ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gay rights issues , religious rights issues , supreme court cases

Reply
Old 11th July 2017, 11:58 AM   #241
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,861
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Only because "don't be a dick" is hard to legally define. We've got it in about a dozen rules, here.

But again, even with a much longer list, I'm happier evaluating whether some niche behavior is beyond the pale than whether the owner's ****headed bigotry is ****headed enough that he shouldn't be allowed to act on it.
What if I had a bad experience with a particular client before? Does that count? There's just so many possible cases. Imagine being sued for denial of service based on something like that.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 12:05 PM   #242
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,861
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
I didn't mean fighting either.
FFS it was just an example.

Quote:
Shouting, cussing, verbal harassment, and generally being a nuisance or preventing others from enjoying the setting (especially considering the owner's intentions about said setting) can all fall under disturbance/disorderly laws.
How about something below that threshold? You haven't addressed this from two posters now, and this little distraction is completely besides the point, which is what you CAN legally deny service to people for a variety of reasons, and the idea that you shouldn't because you have a business open to the public is ridiculous and naive.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 12:08 PM   #243
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,309
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
What if I had a bad experience with a particular client before? Does that count? There's just so many possible cases. Imagine being sued for denial of service based on something like that.
Don't you have to worry about that anyway? What if you have a bad experience with a particular client of a protected class? What if they're being disruptive? Do you have to serve them regardless?
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 12:10 PM   #244
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,861
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Don't you have to worry about that anyway? What if you have a bad experience with a particular client of a protected class? What if they're being disruptive? Do you have to serve them regardless?
Denying service to a black person isn't illegal if you're not denying service because of race. 'Course, you might have to demonstrate that and all.

But if we have to worry about that anyway, I prefer the shorter list.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 12:12 PM   #245
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,292
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
Don't you have to worry about that anyway? What if you have a bad experience with a particular client of a protected class? What if they're being disruptive? Do you have to serve them regardless?
You know that is not actually the issue in this case at all. The issue here is denying people service because of a protected class, but one that your religious views says needs to be discriminated against.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 12:21 PM   #246
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,309
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Denying service to a black person isn't illegal if you're not denying service because of race. 'Course, you might have to demonstrate that and all.

But if we have to worry about that anyway, I prefer the shorter list.
But you have to maintain both, don't you? You can't deny service to someone of a protected class without an acceptable reason. Why not just say you can't deny service to anyone without an acceptable reason?

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle
You know that is not actually the issue in this case at all. The issue here is denying people service because of a protected class, but one that your religious views says needs to be discriminated against.
I know. But the issue would be greatly simplified if it was clearly a matter of pure discrimination, without people whining about being "forced" to provide service to the protected class, as if it were such an unfair imposition to have to treat them like decent human beings.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 12:24 PM   #247
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,861
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
But you have to maintain both, don't you? You can't deny service to someone of a protected class without an acceptable reason. Why not just say you can't deny service to anyone without an acceptable reason?
That sounds like what I said a few posts ago: justified vs unjustified.

You might be right. I have to think about this some more.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 12:35 PM   #248
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Denying service to a black person isn't illegal if you're not denying service because of race. 'Course, you might have to demonstrate that and all.
This is the loophole that gets tried over and over. We had an example a few years ago with a branch of the Royal Canadian Legion that refused to let a Sikh man in.
  • Interviewer: So, you ban Sikhs?
  • Legion: No, we ban headgear. Men have to remove their hats.
  • Interviewer: But that guy over there, he's wearing a hat.
  • Legion: Right, ok, we ban headgear, unless it's service uniform. It's a Legion, so people are allowed to wear their uniforms, even if there's a head covering.
  • Interviewer: The Sikh's turban was part of his official Royal Canadian Army uniform.
  • Legion: Right, ok, what I meant was we allow "traditional" Canadian uniforms.
  • Interviewer: So, what other official headcoverings are banned?
  • Legion: Um... I guess it's just turbans.
  • Interviewer: And we're back to, So, you ban Sikhs?

And on and on in a circle.

Another example I came across this year was Paris banning Donair shops "because they don't match the traditional French atmosphere." Do they ban sushi shops? Well no. Pizza parlours? Chinese restaurants? McDonald's? No, no, no, and nope. So... best I could tell, the point of the exercise was to not let Muslims have anything everybody else has a right to?
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 12:38 PM   #249
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,277
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
FFS it was just an example.



