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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    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?



    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.
    I agree it's discrimination and shouldn't be allowed. Not serving someone at all because they are of a religion is even worse discrimination but that doesn't excuse the former.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Almost all French terrorists have a profile of thug/drug dealers, radicalised in jail, and with Muslim Arab roots.

    EXACTLY! Your typical (female) drug dealer doesn't wear a hijab and regularly attends the mosque prayer does she?!

    Those French racists are targeting the very wrong target! Most terrorists weren't religious to start with, and they probably looked a lot more "liberal" than your typical practicing muslim prior to radicalising a few days before the act.
    The truth is that normal civilians should leave the "finding terrorists" job to the experts instead of unecessary and random racial profiling!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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?]
    in recent times, it seems that many Muslims actually want to wear some sort of an identity badge, so as to make their religious allegiance clearly visible - no need to make them wear anything

    it's all about identity politics, group allegiance, visibility, integration and separateness etc.

    Religious beliefs and political statements are by now so intertwined, that you cannot separate them easily (or at all)

    why did this sort of problems reach fever pitch right now ?
    Offline

    18
    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. It is a slippery slope which religions perpetuate.
    This particular incident being deemed unreasonable or not is dependent on whether religious institutions refusing to conduct gay marriages is also considered unreasonable??
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by candyaljamila)
    EXACTLY! Your typical (female) drug dealer doesn't wear a hijab and regularly attends the mosque prayer does she?!

    Those French racists are targeting the very wrong target! Most terrorists weren't religious to start with, and they probably looked a lot more "liberal" than your typical practicing muslim prior to radicalising a few days before the act.
    The truth is that normal civilians should leave the "finding terrorists" job to the experts instead of unecessary and random racial profiling!
    while I am also against discriminating people on the basis of religion, I feel that criticising this sudden search for visibility by Muslims is quite appropriate

    burkinis on the Nice beach should not be banned : however, they should be strongly criticised, in the appropriate fora (press, visual and social media)

    best
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by childofthesun)
    This particular incident being deemed unreasonable or not is dependent on whether religious institutions refusing to conduct gay marriages is also considered unreasonable??
    No, but it sets a precedent. Either discrimination is wrong, or it is acceptable. Which is it? For as long as religions are able to discriminate based on gender (Catholic Church not hiring female priests) and sexuality (synagogues not marrying gay couples), then a precedent has been set which this shop owner can follow.

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster has already become a registered religion in Netherlands, so it isn't difficult for someone to create a new religion that then allows them to discriminate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by candyaljamila)
    EXACTLY! Your typical (female) drug dealer doesn't wear a hijab and regularly attends the mosque prayer does she?!
    French terrorists often had women among their relatives that encouraged them in their enterprise. These women wore abayas and burqas.

    Drugdealing is ok as long as it is used to fund the act (or "djihad".

    (Original post by candyaljamila)
    Those French racists are targeting the very wrong target! Most terrorists weren't religious to start with, and they probably looked a lot more "liberal" than your typical practicing muslim prior to radicalising a few days before the act.
    The truth is that normal civilians should leave the "finding terrorists" job to the experts instead of unecessary and random racial profiling!
    "Racists": Islam is not a race. How many times will we have to say it?

    Maybe terrorists weren't religious at first, but they became religious at some point and certainly not "a few days before the act".

    The profiling that you denounce is made easy when Muslims "choose" to wear clothes that clearly identify them as such.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Making them wear an identity badge?
    They "choose" to wear an identity badge (as they keep saying it). People would like them to stop wearing such distinctive clothes. The situation is clearly not the same.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    No, but it sets a precedent. Either discrimination is wrong, or it is acceptable. Which is it? For as long as religions are able to discriminate based on gender (Catholic Church not hiring female priests) and sexuality (synagogues not marrying gay couples), then a precedent has been set which this shop owner can follow.

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster has already become a registered religion in Netherlands, so it isn't difficult for someone to create a new religion that then allows them to discriminate.
    Non-profit religious institutions, private clubs, etc are distinct from businesses; the former can discriminate. However, religious corporations and other businesses run by non-profits cannot discriminate. For example, if a church runs a store or hospital, it has to provide equal opportunities.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    They "choose" to wear an identity badge (as they keep saying it). People would like them to stop wearing such distinctive clothes. The situation is clearly not the same.
    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
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    French terrorists often had women among their relatives that encouraged them in their enterprise. These women wore abayas and burqas.

    Drugdealing is ok as long as it is used to fund the act (or "djihad".


    "Racists": Islam is not a race. How many times will we have to say it?
    Call it discriminatory then! Although in the case of muslims, lots of the time discrimination based on religion and race are often interlocked. Most muslims in the UK happen to be from south east asia especially from Pakistan or Bangladesh, and many of them also happen to be brown. Congruently, in France, most muslims happen to be north african arabs/berbers (as you previously mentionned) making them a target for mixed racism and islamophobia.

    Maybe terrorists weren't religious at first, but they became religious at some point and certainly not "a few days before the act".

