Paris restaurant refuses to serve Muslim women

How do you know? There is an anti-slavery consensus amongst the Islamic scholarly community.

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.

Well, perhaps you could tell me the rational basis to believing that Mohammed flew across the Arabian desert,

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

instead of the usual stories of tolerance and love most children hear within their respective religious frameworks.

Is it OK for a Muslim to ban all Jews from his restaurant?

It seemed you were playing on semantics quite a lot.

Two people were refused service because they were Muslim and that was quite clearly wrong. I'm not sure why there is so much 'yes but...' going on. It's simply wrong to refuse someone service for holding a belief that you disagree with, whatever that belief is.

If two Jewish people were refused service there would be nothing but condemnation and nor should there be. There wouldn't be lots of 'yes but' comments.

And this context was one of a French citizen who had lost a friend in the Bataclan attack, railing against a visible and explicit symbol of the ideology that was used to motivate and justify that, and other attacks.

Do you condemn Palestinians for having something against Israelis?

Ah, but this is where you are wrong. They may claim this, but it is not supported by the evidence. Every attack and every statement from Islamic State comes with supporting Quran quotes.
For example, ISIS use female captives for sex. The Quran states that female captives can be used for sex. Sahih hadith confirm in detail that female captives can be used for sex.
So, who is the "better Muslim", the one who accepts a particular passage in the Quran, or the one who rejects it?

Indeed. So which is the more legitimate interpretation? The one that accepts everything in the Quran, or the one that rejects parts of it?

I don't blame you for not liking ISIS's interpretation. I don't like it either, but it is simply wrong to say that it has no basis in the Quran and sunnah. It is fundamentally grounded in both.

K.

And my elder sister is also a French Muslim citizen who lost her close friend in the Paris attacks. The French Muslim community are just as hurt and appalled by those incidents. I cried upon hearing of the Bataclan attack in the same way I cried when I heard of the Beirut bomb blast. I am not an 'explicit symbol of the ideology that was used to motivate and justify that, and other attacks', neither is my sister(s), the two French Muslim females denied service, or any other normal Muslim. We are not Daesh, Daesh do not represent us.

If a Palestinian held a negative and prejudiced belief about every single Israeli, then yes I'd condemn this.

I'm talking about what Muslims believe their religion to be. This discussion is not about Islamic theology or whether Islam permits sex-slaves.

If the majority of Muslims, including learned scholars, reject Daesh, then you cannot claim that Muslims support the actions of Daesh.

I don't see why the mere fact that it's "all ideology" should prevent us from distinguishing the ideologies and applying appropriate rules/exemptions thereof accordingly.

In the case of religion, the general exceptions to the Equality Act 2010 are in compliance with the right to free exercise of religion and is rooted in common sense (i.e. it would be ridiculous to force the Catholic Church to hire an atheist priest, or a Temple to hire a Muslim Imam). Such discrimination is, and should not be, unlawful on the basis that it respects the doctrine or the principles of the religion, and to avoid offending the religious beliefs of a significant number of people who follow the religion.

I disagree. Even the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which extends marriage to same sex couples nevertheless protects freedom of religion by giving explicit protection to religious organisations and their officials from being compelled by any means to carry out same sex marriages.

It's not always a matter of discriminating due to the belief that x minority is inferior for some y reason, but even if it is then the nature of religions is such that these exemptions must be made for the sake of common sense. It's not even about appeasing the religious voters since religious organisations are granted these rights and exemptions under Articles 9 and 11 of the ECHR.

Yes, that is the logical conclusion. Of course, those same Christians would not be allowed to discriminate when providing a service on behalf of a public authority.

Being "packaged in terms of sacredness" is not the only criterion I have in mind. I would give free passes to discriminate to specific conditions charities, LGBTQ+ events and support groups, etc.

Because it's an absurd, morally-dubious situation where you allow some ideologies to discriminate and yet forbid other ideologies from discriminating on the basis of [insert subjective, feelings-based reasoning here]. There is absolutely no logical justification for privileging religion in this sense other than subjective bias.

Why is it ridiculous to force the Catholic Church to hire an atheist priest, but it's not ridiculous to force a political party or other ideologically-driven organisation to hire someone they ideologically oppose on the basis of a protected characteristic?

The principle of freedom of religion has rarely ever been freedom to practise your religious beliefs however you so choose.

Also, why should discrimination principles be based on whether or not they offend a significant number of people? I am sure a significant number of racists are offended by anti-racial discrimination laws.

That was merely inserted to keep the Conservative membership happy. It also does not answer why it is morally justifiable to allow religions to discriminate, yet forbid other ideologies from discriminating.

I struggle to see how it is common sense unless you are saying that religions are superior to all other ideologies and deserve to discriminate, whereas other ideologies should be forbidden from discriminating. Why do you believe that religions should be allowed to discriminate above other ideologies? "Common sense" is not sufficient.

Also, Article 9 includes other ideological beliefs so you can't reference that as the justification for why religions should be privileged in this sense.

So you would be content with a situation in which a large amount of Christians could refuse to marry interracial couples?

My view is that we need to decide as a society whether we permit discrimination in an equal manner, or forbid it. We cannot have a situation where religions, as ideologies, are allowed to discriminate, whereas other ideologies cannot, without any tangible justification other than the subjective biases of a few.

The objective difference between the category of ideologies is very real.

Your argument assumes religious ideologies are logically equivalent to other ideologies, but it's a false equivocation; it violates the law of identity.

For the same reason it's ridiculous to force LGBT support groups to hire non-LGBT people, or to force women-only feminist events/institutions to hire men despite the fact that protected characteristics like sex, gender and sexual orientation are being discriminated upon.

I find it absolutely absurd that someone would be in favour of forcing Churches to hire non-Christian officials. What next, secular/atheistic organisations should be forced to hire religious representatives?

Provided that no one is being harmed, the principle of freedom of religion has always been in the form of negative liberty.

I'm sure there are, but once again you must assume absolute equivalence of a socio-political racist idealogy and religions for your argument to apply.

Evidence?

I've already explained why.

Article 9 is exclusively concerned with religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Sure.

And my view is that we as a society do not engage in simplistic, binary "all or nothing" reasoning and appreciate the nuance and differences, and afford exemptions accordingly.

You consider Islamic law of marriage as unjust, but Muslims don't agree.

The objective difference between the category of ideologies is very real. Your argument assumes religious ideologies are logically equivalent to other ideologies, but it's a false equivocation; it violates the law of identity.

For the same reason it's ridiculous to force LGBT support groups to hire non-LGBT people, or to force women-only feminist events/institutions to hire men despite the fact that protected characteristics like sex, gender and sexual orientation are being discriminated upon.

Really ?

now, that's a surprise

Of course! No religion in France. They can kick out every religious person they want.

Maybe they should to truly exemplify their secular values.

I don't think you understand what secular means.

And my elder sister is also a French Muslim citizen who lost her close friend in the Paris attacks. The French Muslim community are just as hurt and appalled by those incidents. I cried upon hearing of the Bataclan attack in the same way I cried when I heard of the Beirut bomb blast. I am not an 'explicit symbol of the ideology that was used to motivate and justify that, and other attacks', neither is my sister(s), the two French Muslim females denied service, or any other normal Muslim. We are not Daesh, Daesh do not represent us.

If a Palestinian held a negative and prejudiced belief about every single Israeli, then yes I'd condemn this.

I'm talking about what Muslims believe their religion to be. This discussion is not about Islamic theology or whether Islam permits sex-slaves. If the majority of Muslims, including learned scholars, reject Daesh, then you cannot claim that Muslims support the actions of Daesh.