How about something below that threshold? You haven't addressed this from two posters now, and this little distraction is completely besides the point, which is what you CAN legally deny service to people for a variety of reasons, and the idea that you shouldn't because you have a business open to the public is ridiculous and naive.
I've never disagreed that owners can deny service for various reasons.

What I find objectionable is placing being homosexual or black or from a given country or region in the same category of valid reasons as being an *******.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 12:39 PM   #250
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,292
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
But you have to maintain both, don't you? You can't deny service to someone of a protected class without an acceptable reason. Why not just say you can't deny service to anyone without an acceptable reason?
So what is your legal definition of acceptable reason? What would you class poor hygiene as?

What about say hitting on the waitresses, and I mean serious unwanted advances. It is not sexual harassment because that takes rather more time

Quote:
I know. But the issue would be greatly simplified if it was clearly a matter of pure discrimination, without people whining about being "forced" to provide service to the protected class, as if it were such an unfair imposition to have to treat them like decent human beings.
Hey their religion says they can not treat certain people as if they were people, and this can not negatively effect them, only the non people.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 12:42 PM   #251
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,472
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
Another example I came across this year was Paris banning Donair shops "because they don't match the traditional French atmosphere."
You mean Venice due to decorum (and possibly Verona). Not Paris.

Not a very good link, but here we go:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7722846.html

That being the independent and the other I found the daily mail, I suspect it is an outright lie and not a banning, but rather a limitation on allowing new shop to be opened, imposing a quota of shop.


There is a lot of doner shop in paris. In fact the wiki on doner has a photo of one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebab_shop

Paristambul.

And I could on top of my head tell you about a few more near "porte de la chapelle"

ETA: And searching for Paris ban kebap lead only to "venice" and "veronna" bans kebap from daily sun and independent as first link.

Also , this : https://www.yelp.com/search?cflt=kebab&find_loc=Paris

In other word I suspect there is no Paris ban of kebap / Döner shop at all.

Last edited by Aepervius; 11th July 2017 at 12:45 PM.
Aepervius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 12:43 PM   #252
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,309
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
  • Legion: Um... I guess it's just turbans.
See, that's his mistake, right here. He should have repeated "any other headgear" and gone on the attack, listing actually offensive headgear like giant dick hats and trucker hats with racial slurs as if they and turbans are in the same class of hat, in order to put the interviewer on the defensive.

I know you're not used to aggressively wallowing in racist ignorance, but come on, step it up, Canada. We can lend you some experts if you need help.

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
So what is your legal definition of acceptable reason? What would you class poor hygiene as?

What about say hitting on the waitresses, and I mean serious unwanted advances. It is not sexual harassment because that takes rather more time
I dunno, what's the current legal definition for the purposes of denying service to an otherwise protected class? I'm only saying we can do away with "to an otherwise protected class," and have it apply to everyone of any class.

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 11th July 2017 at 12:46 PM.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 12:49 PM   #253
JoeBentley
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeBentley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 7,039
Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
This is the loophole that gets tried over and over. We had an example a few years ago with a branch of the Royal Canadian Legion that refused to let a Sikh man in.
  • Interviewer: So, you ban Sikhs?
  • Legion: No, we ban headgear. Men have to remove their hats.
  • Interviewer: But that guy over there, he's wearing a hat.
  • Legion: Right, ok, we ban headgear, unless it's service uniform. It's a Legion, so people are allowed to wear their uniforms, even if there's a head covering.
  • Interviewer: The Sikh's turban was part of his official Royal Canadian Army uniform.
  • Legion: Right, ok, what I meant was we allow "traditional" Canadian uniforms.
  • Interviewer: So, what other official headcoverings are banned?
  • Legion: Um... I guess it's just turbans.
  • Interviewer: And we're back to, So, you ban Sikhs?

And on and on in a circle.
The problem is in 99% of cases that's the exact opposite of what happens here in America.

I can't wear a hat when getting my license picture taken, but a turban or a kippah or yamaluke are different because of the magic "R" word.

