Support NeoGAF

[Kaeru]

fuck we grew up in Muslim countries. Not everybody wore hijab and who ever wanted to wear it could. It is something cold sharam and haya. If they want to wear it let them. If some one is forcing some one to wear it than it is different story. do you know anyone that was forced to wear it ? if yes go and fight. But if woman is wearing as her choice and you say anything to her FUCK YOU. One of my sister wears it.
and for you nazi , and muslim is same nice.

Dont be so angry. I dont have anything against you or your sister. I just have something against your ideology/religion and I will fight to prevent you from displaying it in inappropriate places. Thats also my freedom of religion, meaning my freedom to not having your religion around me!

 

[perfectchaos007]

It's called a dress code. I'm assuming when she interviewed for the job, she wasn't wearing a hijab. If she was, I doubt they would have hired her in the first place. Girls that won't put on Hooters gear won't get to work at Hooters. People who always wear a scream mask won't get to work at Macy's

 

[Gaborn]

I can't speak for him, but I think the logic goes that there are other companies, so you can shop at another company. But there is only one government.

I think that says the basic idea very well, or you could say that a government is supposed to represent ALL of it's citizens neutrally, but a store isn't obligated to do so. For example consider a government building that has a nativity scene, and a menorah, and various other religious symbolism from a variety of faiths. Could you ever see forcing a private store with a Christmas tree or other symbol displayed to show another faith's symbols if the owner chose not to?

 

[devilhawk]

but why do they hire them than? Just so that they can fire? It should be explained fro beginning that if they want to work this is dress code.

She probably pulled a bait-n-switch.

Show up to the interview in one thing and the first day of work in another.

 

[Raist]

You can't opt-out of interacting with the government. You MUST pay your taxes regardless of if you use government services or not. Therefore, they should not be allowed to discriminate against serving you.

How is that related to what I'm saying?
I'm talking about the fact that I don't see why a company would have the right to ban a religious sign, and a government does not. We're not talking about a fast-food refusing to serve a meal to someone wearing a hijab either.

 

[perfectchaos007]

She probably pulled a bait-n-switch.

Show up to the interview in one thing and the first day of work in another.

She could have done it to make a statement too. And she knew if she wore it she would get fired. So she did it anyway to get national attention and to make Hollister look like the bad guys. such a shame.

 

[KAL2006]

What? I just wanna do what Turkey has done.




Communsm, Nazism, Islamism.

For me they repressent a threat to our free society and democracy and I will fight them equally.
With that said I can perfectly well be friends with people who exercise them, I have communist friends and I have muslim friends. But I will never accept their ideologies.
Any swastika, hammerandscythe, or hijab or other islamic artefacts does disturb me for what they represent. Its not the clothing per se but the underlying value it represent.

I understand that you dont agree with me but im sure you can understand the logic behind my reasoning.

To put Nazism and Islamism in the same sentence is just wrong. I dont think you even know anything about their religion to even judge. If I had the same logic as you I will hate anyone who wears the G Unit clothing line because I hate G Unit music, but no I dont care if they like G Unit let them wear it. It doesnt affect me. However if somone wears something that has a caption saying "kill white people" then that will be a problem.

 

[Kaeru]

To put Nazism and Islamism in the same sentence is just wrong. I dont think you even know anything about their religion to even judge. If I had the same logic as you I will hate anyone who wears the G Unit clothing line because I hate G Unit music, but no I dont care if they like G Unit let them wear it. It doesnt affect me. However if somone wears something that has a caption saying "kill white people" then that will be a problem.

You dont have to agree with my opinions but you have to agree with my logic because its flawless.

 

[Raist]

I can't speak for him, but I think the logic goes that there are other companies, so you can shop at another company. But there is only one government.

Well if you apply this principle, you can move from a country if you don't agree with its rules. Of course, it's a bit more complicated than going to another shop, but the logic is the same.
It's on a different scale, and if you agree that a company has the right to apply rules, then you have to agree that a government has the right to apply laws.

 

[KAL2006]

Dont be so angry. I dont have anything against you or your sister. I just have something against your ideology/religion and I will fight to prevent you from displaying it in inappropriate places. Thats also my freedom of religion, meaning my freedom to not having your religion around me!

OK after reading that, you fully lost my respect, I can't even be bothered to argue with you. Off topic is there an ignore setting on NeoGAF, as I can't stand people like the person I am replying to.

