Jump to content

Can you ban people from a shop or workplace for covering their face?

Recommended Posts

They DO have the right not to serve vegetarians :huh:

Although the fact is that a vegetarian is unlikely to be ordering a burger. :roll:

Of course they do. They also have the right not to serve black people, or fat people, or gay people. Or any normal Joe for that matter. The point I'm trying to make is, why should it matter? Why should they discriminate against anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps I missed that thread.

I think everyone should be free to make fun of Muhhamed and anyone else that they like.

Again, perhaps I wasn't following you around and posting on that thread.

I'd certainly stand up for your right to wear it, hell, I'd wear one as well and let him try and stop us!

No, no one (you included) should be able to impose things on someone else, which is what FGM is, and what you want to do by stopping people wearing what they like.

Do you not see the double standard? You want to "improve freedom" for people by taking away their freedom. Ironic, hypocritical, you choose.

 

Edit - you are actually free to wear a KKK clan costume if you like. You're not free to go naked, which I think is ridiculous. It's a hang up from our Victorian prudery. We shouldn't dictate what people can or cannot wear, the weather in this country will mostly ensure that people go around clothed.

 

---------- Post added 25-11-2015 at 20:47 ----------

 

 

It's easy to agree when it happens to fit in with exactly how you want to live anyway isn't it.

 

How on earth have you compared genital mutilation with wearing something that covers your face? Sorry, you were replying to someone else! That's a pretty big jump there. People can wear what they like in private property but when you get out on to the street there are certain rules and customs. Whether we like it or not in western culture being able to see someone's face is an important part of social interaction and daily life. My post was specifically about motorbike helmets and how they made me feel when I worked in a petrol station. So lets start with that as it's hopefully less contentious than a niqab. Do you think store owners have a right to refuse entry to someone wearing a motorbike helmet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a difference between a 'self subscribed rule' and a belief.

Is there? Can you explain what the difference is?

If I go to church on a Sunday, I believe I should partake in Communion. I don't have to, there's no legal obligation to, it is my own free choice.

 

If some right wing muppet came along and decided that they don't like the idea of people symbolising the drinking of human blood and the eating of human flesh and decided to ban it, I would still do it regardless as it is an important part of my faith.

 

That is the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The niqab or burka is in the main worn by a very, very few teeny tiny little Asian women, whose covered faces are hardly a threat to anyone's security.

 

And large African ladies. Not all Muslims are Asian you know.

 

It isn't just a threat to security, it makes people feel uncomfortable. Covered faces aren't well received by people in Britain. It is also absolutely not a religious requirement.

 

It's not silly at all comparing it to vegetarianism. Should meat serving places have the right not to serve Vegetarians because they don't believe it's right to eat meat? Of course they shouldn't. Wearing a bhurka is a belief too so people shouldn't have any right to discriminate.

 

It is very silly because people do not feel threatened by vegetarians, they do feel threatened by people with their face covered. Would you like me to knock on your grandma's door at night with my face coveted up, possibly with a scarf and hoodie pulled up.

 

Also, vegetarianism isn't a protected characteristic so you can do discriminate against them all you want.

 

Of course they do. They also have the right not to serve black people, or fat people, or gay people. Or any normal Joe for that matter. The point I'm trying to make is, why should it matter? Why should they discriminate against anyone?

 

Wow, you really think people have the right not to serve black people (the implication being refusal of service based on colour)?

 

You should probably educate yourself a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How on earth have you compared genital mutilation with wearing something that covers your face? Sorry, you were replying to someone else! That's a pretty big jump there. People can wear what they like in private property but when you get out on to the street there are certain rules and customs. Whether we like it or not in western culture being able to see someone's face is an important part of social interaction and daily life. My post was specifically about motorbike helmets and how they made me feel when I worked in a petrol station. So lets start with that as it's hopefully less contentious than a niqab. Do you think store owners have a right to refuse entry to someone wearing a motorbike helmet?

 

I think businesses can set whatever dress code they like, I've not said otherwise.

 

My replies about personal freedom were specifically with regards to banning items of clothing in public.

 

I think I've made that perfectly clear in pretty much every comment.

 

---------- Post added 26-11-2015 at 09:40 ----------

 

If I go to church on a Sunday, I believe I should partake in Communion. I don't have to, there's no legal obligation to, it is my own free choice.

 

If some right wing muppet came along and decided that they don't like the idea of people symbolising the drinking of human blood and the eating of human flesh and decided to ban it, I would still do it regardless as it is an important part of my faith.

 

That is the difference.

 

You didn't explain any difference at all there, that sounded just like a self imposed rule about what you want to do on Sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How on earth have you compared genital mutilation with wearing something that covers your face? Sorry, you were replying to someone else! That's a pretty big jump there. People can wear what they like in private property but when you get out on to the street there are certain rules and customs. Whether we like it or not in western culture being able to see someone's face is an important part of social interaction and daily life. My post was specifically about motorbike helmets and how they made me feel when I worked in a petrol station. So lets start with that as it's hopefully less contentious than a niqab. Do you think store owners have a right to refuse entry to someone wearing a motorbike helmet?