You wouldn't expect to walk into a bank wearing a ski mask and nobody have a problem with it and that shouldn't magically change if it is a religious veil of some sort.
__________________
Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.
JoeBentley is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 01:09 PM   #254
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,292
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
I dunno, what's the current legal definition for the purposes of denying service to an otherwise protected class? I'm only saying we can do away with "to an otherwise protected class," and have it apply to everyone of any class.
Not to a class to a person. All people are members of various classes that it is illegal to discriminate against.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 01:13 PM   #255
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,292
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
The problem is in 99% of cases that's the exact opposite of what happens here in America.
Not at all. Bans on cultural artifacts associated with religious or ethnic minorities are a really common way to ban religious indidivuals or make things harder for certain ethnicities, while not flat out banning the religion/ minority
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 02:39 PM   #256
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...t-nominee.html

He is marked there as to the right of scalia. He just has a bit more tact, though hates the idea of the courts being anything other than a brake on progress. He seems the kind to proudly be against brown vs board of ed for example. That sort of thing should have been handled legislatively.

Got any sources saying he is actually to the left of Scalia?
Congratulations, you finally found a link that at least makes a claim that Gorsuch might be to the right of Scalia! I emphasize might because they're not actually making an analysis based on Gorsuch's opinions, which if they did they'd discover that Gorsuch is substantially less favorable to police than Scalia, but rather estimates based on the senators and the governor of the state that nominated him and his campaign donations.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 02:44 PM   #257
Newtons Bit
Penultimate Amazing
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,016
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
FFS it was just an example.



How about something below that threshold? You haven't addressed this from two posters now, and this little distraction is completely besides the point, which is what you CAN legally deny service to people for a variety of reasons, and the idea that you shouldn't because you have a business open to the public is ridiculous and naive.
I think there's a lot of people here who want to avoid the uncomfortable reasoning on why kicking someone out who is wearing a KKK outfit, or even a Confederate Flag shirt might be okay, but denying service to someone with a shirt that had the words of something like QS 5:51 would be illegal...
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 02:48 PM   #258
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,861
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
I've never disagreed that owners can deny service for various reasons.

What I find objectionable is placing being homosexual or black or from a given country or region in the same category of valid reasons as being an *******.
I think we all agree to that.

Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
This is the loophole that gets tried over and over. We had an example a few years ago with a branch of the Royal Canadian Legion that refused to let a Sikh man in.
I understand the example, but does that mean that dress codes of any sort are unconstitutional to impose on new recruits because some religion, somewhere, might mandate a different dress code?
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 03:06 PM   #259
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,525
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I understand the example, but does that mean that dress codes of any sort are unconstitutional to impose on new recruits because some religion, somewhere, might mandate a different dress code?
The Royal Canadian Legion is equivalent to the American Legion, a veterans organization - it's not a military. The point of the story is that a chapter of this organization found a specific piece of headwear unacceptable, despite the fact the headwear was allowed by Canadian military regulations and despite the fact that they allow other official military headwear, presumably because the turban made them feel uncomfortable.
__________________
Never let anyone forget that the American people elected a rapist to be their president. President Rapist is the only name that should be used when referring to this evil narcissist.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 03:43 PM   #260
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,320
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
The false equivalence there is that "God hates fags" is not an immutable characteristic.
About these immutable characteristics....

As a philosophical position, it's all well and good, but as a legal position, it has no meaning. Religion, a mutable characteristic, is treated the same as sexual orientation, an immutable characteristic. If you try to base the law on immutable characteristics, you are reading something into the law that isn't there.

If a baker will gladly make a "Jesus Loves You" cake, but refuses to make an "All Hail the Goddess" cake, he is discriminating based on religion, and it presents exactly the same issue that is present in this case, from a legal perspective.
__________________
Don't blame me. I voted for Kasich.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 04:36 PM   #261
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I understand the example, but does that mean that dress codes of any sort are unconstitutional to impose on new recruits because some religion, somewhere, might mandate a different dress code?
Not in general. The issue is about 'reasonable accommodation' and also whether it is very evident that the rule is crafted specifically to exclude people from a specific religion, which would be illegal.

I spent a lot of years dealing with people who thought they'd discovered a loophole.

"You can't fine me for operating a restaurant without a license. I have a business license, see?" (holds up piece of torn out phonebook page with the words 'offishul bisnus lisiuns' on it, written in crayon)
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 04:40 PM   #262
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I understand the example, but does that mean that dress codes of any sort are unconstitutional to impose on new recruits because some religion, somewhere, might mandate a different dress code?
I'm not sure what you mean by recruits.