 

[teruterubozu]

You dont have to agree with my opinions but you have to agree with my logic because its flawless.

According to your logic, you should be a huge fan of Nazism.

 

[Kaeru]

OK after reading that, you fully lost my respect, I can't even be bothered to argue with you. Off topic is there an ignore setting on NeoGAF, as I can't stand people like the person I am replying to.

Yeah I guess freedom of religion wasnt so hot when you found out it goes both ways.
Im glad to hear you actually respected me though, cant say the feeling was mutual.

teruterubozu:

That doesnt make sense at all. Care to elaborate?

 

[teruterubozu]

Yeah I guess freedom of religion wasnt so hot when you found out it goes both ways.
Im glad to hear you actually respected me though, cant say the feeling was mutual.

teruterubozu:

That doesnt make sense at all. Care to elaborate?

Your love for a homogenous, mono-ethnic society. I'm sorry your logic is so broken.

 

[JGS]

I completely understand your view. What I do not understand is why your first sentence should not apply to a government. And vice versa. If a government says "you can do whatever you want" then why would a company based in that country would have the right to say "well not in my shop dude".

A government's purpose is vastly different from any corporation which is why it's not run like one. For whatever reason, companies do what they feel is in the best interest of their company.

It's more disturbing to think that a government has the right to challenge what you wear only because they find it offensive or don't agree with the beliefs behind it. That is not the role they should play in a democracy (unless it is obscene/lewd). The burden for a company is far, far less. They can be offended by anything they want to within the law. There's a lot of things about the US I personally do not like, but will challenge the government to have an opinion on it.

Unless Hollister actually sell hijabs, then I'm not seeing the problem with them not wanting it as part of the dress code if it is their right. Like someone else said, it is doubtful that the woman was wearing one in the first place when she was hired which means it's a good chance there is more to the story. If that was the case, then how important was her religious beliefs then?

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

I was surprised Hollister hired anyone non-white.

The CEO, Mike Jeffries is a weird cat.

Here's a profile of him:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2006/01/24/jeffries/

 

[BattleMonkey]

It was a part time job. Grow the fuck up and find another job.

 

[Pristine_Condition]

It has nothing to do with "freedom of religion." The hijab is a hat, basically.

You can't work at a clothing company and expect to just wear anything you want. This includes wearing a stupid hat to work.

 

[Mad Max]

People are racist, welcome to forever.

Muslims are a race now?

 

[Kaeru]

Your love for a homogenous, mono-ethnic society. I'm sorry your logic is so broken.

So if im not a multiculturalist then im a nazi per default?
Thats kind of narrow dont you think?

The multicultural society has few benefits and many many faults.
With that said, as im now living in a multicultural society I have to make the best of the situation. I believe there is hope, but for this to happen we have to assimilate our immigrants into our culture. If I were a nazi I would want to deport everyone who wasnt Swedish 10 generations back or something, which of course is insane and not something I would support.

Ethnicity is not something thats based on race(I dont even use that term because it doesnt exist) but its based on cultural values, tradition, language and history. Everyone who is living in Sweden can become Swedish by assimilating into our culture.

 

[Seth C]

Well if you apply this principle, you can move from a country if you don't agree with its rules. Of course, it's a bit more complicated than going to another shop, but the logic is the same.
It's on a different scale, and if you agree that a company has the right to apply rules, then you have to agree that a government has the right to apply laws.

At least roughly speaking, all citizens pay taxes and deserve proper representation of the government. They are "part owners". Private companies? They belong to their owner.

 

[ChiTownBuffalo]

It has nothing to do with "freedom of religion." The hijab is a hat, basically.

You can't work at a clothing company and expect to just wear anything you want. This includes wearing a stupid hat to work.

Homie can wear any hat he wants.

 

[teruterubozu]

So if im not a multiculturalist then im a nazi per default?

No, I said a fan of Nazis. A Nazi-sympathizer. :lol

 

[Kaeru]

No, I said a fan of Nazis. A Nazi-sympathizer. :lol

My grandfather fought the nazis and lost his leg in the process. He also fought communism and had to flee to Sweden.
So noo...not feeling very nazi.

Please respond to the rest of my post.

 

[teruterubozu]

My grandfather fought the nazis and lost his leg in the process. He also fought communism and had to flee to Sweden.
So noo...not feeling very nazi.

Poor guy must be ashamed of his grandson.

Please respond to the rest of my post.

Sure.

Thats kind of narrow dont you think?