    "Nice killer was radicalised just two weeks before the attack". Lots of police sources back then mentionned that one of the reasons they couldn't have stopped the attack was that his radicalisation happened within less than 14 DAYS!
    Unlike other terrorists who had "Fiche S", police didn't even have time to attribute one to him let alone realise what he was plotting!!

    The profiling that you denounce is made easy when Muslims "choose" to wear clothes that clearly identify them as such.
    I'm not discussing whether muslims dress choices are making it easier or harder for them. I'm talking about whether French people targeting them is helping reduce terrorism in any shape or form and the answer is NO!
    Answers within the quote.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Not all Jewish women wear a wig, but I would like them to stop doing that too. Nobody here mentioned "banning" head coverings.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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.
    If you read the thread, I said that people shouldn't discriminate on religion. I do think that business owners can demand a dress code from their customers, and asking to remove head coverings in a restaurant is certainly not inacceptable.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Apparently pandering to people's base desires, even if it entails bullying and intimidating minorities such that they're forced to live in fear and discard their cultural identities, is seen as understandable, even admirable these days.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    It's his right to ban them, whether he loses customers, that's his problem.
    You wouldn't say this if you worked in his kitchen. Cuz then him losing customers would mean you losing your job.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Edo123)
    You wouldn't say this if you worked in his kitchen. Cuz then him losing customers would mean you losing your job.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But I don't... sooooooooooooooooooo.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Not all Jewish women wear a wig, but I would like them to stop doing that too. Nobody here mentioned "banning" head coverings.



    If you read the thread, I said that people shouldn't discriminate on religion. I do think that business owners can demand a dress code from their customers, and asking to remove head coverings in a restaurant is certainly not inacceptable.
    The obvious danger is that people will discriminate against people of particular religions by pretending it's about dress code rather than religion.

    I'm proud that in Britain we have freedom of religion and people are free to express themselves in whichever way they wish so long as they don't pose a risk or danger to other people. Wearing religious wear is absolutely fine.

    I don't understand why people have difficulty in condemning someone who banned people from his shop simply because they were of a particular religion.

    If two Jewish people were banned from a shop for being Jewish there would rightfully be an outrage, why should it be different here?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by candyaljamila)
    Call it discriminatory then! Although in the case of muslims, lots of the time discrimination based on religion and race are often interlocked. Most muslims in the UK happen to be from south east asia especially from Pakistan or Bangladesh, and many of them also happen to be brown. Congruently, in France, most muslims happen to be north african arabs/berbers (as you previously mentionned) making them a target for mixed racism and islamophobia.
    Most French Muslims are not like in the UK. Kabyles are white, whiter than many Portuguese, Spaniards, Jews and Italians that live in France. You can't know whether someone is Muslim just by their skin colour.

    (Original post by candyaljamila)
    "Nice killer was radicalised just two weeks before the attack". Lots of police sources back then mentionned that one of the reasons they couldn't have stopped the attack was that his radicalisation happened within less than 14 DAYS!
    Unlike other terrorists who had "Fiche S", police didn't even have time to attribute one to him let alone realise what he was plotting!!
    The Nice killer was the first case with that profile. The 45 other terrorists share a similar profile of a slow radicalisation.

    (Original post by candyaljamila)
    I'm not discussing whether muslims dress choices are making it easier or harder for them. I'm talking about whether French people targeting them is helping reduce terrorism in any shape or form and the answer is NO!
    It's not about reducing terrorism; this restaurant owner wasn't thinking that he would reduce terrorism by expelling two customers. It's about rejecting a set of beliefs that is currently at odds with the rest of society. People are exasperated by Islam and would like it to disappear - at least visually.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Homosexuality is not a religion, Islam is - and its so much more than that.
    Why should "being a religion" provide any special priviledge not given to individuals?

    Plus, there are generally no physical features or clothing styles which allow for gay people to be discriminated on when they aren't with their community or with a partner. Muslims are discriminated against generally because of skin colour or clothing, the former of which is plain racism.
    Exactly. They are usually the subject of racism or xenophobia because they appear foreign, not because they are Muslim.

    And again, you are displaying your own innate racism by suggesting that all Muslims are a certain colour and dress a certain way.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I don't understand why people have difficulty in condemning someone who banned people from his shop simply because they were of a particular religion.

    If two Jewish people were banned from a shop for being Jewish there would rightfully be an outrage, why should it be different here?

    You can be Jewish and atheist. Jewishness is not necessarily a religion. Jews don't choose to be Jewish.

    The shop owner could have asked them to remove their skullcaps, but not expel them because they are Jewish; similarly, he could have asked these two Muslim women to remove their hijab, but - in this case - banning them for being Muslim was wrong.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    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
    I agree in this instance, but I'm just pointing out that calling people bigots adds nothing to a discussion. Your articulation in this comment of why the guy was in the wrong is far better, as it actually explains your thinking and the reasoning behind it. Screeching "bigot" is just fairly pointless, as an act or view that fits the definition of bigotry is not always necessarily unjustifiable, and context is everything (although I agree it is unjustified in this instance).
 
 
 
  • 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
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    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

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