Target Controversy over selling pork

[CraigD]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin: in voting, employment, and public services, such as transportation.

 

Title II

Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

 

So Target, Walmart, etc are obligated under this Act to not discirminate against customers based on religion or sex.

IANAL, but my read of 42 USC Sec 2000a is that it is explicitly limited to hotels, restaurants, gas stations, etc., “engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises” and is exclusive of retail stores such as Target.

 

Interestingly, per paragraph (;)(2), the law is explicitly inclusive of “facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment”. A Target store that I frequent has a small “Pizza Hut Express” restaurant in the front of the store. Food purchased there must be paid for there, not at the stores main row of checkout registers, while goods purchased in the store cannot be paid for in the restaurant. My read of the bill is that Target could legally bar a person from the retail section of the store “on the ground race, color, religion, or national origin”, but not from the restaurant.

 

I can’t imagine that Target or any similar store would ever do such a thing – as the saying goes, businesses care not about the color of you skin, so long as you money is green – but, legally, I believe it could.

 

As anyone who’s been turned away from a club can attest, the paragraph (e) exclusion for private clubs of 42 USC Sec 2000a is very much in force. Such clubs can legally say “white people only”, "no Muslims allowed" or "No Women Allowed" – though I doubt they’d stay popular long if they engaged in such racist/sexist policies. Exceptions exist: I know personally of a VFW post near me that has bi-monthly “no women allowed” nights. These nights are not, as one might expect, burlesque, rather the male members just enjoy an occasion to use language and behavior that they’re uncomfortable using in the presence of women. None of their spouses or women friends (to my knowledge, this VFW post has no female veteran members) appear to object to this policy.

Its one thing to hire as suggested by your post to keep costs down, and its another thing to hire to receive corporate welfare.

I agree that this sounds like a corrupt collusion of business and government, and hope Minnesota voters have their representatives reform or end these programs. A cynical business person might answer: “they certainly are different things! The first is good business. The second is great!

I believe there are laws or rules in place that require pharmacys to offer birth control to women, again another battle fought over womens rights. The same battles fought with insurance companies to cover birth control.

As a pharmacy professional (just the computers – other than a failed baker cell, I never touch any drugs), I know that there are not, in Virginia, Maryland, of the District of Collumbia, no laws currently exist to compel a pharmacist to dispense contraceptives, or for that matter, any other class drugs, if they chose for any reason not to. As of my last review of insurance commission regulations (in 2001), in Maryland, and DC, but not Virginia, regulations exists requiring insurers to offer plans covering contraceptives if they offer any prescription drug benefits. Not all plans cover contraceptives – for example, group contracts with branches of the Catholic church specifically exclude it – but any individual or group that requests the insurance benefit must be provided it, or risk fines or, ultimately, losing their license to offer insurance in the state or district.

A pharmacy that offers birth control pills, Morning after pills, whatever, cannot allow an employee to discriminate against a customer because of the the employees religious beliefs.

I agree. I think laws should be enacted to this end, especially concerning emergency contraceptive “morning after” pills.

As I said, no one makes anyone in america become a cashier, pharmacist, taxi driver, etc...

While I agree that employment in high-paying jobs, such as licensed pharmacist, is almost always a voluntary decision, influenced by at most parents or friends, cashier and taxi driver are often “jobs of last resort”, that a person must either take, or be unemployed. There is in present-day American society both government and social compulsion for people without wealth or provable disabilities to be employed.

[CraigD]

Incidentally, there really is no LAW preventing discrimination in hiring and firing practices in the states, if you don't receive federal funding, nor is there a law prohibiting customer discrimination.

From my non-lawyerly read of 42 USC Sec 2000e (follow “next section” links for all relevant code), I believe there is exactly such a US federal law.

 

The code has a few exclusions, basically: employers with fewer than 15 employees; churches; and non-US companies operating in the US or US companies operating abroad where the code conflicts with the other county’s laws.

If word gets out that you're a racist bigot, then chances are pretty good, your customers will dry up to racist bigots only, which thankfully, isn't a very strong sector.

I love it when informal social sanctions work! ;)

 

;) Unfortunately, there’s a corollary to this: as the size of its customer base dries up, the likelihood of such a business hiring a musician who suckers me into playing a gig there increases. Oddly, clubs will hire a band consisting of people they appear to despise. :(

[Cedars]

IANAL, but my read of is that it is explicitly limited to hotels, restaurants, gas stations, etc., “engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises” and is exclusive of retail stores such as Target.

 

Interestingly, per paragraph (;)(2), the law is explicitly inclusive of “facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment”. A Target store that I frequent has a small “Pizza Hut Express” restaurant in the front of the store. Food purchased there must be paid for there, not at the stores main row of checkout registers, while goods purchased in the store cannot be paid for in the restaurant. My read of the bill is that Target could legally bar a person from the retail section of the store “on the ground race, color, religion, or national origin”, but not from the restaurant.