Not any more narrow than your world view.

 

[Raist]

A government's purpose is vastly different from any corporation which is why it's not run like one. For whatever reason, companies do what they feel is in the best interest of their company.

It's more disturbing to think that a government has the right to challenge what you wear only because they find it offensive or don't agree with the beliefs behind it. That is not the role they should play in a democracy (unless it is obscene/lewd). The burden for a company is far, far less. They can be offended by anything they want to within the law. There's a lot of things about the US I personally do not like, but will challenge the government to have an opinion on it.

Unless Hollister actually sell hijabs, then I'm not seeing the problem with them not wanting it as part of the dress code if it is their right. Like someone else said, it is doubtful that the woman was wearing one in the first place when she was hired which means it's a good chance there is more to the story. If that was the case, then how important was her religious beliefs then?

Well I can't really agree with that. You could as well say "unless France's official religion is Islam, there's no problem with the government not wanting people to wear hijabs".
To me it looks like some kind of double standard. There should be absolutely no difference between a company or a government. Some things are justifiably bannable, some aren't. It's down to morality and the respect of everyone's liberties and beliefs.

 

[BattleMonkey]

Not any more narrow than your world view.

So because you think someones point of view is narrow, you use it as an excuse to be the same way?

 

[teruterubozu]

So because you think someones point of view is narrow, you use it as an excuse to be the same way?

Not any more narrow than your observations of people being narrow.

 

[Sinatar]

My grandfather fought the nazis and lost his leg in the process. He also fought communism and had to flee to Sweden.

Wow he must be completely ashamed of you. How sad.

 

[Kinitari]

So if im not a multiculturalist then im a nazi per default?
Thats kind of narrow dont you think?

The multicultural society has few benefits and many many faults.

Wasn't the mass immigration into Sweden from many different cultures a nearly essential part many years ago when the labour force in Sweden was dying? That seems like a pretty big and important benefit - and that isn't even counting the biological diversity. For faults "I don't wanna see their stupid headscarves all over the place" and "I don't like hearing them talk in their language" don't seem quite proportionate.

With that said, as im now living in a multicultural society I have to make the best of the situation. I believe there is hope, but for this to happen we have to assimilate our immigrants into our culture. If I were a nazi I would want to deport everyone who wasnt Swedish 10 generations back or something, which of course is insane and not something I would support.

:lol You're being a bit silly don't you think, essentially what you said boils down to "Now that we have all these foreigners here, there's nothing I can really do about it. But they better start toeing the line!"

Also, maybe you wanna clear up - how many generations back is too far back for you? Is 1 or 2 okay? Or maybe just anything under 10 years?

Ethnicity is not something thats based on race(I dont even use that term because it doesnt exist) but its based on cultural values, tradition, language and history. Everyone who is living in Sweden can become Swedish by assimilating into our culture.

:lol Again, you're being silly. Cultural values are not a static thing - culture is simply a reflection of a particular society - Swedish culture is not the same it was 10 years ago - but that culture was not the same it was 10 years before that - and I bet if we went back by the decades for a couple of hundred years, that formula would stay true.

What YOU are saying is, you don't want to adapt to the changing culture of your society - with all the immigration it was bound to happen, and instead, want things to 'go back to the way things were' - that's old fogey talk! It's not you who is being stubborn, oh no, it's just that everyone isn't fitting into your neat little box, and that upsets you is all. THEY should - because of the contract they signed when they immigrated - figure out how it is you want them to act, and then things will be right.

Now if only we could get them to all look like you too! Maybe you guys should start banning things that are different?

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

I'm not familiar with what a "look policy" is, but is this really different from violating any company's normal dress codes? Whether you like it or not, you can't just wear whatever you want to work.

The law says the opposite of what you just said.

 

[Prine]

Dont be so angry. I dont have anything against you or your sister. I just have something against your ideology/religion and I will fight to prevent you from displaying it in inappropriate places. Thats also my freedom of religion, meaning my freedom to not having your religion around me!

This sounds awfully like the twisted version of Islam you've taught yourself into believing. Stripping rights, culture and freedoms to follow what you assume is right for everyone else. If you believe a piece of cloth stops you from being a sincere and decent person maybe its you that needs to strip your own values and join the modern world.

So if im not a multiculturalist then im a nazi per default?
Thats kind of narrow dont you think?

