The Student Room Group

Paris restaurant refuses to serve Muslim women

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Good bloke
The answer, surely, lies in like-minded people joining a club to share and enjoy their beliefs. Why shouldn't people with mediaeval superstitious beliefs get together and enact those beliefs among themselves as long as it affects nobody else and does not break the law? It goes without saying that they should receive no exemptions, tax breaks or other financial or legal benefits for doing so, of course.


I find religions are quite different from clubs. To what extent does one choose to believe in a religion is a debatable issue. Most kids are brought up from a young age and taught to believe in the religion as opposed to making a concious decision as an adult on their own free choice to join a private adults club. It is the case that children are brought up and taught to believe in this religion, only to find that their sexuality is at odds with what they have been taught.

However, no marriage should ever be recognised as such unless it is carried out within the law of the land, either at an authorised registry office or (in the case of Britain) within the established church. France takes things a welcome stage further and does not recognise church weddings at all.


This however is an interesting alternative.
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
There is an anti-slavery consensus amongst the Islamic scholarly community.


It doesn't concern you that you had to use the word "consensus" there, and that, in truth, many Islamic scholars do believe that slavery is OK in Islam and, further, that Islamic scholars in Pakistan are resisting changes to laws that would help women escape oppression and injustice on the grounds that the changes are unislamic?
Original post by The Epicurean
Most kids are brought up from a young age and taught to believe in the religion as opposed to making a concious decision as an adult on their own free choice to join a private adults club. It is the case that children are brought up and taught to believe in this religion, only to find that their sexuality is at odds with what they have been taught.


I strongly advocate the indoctrination of children into any religion being made illegal, either by any institution that receives state aid in any form including charitable tax reliefs, or by parents, schools and tutors, until they have reached the age of 18.

Such indoctrination has been largely abandoned by western parents who are neither Jews nor Moslems anyway.
Original post by Good bloke
It doesn't concern you that you had to use the word "consensus" there, and that, in truth, many Islamic scholars do believe that slavery is OK in Islam and, further, that Islamic scholars in Pakistan are resisting changes to laws that would help women escape oppression and injustice on the grounds that the changes are unislamic?


I think variance in opinion is inevitable, especially when we're dealing with ambiguous texts with multiple (and often contradictory) interpretations. The context of the discussion however was, what do the majority of the Muslims believe? Poll after poll from around the world shows most Muslims denounce ISIS and its activities i.e. sexual slavery.

The situation in Pakistan is quite unfortunate.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by mariachi
how about the fact that, in islam, a non-Muslim man cannot marry a Muslim woman ? does that constitute an acceptable form of discrimination ?

AFAIK in Britain a non-Muslim man can marry a Muslim woman. Such marriage won't be registered according to Muslim law as well as marriage of two non-Muslims. It's not discrimination.
Original post by Dima-Blackburn

The situation is Pakistan is quite unfortunate.


Only "quite unfortunate"? I'd describe it as a catastrophic environment for women. But then I don't have religious beliefs to be mealy-mouthed about.
Original post by admonit
AFAIK in Britain a non-Muslim man can marry a Muslim woman.


Not within Islam.
Original post by Good bloke
I strongly advocate the indoctrination of children into any religion being made illegal, either by any institution that receives state aid in any form including charitable tax reliefs, or by parents, schools and tutors, until they have reached the age of 18.

Such indoctrination has been largely abandoned by western parents who are neither Jews nor Moslems anyway.


Fanatic, totalitarian nonsense.
Reply 348
Avatar for QE2
QE2
20
Original post by Vegito
Okay so let me get this straight... you mean to say "
discriminating" against a Muslim is right because of their beliefs?
No. I said that "unreasonable discrimination" is wrong.

If you would refuse to serve a neo-Nazi wearing a swastika armband on the basis of their beliefs and appearance, then you must also accept the same when it happens because of different beliefs and appearance.

Let me correct you here because that is being an "Islamophobic" and an "Extremist".
I am quite happy being called an "Islamophobe".

Def: Dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force. - (Oxford English Dictionary)

I fail to see what is "extreme" about insisting on accurate definitions and use of terms.

You can't discriminate against someone who is there just to eat in a restaurant that is open for everyone.
Of course you can, as long as that discriminateion is reasonable.

This isn't some job interview so get a better sh!t excuse next time.
You really have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?

Next time you show up at my restaurant I'll surely kick you out. Why you ask? Maybe I don't like your face.
It is your choice, as a business owner, who you serve. As long as your decision isn't unreasonably based on things like race or gender.