 

As a pharmacy professional (just the computers – other than a failed baker cell, I never touch any drugs), I know that there are not, in Virginia, Maryland, of the District of Collumbia, no laws currently exist to compel a pharmacist to dispense contraceptives, or for that matter, any other class drugs, if they chose for any reason not to. As of my last review of insurance commission regulations (in 2001), in Maryland, and DC, but not Virginia, regulations exists requiring insurers to offer plans covering contraceptives if they offer any prescription drug benefits. Not all plans cover contraceptives – for example, group contracts with branches of the Catholic church specifically exclude it – but any individual or group that requests the insurance benefit must be provided it, or risk fines or, ultimately, losing their license to offer insurance in the state or district.I agree. I think laws should be enacted to this end, especially concerning emergency contraceptive “morning after” pills.While I agree that employment in high-paying jobs, such as licensed pharmacist, is almost always a voluntary decision, influenced by at most parents or friends, cashier and taxi driver are often “jobs of last resort”, that a person must either take, or be unemployed. There is in present-day American society both government and social compulsion for people without wealth or provable disabilities to be employed.

 

Its easy to skip over the relevant part that includes places such as Target, Walmart, etc

 

 

(;) Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in

their activities by State action as places of public accommodation;

 

Operations affecting commerce; criteria; "commerce" defined (snipped some)

For purposes of this section,

 

"commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation,

 

or communication among the several States, or between the District

 

of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any

 

territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia,

 

or between points in the same State but through any other State or

 

the District of Columbia or a foreign country.

 

The above sections you refer to were created because of independently owned operations, which were not connected to interstate commerce and trade. The Mom & Pop places.

 

Commerce is a biggie when it comes to equal protection and federal involvment in such things.

 

U.S. Code

 

I know that this issue came up in 2005? with a pharmacist in south central MN refusing to fill some type of contraceptive prescription (private pharm). The agency governing pharmacy and pharmacists in MN was waiting to see how the MN Dept. of Commerce handled it, because it was directly related to commerce and customers. This is how I became aware of the discrimination laws and how they apply to commerce.

 

I also believe MN has a rule like this covering conventional birth control availability in stores (above case was the refusal to fill the prescription, not whether the store had it in stock).

 

Mass. Wal-Mart Must Stock Contraception

[Cedars]

As I think Craig has been trying to point out - there's a difference between being actually offensive and just being stupid. I don't NEED my bag of bacon right now, (hopefully) so it's just a minor inconvenience for me to wait while the other cashier handles the pork.

 

I do NEED my seeing eye dog (if I were blind) so it's a major problem when a cab driver won't take me somewhere.

 

I do NEED that emergency contraceptive. The regular kind? Not so much - I can go to Wal-Greens, who will sell it to me, and just not return to your pharmacy.

 

But in any case, the problem is when someone is denying an actual NEED vs causing a minor inconvenience. Causing minor inconveniences for customers will eventually come back to get you, as people will eventually stop being your customers. Causing them to miss out on things they NEED - that will get you in legal trouble.

 

Incidentally, there really is no LAW preventing discrimination in hiring and firing practices in the states, if you don't receive federal funding, nor is there a law prohibiting customer discrimination. You are not obligated to serve people in various shades of brown, and in fact, not to far from where I live there are places that DON'T. The enforcement comes about through word of mouth. If word gets out that you're a racist bigot, then chances are pretty good, your customers will dry up to racist bigots only, which thankfully, isn't a very strong sector.

 

TFS

 

Now thats part of the arguement during segregation. They didnt NEED to sit at the counter with whites. It was only a minor inconvience to sit in the back of the bus. They werent refused service. They werent charged a higher price....

 

There is laws against hiring/firing based on religion, sex, race, etc. Its very clear. What I picked up from the blogs is the work around. Employers asking specifically, "is there any part of this job you wont be able to do" types of questions. If they respond yes, they are not hired. Also indicated was if you sign the form stating there is no part of the job you cannot do, grounds for termination if you bring up 'I cant handle pork'. And in the Civil Rights act it does give exemptions to the law for an employee not being able to fufill the obligations of the job. As I understood it anyways....

[TheFaithfulStone]

Now thats part of the arguement during segregation. They didnt NEED to sit at the counter with whites. It was only a minor inconvience to sit in the back of the bus. They werent refused service. They werent charged a higher price....

 

No it isn't.

 

It seems almost to be common sense to me. (Which I know is dangerous, but still...) It's not like it's a serious incovenience to you to respect this other persons belief ("I shouldn't handle pork.") or that their belief nessecarily REQUIRES that you be inconvienced.

 

Here is an interesting thing - in the case of the pork, the issue is that the cashier cannot handle pork. In the contraceptive issue, the issue is that the cashier thinks YOU shouldn't be on the pill. In both cases, it seems, one person is trying to "force" the other to abide by their beliefs.

 

The cabby issue is a little hairier. (Rimshot!) Is is that they think NOBODY should touch dogs, or that THEY themselves can't touch dogs? I think it makes a difference. The whole "I can't transport alcohol because YOU shouldn't have it" makes me think it's the former.

 

In both cases, it's clear to me who's being the jerk.