The multicultural society has few benefits and many many faults.
With that said, as im now living in a multicultural society I have to make the best of the situation. I believe there is hope, but for this to happen we have to assimilate our immigrants into our culture. If I were a nazi I would want to deport everyone who wasnt Swedish 10 generations back or something, which of course is insane and not something I would support.

Ethnicity is not something thats based on race(I dont even use that term because it doesnt exist) but its based on cultural values, tradition, language and history. Everyone who is living in Sweden can become Swedish by assimilating into our culture.

Oh the hypocricy. Your bluring lines and trivialising ideologies to draw parrallels to one of the greatest threats to humanity (already unfolded and proved). Talk about destructive views, look at yourself.

 

[JGS]

Well I can't really agree with that. You could as well say "unless France's official religion is Islam, there's no problem with the government not wanting people to wear hijabs".
To me it looks like some kind of double standard. There should be absolutely no difference between a company or a government. Some things are justifiably bannable, some aren't. It's down to morality and the respect of everyone's liberties and beliefs.

It's not a double standard unless I said that France shouldn't do it but United States can. The comparison of business and government is apples and liver to me. They're not in the same area by a long shot.

There's no way that France should pick and choose religious beliefs. Also to be clear, I never said that Hollister had the right to either. However, when a country is looked to for perceived freedoms of expression and thought like democratic ones often are, they should practice what they preach. I don't know about you, but I can't think of a time I looked to Hollister as any sort of exampl in that regard.

What Hollister does have the right to do is enforce a dress code. Actually they have a right to terminate employment anytime they feel like without any explanation (CA may be different, but most states are right to work).

Since there is no etched in stone Muslim requirement to wear a hijab, every case is really based on a religious belief of one person- the person wanting to wear it. Many cases that have been brought forth regarding the Sabbath have been in favor of a company. I woud expect this would be in the similar vein.

A company does not have to respect EVERYONE'S beliefs. In any event, respecting other peoples views have nothing to do with catering to them and, unless illegal, there was nothing immoral the company did.

 

[Seth C]

The law says the opposite of what you just said.

It may, but the application of the law suggests this is allowable.

 

[Raist]

It's not a double standard unless I said that France shouldn't do it but United States can. The comparison of business and government is apples and liver to me. They're not in the same area by a long shot.

There's no way that France should pick and choose religious beliefs. Also to be clear, I never said that Hollister had the right to either. However, when a country is looked to for perceived freedoms of expression and thought like democratic ones often are, they should practice what they preach. I don't know about you, but I can't think of a time I looked to Hollister as any sort of exampl in that regard.

What Hollister does have the right to do is enforce a dress code. Actually they have a right to terminate employment anytime they feel like without any explanation (CA may be different, but most states are right to work).

Since there is no etched in stone Muslim requirement to wear a hijab, every case is really based on a religious belief of one person- the person wanting to wear it. Many cases that have been brought forth regarding the Sabbath have been in favor of a company. I woud expect this would be in the similar vein.

A company does not have to respect EVERYONE'S beliefs. In any event, respecting other peoples views have nothing to do with catering to them and, unless illegal, there was nothing immoral the company did.

As far as I know France has never banned any religion. But you have to understand that the ban on the niqab is the result of a long tradition of secularism, plus this particular piece of cloth is not compatible with the fundamental values of the French constitution. Among other issues.

Also, I don't see why a company wouldn't have to respect everyone's beliefs. Are they above the law or something? Why not having companies refusing to provide services to people with green eyes, or force their employees to work completely naked then?

 

[Gaborn]

As far as I know France has never banned any religion. But you have to understand that the ban on the niqab is the result of a long tradition of secularism, plus this particular piece of cloth is not compatible with the fundamental values of the French constitution. Among other issues.

As interpreted by the French high court? Or some politician who can claim that to curry political favor?

Also, I don't see why a company wouldn't have to respect everyone's beliefs.

First, let me say it's good business to treat everyone with respect, that way you're more likely to have a strong repeat customer base for whatever good or service you offer. However, I don't know if you saw my example above. In the US a government building that has one religious symbol (a christmas tree, nativity scene, star of david, etc) can't willfully refuse any other religious symbol without a heckuva law suit they would certainly lose. That's because in the US the government is religious neutral. The same isn't true for private businesses because they're, well, private. Since they're owned by individuals they represent what the individuals want, just as, for example the government can't pick and choose what products a grocery store sells (so long as they're legal for other businesses to sell).

