First the taxis, then the checkout line
Apparently, the Caliphate of Minneapolis is developing right on schedule:
I'm a reporter who covers Target for the Star Tribune and the other day, I got a call from someone who said that an employee at the Target store downtown refused to run his bacon through a scanning machine. He was mighty upset, arguing that the cashier had "no right to work as a cashier at Target" if she wasn't prepared to swipe his groceries.But he was a little vague on the details, so I decided to check it out myself. At the Target store on E. Lake Street, a cashier wearing a hijab looked uncomfortable when I showed up at the cash register with a frozen pepperoni pizza. She immediately called for help, and another employee rang up the pizza and placed it in the basket.
I asked her if it was because she was Muslim, and she nodded her head. "I can't even touch it," she said.
If she was "touching pork", then there was something very unsanitary about the packaging. And maybe she should have been wearing gloves. I'm all for people honoring their religious taboos, on their own time. If I'd been in line and this had happened to me, I probably would have left my entire order at the checkout and walked out. This is not the way to treat customers.
The question is whether this is policy at that particular Target, or if it is corporate policy. Apparently Serres didn't speak to a manager, who could have clarified that question. And if anyone from Target management is reading this, they can also clarify it, in the comments. If it's a local issue, it can be handled locally. If it's national policy, well, customers know how to change corporate policy.
What I found most appalling were some of the blog comments. One compared the pork swipe to underage cashiers having to have alcohol swiped, claiming that is no inconvenience. Well, it certainly effing is, and I fume every time a cashier has to get somebody else to do her job. But that's a government mandate, not lazy management, and much as I'd like to boycott my government, they won't let me. And do the Target workers refuse to swipe beer as well? Of course, the same jerk accused those who objected of "racism"; I wasn't aware that Muslims were a race. And for those who claim that I'm a bigot: I don't care if you think pork is unclean. But then don't work where you have to sell pork. And don't expect me to spend my time to support your superstition. Your right to practice your religion ends at my face.
UPDATE here.
Retailers have accommodated other religious groups over the years. In the Twin Cities, these include those who don't want to sell lottery tickets or work on Saturdays, said Bernie Hesse, local organizer for United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 789. Supermarkets in particular have been good about recognizing their employees' religious observances, he said."If we ever get to the point of selling wine in grocery stores, I imagine some folks will be excused from doing that," Hesse said.
The difference here is one of scheduling, which has nothing much to do with the employee/customer interface.
Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employers are required to make reasonable accommodations for a person's religious practices if it doesn't impose an undue hardship.
What is reasonable, and what is an undue hardship?
A customer's personal preferences is usually not a factor in deciding whether a religious practice is protected in the workplace, noted Khadija Athman, national civil rights manager for the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington.In most cases, a cashier should be able to call over another cashier who can scan a product and the shopper shouldn't be inconvenienced, Athman noted.
I'll be the one who decides whether I'm inconvenienced, not CAIR. And if I have to wait for somebody else to scan something, or explain to some dolt that TURKEY bacon is not pork, I've been inconvenienced.
Target's statement:
"Providing guests with consistently fast checkouts is a key, fundamental part of our business and our guest service commitment. As always, we continue to explore reasonable solutions that consider the concerns of team members while ensuring that we maintain our ability to provide the highest level of guest service."makes it pretty clear to me that they Don't Get It.

Comments
Posted by: James
Posted on: March 14, 2007 01:00 PM
It's not racism, and I think people who try to blame you for that are not looking at the big picture. I can also say that it is possible that a devout Catholic would refuse to swipe a box of Trojan condoms because it promotes promoscious sex.
Soon we will have "religious-only" lines at stores or maybe we should install robot cashiers so they won't have to worry about touching "unclean" products. C'mon here, it's packaged. The person is not touching the meat inside.
Posted by: Mell
Posted on: March 16, 2007 04:31 PM
Hmmm... when we hear occasional stories about pharmacists who allegedly refuse to sell RU-486 type drugs based on their beliefs, it's equated with the impending establishment of an oppressive religious regime depriving all of us of our rights, but if it involves an allegedly observant practicioner of the 'religion of peace' refusing to transport someone transporting a bottle of Merlot or a assist them in the purchase of a can of Spam the problem is our inherent racism and lack of understanding.
Posted by: jeffrey smith
Posted on: March 16, 2007 05:24 PM
Perhaps it's a distinction without a difference, but there are moral implications to RU486 that are lacking in the case of pepperoni pizza. Unless of course we are speaking of the anti-fat brigade
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: March 17, 2007 09:27 AM
I dunno, Jeffrey, you'd have to ask a Muslim about how touching pork stacks up against fetal murder. The trouble with revealed religions in general is that all Words of God are considered equal. Certainly in Christianity, sin is sin, and any bit of it is enough to send you to Hell. But almost everyone is reasonable about this; eating a beef jerky on Good Friday is not at all the same thing as planning and executing the Holocaust. And passing fully-wrapped pork over a scanner (with gloves on even, if you wish) is not like eating a BLT-on-pita. Would it be considered assault if a lady with lard on her hands held the cashier's hand and said, "Look, this is America...?"
As for RU486, if a pharmacist is turning away sales, it's a legitimate concern of a business. Unlike Target, it's not like most stores have a 2nd pharmacist to play shabbos goy to the anti-abortion pharmacist. But I've never seen an attempt in the pro-life community to funnel business towards abstaining pharmacists, which is what that movement needs to make it work. Mell's point is more about the inconsistency of liberals who can't look past next year. They think that a Reconstructionist Republic is immanent, but that radical Islam is no danger at all. And that's just false.
Posted by: jeffrey smith
Posted on: March 18, 2007 12:06 AM
For all I know, shariah may be quite permissive about abortion. But I think Islam adds a layer of ritual purity to forbidden foods that is lacking in Judaism. I can handle pork all I want, so long as I don't eat it or assist another Jew in eating it. But Moslems seem to view pork as contaminating them with impurity even if it's only touched, and I don't know their rules of ritual purity. (Although if they track with the Jewish ones, a glove or an intervening box might "insulate".)
Regarding your comment that "all the Words of God are considered equal"--only Judaism holds to that. Moslems have their rules about later revelations replacing earlier ones, and Christianity say that the Word of God in the Hebrew Bible no longer applies (which compliment is repaid by Moslems to the Christian Bible).
Posted by: Jeffrey Quick
Posted on: March 18, 2007 03:04 PM
That's not quite true regarding christians; if it were, there'd be far less interest in the OT prophets. To be accurate, it's the Mosaic ritual law which is superceded, the logic being that such attempts at purity are no longer needed now that Christ has purified mankind (and the real reason being to make it easier for non-Jews to become Christian.)