 

TFS

[Cedars]

It seems almost to be common sense to me. (Which I know is dangerous, but still...) It's not like it's a serious incovenience to you to respect this other persons belief ("I shouldn't handle pork.") or that their belief nessecarily REQUIRES that you be inconvienced.

 

Here is an interesting thing - in the case of the pork, the issue is that the cashier cannot handle pork. In the contraceptive issue, the issue is that the cashier thinks YOU shouldn't be on the pill. In both cases, it seems, one person is trying to "force" the other to abide by their beliefs.

 

It is the same arguement.

Not all islam agrees in this extreme take on pork, just as we have other religious sects with variations in their beliefs. No one expects a kosher resturant to offer shellfish, however if a waitress/waiter refuses to serve an item on a menu at Denny's because of their religious beliefs, it seems quite obvious to me "who is being the jerk".

 

The basic premise of freedom is the ability to make choices for yourself. The basic premise of dictatorship is making choices for others. I as a consumer do have a right of expectation that when I walk into such an establishment, that I dont have to wonder whos on duty at the pharmacy counter, behind the wheel of the taxi, etc as long as the purchace I am attempting to make is a legal transaction (commerce).

 

Why cant the muslim, the christian, etc respect that while they themselves are under a moral guideline to not partake in these ideas, they have to respect the fact that not everyone around them is under that same obligation? Racists can partake in any legal behaviors they want to in private, but once they roam around walmart stocking shelves, they have to refine that behavior. And its not just good business, its because Walmart Can Be Sued for allowing behavior that discriminates against their customers.

 

Dont like having to treat everyone equally because of your religion? Get a job that wont require you to serve alcohol, pork, blind people, birth control, women without escorts, etc. or learn to accept that the freedom to practice any particular religion ends when it interfers with my freedom not to adhere to anyones particular religious tenents.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Is it really THAT much of an inconvenience for you too wait two minutes for a bag of pork?

 

The cashier couldn't HANDLE pork. That doesn't mean they don't want YOU to eat it. But you want them to HANDLE it so that you don't have to wait a minute for a package of bacon.

 

Why not, in this particular instance respect the cashiers belief that they shouldn't touch pork?

 

The seeing eye dog thing I'm in agreement with you with. The contraceptive I agree with you on. In both of those cases the cashier, or cab driver or whatever is trying to make YOU do something because they feel a certain way. (Not have a seeing eye dog, not be on the pill.)

 

You're still going to get the bacon. It's just going to take 30 seconds longer...

 

Is it REALLY that big of a deal?

 

TFS

[Cedars]

Is it really THAT much of an inconvenience for you too wait two minutes for a bag of pork?

 

The cashier couldn't HANDLE pork. That doesn't mean they don't want YOU to eat it. But you want them to HANDLE it so that you don't have to wait a minute for a package of bacon.

 

Why not, in this particular instance respect the cashiers belief that they shouldn't touch pork?

 

You're still going to get the bacon. It's just going to take 30 seconds longer...

 

Is it REALLY that big of a deal?

 

TFS

 

It is alot of things wrapped into this issue and it is as much about personal responsiblity before becoming employed.

 

Its more than the person buying the bacon, its the inconvience to everyone behind them in line, and those waiting in the line at the other cashier who have to wait while that employee goes over to scan an item. I shouldnt have to worry about going into public accomodations that I might be stuck in the line waiting for someone to come scan pork products for the person at the front of the line because of some deeply believed conviction, held by an employee who had many options to avoid putting themself into an employment condition that would involve such conflict.

 

As in the Denny's example, just who is the jerk? You dont have a right to work somplace that compromises your religious beliefs in its normal (and perfectly legal) course of doing business. You do have a choice not to.

[Qfwfq]

Now thats part of the arguement during segregation. They didnt NEED to sit at the counter with whites. It was only a minor inconvience to sit in the back of the bus. They werent refused service. They werent charged a higher price....

True, but...

Employers asking specifically, "is there any part of this job you wont be able to do" types of questions. If they respond yes, they are not hired.

Seems to make perfect sense in a job interview. I don't call it religious discrimination.

 

You're still going to get the bacon. It's just going to take 30 seconds longer...

And perhaps you're missing your train. You walk out of the place fuming and resolved to avoid the place in future.

 

An employer has the right to be lax or strict about it, but one either accepts what the job implies (within limits of legality and reasonability etc.) or looks for another one. In the case of being a retail cashier, one has every chance of browsing the place to make sure they won't be required to handle pariah's urine; the employer has every right to inform them of things that could be source of dispute and then expect the candidate to make up their mind.

[Boerseun]

Simple. Declare the shop either a Halaal employer or not. If they have to change their processes and procedures to accommodate any specific religion, they'll have to do it to accommodate all religions. So now they have processes in place to make the Muslims happy. Are they going to stop selling beef because there might be couple o' Hindu employees? They won't even just resist handling it, they'll kick up a storm if beef is sold at all. Where do you draw the line? I say put up a big sign on the door (where the Visa/Mastercard/AmEx signs normally are) saying "Target is an independent Secular Employer. If you don't like it, it is your democratic right to go look for a job somewhere else".