Are they above the law or something? Why not having companies refusing to provide services to people with green eyes,

I think they should be able to, even though as I said above it'd be bad business and I'd say wrongheaded.

or force their employees to work completely naked then?

I understand that is often the policy of a brothel or a strip club...

 

[crazy monkey]

Dont be so angry. I dont have anything against you or your sister. I just have something against your ideology/religion and I will fight to prevent you from displaying it in inappropriate places. Thats also my freedom of religion, meaning my freedom to not having your religion around me!

what is inappropriate place in this case back room of a show room?

 

[speculawyer]

But we need to get over the idea that if not for government intervention blacks wouldn't be able to vote

You are not even remotely making sense. They were slaves. There were not allowed to vote. That was the law. You know . . . law . . . as in government created and enforced. It was impossible to allow them to vote but for 'government intervention' that changed the laws.

Yes, there are still some people with outdated views and bigoted opinions, but the world has changed in the last 40-50 years, we don't have the same attitudes and prejudices, I think most anyone would be SHOCKED if they saw a (serious) sign in the window with "no irish need apply" and the same for gays, even if someone didn't "agree" with homosexuality.

You are really just a young naive kid slavishly believing the hardcore libertarian kool-aid. Without laws, humans can be inhuman bastards to each other. Just take a look at history. Just because you live in a western nation and in the 21st century where people are generally tolerant, you seem to think that is the way everyone would act if not for laws. That is just seriously naive. It is really really really naive.

If not for countless people advancing justice and getting it codified into law over the centuries, you might be dead now and no one would give a fuck. And here you sit in a liberal democracy created with laws that evolved over centuries and you shit on the people that allow you to live freely. You are a naive ungrateful prick.


Do you know that at the time of the Loving decision legalizing interracial marriage, the public was overwhelmingly against it? That decision and the people that went forward with their relationships are what paved the way to make it accepted. (A much higher % of people were against interracial marriage at the time of that decision than are against gay marriage today.)



Would things have become as tolerant as they are now without such laws? I very much doubt it. But I can tell you for damn certain that things would not be as tolerant as they are today if not for people that worked hard for the laws. Just travel around the world and you'll see countries that are not tolerant of minority ground because they never put it into their laws.


I feel like Jack Nicholson giving the "You can't handle the truth!" speech. (Well, except I'm not hiding a murder.)

 

[Gaborn]

You are not even remotely making sense. They were slaves. There were not allowed to vote. It was impossible to allow them to vote but for 'government intervention' that changed the laws.

Let me rephrase that. I acknowledge that was true THEN. Do you think if there was no federal restriction on those types of laws today that would hold true in any state today? Is there ANY support for removing blacks right to vote TODAY? I view the civil rights act of 1964 as a band-aid. A good band-aid that did good work, but I DON'T believe that today if corporations and states were allowed to discriminate they would do so against various racial minorities.

You are really just a young naive kid.

You're really good at personal attacks. Care to keep a civil tone?

Without laws, humans can be inhuman bastards to each other. Just take a look at history. Just because you live in a western nation and in the 21st century where people are generally tolerant, you seem to think that is the way everyone would act if not for laws. That is just seriously naive. It is really really really naive.

Care to cite a poll, any poll with less than 99% support today for blacks retaining the right to vote? Or women the same for that matter? Or.... well, any of the evils the various civil rights laws were protecting us from?

If not for countless people advancing justice and getting it codified into law over the centuries, you might be dead now and no one would give a fuck. And here you sit in a liberal democracy created with laws that evolved over centuries and you shit on the people that allow you to live freely. You are a naive ungrateful prick.

No one would doubt that the laws were necessary in the 60s. I think it's insulting you think so little of us as a Country that you think they're necessary today.

Do you know that at the time of the Loving decision legalizing interracial marriage, the public was overwhelmingly against it? That decision and the people that went forward with their relationships are want pave the way to make it accepted. (A much higher % of people were against interracial marriage at the time of that decision than are against gay marriage today.)

Yup. You make the case very well for the Loving decision. In the 60s. Do you see the same animus as wide spread against blacks today? Can you name one state with an anti-miscegenation law on the books today? If I remember correctly Mississippi about 5-6 years back became the last state to formally remove a law preventing interracial marriage. Mission accomplished.

Would things have become as tolerant as they are now without such laws? I very much doubt it. But I can tell you for damn certain that things would not be as tolerant as they are today if not for people that worked hard for the laws. Just travel around the world and you'll see countries that are not tolerant of minority ground because they never put it into their laws.

