Paris restaurant refuses to serve Muslim women

Last I checked "the gay gene" was a theory.

"Inherent" is more accurate than "genetic", but the implication is the same.

Yes. People should be able to discriminate on whatever basis they want. Someone can choose not to hire me because I have curly hair. A restaurant might refuse to serve me because I'm a liberal.

Private businesses, like private homes, should be free to admit whomever they want.

As a matter of fact, I think markets don't take to discrimination lightly - businesses lose customers when they discriminate mindlessly.

But it's true that right now, with the anti-Islam sentiment in Europe at an all time high, some bigoted businessmen might find a niche market to cater to. So be it. Most businesses won't exclude anyone on the basis of religion or race.

Always have a good laugh when the "hurr durr invisible hand would fix it by itself" crew show up. Why do you think these anti-discrimination laws were passed in the first place?

Refusing to serve Muslims is not unreasonable? It is not unreasonable to view Muslims in a monolithic manner and assume they all support Daesh and approve of their actions?

Nobody said anything will fix "it" by "itself". Those laws won't fix "it" either. They only perpetuate hatred for ethnic minorities (people moaning they get "special" privileges and protections) and make bigots think they're martyrs who're being silenced by the "liberal elite".

Yes. People should be able to discriminate on whatever basis they want. Someone can choose not to hire me because I have curly hair. A restaurant might refuse to serve me because I'm a liberal.

Private businesses, like private homes, should be free to admit whomever they want.

As a matter of fact, I think markets don't take to discrimination lightly - businesses lose customers when they discriminate mindlessly.

Not serving two people who have done nothing wrong based purely on their religion is bigotry.



Posted from TSR Mobile

LOL okay.

How is forcing people to treat everyone equally "special privileges"? What a joke. I think you should get back to praying to the invisible hand.

Ad hominems don't make your case. Treating everyone equally can translate into you're allowed to discriminate against anyone you wish. That's treating everyone equally as far as the law is concerned. So everyone can interpret "treating everyone equally" as he wishes.

Not sure what "LOL okay" refers to.

Calling something bigotry does not help the discussion. Something may fit the definition of bigotry, but that doesn't make it wrong. You can argue that disliking Maoists or Scientologists is bigoted, but saying it is doesn't make the hatred any more or less valid.

The "LOL okay" refers to your denial that you implied the invisible hand would fix the situation.

That's some spin you've got there brah, Shane Warne would be proud.

There are only three things that you can legitimately judge people on:
1. What they do
2. What they say
3. What they believe (which fundamentally determines 1 and 2)

First...Muslims are not a race!!!

Second, we are all entitled to judge others by their beliefs. What we can't do is unfairly discriminate against people because of these beliefs.
"Discrimination" itself is not necessarily wrong. If you are interviewing people for a job, you will discriminate between them on the basis of many things; their attitude, their ability, their personality, their clothes, etc. What you can't discriminate against is something that they have no control over, or has no relevance in the context of the job.

Not serving someone because of their belief may seem wrong, but if it was two white supremacists wearing neo-nazi regalia, the comments on here would have been somewhat different.

Being strongly opposed to an ideology that he sees as violently at odds with French values is not racist.

Not serving people because of their association with that ideology is not racist either.

Just as another shop owner might not quiz every customer on their beliefs, but they have a certain picture of how a white supremacist looks, and may refuse to serve skinheads wearing swastika armbands.

InB4 "But you can't compare Muslims to Nazis!"
I know. That's why I'm not.
Just saying that either both shop owners are right, or both are wrong.
Which do you think?

Calling something bigotry does not help the discussion. Something may fit the definition of bigotry, but that doesn't make it wrong. You can argue that disliking Maoists or Scientologists is bigoted, but saying it is doesn't make the hatred any more or less valid.

Refusing to serve Muslims is not unreasonable?

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?

Is it reasonable for a Church, Mosque or Synagogue to refuse to marry a gay couple? That would appear to be discrimination, yet in this case, it often seems to be allowed.

I don't think it is.
However their defence would be that gay marriage is actually contrary to religion whereas not serving someone of another religion, is not.

Not serving someone in a shop because of their religion really is a dangerous precedent.