel like selling

Me personally I dig bacon and food in general including sacreligious food combination like:

Bagel with cream cheese and bacon, yeah I know so wrong on many levels but GD it is good!

'Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?"

[B Calm]

63. Will Religiously Insanity ever go away?

[Skittles]

122. no

some people are simply unable to deal strictly with reality

[Android3.14]

66. Perhaps you shouldn't have brought a handful of greasy unwrapped bacon to the cashier

What? It was in a package?

Oh, in that case, the cashier is full of shit.

[840high]

109. ...+1

[mmonk]

67. We had to use commerce laws to change society in legal tems in the south,

to break its segregated structures. I will not yield to it being ok if you serve the public.

[PufPuf23]

69. IMHO Kim Davis is nothing more than an attention seeker.

Your cashier should not take a job that is inconsistent with her beliefs.

I agree with you that these events are not about beliefs.

[yeoman6987]

74. Absolutely

I imagine she can't touch ham, bacon or any pork products. In a grocery store that could be every customer she has and the supervisor would have to almost be behind her to scan the items. And don't even get me started on bacon bits.....

[spanone]

70. bacon is sealed in a plastic wrap, you CAN'T touch it...oh the stupid

[RedCappedBandit]

73. "Your food is dirty and I won't deign to touch it"

Pretty fucking rude behavior on the cashier's part.

[Fred Sanders]

80. If one has little grasp of the legal meaning and history of reasonable relgious belief accommodations

then one might be so strangely outraged for no reason.

Confusing constitutionally protection freedom of religion, and how it has been accommodated in America, with religious liberty or freedom is a common error.

[Skittles]

123. she doesn't seem to mind being paid by a store that sells that dirty food

it's the usual religious hypocrisy

[RedCappedBandit]

129. Yes. All religious fundamentalists are hypocrites. nt

[hunter]

75. Factory farm pork... yum.

No, actually it really bothers me. Intelligent animals treated inhumanely in "farms" that are very damaging to the natural environment.

So maybe I'll buy a mislabeled endangered species fish caught and processed by slaves... nope that's no good either.

Shopping ethically is difficult, adding religion to the mix makes it very, very difficult.

Sometimes I myself will buy food that I'm not quite comfortable with, and yes, it's usually a matter of money, or sometimes a matter of conforming to the expectations of family.

My wife is a vegetarian, I don't eat much meat, but I'd be a hypocrite if I claimed that was the only way to live. We have dogs, all adopted from the animal shelter, and I don't expect them to be vegetarians.

I have a high degree of respect for people who are surviving as best they can in this crazy world with what they know, in whatever culture they were raised in.

The cashier in the grocery store is not forcing her beliefs on anyone, she's not in any position of legal authority, and moving my own bacon across the scanner would be no big deal to me.

I see people doing many things I disagree with every day, but if I felt I had to "correct" everyone I'd be one of those spittle spewing street preachers you find standing on the corner in many American cities.

One of my favorite mentally ill local people (sadly now deceased) used to stand on the corner yelling obscenities at passing automobiles while throwing little bits of litter at them; wadded up gum wrappers, plastic bottle caps, cigarette butts, that sort of thing.

Some days I feel like that, and this feeling reminds me to be kind to others.

[gordianot]

83. Your reference to your favorite mentally ill person conjured up my childhood memories.

The elderly old man in our town gathered up soda bottles for money. My parents left soda bottles on the back doorstep and he would take them. One evening he fell off the back door step had finally caught him. My mother went out and helped him and told him he was welcome to the bottles worth 5 cents each. I will never forget the look he gave her all bent over from scoliosis as he said a hearty "fuck you". He never took bottles again from us. His sad demise came when he got run over by a bus who also broke his cart of bottles. I may be the only person on the planet who has fond memories of this old man whom everyone said was mentally ill. I will never have fond memories of these right-wing shills and idiots.

[Rose Siding]

82. You are a kind and tolerant person.

Do you fry your chicken in bacon fat? Kill greens with it? I ask because we're originally from a KY/WV border town and that's what we used to do.