I really think you missed my point. No one would argue the need for those laws in the 60s (that is, very few people today would argue they were unnecessary then). I find it more interesting if they're STILL just as necessary.

I feel like Jack Nicholson giving the "You can't handle the truth!" speech. (Well, except I'm not hiding a murder.)

I can handle the truth.

 

[Raist]

As interpreted by the French high court? Or some politician who can claim that to curry political favor?

Equality.

First, let me say it's good business to treat everyone with respect, that way you're more likely to have a strong repeat customer base for whatever good or service you offer. However, I don't know if you saw my example above. In the US a government building that has one religious symbol (a christmas tree, nativity scene, star of david, etc) can't willfully refuse any other religious symbol without a heckuva law suit they would certainly lose. That's because in the US the government is religious neutral. The same isn't true for private businesses because they're, well, private.

In theory. In practise, I'm not sure US government buildings have all possible religious symbols, do they? See, in France, this is completely banned, except of course for holy places, or museums, etc.

Since they're owned by individuals they represent what the individuals want, just as, for example the government can't pick and choose what products a grocery store sells (so long as they're legal for other businesses to sell).

And legal as regards to the government's laws, which is interesting. Unless you'd be ok with a grocery shop selling cocaine to anyone?

I understand that is often the policy of a brothel or a strip club...

Which are extreme examples. I mean it's not like we're talking McDonald's. But according to your view, they totally should have the right to do so, right?

 

[speculawyer]

Let me ask you, would YOU go to a business that refused customers based on their race? Or would you look for an alternative? In a market based society ideas ultimately win out, and if there is a demand for a business that doesn't discriminate (and I think virtually everywhere, including the deep south and any neighborhood in the US that would apply) they will exist. Personally I'd rather know who the racist sonovabitches are so I can refuse to give them my money.

You are such a naive idiot. The only reason people would be offended today is because just laws pushed society in that direction. This view that libertarian economics would ensure justice is just so fucking naive. Just look at Iraq. Saddam was a bastard but a least there were laws that kept people from acting unjustly. As soon as the law disappeared . . . poof. Sunni killing shia. Shia killing Sunni. Shia and Sunni killing gays. The business of Christians burned down. That is what happens without laws.

 

[Korey]

1. As a private company I think they should have the right to discriminate in pretty much any way they want.

Ok, after responding to this insane quote with "uhhhhhhhh" and leaving the thread, I decided to come back and address it...I know tons of other replies have been made regarding this topic but I haven't had the time to read all of them.

First of all, how much of history do you have to ignore to make that comment? There were PLENTY of private companies during the civil rights movements that would gladly have discriminated against people of color, and a majority of people living in those parts that would have been perfectly fine with it. Your free market argument might hold some water today (not really), but only because of all the laws that went into effect making our American society the way it is today. Discrimination is no longer tolerated among much of the population because NOW we know that it's wrong due to a change in thought as a direct result of those laws, and this was not always the case. And we're not even there yet, there are lots of minorities (not only racial minorities) still oppressed in the USA.

Secondly, let's bring up a minority you probably haven't had on your mind for a while: the disabled. Such as those who are in wheelchairs, blind people, and deaf people. There are laws protecting the accessibility of these people. For example, handicap ramps in public buildings and handicap parking. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Now, how does this relate? Because there are tons of people and companies who don't give a shit about disabled people. They are such a small and unvocal minority, and most of us probably don't have family members or friends that are deaf or blind, that it doesn't present an injustice to us when we hear that a blind person can't navigate or effectively use a website such as Target.com.

Oh wait: National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corporation. The government agrees that the internet is not exempt from accommodating the disabled. Target argued that its stores already accommodated the blind, so their website didn't need to. This is just one example of a major company thinking this way, but in fact a LOT of web designers are on their side. It would take a lot of work to make websites accessible to the blind/deaf for little to no gain for them. For example, imagine having to caption every video you put on a website. Lots of companies would gladly not do that, because it's too much trouble and they'd rather just lose whatever potential blind/deaf person that they might alienate.

So anyway, what I'm getting at is that the free market won't do shit for minorities. There are tons of racist and/or apathetic people out there. I'm sure many people here, including myself, won't care if Target doesn't make their website accessible to blind people. But that's what the government is for, to make sure that blind people aren't ignored or discriminated against due to apathy.

Let me ask you, would YOU go to a business that refused customers based on their race? Or would you look for an alternative?

