Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rohan187)
    Last I checked "the gay gene" was a theory.
    "Inherent" is more accurate than "genetic", but the implication is the same.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    "Inherent" is more accurate than "genetic", but the implication is the same.
    Is there proof? This is a bit new to me. It'll give me something to read whilst I'm dying of boredom.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sisuphos)
    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?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGuyReturns)
    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?
    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".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by childofthesun)
    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?
    It's unreasonable, but not as unreasonable as refusing to serve someone on the basis of judging them for something that doesn't necessarily tell you a lot about the person, such as a skin colour or sexual disposition, as opposed to a belief system that you dedicate your life to. That's the point.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sisuphos)
    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".

    (Original post by Sisuphos)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Not serving two people who have done nothing wrong based purely on their religion is bigotry.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    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.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGuyReturns)
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sisuphos)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    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.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGuyReturns)
    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.
    I didn't. I said, in fact, some people will take advantage of the anti-Islam sentiment and discriminate against Muslims to a greater extent than they would've in the past (that sounds to me like the invisible hand would allow more discrimination than otherwise?). But still, those would be a tiny minority of businessmen. As they are.

    K.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    Okay so let me get this straight... you mean to say "
    discriminating" against a Muslim is right because of their beliefs?
    Let me correct you here because that is being an "Islamophobic" and an "Extremist".
    You can't discriminate against someone who is there just to eat in a restaurant that is open for everyone. This isn't some job interview so get a better sh!t excuse next time.
    Next time you show up at my restaurant I'll surely kick you out. Why you ask? Maybe I don't like your face.
    Muslim aren't a race but surely you can discriminate against them. Sounds just like a racist again.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I really hope no more terrorist attacks happen in Paris or anywhere else, but I can't be the only one who thinks that it's not the average muslim that got offended by this man's words. If anything, the vast majority of the muslim community in Paris are glad to know that this man's bar is not worth it. The extremists, however - I think this idiot has just helped them decide what their next target is.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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?
    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?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    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.
    It always argue it's wrong to punish people for things they have not done. It doesn't matter what your beliefs are, if you have never actually done anything wrong you should not be punished simply for sharing a characteristic with people who have.

    That goes for everything.

    Banning people from your shop simply because they are Muslim clearly is wrong. Its punishing people for something they have not done. Had one of those two Muslims been involved in terror attacks then fair enough, but as far as I'm aware they were not.

    I don't believe in a thought police. Evil thoughts should not be punishable.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This process really surprises me with how regressive it can be. Two Muslims, who had done nothing wrong were banned from a shop simply because they were Muslim.

    Imagine if two Jewish people were banned from a shop because they were Jewish.
    Banning people from shops on religious grounds didn't really work out too well for humanity in the 1930s.


    Its a scary thought. It starts with banning Muslims from shops but then what? Banning them from parks and public areas? Making them wear an identity badge?

    I'll always maintain that we should not punish people for things they have not done. If two Muslims have done nothing wrong, why should they be punished?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by childofthesun)
    Refusing to serve Muslims is not unreasonable?
    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. It is a slippery slope which religions perpetuate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    These two women were wearing a hijab, he didn't discriminate them because of their skin colour, but their clothes. Nobody would have given a damn if he had refused to serve people wearing caps (it is an expensive restaurant). His mistake was to say that "all Muslims are terrorists" and "I don't serve Muslims".

    Almost all French terrorists have a profile of thug/drug dealers, radicalised in jail, and with Muslim Arab roots.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    Ah, so if a religious book preaches discrimination, it becomes permissible? So if there was a theoretical religious text that said "if you own a shop, do not serve Asian people", then it would be fine under that context for a shop owner to refuse to serve Asian people?

    Not serving someone in a shop because of their religion really is a dangerous precedent.
    The dangerous precedent has been set by conservative religions. They will quite happily discriminate against gay people in the case of marriage. The Catholic Church refuses to ordain female priests. These are all aspects of discrimination.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.