Hell, we could tell that just by looking at her face!
They are not mutually exclusive. The KKK is a Christian organization - or more precisely, an organization made up of people who consider themselves Christian. And a minority Christian sect could easily say that discrimination and the wearing of pointy hoods is integral to their religion. And if you demand that the niqabs and burqas must be allowed in businesses, then a religious sect of white nationalists could demand that their pointy white hoods with full face coverings must be allowed, too.
So, again, religion must not be privileged. The same rights that apply to us all must apply equally to people who are religious. So if full face Halloween masks and balaclavas are allowed, then definitely the niqabs and burqas should be allowed on the exact same basis. But if they are banned, then that applies to full face coverings whether you are Islamic are not.
6 Likes
Let me rephrase the question then… Would it be okay for me to not serve members of Fred Phelps’ " God Hates Fags" church. Yeah, they are assholes, but they also are members of a religious group. And I certainly would not serve them. And according to public accommodation laws I’d be in violation and probably get sued and lose.
To me these types of quasi-religion and religious ideas represent racism, homophobia and sexism. I don’t wish to participate.
1 Like
I’m not so sure about that. You’d still be refusing to serve them for a number of reasons besides them being religious. For instance, they’re belligerent assholes, their presence is likely to hinder business, they’d likely only be there specifically to harm your business, they likely would be upsetting your customers, and they’d likely be breaking general rules of conduct in your store regardless of whatever they believe in. Because they’re generally shitty hateful people we don’t need to discriminate against them on any religious grounds.
4 Likes
If your business is a public accommodation, then no, probably not. You can’t kick them out just because of their religious views, no matter how much their views may offend you. Overall, that’s a good thing because that means that business run by people like them can’t kick you out for your religious views, either.
However, if their behavior in the business was against your regular business rules, such as if they were being loud in a way that you consistently prohibit and evenly enforce, then you could kick them out for their behavior, but not for their beliefs.
7 Likes
And as has been pointed out in the rest of the thread, it’s not even a requirement of Islam. The requirement in Islam is the same as in other Judeo-Christian sects: people are to dress modestly. It’s why Pentecostals wear long skirts (aside from hiding the leg hair), and why Amish and Mennonites wear head bonnets.
The town I live in has women who wear niqabs, even in weather like this week when it’s been 95 and something around 99% humidity, and It’s something that, as an outsider, I always scratch my head at. It might seem modest to them, but to me, it draws attention to them. The “requirement” comes from partly from a religious-ish mandate, and partly from the misogynist-as-fuck demand that young women not wear tank tops to school: because, oh, men can’t control themselves, so ladies, you have to cover up so the men can tame their animal urges! So forgive me if I rage a bit if I see a woman, out in the sun on a hot & humid day, wearing a black niqab while her asshole husband is standing their in his shorts and tshirt. I live in a college town. I’m used to seeing young, attractive women wearing very little clothing at times. It’s okay. Just wear a modest shirt and pants. I won’t try to rape you if I can see your hair, for God’s sake.
The manager kicking someone out for wearing a hijab is, of course, a different matter entirely, because that’s just stupid.
4 Likes
Then the men who gaze should wear blinders.
Averting a threatening look or action can never be the responsibility of the other.
3 Likes
I can appreciate the sentiment, but blinds wouldn’t be very practical. More to the point, patriarchs of religions should be called out when they claim that there is no reasonable expectation for men to have any self discipline. And that’s the sorry paradox of authoritarianism in a nutshell - if you and your followers demonstrate such a lack of self-discipline, then how could you possibly impose discipline outwardly upon another?
Ideally no. That’s what people call “defense”, and it should not be necessary. But I could similarly say that people shouldn’t need to wear seat belts, bike helmets, or harnesses if they simply tried harder to stay safe.
What bothers me about people complaining about the clothing of Muslim women is that they are hoping to legislate some unreasonable social comfort by taking away something which affords a group real protection. How about if I am wearing a bulletproof vest in a restaurant, and I am told to remove it because other people are reminded that they could be shot? I’d argue that since it is purely defensive, nobody really has any right to complain. They are free to wear the same thing themselves - or not. Or a better analogy might be that of wearing a respirator for health reasons, possibly due to allergies, pathogens, etc. Do others have a right to see you without it because it should ideally not be necessary?
And bringing it back around to the hijab and niqab, is it actually safer, more secure? Which is more likely to end my life? Inhaling pathogens from a normal-looking, smiling friendly person - or somebody trying to rob a store? If statistics suggest the former, then I am going to wear the respirator anyway. People need to “own their own emotions” and understand that just because you feel a certain way about someone does not mean that they are actually doing anything to you. It could simply be that you feel socially awkward, and that’s ok, if you can be honest about it.
