Paris restaurant refuses to serve Muslim women

On the subject, I think that a business owner has any right to impose a certain dress code (we're speaking of an expensive restaurant here, not McDonald's). However he shouldn't discriminate his customers on their beliefs.

Reply 142

Josb

Original post by 999tigger

You fail to comprehend the difference between a private event and a business open to the public.

The aquatic park was a business open to the public. It wasn't a pool party.

Reply 143

Original post by 999tigger

Hiring a nanny would be a private matter, so you could refuse to hire her and you wouldnt be breaking the law.

If you were a business which hired out nannies and you were recruiting nannies, but you refused based on her wearing a hijab then yes you could have a claim brought against you under equality laws for discrimination.

Yes it would be easy to say that it was becayse someone else was better, but the equality act places the burden on the employer to prove they werent discriminating. It wou be up to the court to decide who tbhey believed.

You didn't say anything about the morals. Do you think I should be forced to have my kids be brought up by someone whose values I don't agree with, or pay a fine or even go to prison?

And what is the difference between the nanny job and say a secretary job inside a business? Why is one private and the other not?

And regards to the nanny business. What if the business knows it has mostly rich white Islamophobes as customers. Should they hire someone who is never wanted?

Reply 144

Original post by champ_mc99

No my point was, inhuman said being gay is not comparable to being Muslim since only one is a choice. I think maybe he said this means only the former can't be discriminated against (could be wrong).

But you can choose to be in a gay relationship. Refusing a gay couple would be similar to refusing a Muslim.

Think you are getting confused. The issue is whether the reason for discrimination is a protected characteristic, not whether they are that by choice or otherwise. The discrimination is because they are gay or muslim and that would be enough. The only proviso is that the discrimination must not be a private matter, but concern a business or organisation open to the public. I pointed tos out to inhuman who was getting mixed up.

I am now only talking about the law here and not in France. Im making the assumption that it is along the same lines. If people think it differs then they need to provide a credible link to the Frencg law showing how it works.

Reply 145

Original post by champ_mc99

No my point was, inhuman said being gay is not comparable to being Muslim since only one is a choice. I think maybe he said this means only the former can't be discriminated against (could be wrong).

But you can choose to be in a gay relationship. Refusing a gay couple would be similar to refusing a Muslim.

No, the latter would be a visible signal of the non-choice. A hijab is a visible signal of a choice.

Reply 146

username1044970

18

Original post by inhuman

The hijab isn't a symbol? I mean you may even have a point, some will argue it's not compulsory at all. Some will argue it is. But at the end of the day, it's a culture born out of the religious belief that women are sex objects and need to cover up to stay "modest".

I think you'll find that "covering up" to protect one's modesty is a universal practise amongst cultures, with some tribes in hot countries being the exceptions. What is considered "modest" (or not) however depends on your social and cultural context.I think it would be best for your mental well-being if you just stayed in your house lest you're triggered by the Hijabis walking around "objectifying" themselves by wearing headscarves. You could campaign for the ban of all religious/cultural clothing in public, but then that would make you a fanatic Marxist secularist.

Reply 147

scrotgrot

16

Original post by Josb

On the subject, I think that a business owner has any right to impose a certain dress code (we're speaking of an expensive restaurant here, not McDonald's). However he shouldn't discriminate his customers on their beliefs.

Yes, any dress code which does not constitute a barrier to certain people based on a protected characteristic should be permitted, with appropriate exemptions for religious establishments etc., and of course a further restriction on dress or dress codes which might incite hatred, meet the definition of a political uniform, etc.

I don't think dress codes should be lawful where they might exclude poorer individuals either, although seeing as clothes which would pass muster at formal events are not unattainably expensive this is not a pressing concern, but it might be in a poorer country.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 148

Zeus007

Original post by Josb

I was speaking to the situation in Germany during Nazism. After WWII, some Jews thought that assimilation was pointless as they would always be targeted anyway and encouraged a strict separation from society.

I am equally critical of the Jews and Muslims that live this way, with the minor exception that the former are not proselytic and that no terrorist activity can be linked to them. I would gladly see their religious schools closed.

I'm not a big fan of religion either however people should be able to live their lives without other people telling them how to live it, as long as they live their lives in a way that it doesn't effect other people. Do tell me how Jews having their own schools or Muslims doing something similar effect you in a bad way so that i can understand your stance.

Reply 149

Original post by Josb

The aquatic park was a business open to the public. It wasn't a pool party.

It was a private hire. People often do private hires and book out restaurants, hotels, conference centres, cinemas etc. As a private hire they are allowed to decide who can and cant come to their party.

Reply 150

Zeus007

Original post by inhuman

So when I ask you to get to the bottom of things, you insult me and stop the debate, because you have no real argument left?

Suppose I really am a scumbag. Wouldn't you think it's interested or even vital to learn what made me pick Muslims to blame rather than any other group?Because if you learnt that you might be able to address the issue and stop others becoming like me?

You didn't answer my question that i gave you in my last paragraph. I don't think you will be able to answer it, this is why debating with you is pointless.

Reply 151

Original post by Dima-Blackburn

I think you'll find that "covering up" to protect one's modesty is a universal practise amongst cultures, with some tribes in hot countries being the exceptions. What is considered "modest" (or not) however depends on your social and cultural context.I think it would be best for your mental well-being if you just stayed in your house lest you're triggered by the Hijabis walking around "objectifying" themselves by wearing headscarves. You could campaign for the ban of all religious/cultural clothing in public, but then that would make you a fanatic Marxist secularist.