If your local private establishment (grocery store, movie theater, night club, coffee shop), didn't allow one of the following to do business there:

- Russians
- People over the age of 70
- the deaf
- Australians
- Mormons
- Transgendered people

A vast majority of people wouldn't care (ie. stop shopping there) if one or more of those company rules went into place.

 

[JGS]

As far as I know France has never banned any religion. But you have to understand that the ban on the niqab is the result of a long tradition of secularism, plus this particular piece of cloth is not compatible with the fundamental values of the French constitution. Among other issues.

Also, I don't see why a company wouldn't have to respect everyone's beliefs. Are they above the law or something? Why not having companies refusing to provide services to people with green eyes, or force their employees to work completely naked then?

I never said France banned a religion although Scientology would probably count and is probably pretty close. What they did do was question particular portions of a religion as contrary to their culture- which is known for being multi-cutural. Not a single croissant was hurt in the act of a French woman wearing a burqua. Less than 1% of the Muslim population in France wore them, meaning that it wasn't even harmful to Muslim citizens of France, much less the entire French population. I don't agree with a stand like that and made that clear in the thread that was talking about it.

The law does not require respect for everyone's beliefs except by the government. An individual or corporation can say whatever they want, even disrespectful speech. It happens everyday and no one is arrested of fined for it. A company can pick and choose rules and policies that restrict freedoms while also being perfectly legal.

 

[Kaeru]

Wasn't the mass immigration into Sweden from many different cultures a nearly essential part many years ago when the labour force in Sweden was dying? That seems like a pretty big and important benefit - and that isn't even counting the biological diversity. For faults "I don't wanna see their stupid headscarves all over the place" and "I don't like hearing them talk in their language" don't seem quite proportionate.



:lol You're being a bit silly don't you think, essentially what you said boils down to "Now that we have all these foreigners here, there's nothing I can really do about it. But they better start toeing the line!"

Also, maybe you wanna clear up - how many generations back is too far back for you? Is 1 or 2 okay? Or maybe just anything under 10 years?



:lol Again, you're being silly. Cultural values are not a static thing - culture is simply a reflection of a particular society - Swedish culture is not the same it was 10 years ago - but that culture was not the same it was 10 years before that - and I bet if we went back by the decades for a couple of hundred years, that formula would stay true.

What YOU are saying is, you don't want to adapt to the changing culture of your society - with all the immigration it was bound to happen, and instead, want things to 'go back to the way things were' - that's old fogey talk! It's not you who is being stubborn, oh no, it's just that everyone isn't fitting into your neat little box, and that upsets you is all. THEY should - because of the contract they signed when they immigrated - figure out how it is you want them to act, and then things will be right.

Now if only we could get them to all look like you too! Maybe you guys should start banning things that are different?

Sweden dying? I have to quote Andrew "Dice" Clay in saying: "Where do you get your fucking information?"

Sweden had an massimmigration from neighbouring country Finland(which historically has belonged to Sweden) and also a little from Jugoslavia and parts of southern Europe.
Because of the cultural similarities it went pretty smooth, especially with the majority that was the Finns since Swedish is the official language there etc.
Sweden, who was neutral in WWII, had a booming industry post WWII and needed working force for their industry.
What separated this from the massimmigration that we have today is 2 things:

1. They came here because there was work for them
2. We had an assimilation process which means they had to adapt to our society

And also worth mentioning is the fact that the numbers werent near the numbers that we have had the last 30 years.

Well call me silly but I believe you should adapt to the country that you come to.
I dont want to "clear" anything up. We have the people we have, lets deal with the real situation and not with fantasies of repatriation.

Sure thing cultures change all the time. I have my idea of what our culture should represent and im trying to make sure that happens, even if it means to go against the flow on certain issues. Multiculturalism is one of those things I dont like so im fighting against it. We have a political party that represents my views and who probably will be elected to parliament this coming election, so im not alone. Its a movement, just like many countries in Europe have nationalistic movement right now, many of them most likely as a response to the terrible consequences that massimmigration has brought forward. In Denmark the nationalistic party has been very successful in fighting multiculturalism, massimmigration and the islamification. So theyre in a way dictating the future of Denmark and has made a huge impact. Thats what im striving for here in Sweden and im sure that it will happen here too

 

[Gaborn]

Equality.

Equality is a simple word but it has so many meanings depending on who you ask. Why, President Obama believes civil unions are "equality" for gay couples!