Muslim aren't a race but surely you can discriminate against them. Sounds just like a racist again.
You really have no idea what you're talking about either, do you?

Try actually responding to my points next time.
Try again.
Reply 349
Avatar for QE2
QE2
20
Original post by candyaljamila
The shop owner will always be right. Someone wearing a swastika is wearing it for obvious reasons.

The case of the restaurant owner though is hugely different. Some ignorant people think anyone with brown skin is muslim..etc. So he might well have a christian arab in hands for instance and think that they're muslim just for being arab...etc. There's nothing specific that makes you necessarly muslim or not concerning the way you look. Lots of terrorrist have grown in secular/non-practicing homes and were drinking, active on the dating scene etc. If they're women, they were most probably not wearing any religious/cultural wear. How would the restaurant owner spot these to be terrorist then?
No idea what you are on about here.

Either both business owners are right to discriminate against people on the basis of their beliefs and appearance, or both are wrong.

Which do you think?
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
Fanatic, totalitarian nonsense.


Hardly. It is child protection. The indoctrination of minors into beliefs that have no rational basis is a flagrant abuse. If a parent wishes to have their child indoctrinated they should wait until the child is old enough to understand what is being peddled to them, and to make their own decisiosn about whether to believe it. A young child can be made to believe pretty well anything.

As Aristotle said: "Give me a boy until the age of seven and I will give you the man".
Reply 351
Avatar for QE2
QE2
20
Original post by Bornblue
Should we stop all religious dress then? Should Jewish women not be allowed to cover up and Wear a wig to cover their hair?
I can't understand how people find it acceptable to ban people from a shop on the basis of their religion.

I really can't.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I think you'll find that the discussion is about the nature of and justifications for discrimination.

I, and most of the regular contributors, have clearly stated that the restaurant owner was wrong to refuse to serve them.

Try and keep up please.
Original post by Dodgypirate
It's his right to ban them, whether he loses customers, that's his problem.


Is it OK for a Muslim to put a sign saying "No Jews allowed" outside his shop/restaurant? :smile:

Incredible that your comment got 18 likes. The level of this site has deteriorated even more since the last time I was here. And it was Fascistic enough then
Original post by Good bloke
Hardly. It is child protection. The indoctrination of minors into beliefs that have no rational basis is a flagrant abuse. If a parent wishes to have their child indoctrinated they should wait until the child is old enough to understand what is being peddled to them, and to make their own decisiosn about whether to believe it. A young child can be made to believe pretty well anything.

As Aristotle said: "Give me a boy until the age of seven and I will give you the man".


Child protection? No rational basis? Flagrant abuse? According to whom? You?
Original post by Inzamam99
Is it OK for a Muslim to put a sign saying "No Jews allowed" outside his shop/restaurant? :smile:

Incredible that your comment got 18 likes. The level of this site has deteriorated even more since the last time I was here. And it was Fascistic enough then


Looks like the alt-right, anti-liberal, anti-PC establishment loonies are beginning to crawl out of their holes and become more visible. Fortunately the mods are still sane.
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
Child protection? No rational basis? Flagrant abuse? According to whom? You?


Well, perhaps you could tell me the rational basis to believing that Mohammed flew across the Arabian desert, or that Jesus was resurrected? Or that men should earn the money and leave it to their sons primarily? Or that the value of a woman's testimony is lower than that of a man?

How would you feel if South Americans started indoctrinating their children into the ancient Meso-American religions from birth, and brought up a generation of people wanting to perform human sacrifice?
I honestly don't think he is wrong, he has the right to ban anyone he doesn't like at his own business. I personally would not refuse to serve them,but i do not like Muslims in general.
Reply 357
Avatar for QE2
QE2
20
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Only if you set yourself up in such a way that you are forced into such untenable positions.
Original post by Good bloke
Well, perhaps you could tell me the rational basis to believing that Mohammed flew across the Arabian desert, or that Jesus was resurrected? Or that men should earn the money and leave it to their sons primarily? Or that the value of a woman's testimony is lower than that of a man?

How would you feel if South Americans started indoctrinating their children into the ancient Meso-American religions from birth, and brought up a generation of people wanting to perform human sacrifice?


I didn't say it was rational.

I just believe in a free, secular society where people can practise their beliefs without being discriminated against.

I would even defend the right of totalitarian fascists like you to have an opinion.
Original post by Dima-Blackburn
Looks like the alt-right, anti-liberal, anti-PC establishment loonies are beginning to crawl out of their holes and become more visible. Fortunately the mods are still sane.


Most TSR'ians are such unfortunately. The assumption that it's somehow full of liberal open minded people is erroneous.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you