The Legion is a club for verterans, basically a drinking establishment, although they also have the occasional bingo night.

They invented a rule that they thought would allow them to turn away all Sikhs and most Muslims (the branch in question was in North Vancouver which has a high Ismaili population, the men tend to wear turbans) with impunity.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 04:45 PM   #263
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
The problem is in 99% of cases that's the exact opposite of what happens here in America.

I can't wear a hat when getting my license picture taken, but a turban or a kippah or yamaluke are different because of the magic "R" word.
R for Reasonable Accommodation?


Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
You wouldn't expect to walk into a bank wearing a ski mask and nobody have a problem with it and that shouldn't magically change if it is a religious veil of some sort.
It doesn't magically change. People generally have a problem with 'those smelly people and their funny clothes' - thus the exercise in reasonable accommodation. These are one offs that a society of grownups can handle without considering it a crisis.

And worth noting, nobody cared when it was nuns, which brings us back to the "why the new rule? why now?" that leads one to believe that it's not about the face coverings, it's about focused hostility to one specific ethnicity.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 04:48 PM   #264
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Not at all. Bans on cultural artifacts associated with religious or ethnic minorities are a really common way to ban religious indidivuals or make things harder for certain ethnicities, while not flat out banning the religion/ minority
France is in the middle of a bunch of these. Can't cover your face in public. Well, ski masks are OK, but not Burkas. For some reason.

And new bylaws, (Verona is it?) wants to preserve its Frenchness, so all those kebab kiosks have to go. Sushi bars? Pizza parlours? Korean BBQ? McDonald's? Oh, those can stay, they're, um, French or something. Look, stop asking all these questions... or are you working for ISIS or something?
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by blutoski; 11th July 2017 at 04:50 PM.
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 04:53 PM   #265
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
You mean Venice due to decorum (and possibly Verona). Not Paris.

Not a very good link, but here we go:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7722846.html

That being the independent and the other I found the daily mail, I suspect it is an outright lie and not a banning, but rather a limitation on allowing new shop to be opened, imposing a quota of shop.


There is a lot of doner shop in paris. In fact the wiki on doner has a photo of one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebab_shop

Paristambul.

And I could on top of my head tell you about a few more near "porte de la chapelle"

ETA: And searching for Paris ban kebap lead only to "venice" and "veronna" bans kebap from daily sun and independent as first link.

Also , this : https://www.yelp.com/search?cflt=kebab&find_loc=Paris

In other word I suspect there is no Paris ban of kebap / Döner shop at all.
Correct. Kebabs, not Donairs. The big sweep is in Marseille, it was Béziers two years ago. [France's Kebab Crackdown]

My point is: the architects think they found a loophole. ("OK, we can't just ban muzzies, but we can ban their culture maybe. But we can't admit that's what we're doing, so position it as preserving our culture - our culture being everything that's not their culture I guess.")
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 04:56 PM   #266
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,578
Originally Posted by Aepervius View Post
That being the independent and the other I found the daily mail, I suspect it is an outright lie and not a banning, but rather a limitation on allowing new shop to be opened, imposing a quota of shop.
Actually they are not limiting license count, but rather allowing international kebab chains (broad ownership), while refusing to renew licenses in independently owned kebab stores (muslim ownership).

Again: the key is to find a loophole. It's not even about kebabs. It's about who can profit from them. No such restrictions on pizza, sushi, or other 'ethnic' stores.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 04:58 PM   #267
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,861
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
The Royal Canadian Legion is equivalent to the American Legion, a veterans organization - it's not a military. The point of the story is that a chapter of this organization found a specific piece of headwear unacceptable, despite the fact the headwear was allowed by Canadian military regulations and despite the fact that they allow other official military headwear, presumably because the turban made them feel uncomfortable.
In this specific case perhaps but my question was more general.

Originally Posted by blutoski View Post
I'm not sure what you mean by recruits.

The Legion is a club for verterans, basically a drinking establishment, although they also have the occasional bingo night.

