Did you even read my posts before over reacting to them?
They can be a defense against being stared at. For some people, that is important. Who are you to judge that?
If you don’t want or need that, then it isn’t for you. Clothing has a practical component and is not merely a symbol of some culture. Right now I am barefoot - so should I complain if somebody else feels a need to wear sandals or boots? MY feet would find it oppressive to be wearing boots right now, but in other conditions they might be just what I need. Or instead I could decide to be terribly offended at the very idea, but what purpose would that serve?
It is, yes. I’m actually off to a four day event spanning next weekend and many of the people (of whatever gender) on the message board for it are already arranging such things. It certainly seems to be consensual, but perhaps that’s just because they’re stating that they wish to engage in this behavior. It’s obviously difficult to tell if it’s consensual or not, without someone to say if the person acting with agency by purposefully engaging in a particular behavior is being subjugated or not.
I’m presenting as female for the duration of the event. Evidently I’m not sure if I’m doing this willingly or not, although I sure thought I was. I guess I won’t be able to actually decide that for myself, of course, since I’m identifying as female during the event. So much to learn …
It points in some tangential directions, but some have said in this topic that dressing this way is not a valid choice, because she doesn’t know any better, is a product of a diseased culture, etc. So I think that pointing out parallels between different consent-based issues can be a worthwhile exercise. The contrast at least between the one where most here seem to find the boundaries of consent clear with this one where they seem contentious is interesting.
Not that I think it would be productive to compare them exhaustively! But I am happy that the comparison was made.
The shop person is an idiot in the city of 1000 smells (and not one good one). That said, religious freedom isn’t about no one being rude to you. The protections are from the government. People on the other hand are free to be as rude as they like. If I run a shop, I can insist people wear shoes, a shirt, even a tux if that’s what I want to do with my business. If I decide that I have to be able to see every face that enters, then that’s my right to. Your religion does not trump my right to run a business as I see fit. In fact, since I despise religion, I might decide to ban ALL religious gear, jewelry, clothing, and other sundries from my imaginary store. If the community doesn’t like that, they can not support my business and let it fail.
State law may indeed protect them from religious discrimination.
Bigotry is not always a legal act, it really depends on who is willing to step up and go to bat for true freedom, which again may be individually disempowering, but collectively protecting the right to make (bad, any) decision.
States pass all sorts of laws. That doesn’t mean the law is in any way valid. If I choose to never let a religious person in to my business due to my personal lack of belief and hire no employees I don’t see a state law as any impediment. In fact, some states have laws protecting the right of my imaginary business to turn away religious people as long as I have a deeply held personal conviction.