 

Ive pointed out what the test is.

 

You ban people wearing burkas in the petrol station, then youd have to resolve that in court if it was challenged as to whether it was discriminatory on religious grounds.

 

Youd obviously say soemthing like no it isnt because 1. its a genuine security threat as many petrol stations have been robbed and its impossible to identify the robbers as they all cover their faces. 2.Its proportionate because we just ban people coming in the shop, but we will serve them at the window. 3. It's non discriminatory becayse we ban all face coverings including bike helmets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course they do. They also have the right not to serve black people, or fat people, or gay people. Or any normal Joe for that matter. The point I'm trying to make is, why should it matter? Why should they discriminate against anyone?

 

Haha, great example. I'd love to see a business refuse service to people based on race or sexual orientation. We've seen that latter on in the press recently.

It goes down really well with the courts, they're totally in favour of that kind of discrimination. :hihi:

 

Why? Well, they shouldn't. Unfortunately some people don't agree, so we've had to pass laws to make it clear.

 

---------- Post added 26-11-2015 at 09:44 ----------

 

Ive pointed out what the test is.

 

You ban people wearing burkas in the petrol station, then youd have to resolve that in court if it was challenged as to whether it was discriminatory on religious grounds.

 

Youd obviously say soemthing like no it isnt because 1. its a genuine security threat as many petrol stations have been robbed and its impossible to identify the robbers as they all cover their faces. 2.Its proportionate because we just ban people coming in the shop, but we will serve them at the window. 3. It's non discriminatory becayse we ban all face coverings including bike helmets.

 

4. It's not a religious thing, it's a cultural thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course they do. They also have the right not to serve black people, or fat people, or gay people. Or any normal Joe for that matter. The point I'm trying to make is, why should it matter? Why should they discriminate against anyone?

 

I can see the point you are making. There are certain things you cannot discriminate against such as someones religion and thats a legal right. It is possible to circumvent that, but you need to show a court you have a legitimate reason for why you should be allowed to do so and the response needs to be proportionate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is very silly because people do not feel threatened by vegetarians, they do feel threatened by people with their face covered. Would you like me to knock on your grandma's door at night with my face coveted up, possibly with a scarf and hoodie pulled up.

 

Also, vegetarianism isn't a protected characteristic so you can do discriminate against them all you want.

 

 

 

Wow, you really think people have the right not to serve black people (the implication being refusal of service based on colour)?

 

You should probably educate yourself a bit.

I really don't think I would find someone in a burqa threatening at all as is a religious garment. A scarf or a hoodie worn to obscure the face obviously not done for religious reasons so yes I would find that threatening.

 

And then in one breath you're saying you have the should have the right to discriminate against vegetarians, but not black people.

 

Obviously you have the right not to serve black people, or gays or anyone you don't like. Any retailer always has the right to refuse service to anyone. Obviously anyone who tried this would not be in business very long. Try opening a restaurant that doesn't serve vegetarians and see how long it lasts.

 

The point I was trying to make is why should places discriminate people based on their beliefs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Obviously you have the right not to serve black people, or gays

You do not. If those are the reasons. You are breaking the law.

or anyone you don't like.

For many reasons, but not because of colour, sex, sexual orientation or any other 'protected characteristic'.

 

The point I was trying to make is why should places discriminate people based on their beliefs?

 

You're not making the point very well. But they shouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You didn't explain any difference at all there, that sounded just like a self imposed rule about what you want to do on Sunday.

I'm pretty sure you know what I mean.

 

Would you feel hard done by if cyclists were banned from all public roads?

 

---------- Post added 26-11-2015 at 10:16 ----------

 

You do not. If those are the reasons. You are breaking the law.

I'm pretty sure you have the right to refuse service to anyone without giving any reason. So it doesn't matter if someone is gay, black, vegetarian, wearing a burqa, got a wooden leg, looks at you funny, or you just can't be arsed. You're not breaking any law by refusing to serve people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm pretty sure you know what I mean.

 

Would you feel hard done by if cyclists were banned from all public roads?

Why? Is it somehow related to a self imposed rule or a belief?

Obviously the answer is yes, but I fail to see how it's related to you explaining the difference.

I'm pretty sure you have the right to refuse service to anyone without giving any reason. So it doesn't matter if someone is gay, black, vegetarian, wearing a burqa, got a wooden leg, looks at you funny, or you just can't be arsed. You're not breaking any law by refusing to serve people.

If however people notice a pattern to your refusal and a court agrees with them that you're doing it for a reason such as that they are gay, or black, then you will end up being fined and/or jailed.

 

For example;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11614694/Christian-bakery-guilty-of-discrimination-over-gay-marriage-cake-refusal.html

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158

 

It is illegal to refuse service for such reasons. The fact that you can hide the reasons doesn't alter that it's illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.