|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 3:21:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 9:06:51 GMT
Somewhere in St George's Chapel, Windsor, George III is now thanking his lucky stars that he lost America.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 5, 2018 10:26:18 GMT
Curious why you would choose a story from USA when there are EU countries like Poland that don’t recognise any form of gay partnership and a UK country in Northern Ireland where gay marriage is banned. Also a EU leader in Angela Merkel who personally voted against both gay marriage and adoption rights. Compared with the EU and UK then the USA is way ahead and can probably do without us lecturing them. Tolerance of views, including religious views, is a two-way street - personally I wouldn’t force Muslim supermarket workers to serve alcohol or pork for example. I once worked with a professional consultant who was a strict Muslim and when we went to client meetings he would shake hands with the men but politely decline to do so with the women - as this was due to a genuinely held religious view I tended towards tolerance of it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 12:18:35 GMT
Tolerance of prejudice is not tolerance. In such cases, refusing to shake someone's hand, whilst not others, is prejudicial and nothing more and acquiescing to that is to agree with the prejudice. If someone wants to wear a cross or a turban etc. that is an individual's free expression and not aimed at diminishing any other individual. The pork/alcohol issue could be seen to be more akin to that but it depends on the circumstance.
|
|
641 posts
|
Post by christya on Jun 5, 2018 12:31:43 GMT
I certainly wouldn't do business with someone who refused to shake my hand for no other reason than that I'm a woman. Of course, I assume that he knows that people deciding not to do business with him is a possible consequence of the refusal, in which case he's made his choice.
I wouldn't be impressed by a supermarket that let someone refuse to serve me with alcohol or pork, either. If touching these items is an issue, I'm happy to wait while someone puts on gloves or something. Considering how many people's shopping contains these things, it doesn't sound very practical either.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 12:33:25 GMT
Intellectually I totally understand the not shaking hands with the opposite sex thing and am completely supportive of it. In practice, when someone shakes hands with most other people in the meeting and then declines to do so with you (however charmingly) as though you've got cooties, it isn't very nice. Even though you know it's not personal, it's hard not to feel like it is.
If I'm in a shop, I also expect whoever is working there to sell me what they're selling and not make a fuss about it. I'm not asking anyone to approve of my excessive, borderline-dependent alcohol habit.
In the same way, I was perfectly happy to serve eggs and bacon to people when I worked in a greasy spoon, despite not eating bacon. Smelled bloody lovely, as well.
|
|
4,993 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Jun 5, 2018 12:54:15 GMT
Why work in a shop that sells booze and bacon if you don’t approve of them? You can’t be that principled if you take home a pay cheque from said shop
|
|
376 posts
|
Post by sherriebythesea on Jun 5, 2018 18:52:09 GMT
It's wrong how this is being reported. The Supreme Court did not rule for the baker. They ruled that the "Colorado Civil Rights Commission mishandled Phillips' claim. The court did not rule that the Constitution grants the right to discriminate but maintained the longstanding principle that business owners cannot deny equal access to goods and services."
And it was a very narrow ruling. Basically the the CO Civil Rights Commission bungled how they came to the ruling they did. If they would have just kept their mouths shut and not made discriminatory remarks during their ruling about the bakers religious beliefs and if they were even sincere, and made the same ruling, it would have been upheld.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 5, 2018 20:00:13 GMT
It's wrong how this is being reported. The Supreme Court did not rule for the baker. They ruled that the "Colorado Civil Rights Commission mishandled Phillips' claim. The court did not rule that the Constitution grants the right to discriminate but maintained the longstanding principle that business owners cannot deny equal access to goods and services." And it was a very narrow ruling. Basically the the CO Civil Rights Commission bungled how they came to the ruling they did. If they would have just kept their mouths shut and not made discriminatory remarks during their ruling about the bakers religious beliefs and if they were even sincere, and made the same ruling, it would have been upheld. More interesting is the cake case from Northern Ireland where it was ruled by the UK Supreme Court that the bakers were wrong to refuse to make a cake saying “Support gay marriage” because it was against their religious beliefs. This strikes me as intolerant because as the bakers argued, their objection was to the slogan on the cake and not to the individual customers ordering it. The ruling seems to force them to appear to support a particular political view.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 5, 2018 20:20:38 GMT
Oh come now - just because someone pays you to print something on a cake does not mean that you are personally forced to support the statement, any more than proboards support the statements of any of us when they publish our words on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 5, 2018 20:21:25 GMT
