Paris restaurant refuses to serve Muslim women

the same science that says that two men or two women can't create a baby together.

so i never understand why gays claim its natural for two people of the same sex to be parents to a child when even science says a man and a woman are needed. not just to create the child but to normalise its upbringing.
every person needs a mother and a father!

the same science that says that two men or two women can't create a baby together. so i never understand why gays claim its natural for two people of the same sex to be parents to a child when even science says a man and a woman are needed. not just to create the child but to normalise its upbringing.
every person needs a mother and a father!

In the eyes of the owner, they clearly had "done something wrong" - presumably publicly associating with an ideology that he found unacceptable.

I think he was wrong, but if his opposition to Islam was reasonable, then it was not bigotry.
However, discriminating against them (not serving them) is a slightly different matter.
He could have still served them, even if his dislike of them was bigoted. He would still have been a bigot despite not discriminating against them.
On the other hand, if his reasons for not serving them were "reasonable" (they were making religiously based insults at other customers) then his refusal to serve them based on religion would not be bigoted.

There is too much knee-jerk, black and white thinking around issues like this. And too little inderstanding of what words actually mean. That is the beauty of a language like English, and it is a shame that so many people just ride rough-shod over its magnificent subtlety and exactitiude.

Which is an artificial distinction created by law to appease the religious vote and to stop private men's clubs from having to admit women.

On a moral and social level, the person you quoted is right: this sets a precedent where the restaurant manager is fully entitled to ask "well if that synagogue can refuse to marry gays, why can't I refuse to serve gays?". I don't think referring to artificial distinctions in the law adequately settles that question.

Should they be allowed to refuse to serve black people or disabled people? Its a dangerous precedent.

you are comparing a religion and culture with political beliefs. They're not the same.

Posted from TSR Mobile

The question the person I quoted had (in another post) was: can I make a religion that says "don't serve Asians in your shops" and discriminate against Asians on religious grounds? The answer is no; you're not allowed to discriminate in business on these grounds. A Muslim restaurant owner for example cannot refuse to serve polytheistic Hindus on religious grounds no matter how much he/she may hate them.

Yet, using another example: a Muslim restaurant owner could not refuse to serve a gay couple, but a Muslim cleric could refuse to marry them at the mosque.

It does not particularly matter what the law says or what arbitrary distinctions it draws - there's still a moral and social contradiction there (that the exempt organisations can discriminate, whereas other organisations cannot). It's ridiculous that you can refuse to marry a gay couple yet cannot refuse to bake them a wedding cake, because of what type of organisation you are deemed to be.

Marriage is a religious institution in religions like Islam. The Islamic nikkah is defined as a marriage between a Muslim man and a Muslim women. Religious ceremonies, unlike products and other services provided by businesses, have a "sacred" element that means a lot to religious people. You wouldn't force a Church to conduct a marriage between a Muslim and a Hindu, would you?

I don't think it's that ridiculous.

You seem to have taken it upon yourself to argue against a point that no one has made.

Having negative views towards the ideology of Islam is perfectly acceptable. Judging people who follow such an ideology negatively is perfectly acceptable.

Refusing to serve someone for simply believing in such an ideology is not. I personally do not believe in a thought police. I think it's great that in the UK you are allowed to think whatever you want with no fear of punishment. We do not punish evil thoughts.

Refusing to serve someone who has done nothing wrong, for simply believing in an ideology that you disagree with is unreasonable discrimination and is therefore wrongful. Whether that belief is Fundamental Islam or neo Nazism, it is unreasonable to refuse to serve someone who hasn't actually done anything wrong.

Quite why you are obsessing over the meanings of words and semantics, i'm not so sure.

The fact remains that we should live in a society where we are allowed to think whatever we want and follow whatever religion we want without fear of punishment. If you act on such a belief in an illegal manner then fair enough, but merely holding such a belief is not and should not be punishable.


If two Jewish people were refused service in a shop, you'd be up in arms about it and rightly so. It should be the same here.

Are you a Muslim?

I think it's great that in the UK you are allowed to think whatever you want with no fear of punishment.

we should live in a society where we are allowed to think whatever we want.

Marriage is a religious institution in religions like Islam. The Islamic nikkah is defined as a marriage between a Muslim man and a Muslim women. Religious ceremonies, unlike products and other services provided by businesses, have a "sacred" element that means a lot to religious people. You wouldn't force a Church to conduct a marriage between a Muslim and a Hindu, would you?

If some Christians interpreted the Bible in a way to mean that interracial marriages are sinful, would you think this was somehow acceptable discrimination to refuse to marry interracial couples,

It's all ideology, whether you use adjectives such as "sacred" or not.

Discriminating on the grounds of an ideological belief that x minority is inferior for y political, social or other reason is no different to discriminating on the grounds of a religious belief (and religions are ideologies at their core) that gay couples are inferior to the extent that they should not be offered the service of marriage.

If some Christians interpreted the Bible in a way to mean that interracial marriages are sinful, would you think this was somehow acceptable discrimination to refuse to marry interracial couples, whereas it would be unacceptable discrimination for a holiday company to refuse to sell a honeymoon to an interracial couple on that basis? That is what your logic is suggesting.

You seem to be giving a free pass to discrimination when it is packaged in terms of "sacredness", yet seemingly denounce other ideological-based forms of discrimination.

You see if you can 'excuse' some discrimination then so will others

It's a slippery slope don't you think.

Will they?

And no, I think it's maintaining a reasonable balance between freedom of religion and anti-discriminatory laws.

Yes, as you are doing here you are justifying one form of discrimination while complaining about another

Context is everything, my simple-minded friend.

Ah the good old personal attack

to be expected when your told you're a hypocrite (as in this case here)