Jester13 Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 NOTE: this video is not from youtube so you will have to click on the link and watch it off of CBC on demand if you would like to get some perspectives from three of our MPs into the different sides of the issue. http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2484841075/ Anyways, this thread is to start a debate regarding reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs in Canada. It is in no way intended to spur bigotry or racism--although I have a feeling there might be some of that to follow (I suggest ignoring it)--I am sincerely trying to get a good dialectic going, on what I think is an important and interesting topic. After watching the video and getting a little insight into the issue, I would like to hear some comments and ideas, and to help with the conversation I will pose some questions and comparisons that I think will be applicable and worthy of consideration for this topic: i) Using an example from a year ago, or so, regarding a Sikh soccer player in Quebec who wanted to wear his turban while playing soccer (which was later overturned by Fifa, if I recall correctly, after he was first refused accommodation), considering that his request for accommodation did not affect anyone else, IMO I see nothing wrong with this. Thoughts? ii) When it comes to reasonable accommodation, does a situation change and become unacceptable when the accommodating action affects another person? as in the case in recent news and in the video link presented, which involves a group of male Hindu priests at a Canadian airport asking to not be served by a women? iii) Comparison: if it is not ok for a Christian to refuse serving homosexuals, is it ok for a person of another faith to refuse being served by a women? What if someone then decided they didn't want to be served by a person of colour, for example? Is this a legitimate concern, or is this merely a slippery slope fallacy? Is this even a fair comparison? I welcome any other comparisons and debate spurring questions. And let's please keep this thread as clean as possible, people, and seriously try to use our heads before our emotions, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 i) Agreed. it doesn't cause a safety issue for either him or the other players so it's not unreasonable to accommodate him there. ii and iii) Well, there's a pretty big difference between refusing service and refusing to serve someone based on their gender/ethnicity/sexuality/etc. I think it's silly to refuse to be served by someone based on one of these factors, but they can ask for accommodation if they want and the business can choose whether it's reasonable to facilitate it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbal23 Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 NOTE: this video is not from youtube so you will have to click on the link and watch it off of CBC on demand if you would like to get some perspectives from three of our MPs into the different sides of the issue. http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2484841075/ Anyways, this thread is to start a debate regarding reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs in Canada. It is in no way intended to spur bigotry or racism--although I have a feeling there might be some of that to follow (I suggest ignoring it)--I am sincerely trying to get a good dialectic going, on what I think is an important and interesting topic. After watching the video and getting a little insight into the issue, I would like to hear some comments and ideas, and to help with the conversation I will pose some questions and comparisons that I think will be applicable and worthy of consideration for this topic: i) Using an example from a year ago, or so, regarding a Sikh soccer player in Quebec who wanted to wear his turban while playing soccer (which was later overturned by Fifa, if I recall correctly, after he was first refused accommodation), considering that his request for accommodation did not affect anyone else, IMO I see nothing wrong with this. Thoughts? ii) When it comes to reasonable accommodation, does a situation change and become unacceptable when the accommodating action affects another person? as in the case in recent news and in the video link presented, which involves a group of male Hindu priests at a Canadian airport asking to not be served by a women? iii) Comparison: if it is not ok for a Christian to refuse serving homosexuals, is it ok for a person of another faith to refuse being served by a women? What if someone then decided they didn't want to be served by a person of colour, for example? Is this a legitimate concern, or is this merely a slippery slope fallacy? Is this even a fair comparison? I welcome any other comparisons and debate spurring questions. And let's please keep this thread as clean as possible, people, and seriously try to use our heads before our emotions, eh? That's not a religious thing though is it? I've never heard of something like that where the reason was religious, the only reason I see for that is stupidity. I'm not an expert on Hinduism (not part of that religion) but from what I know it isn't an actual Hindu belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted August 9, 2014 Author Share Posted August 9, 2014 i) Agreed. it doesn't cause a safety issue for either him or the other players so it's not unreasonable to accommodate him there. ii and iii) Well, there's a pretty big difference between refusing service and refusing to serve someone based on their gender/ethnicity/sexuality/etc. I think it's silly to refuse to be served by someone based on one of these factors, but they can ask for accommodation if they want and the business can choose whether it's reasonable to facilitate it or not. Should the business be able to decide what is reasonable with regards to discrimination based on gender? Is it discrimination of the female gender, even? That's not a religious thing though is it? I've never heard of something like that where the reason was religious, the only reason I see for that is stupidity. I'm not an expert on Hinduism (not part of that religion) but from what I know it isn't an actual Hindu belief. I'm pretty sure it was based on religious grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 NOTE: this video is not from youtube so you will have to click on the link and watch it off of CBC on demand if you would like to get some perspectives