Tolerance of prejudice is not tolerance. In such cases, refusing to shake someone's hand, whilst not others, is prejudicial and nothing more and acquiescing to that is to agree with the prejudice The practice derives from an interpretation of passages in Qur’an - as such it is not the individual themselves who are prejudiced (as you see it). Interested to hear how you would have handled the situation given that you have ruled out acquiescing. I didn’t say which country I was in did I, let’s consider two cases 1) UK 2) Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 5, 2018 20:34:39 GMT
Oh come now - just because someone pays you to print something on a cake does not mean that you are personally forced to support the statement, any more than proboards support the statements of any of us when they publish our words on this forum. The point is that they did not wish to assist in supporting that particular political view - just as the Guardian wouldn’t run a paid advert supporting Donald Trump and the NRA.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 20:38:02 GMT
Oh come now - just because someone pays you to print something on a cake does not mean that you are personally forced to support the statement, any more than proboards support the statements of any of us when they publish our words on this forum. The point is that they did not wish to assist in supporting that particular political view - just as the Guardian wouldn’t run a paid advert supporting Donald Trump and the NRA. I bet they bloody would - that voluntary subscription money isn't exactly rolling in!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 21:17:40 GMT
Tolerance of prejudice is not tolerance. In such cases, refusing to shake someone's hand, whilst not others, is prejudicial and nothing more and acquiescing to that is to agree with the prejudice The practice derives from an interpretation of passages in Qur’an - as such it is not the individual themselves who are prejudiced (as you see it). Interested to hear how you would have handled the situation given that you have ruled out acquiescing. I didn’t say which country I was in did I, let’s consider two cases 1) UK 2) Saudi Arabia. It’s prejudice no matter what country you are in or whatever your faith is. Stopping women from driving was unacceptably prejudicial in Saudi, same as it would be here. Not shaking someone’s hand because of their gender is the same. Borders or beliefs are no excuse to deny the equal treatment of human beings. Would I go to Saudi? No, as I disagree with the state’s views, same as I wouldn’t go to other countries which have a similar position. In the UK we have gender equality legally enshrined so there’s a clear difference.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 5, 2018 22:08:40 GMT
Oh come now - just because someone pays you to print something on a cake does not mean that you are personally forced to support the statement, any more than proboards support the statements of any of us when they publish our words on this forum. The point is that they did not wish to assist in supporting that particular political view - just as the Guardian wouldn’t run a paid advert supporting Donald Trump and the NRA. The Gruan isn’t supporting the claims of any of the adverts they run - adverts are not editorial. If anything, companies who pay to advertise in newspapers are seen to be supporting their editorial views, not vice versa - which is why brands pull their advertising from newspapers which conflict with the brand image.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2018 22:47:10 GMT
It's wrong how this is being reported. The Supreme Court did not rule for the baker. They ruled that the "Colorado Civil Rights Commission mishandled Phillips' claim. The court did not rule that the Constitution grants the right to discriminate but maintained the longstanding principle that business owners cannot deny equal access to goods and services." And it was a very narrow ruling. Basically the the CO Civil Rights Commission bungled how they came to the ruling they did. If they would have just kept their mouths shut and not made discriminatory remarks during their ruling about the bakers religious beliefs and if they were even sincere, and made the same ruling, it would have been upheld. More interesting is the cake case from Northern Ireland where it was ruled by the UK Supreme Court that the bakers were wrong to refuse to make a cake saying “Support gay marriage” because it was against their religious beliefs. This strikes me as intolerant because as the bakers argued, their objection was to the slogan on the cake and not to the individual customers ordering it. The ruling seems to force them to appear to support a particular political view. The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this case yet - it only heard the arguments a couple of weeks ago so it'll be months before the judgment.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2018 6:35:01 GMT
I am Australian
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2018 9:07:01 GMT
Simply because Australian News like the ABC does not report it. There is a actually a word I used to know . Its one of these bias.https://medium.com/@choongchingteo/cognitive-biases-you-need-to-be-familiar-with-as-a-researcher-c482c9ee1d49 .
But simply because I thought Germany did not have those issues. And thought Northern Ireland and Poland was 'backward' in those regards. I can be naive.
