What you describe is currently happening in Britain, where Muslim checkers refuse to charge up purchases of pork due to their religious beliefs.
And that’s what happens when someone repeats a story that they don’t know the details of. But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good bit of prejudice?
Certainly, it is true that several supermarket chains in the UK will not put their Muslim staff on the checkouts if they do not wish to handle e.g. alcohol or pork, and there have been one or two recorded incidents where a mistake was made somewhere. But phrasing it to suggest that this is a widespread occurrence? Not even close to being the case.
So you admit that what I said was factually correct, but you don’t like the “phrasing”. And I’m sure had I said instead the equally-factual “What you describe is currently happening in Wisconsin, where Christian pharmacists refuse to charge up purchases of the Pill due to their religious beliefs” you would be equally as boringly condescending.
I keep reading about this fantasy Britain, based on too much exposure to the Daily Mail and our equally fantasy political party, UKIP.
Either the workers are in a Muslim shop, in which case good luck finding any pork to buy, or they are in a supermarket, in which case it isn’t the policy of the management. But I have yet to visit a Muslim shop in the UK and be refused service on grounds of being a non-Muslim, or a suspected pork eater.
No she doesn’t; you were factually wrong. The shops make arrangements so customers do not get refused service - in short, they are simultaneously complying with the requirement not to discriminate against their staff or their customers.
I suggest that, like the drunken Glaswegian in the old joke, you go off to look for another argument.
This has also come up re: mental health practitioners and students. Employers and graduate programs have been sued by employees & students who say they refuse to work with GLBT people, or they’ll only discuss “conversion therapy” (which isn’t a recognized psychological treatment), or they won’t engage in activities designed to increase their awareness of the needs of GLBT people. That was the impetus for a wave of these laws being passed starting a few years ago, and they create a terrible problem for grad programs in particular, which are bound to follow ethical guidelines of different mental health professions, all of which prohibit discrimination and some of which specifically require gay-affirmative treatment.
I think a lot of this has happened since 9/11. Anti-Muslim sentiment has caused some Muslims to become more observant, just as Jewish response to persecution was often to become more sectarian, not to integrate.
In the UK, it’s now when anti-Semitism is actually at historical lows that Jews are secularising in large numbers, but equally there is a counter-movement of Jews (some of whom don’t even know any Hebrew) becoming more Zionist in response to the perceived threat to Israel from Iran.
Does the law mention the standard used to decide which religious belief is applicable and which is not?
I recall thinking, after I’d been refused service by a pharmacist on religious grounds, that if he decided using this drug is murder, he was damned lucky I was only willing to commit one murder that day and not two, the fucken asshole.
I remain abso-fucking-lutely amazed that of all the ills state and local government is facing, that these officials decided to focus on their entirely warped views of religious liberty. There used to be a thing…what was it? IIRC, the elders called it “good governance”…nahh, probably just a thought brought on by Satan!
I think when in comes to whose religious beliefs are being applied, it’s a matter of which religions have adherents willing to force their crap on others, which think they’ll get away with it (being a member of a minority religion makes you less likely to think so), which religions can count on local political and/or judicial support, etc.
It’s totally enraging. Reading about pharmacists denying people their medications sometimes makes me feel like I’m going to have a rage-induced stroke.
The kind of politicians advancing this sort of nonsense either think that denying women contraceptives is the highest political calling, or they’re supported by people who think that.
See, this is the reason why, even as an atheist, I freaking love the satanic church. When bumpkin governments create these kinds of laws that are meant to favor the christians, the satanists will gladly step in and say “as long as you’re letting people break the law because they’re religious, we’re gonna take a stab at it too.”
I mean, the satanists are no more absurd than any other religion, and they’re wonderful allies to force the issue of equal treatment under the law, since they have standing as a religion, whereas atheist don’t have that type of standing yet are often still affected by terrible bigoted legislation.