Just a matter of time before you'd be back :rolleyes:

And why should I stay in? Maybe the hijabis can stay in if they get offended if I show dislike for their choice?

I think you would find if you gave this any more thought, not that you ever do, that in general we tend to treat men and women equal in this covering up, and there are many people for example arguing its sexist that men can be bare chested but women not. Of course the argument here is that women's boobs are seen as sexual mens not and using that same logic would mean that a woman's hair is sexual but a man's isn't. Now I suppose it would be fair to say well they just have different ideas than we do. However, they also have it written all over their holy book that women are inferior. In fact, Hanwar was so nice to point out the other day that at least she (though she seemed to be speaking for more than herself) that a woman has to obey her husband and that we have high divorce rates because we don't have that here. In that context, I would prefer to live in a society where we do not accept a certain group of people practicing this.

Reply 152

scrotgrot

16

Original post by inhuman

You didn't say anything about the morals. Do you think I should be forced to have my kids be brought up by someone whose values I don't agree with, or pay a fine or even go to prison?

And what is the difference between the nanny job and say a secretary job inside a business? Why is one private and the other not?

And regards to the nanny business. What if the business knows it has mostly rich white Islamophobes as customers. Should they hire someone who is never wanted?

Principally because the nanny serves a single customer at a time, is intimately involved with their life, and probably boards with the family in their private home. It is the same story with live-in carers: many of them are black immigrants here on visas and a lot of the time the racist old people don't want a black carer.

This is certainly a grey area where an exemption to discrimination law is at least defensible. A compromise position could be for it to be lawful for the care company to attempt to accede to the person's wishes by providing a white carer, but ultimately there is no obligation for them to do so, so that if all they have is black carers the customer has to either accept them or try a different company. With nannies who work for themselves, pure market forces will result in the same outcome.

Reply 153

slaven

1

I was the owner I would require a code dress from the guest. Just like you cannot go into the resaturant unhygenic and without decent dressing, so you cannot enter with a burka.

Reply 154

Original post by scrotgrot

Principally because the nanny serves a single customer at a time, is intimately involved with their life, and probably boards with the family in their private home. It is the same story with live-in carers: many of them are black immigrants here on visas and a lot of the time the racist old people don't want a black carer.

This is certainly a grey area where an exemption to discrimination law is at least defensible. A compromise position could be for it to be lawful for the care company to attempt to accede to the person's wishes by providing a white carer, but ultimately there is no obligation for them to do so, so that if all they have is black carers the customer has to either accept them or try a different company. With nannies who work for themselves, pure market forces will result in the same outcome.

But a secretary is likely to serve a single boss. Yet I am sure you would have a lawsuit on your hands if you said no to Muslims. And true maybe the relationship is not as intimate as with children, but you will still be close to that person, you must get along and you must respect each other. What if none of that is possible?

Reply 155

PTMalewski

20

I don't see why a wish of a private person, to welcome or not to welcome certain people inside his property, is matter of such popular discussion, while the fact that governments in many countries had lost control over several areas in many cities, and they do nothing to regain it, doesn't seem to be recognized as anything more vital, while it should be.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 156

Original post by inhuman

You didn't say anything about the morals. Do you think I should be forced to have my kids be brought up by someone whose values I don't agree with, or pay a fine or even go to prison?

And what is the difference between the nanny job and say a secretary job inside a business? Why is one private and the other not?

And regards to the nanny business. What if the business knows it has mostly rich white Islamophobes as customers. Should they hire someone who is never wanted?

Where its your own private hire i.e for your own family, then you can discriminate hopw you like. You obviously didnt bother to read what I wrote or were unable to comprehend what the position is.

A nanny job for a family is private and a secretary job for a family is private.

Where the employer is the business, then it is public and then the equality laws apply.

As for the nanny business not sure what you dont get, but they arent allowed to discriminate on the protected characteristics. No jews, no muslims, no women, no blacks etc. As long as they dont discriminate then they are fine or are you suggesting its fine to discriminate?

Reply 157

scrotgrot

16

Original post by inhuman

Just a matter of time before you'd be back :rolleyes:

And why should I stay in? Maybe the hijabis can stay in if they get offended if I show dislike for their choice?

The hijabis wouldn't get offended, and even if they did they wouldn't try to get you banished off the streets and imprisoned in your home. Just another way they don't seem to be able to integrate into Western society I guess, not hateful and vindictive enough :rolleyes:

This is an especially silly non-sequitur because the entire scenario concerns your being offended by the presence of the hijabis, and whether your taking offence that means you or they, or my preferred option neither, should be the ones to remove themselves from the situation.

The bottom line is that you hold an opinion counter to the democratically legislated law of the land, so if you really can't swallow your hatred and fear enough to stand being in the presence of a hijabi, it's you who have failed to integrate with Western society and you who should segregate yourself from it by staying in.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 158

Original post by PTMalewski

I don't see why a wish of a private person, to welcome or not to welcome certain people inside his property, is matter of such pupular institution, while the fact tha governments in many countries lost control over saveral areas in many cities, and does nothing to regain it, doesn't seem to be recognized as anything more vital, while it should be.

What does that mean????????????

Reply 159