I always feel USA should know better as a leader nation
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2018 9:14:25 GMT
Jan its a cake for goodness sake with writing on it. And this is coming from a cook
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2018 9:19:04 GMT
I feel this case will split down the middle. Some of us like me saying the guy should have to do it and get fined for not doing it . And some saying freedom of speech
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 11, 2018 12:05:09 GMT
The practice derives from an interpretation of passages in Qur’an - as such it is not the individual themselves who are prejudiced (as you see it). Interested to hear how you would have handled the situation given that you have ruled out acquiescing. I didn’t say which country I was in did I, let’s consider two cases 1) UK 2) Saudi Arabia. It’s prejudice no matter what country you are in or whatever your faith is. Stopping women from driving was unacceptably prejudicial in Saudi, same as it would be here. Not shaking someone’s hand because of their gender is the same. Borders or beliefs are no excuse to deny the equal treatment of human beings. Would I go to Saudi? No, as I disagree with the state’s views, same as I wouldn’t go to other countries which have a similar position. In the UK we have gender equality legally enshrined so there’s a clear difference. You are wrong about UK law. The specific non-hand-shaking example I gave is allowed under UK employment law as respecting a religious view and the gender equality laws you mention are irrelevant to this situation. If you complained about it you’d therefore open yourself up to a charge of Islamaphobia.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2018 13:32:02 GMT
Re: the handshake thing, absolutely fascinating the way everyone in this thread who has commented on it seems to be looking at it from the male perspective. It ain't just men who have religious objections to shaking hands with women, you need look no further than the exact same religion to find women who have religious objections to shaking hands with men. Religion or not though, if someone doesn't want to make physical contact with you, they are not obliged to, whether it's something as common (to you) as a handshake, or as friendly as a hug, or whatever. Bit weird to start hollering about prejudice in this particular instance...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2018 16:49:09 GMT
Is denying a handshake because of gender or something else? If it is gender based then that is absolutely relevant. If you don’t want to because it is an attempt to exert power over you then that’s a different matter, same as if you are a germophobe and many other possible reasons. You could substitute gender for race, religion, sexuality, class and so on.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2018 8:37:06 GMT
Re: the handshake thing, absolutely fascinating the way everyone in this thread who has commented on it seems to be looking at it from the male perspective. It ain't just men who have religious objections to shaking hands with women, you need look no further than the exact same religion to find women who have religious objections to shaking hands with men. Religion or not though, if someone doesn't want to make physical contact with you, they are not obliged to, whether it's something as common (to you) as a handshake, or as friendly as a hug, or whatever. Bit weird to start hollering about prejudice in this particular instance... It’s interesting you say that because I was going to add (but didn’t because it felt a bit personal for the web but what the hey) that in my religious days I used to be one of those women who didn’t have physical contact with men I wasn’t related to, including hand-shaking – not because I felt a particular sensitivity to it in all honesty but because it was standard for my community. So that’s why I said that theoretically I sympathise – because I’ve experienced it from both sides. However I do think there’s a nuance between the male and female position. Men are required not to touch women and not to look at ‘immodest’ women lest they be led astray by their desires. Women are required to not touch men and to dress modestly so as not to lead men astray – in both cases the woman is objectified. If you live in that environment all the time, you can end up feeling that there is something intrinsically to be ashamed of and literally to be covered up about being female (my experience only, of course). But there’s further nuance – my experience was that the people who really got exercised about and policed the way women dress, behaved, etc, and the ones who objected if it was suggested that a barrier in a room segregating the sexes could come down in some circumstances - were far more likely to be women. In the end I couldn’t see a future for myself in that environment, but there are many women who find highly gendered societies comfortable and would roll their eyes at what I’m saying; most, I think, are in the middle and have mixed, complicated feelings about it all. Again, only my experience. So there’s complexity upon complexity but I guess basically what I’m saying is – a woman not shaking the hand of a man isn’t necessarily the equivalent of a man not shaking the hand of a woman. They’re called patriarchal religions for a reason… (By the way in Judaism embarrassing someone is held to be the equivalent of murder and many rabbis advise that you should just shake the hand of the opposite sex if there’s no way to avoid it wihout making them feel awkward).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2018 8:55:09 GMT
Re the handshake thing, there was an instance where Justin Trudeau was praised for his greeting of hijab wearing Muslim women (placing his hand on chest and a slight bow I think?) as this is seen as a way for men to greet Muslim women who do not wish to shake hands (I'm paraphrasing and do correct me if I'm wrong anyone). I don't personally have a problem with highly religious people on any part of the gender spectrum sticking to personal beliefs about touch, as long as they're polite and respectful about it (again as a RABID feminist). And with most people there's usually a reasonable middle ground anyway (ie. a handshake is fine, hugs or cheek kissing isn't etc). For a caveat I went to a school that was 50% Muslim, about 25% Orthodox Jewish, so I had a lot of first hand experience growing up of some of this though my knowledge is currently a bit rusty.
Re: the cake. I'm on the side of you shouldn't refuse service to anyone based on your own prejudice. And if you can't offer the same service to anyone due to religious beliefs then you should probably reconsider your business (if it's your own) And that you shouldn't take a job that is in direct conflict with religious beliefs in the other context.
I see my boy Andrew Garfield is getting some stick from bigots online. As both Cake and Andrew Garfield are things I love very much, I'm willing to start a revolution over this.
|
|