They invented a rule that they thought would allow them to turn away all Sikhs and most Muslims (the branch in question was in North Vancouver which has a high Ismaili population, the men tend to wear turbans) with impunity.
Again, I'm asking about the general idea. Would a theoretical armed forces of a country which a strict dress code be able to exclude Sikhs who refuse to wear the official uniform?
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 05:06 PM   #268
Babbylonian
Philosopher
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 9,525
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
In this specific case perhaps but my question was more general.

Again, I'm asking about the general idea. Would a theoretical armed forces of a country which a strict dress code be able to exclude Sikhs who refuse to wear the official uniform?
Why make it general or theoretical? The Canadian military apparently already decided to accommodate this. In the absence of a good reason not to do so (besides making some people uncomfortable), it seems that any military of a society with religious freedom should do the same.
__________________
Never let anyone forget that the American people elected a rapist to be their president. President Rapist is the only name that should be used when referring to this evil narcissist.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 05:27 PM   #269
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,861
Originally Posted by Babbylonian View Post
Why make it general or theoretical?
Because we're discussing the limits of the principle. It stands to reason that we have to do this sort of exercise in order to determine where we stand on this. Refusing to do so would give the impression that one would rather not discuss it lest they reveal some sort of inconsistency to their thinking.

Quote:
The Canadian military apparently already decided to accommodate this.
Irrelevant.

Quote:
In the absence of a good reason not to do so (besides making some people uncomfortable), it seems that any military of a society with religious freedom should do the same.
Having a uniform that applies to all members seems like a good reason to me.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2017, 10:37 PM   #270
Sherkeu
Thinker
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 181
A baker can already refuse to make a cake that is x-rated, or has some lewd messaging, just like any photographer or a pool designer can.

But if the cake is the same type of expression, in line with other cakes, then the only difference is that it goes to the gay wedding.

What if I order a fun wedding cake for a gay friend's birthday? Will the baker have to make it?
If a gay man orders a wedding style cake for a 'surprise' wedding and the baker finds out later, could he legally sue?
Does a 'commitment ceremony' count too?
How about a gay engagement party?
If I say it is for Chris and Pat, would a baker have a right to ask the genders? What if I lie?
Will there be laws that customers must truthfully disclose the purpose of any wedding cakes?

It's just ridiculous to fathom all the stupid things that go along with letting the baker discriminate this way with any legal standing.

A baker can restrict what 'type' of cakes they are willing to make (No fondant! Nothing over 4 feet! Glitter is an abomination to my senses!) but I don't think they should be able to dictate how their cake is used.

They shouldn't have a right to know the cake I just ordered is really for the Youtube wedding of my cat to a portrait of David Hasselhoff.

Last edited by Sherkeu; 11th July 2017 at 10:39 PM. Reason: spelling
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 03:04 AM   #271
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,292
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
Congratulations, you finally found a link that at least makes a claim that Gorsuch might be to the right of Scalia! I emphasize might because they're not actually making an analysis based on Gorsuch's opinions, which if they did they'd discover that Gorsuch is substantially less favorable to police than Scalia, but rather estimates based on the senators and the governor of the state that nominated him and his campaign donations.
And of course your position being totally with out evidence is easy dismissed. After all there is Hitchens Razor.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 03:08 AM   #272
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,292
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I understand the example, but does that mean that dress codes of any sort are unconstitutional to impose on new recruits because some religion, somewhere, might mandate a different dress code?
It is generally pretty easy to see if dress codes are intended to target a specific protected class or serve a legitimate function.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 03:11 AM   #273
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,292
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Having a uniform that applies to all members seems like a good reason to me.

Which is why they need to ban outside uniforms like canadian military ones, too confusing.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 03:38 AM   #274
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,861
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
It is generally pretty easy to see if dress codes are intended to target a specific protected class or serve a legitimate function.
That doesn't answer my question.
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 03:59 AM   #275
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,320
Originally Posted by Sherkeu View Post
A baker can already refuse to make a cake that is x-rated, or has some lewd messaging, just like any photographer or a pool designer can.

But if the cake is the same type of expression, in line with other cakes, then the only difference is that it goes to the gay wedding.

What if I order a fun wedding cake for a gay friend's birthday? Will the baker have to make it?
If a gay man orders a wedding style cake for a 'surprise' wedding and the baker finds out later, could he legally sue?
Does a 'commitment ceremony' count too?
How about a gay engagement party?
If I say it is for Chris and Pat, would a baker have a right to ask the genders? What if I lie?
Will there be laws that customers must truthfully disclose the purpose of any wedding cakes?