In theory. In practise, I'm not sure US government buildings have all possible religious symbols, do they? See, in France, this is completely banned, except of course for holy places, or museums, etc.

Well, not as such, but if there's a religious DISPLAY then any group can pretty much ask and expect for their religious symbol to be included.

And legal as regards to the government's laws, which is interesting. Unless you'd be ok with a grocery shop selling cocaine to anyone?

To "anyone"? No. To a legal adult? I wouldn't object to it. You're right though, that would currently be illegal.

Which are extreme examples. I mean it's not like we're talking McDonald's. But according to your view, they totally should have the right to do so, right?

Yup, they should, just as employees should choose to work there or not, and customers should choose to go there or not. Another simple example actually with McDonald's. A lot of bars and restaurants have, in recent years been affected by banning smoking. McDonalds, back in the 1980s decided to ban smoking at all their restaurants. They weren't legally required to at that time, they did it because it was good for their business and it made them more of a "family" restaurant. I prefer McDonald's having the right to voluntarily make that decision (or not) to the government making it.

 

[numble]

In this post, a person who is not familiar with BFOQ .
It may or may not hold in court, but it's going to boil down to establishing how integral is this dress code is to Hollister's business.

Why would you think I don't know about it? I'm currently taking a course on employment law with someone who regularly argues in the Supreme Court. I am commenting on the general sentiment in this thread of people saying things like "employers can do what they want." As to BFOQ, that is going to be strictly scrutinized when there is a clear linkage to religion, especially when the plaintiff can prove there is an alternative practice (no ban for stockroom employees) that accomplishes the same business purpose.

 

[ZealousD]

1. As a private company I think they should have the right to discriminate in pretty much any way they want.

Were you also fine with businesses discriminating against their customers too?

 

[Gaborn]

Were you also fine with businesses discriminating against their customers too?

Legally? Yes. Morally? No.

 

[speculawyer]

You're really good at personal attacks. Care to keep a civil tone?.

Why should I? In your anything goes libertarian paradise, I'm really mad at your disrespect for the people that worked hard before you that I'll just say FUCK YOU.

Care to cite a poll, any poll with less than 99% support today for blacks retaining the right to vote?

Duh.

No one would doubt that the laws were necessary in the 60s. I think it's insulting you think so little of us as a Country that you think they're necessary today.

Are the laws harming you somehow? Is there a black man you are hoping to lynch?

Are you saying we should repeal such laws?


And yes . . . I do have a very low opinion of humanity. Not that I'm surprised . . . we are just apes that had a brain which evolved into a great thinking machine since it helped us survive.

But we are still just those slightly smart apes. The only substantive difference between us and our ancestors of the last 50,000 years or so is the society we have built. The educational institutions. The economic system. The science and technology that have evolved over thousands of years. And to a large extent, our governments and laws that made those possible. Take those away and we are little more than our close relative apes that we visit at the zoo.

Yup. You make the case very well for the Loving decision. In the 60s. Do you see the same animus as wide spread against blacks today? Can you name one state with an anti-miscegenation law on the books today? If I remember correctly Mississippi about 5-6 years back became the last state to formally remove a law preventing interracial marriage. Mission accomplished.

Durrr.

No one would argue the need for those laws in the 60s (that is, very few people today would argue they were unnecessary then). I find it more interesting if they're STILL just as necessary.

Yeah, it is sad that they are necessary. But that Iraq example . . .

 

[Raist]

I never said France banned a religion although Scientology would probably count and is probably pretty close.

It hasn't been banned. Again this is a very particular case, and Scientology has criminal activities. Fraud and whatnot.

What they did do was question particular portions of a religion as contrary to their culture- which is known for being multi-cutural. Not a single croissant was hurt in the act of a French woman wearing a burqua. Less than 1% of the Muslim population in France wore them, meaning that it wasn't even harmful to Muslim citizens of France, much less the entire French population. I don't agree with a stand like that and made that clear in the thread that was talking about it.

"Portions" would be pretty wide. It's ONE specific aspect of the religion, which as I said previously is in complete disagreement with the constitution. Simply because it's a slap in the face of the value that men and women are equal (and thus is itself a discrimination) for a start. I'm pretty sure the percentage of women chosing to wear a niqab is not 100%. Etc.

 

[Korey]

Legally? Yes. Morally? No.

Would you be fine with all the domestic airlines getting together and agreeing not to fly Muslims or middle-eastern-looking people?