[KentuckyWoman]

86. Pork fat rules here.

In my house bacon is an extremely rare find. I've had a stroke and my husband has had a heart bypass. Bacon is not on either of our lists for should haves....... but then it's not on anyone's list of should haves. Especially commercial bacon.....

My grandma used to fry up the bacon and then put a good 1/2 inch of bacon fat back in the skillet before dropping in the eggs. They'd be deep fried in the bacon fat. Pancakes...... I swear the thing was half cake and half soaked up bacon grease.

It was either that or butter for pretty much everything.

[Shandris]

87. It's sad to see that DU still is filled with so many vile, evil authoritarians...

...who get a perverse little delight out of calling for other people to suffer for DARING to believe in something vaguely different from what the (so-called) 'progressive' believes in. "Stupid religious nuts!" "Let them suffer if they don't like it!" "Get with the times May-annn, it's 2015!" Yes, what a lovely, progressive world that will be, after we crush, humiliate, or otherwise exterminate every person with a vague sense of disagreement.

Par for the course, but no less sad. I pity them more than I despise them; it must be horrible to be SO power-hungry and not have it.

[CBGLuthier]

126. Yes we all should allow childish people to call what we eat a SIN.

To say that we are pure and you can touch the evil meat because you can burn in hell but fuck you we are pure.

That is the essence of religion.

[Travis_0004]

130. She can believe whatever she wants, but she should get a job that does not conflict her beliefs

Why doesnt she transfer to the produce section, or the bakery department?

[ProfessorGAC]

137. Wow!

There is a lot of overreaction on this thread, but i think you get the prize.

[TipTok]

146. Tolerance of stupidity...

... Especially when they try to press it onto others, is not a positive trait.

[Snobblevitch]

90. The only way she would have touched any bacon is if the customer first unwrapped it.

This is ridiculous. I know of muslims who work in pork processing plants.

[alarimer]

91. So the prohibition extends to bacon that is already packaged?

In point of fact, no one actual touched the bacon. It's wrapped in plastic and I'm pretty sure, no actual bacon was on the outside of the package, or it wouldn't have been for sale.

Religion is utterly ridiculous.

[Lorien]

92. From a Baptist pastor:

“Since I am a pastor of a southern Baptist church please allow me to weigh in on the case of Kim Davis, the lady in Kentucky who refuses to issue a marriage licenses to a same sex couple.

First: This is not a case of the government forcing anyone to violate their religious belief. She is free to quit her job. If she quits her job to honor God surely God would take care of her.

Second: This is not a case of someone trying to uphold the sanctity of marriage. If she wanted to uphold the sanctity of marriage she should not have been married four different times. If she is worried about her name being affixed to a marriage license that goes against a biblical definition of marriage, she should not have her name on the last three marriage licenses given to her.

Third: This seems to be a case of someone looking to cash in on the religious right. Churches all across the south will throw money at her to come and tell congregations how the evil American government put her in jail because of her faith in Jesus.

This is why we are losing.
This is why people have such disdain for evangelicals.
Not because we disagree but because we don’t take the bible seriously. If ever there was a case of “he who is without sin cast the first stone”, this is it. If ever there was a “take the log out of your eye” moment, this is it.

We must stop looking to the government to make America a Christian utopia. Our kingdom is not of this world.
We must abandon all thoughts of fixing others and let Jesus fix us.
If we want sanctity of marriage then stop cheating, stop having affairs, stop looking at porn, stop getting divorces. That is the way for the church to stand up for the biblical definition of marriage, not by someone martyring their self-righteous self.”


http://americannewsx.com/politics/this-baptist-pastor-dissects-kim-davis-hypocrisy-and-it-is-beautiful/

[DawgHouse]

93. I wonder if she's fully aware of all the products that contain pork products.

Wouldn't that be the same thing? I ask because my son doesn't eat beef or pork, just as a personal choice.

Once I started paying more attention to labels, I'm finding "pork" added to many things. Many chicken sausage products have a pork casing, you have to watch for that, the print can be very small.

[riderinthestorm]

97. I thought the same - Jello, Ivory soap, toothpaste, hand lotion, Coffee Mate etc

http://www.islamicbulletin.org/newsletters/issue_8/dietarylaws.aspx

The list in the Islamic bulletin is pretty long and extensive. Sounds to me like the clerk in the story is being selective in what she decides to touch and scan (besides the fact that the bacon in the OP is in plastic so the clerk wasn't really touching it anyway...)