It's just ridiculous to fathom all the stupid things that go along with letting the baker discriminate this way with any legal standing.

A baker can restrict what 'type' of cakes they are willing to make (No fondant! Nothing over 4 feet! Glitter is an abomination to my senses!) but I don't think they should be able to dictate how their cake is used.

They shouldn't have a right to know the cake I just ordered is really for the Youtube wedding of my cat to a portrait of David Hasselhoff.
For what it's worth, this particular baker was perfectly willing to make a cake for a gay person's birthday. He wasn't willing to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding.

We really don't know exactly what he will or will not make, because the conversation that started this litigation was literally only a few seconds long. His lawyers have subsequently said that he would be willing to make an "off the shelf", i.e. non-custom, cake for use at a gay wedding. It was only a custom wedding cake that he refused to do. I read recently that, pending the outcome of this litigation, this particular baker has stopped producing wedding cakes entirely. Regardless what he, specifically, was willing to do, there are plenty of people and quite a few examples of litigation involving same sex marriages and providers of wedding related services, from florists to ministers, that this case will affect.

These are issues the court will have to deal with. On the one hand, I think Kennedy+4 will be inclined toward supporting the baker, but will struggle with how to write their order in such a way that it protects the free speech rights of the baker without gutting civil rights laws and, just as importantly, actually clarifies a law instead of creating hopeless confusion. After their ruling, will the various people who write and enforce civil rights law know where the limits of those laws may extend?
__________________
Don't blame me. I voted for Kasich.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 04:01 AM   #276
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,292
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
That doesn't answer my question.
Because your question is silly and moot. It doesn't matter if some religion somewhere contradicts the dress code, it matters if it is targeted at local religious/ethnic minorities. The groups targeted are very clear. If the dress code might possibly discriminate against the Sami people it would only matter if they were local.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 04:08 AM   #277
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,320
I would like to see if anyone is willing to address one of the examples I brought up. I'll make the question more clear.

If a baker who does custom decorating is willing to make a custom produced cake with Christian symbols or statements on it, should he be required to make one with Wiccan symbols or statements on it?

It seems to me that the legal issues in such a case would be identical to the case of this baker and the gay wedding.
__________________
Don't blame me. I voted for Kasich.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 04:16 AM   #278
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 38,292
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I would like to see if anyone is willing to address one of the examples I brought up. I'll make the question more clear.

If a baker who does custom decorating is willing to make a custom produced cake with Christian symbols or statements on it, should he be required to make one with Wiccan symbols or statements on it?

It seems to me that the legal issues in such a case would be identical to the case of this baker and the gay wedding.
What magic symbols did this couple want on their cake?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 04:24 AM   #279
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 63,861
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Because your question is silly and moot. It doesn't matter if some religion somewhere contradicts the dress code, it matters if it is targeted at local religious/ethnic minorities.
It's not silly and moot: The question is about a scenario where there it is NOT targeted. In that scenario, do we allow the armed forces to refuse Sikhs because they don't want to obey the dress code?
__________________
"So let it be written. So let it be done."
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 04:28 AM   #280
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,309
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I would like to see if anyone is willing to address one of the examples I brought up. I'll make the question more clear.

If a baker who does custom decorating is willing to make a custom produced cake with Christian symbols or statements on it, should he be required to make one with Wiccan symbols or statements on it?
He should be required to provide a blank cake and a piping bag for them to finish it off themselves. That's the point at which the item starts being offensive to him, isn't it?

In this case, the baker should be required to make the same kind of wedding cake he'd make for a straight couple, but give the couple the second dude to put on top of the cake. If they don't opt for anything explicitly gay, the cake itself can't be objectionable, can it?

But I think it was pretty clear that he wasn't going to bake any cake for these gayballs, no way no how.

Regardless of what the lawyer says about custom cakes, any conversation that lasts less than thirty seconds yet provokes a lawsuit, A) isn't going to leave much room for fiddly nuance later, and B) probably involved some choice language, though that's speculation on my part.

Last edited by Beelzebuddy; 12th July 2017 at 04:29 AM.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.