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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teenhorrorstory)
    So it is reasonable to ban Muslims from his restaurant? Yes or No?
    No, but it's less reasonable to ban gays.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    There is indeed, by definition, one certain valid assumption we can make about the majority Muslims in general, regardless of race, nationality or culture.
    That is; they all believe the Quran to be the infallible and immutable word of god. True in its entirely, not rejecting a single verse.
    Because of this, it is therefore difficult to accept claims that most Muslims do not support actions permitted by the divine decree of the Quran.

    You can't have it both ways. The two positions are funamentally contradictory.
    In other words, it's difficult (for you) to accept the claim that most Muslims do not support ISIS despite polls and mainstream scholarly consensus suggesting otherwise?

    Have you considered the possibility that maybe, just maybe, people who believe in the infallibility of a text may interpret said text differently?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If two Jewish people were banned from a shop for being Jewish there would rightfully be an outrage, why should it be different here?
    Religious Jews never would eat in non-kosher restaurant. Also they have no habit of beheading priests in churches.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    people who believe in the infallibility of a text may interpret said text differently?
    Do you believe in the infallibility of the text?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    No, but it's less reasonable to ban gays.
    I didn't ask you
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Also they have no habit of beheading priests in churches.
    Neither do Hijab-wearing Muslims.

    Fortunately, the restaurant owner's has realised the folly of his irrational rage and has apologised to the affected parties.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Religious Jews never would eat in non-kosher restaurant. Also they have no habit of beheading priests in churches.
    The Muslims rejected service also don't have a habit of beheading priests in churches.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Do you believe in the infallibility of the text?
    Which text? The Qur'an? No, but I think a lot of it can be a good source of guidance for a spiritually-inclined Muslim.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iEthan)
    So that gives someone the right to treat their fellow human as unequal? Ok then. SMH.
    No, owning a restaurant gives someone the right to decide who may or may not eat in that restaurant (whatever French law may have to say on the matter).
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    No, owning a restaurant gives someone the right to decide who may or may not eat in that restaurant (whatever French law may have to say on the matter).
    Thank you, your honour.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    No, owning a restaurant gives someone the right to decide who may or may not eat in that restaurant (whatever French law may have to say on the matter).
    And not allowing someone to enter because of their religion is discriminatory.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iEthan)
    Thank you, your honour.
    You're welcome. I'll be here to clear up any other matters which you may be confused about.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    And not allowing someone to enter because of their religion is discriminatory.
    I agree :dontknow:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    It depends entirely on what the reasons and context were.

    There is indeed, by definition, one certain valid assumption we can make about the majority Muslims in general, regardless of race, nationality or culture.
    That is; they all believe the Quran to be the infallible and immutable word of god. True in its entirely, not rejecting a single verse.
    Because of this, it is therefore difficult to accept claims that most Muslims do not support actions permitted by the divine decree of the Quran.

    You can't have it both ways. The two positions are funamentally contradictory.
    We're talking about this particular incident. Read the article for the 'reason and context' if you haven't already.

    No it's not difficult. The majority of Muslims do not support Daesh,nor do they believe that their acts are endorsed by the Quran. They also do not follow one single interpretation of the Quran or practice in the exact same way.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Peer Support Volunteers
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Peer Support Volunteers
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    You're welcome. I'll be here to clear up any other matters which you may be confused about.
    Much appreciated
    Spoiler:
    Show
    Good response too, it has to be said. Quick witted!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    WTF?
    How does being in a relationship suddenly make homosexuality a choice?

    That has got to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard!
    I didn't say it makes it a choice.

    Is the owner allowed to refuse service to a gay couple instead of a single gay individual in the sense that a gay person can 'choose' to be in a gay relationship?
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Non-profit religious institutions, private clubs, etc are distinct from businesses; the former can discriminate.
    Which is an artificial distinction created by law to appease the religious vote and to stop private men's clubs from having to admit women.

    On a moral and social level, the person you quoted is right: this sets a precedent where the restaurant manager is fully entitled to ask "well if that synagogue can refuse to marry gays, why can't I refuse to serve gays?". I don't think referring to artificial distinctions in the law adequately settles that question.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Backed up by science.
    the same science that says that two men or two women can't create a baby together. so i never understand why gays claim its natural for two people of the same sex to be parents to a child when even science says a man and a woman are needed. not just to create the child but to normalise its upbringing.
    every person needs a mother and a father!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Not so. Bigotry is the "unreasonable intolerance of the views of others".
    It is entirely reasonable to be intolerant of some things.

    Discrimination and bigotry are two different things.

    Anyone selecting a successful job candidate, or judging a competition, or choosing a restaurant is "discriminating". It is only "unreasonable" discrimination that is unacceptable.
    You've basically backed up my point while saying you disagree with it. Of course not all discrimination is wrong but not allowing someone into a shop simply because of their religion is certainly unreasonable discrimination as it punishes people who have done nothing wrong.

    I don't believe in a thought police. We are allowed to think and believe whatever we want. To not serve someone who has done nothing wrong except hold a belief you disagree with is unreasonable discrimination and that was the instance in this case.

    Also that applies to people who hold Neo Nash beliefs. You cannot punish someone for having evil thoughts.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    No, owning a restaurant gives someone the right to decide who may or may not eat in that restaurant (whatever French law may have to say on the matter).
    Should they be allowed to refuse to serve black people or disabled people? Its a dangerous precedent.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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.