[JCMach1]

99. Exactly, I was shocked when I used to hit the 'pork' section in the Emirates

it was full of stuff I didn't realize...

[JCMach1]

98. In the UAE I had my pork products scanned by Muslims many times...

don't know what this person's issue it...

Another thing, you would be shocked how many products contain pork in some form or other. So, probably she was touching many, many pork products.

[smirkymonkey]

120. OK, That is interesting.

Why would it not be a problem there, but somehow be problem over here?

[JCMach1]

132. Precisely... It is most likely a new convert that doesn't know her halal rules from a hole

in the ground...

But if you want to get technical about it touching pig, or a dog does not constitute haram. It is not considered clean, but Islam is quite clear about that too... If you touch, wash really, really well! Almost anyone would do that anyway.

Eating them IS haram for Muslims... touching, not.

[riderinthestorm]

135. Like the Muslim ExpressJet flight attendant who suddenly decided she couldn't serve alcohol

She was a recent convert.

[JCMach1]

148. new converts to anything are the WORST... just take Kim Davis for example

there you go

[lunatica]

101. Your cashier isn't sworn to uphold the Constitution

See, there's a huge difference there if you care to see it.

[awoke_in_2003]

108. If you want to work in a grocery store...

and not touch pork products, work in a halal grocer.

[betsuni]

111. Bacon-related musical interlude:

[sadoldgirl]

113. Let me give you a totally different example,

because it involves the law as well, unlike the cashier,
who had permission to decline.

This happened in Europe, and with a growing muslim
population may happen here.

A woman with severe appendicitis is brought to a
small clinic during the night. Only male doctors
were on duty. The husband did not allow them to
touch her insisting on a female doctor.

The woman died due to his "religious beliefs".
The husband was held responsible for her death.
I don't recall, what happened to him, but the
question of legality has to trump such actions,
in my opinion.

The question of not following the law in the case
of Kim Davis is not as stark, but brought a lot
of harm to the couple due to her self-righteousness.






w

[SheilaT]

114. Count me among those who think this woman

should quit or be fired.

Her situation is quite different from the issue of under age cashiers. I have more than once seen the sign: No alcohol in this line.

If I happen to have alcohol in my basket, I might mentally grumble if I have to join a longer line, but at least I didn't get to the front just to be turned away.

And, as so many others have pointed out, the bacon was not loose on the belt. It was inside some sort of package. Not to mention all the other things that contain pork.

I would not be as nice if something like that happened to me.

[JCMach1]

133. She is also just wrong even within her religion...

touching pork, pigs, or dogs is not haram.

[Joe the Revelator]

115. She could wear gloves....or not take a job that she couldn't do fully....

Also, I'm Jewish so I understand the concept, but if someone told me that anything i was buying was 'unclean' we'd need a manager, but not for a price check.

[Nye Bevan]

116. Great argument for self-checkouts, which I prefer anyway.

Pork and beans? No problem. Ham? Bologna? No problem. Self-checkouts don't worry about what their God thinks of the products being checked out.

[yeoman6987]

141. Be kinda interesting to hear soon

that she lost her job to a self scanner. Wow! That would be a perfect end to this story.

[Reter]

117. Good thing it wasn't sausage, because then the title would say "She wouldn't touch my sausage"

[Jamastiene]

119. The kicker is the fact that she is trying to stop others from doing it either.

She could just not issue marriage licenses any more and let the others do the job, but she is trying to stop them too. This is not the United States of Kim Davis. One woman deciding how the government should be run even after the SCOTUS has ruled against her and all the others, that's just wrong. She needs to be jailed and left there to rot for obstructing justice and deny civil rights.

[steve2470]

121. good discussion and....

my mind keeps going to NC-17 versions of your title.

[Deadshot]

134. If you're in a religion where you can't handle bacon because of your religious beliefs...

you probably shouldn't be working in a grocery store.

[tabasco]

147. I hate it when they won't touch my bacon.

I hate when that happens.