Hell, if I ever have great-grandkids, they might need full environment suits to go anywhere by then. Somebody liking their clothes should be the least of their problems.
2 Likes
End your life? Dude, we’re talking about shoplifting not a military assault. A niqab is like the perfect outfit for it. It is black, featureless and covers your face. Wear something with pockets underneath and you have a shoplifter’s dream. If they tell you to show you what you’ve got, you say it is against your religion to expose yourself to them.
3 Likes
… and that’s why I find hijab/niqab insufferable. Apart from being oppressive it assumes that I’m going to whip my dick out and try to stick into her woman-holes as soon as I see her hair or ankles. It suggests that men are not able to control their urges and behave like neolithic savages every time they see a woman. It’s insulting to men and oppressive for women.
7 Likes
Uh. I find it a little disturbing that everyone here seems to have jumped to the conclusion that the most common kind of theft the person at the Family Dollar store was concerned about was armed robbery.
It is a Family Dollar store. For goodness sake, shoplifting is what they are most worried about. It is what almost every store is most worried about.
The camera is there so that you know they have a picture of your face so if you shoplift and they notice an item goes missing, you run the risk of them having a clear picture of you and calling the police. It is a deterrent.
Seriously. Wtf people?
4 Likes
The shopkeeper said “we get robbed a lot”, and in most places robbery is distinct from shoplifting, so I took them literally. I figured that shoplifting would be pocketing a piece of merchandise, while robbery would be threatening the clerk to empty the register. Obviously, these two scenarios pose different amounts of risk to the staff.
It is a good point that they might have been using the term robbery more loosely.
1 Like
A-the-men to the FSM!
I mean I get it. I live in Texas. I understand the Florida, Georgia, Texas, Indiana, South Carolina, West Virginia, and anywhere else that tracks as southern and/or mid-west to a lot of folks. And yes, racist fuckwits might feel more comfortable in red and purple states. But please understand how smug dismissing whole parts of countries or sometimes entire countries comes off. First of all, these cockroaches infest wherever you live to, I guarantee it. Secondly, these places are our homes. Many good people you’d like have families and roots in these places. So when you act like it’s only our problem and not your problem too, the implication (which you may not intend but it’s there) is move, secede or fuck off, because it’s not my problem. Well it is. Arbitrary historical borders drawn by racist imperialist powers don’t make it not your problem. If you think walling off the free movement of human beings across those borders, or even just not going to those places, will somehow insulate you and your home from the insidious spread of bigoted ideas, I think we all know who’s running for POTUS on that platform.
I know you mean well @TobinL. I consider you a friend here and I appreciate and agree with most of what you post. I’m not angry with you, but this regionalism gets my dander up a bit.
5 Likes
speaking as a liberal democrat from texas, i know what you mean. still, doesn’t the nature of the politics there sometimes make you weep?
2 Likes
Are you suggesting that the hijab and niqab are “very practical”?
For those who prefer to not have people look upon them, their wearing seems obviously more practical than putting blinds on everybody else. People wearing blinds would injure themselves and others in accidents regardless of whether the subject in question was in their presence or not.
But the problem more or less fixes itself! Because if people were able to mind their own business, they would not even notice what she was wearing. Or even if she was wearing nothing. It’s her choice, and nobody else gets a say. Others likewise “vote” by wearing what they themselves consider appropriate.
That’s what’s wonderful about living in an explicitly multicultural country. Instead of pretending that we are in England or some such place.
Thanks Obama!
/s in case needed
The American Bigot Party has been stirring this pot, and a lot of innocent people could get hurt
1 Like
Sigh. Try being a 4th generation Floridian.
6 Likes
I dunno. my experience working in a convenience store is that isn’t much of one. Again, I think you overestimate the level of effort and time police and store owners put into these thefts. Pretty much, unless you’re caught in the act, no one is ever going to come after you, face on camera or no face. The single best deterrent is and always will be someone walking over to you and asking if they can help all the time.
But again, as @d_r alluded to upthread: Women have been wearing these clothes in the US for a long time now. Why is this suddenly a problem? I tend to think it’s got a lot to do with the same reasons Trump is running, but it’s hardly like we’ve been hearing case after case of store thefts that would point to a kind of burka mafia trend.
I mean, do people not think there are stores or crime in the Middle East? Like, it’s not all desert and tents like in the cartoons. They have security cameras and police and things regular civilization has. Somehow they manage to handle it, and I can guaran-fucking-tee you there are lot more women wearing a niqab over there than there are here, and a lot more of them committing crimes over there than over here.
But I suppose keeping Muslim women in the home and having their husbands conduct business for them is now an American value, which is a little ironic.
10 Likes
You still haven’t explained how a store policy against armed robbery prevents armed robbery.