from three of our MPs into the different sides of the issue. http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2484841075/ Anyways, this thread is to start a debate regarding reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs in Canada. It is in no way intended to spur bigotry or racism--although I have a feeling there might be some of that to follow (I suggest ignoring it)--I am sincerely trying to get a good dialectic going, on what I think is an important and interesting topic. After watching the video and getting a little insight into the issue, I would like to hear some comments and ideas, and to help with the conversation I will pose some questions and comparisons that I think will be applicable and worthy of consideration for this topic: i) Using an example from a year ago, or so, regarding a Sikh soccer player in Quebec who wanted to wear his turban while playing soccer (which was later overturned by Fifa, if I recall correctly, after he was first refused accommodation), considering that his request for accommodation did not affect anyone else, IMO I see nothing wrong with this. Thoughts? ii) When it comes to reasonable accommodation, does a situation change and become unacceptable when the accommodating action affects another person? as in the case in recent news and in the video link presented, which involves a group of male Hindu priests at a Canadian airport asking to not be served by a women? iii) Comparison: if it is not ok for a Christian to refuse serving homosexuals, is it ok for a person of another faith to refuse being served by a women? What if someone then decided they didn't want to be served by a person of colour, for example? Is this a legitimate concern, or is this merely a slippery slope fallacy? Is this even a fair comparison? I welcome any other comparisons and debate spurring questions. And let's please keep this thread as clean as possible, people, and seriously try to use our heads before our emotions, eh? There's a difference between not catering to religion and flat out using religion as grounds for discrimination. The Sikh football (soccer) player does not have his religious rights infringed upon because uniform rules apply to everyone and that's the organization's rules. He doesn't get special rules because he's religious. The Hindu one, that's flat out discrimination. We are not ruled by whatever religious beliefs these people hold. So if he doesn't like being served by a woman, he'll just have to get over it. Reminds me of a religious barber shop in Toronto that refused to give a haircut to a lesbian woman. As for the third one, that's discrimination too by the woman. Just because it's in reverse doesn't make it any different. It's hard to justify not serving people on religious grounds in a country like Canada or the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Should the business be able to decide what is reasonable with regards to discrimination based on gender? Is it discrimination of the female gender, even? Well, businesses decide where to draw the line when it comes to difficult or confrontational customers in every other situation. I don't see why this would be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Subban#14 Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 I am Hindu and i dont know why they would do that but there is no religious connection for not wanting to be served by a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted August 9, 2014 Author Share Posted August 9, 2014 Well, businesses decide where to draw the line when it comes to difficult or confrontational customers in every other situation. I don't see why this would be different. Interesting point. But what if a group of "confrontational customers" refused to be served by a homosexual? At what point does the Charter come into play with all of this? *Are there any Charter experts in the house?* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Interesting point. But what if a group of "confrontational customers" refused to be served by a homosexual? At what point does the Charter come into play with all of this? *Are there any Charter experts in the house?*Your post could be interpreted in two ways here I think you could have articulated that a little better. Presuming you mean customers refused to allow a homosexual to serve them.. that has nothing to do with the charter. It would be different OTOH if the roles were switched and an employee refused to serve a homosexual person because of their sexuality. I guess it comes down to how much you think the charter should be micromanaging every facet of our lives. At some point we have to concede that people have the right to be stupid and bigoted. What matters is how that's applied in the real world. Institutionalized discrimination whether it be by government or business though isn't acceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted August 9, 2014 Author Share Posted August 9, 2014 Here's a link to an article on the issue: http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/1.2730402 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Interesting point. But what if a group of "confrontational customers" refused to be served by a homosexual? At what point does the Charter come into play with all of this? *Are there any Charter experts in the house?* Would the Charter really apply if it's the customer doing the discrimination? I'd have thought that would be only if it was the other way around, but I'm not a lawyer. If it's an outright refusal, I think the right thing for the business to do would be tell the customer to take a hike. If it's a request, then it's more discretionary. Either way, it's a shitty thing for the customer to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbal23 Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 There's a difference between not catering to religion and flat out using religion as grounds for discrimination. The Sikh football (soccer) player does not have his religious rights infringed upon because uniform rules apply to everyone and that's the organization's rules. He doesn't get special rules because he's religious. The Hindu one, that's flat out discrimination. We are not ruled by whatever religious beliefs these people hold. So if he doesn't like being served by a woman, he'll just have to get over it. Reminds me of a religious barber shop in Toronto that refused to give a haircut to a lesbian woman. As for the third one, that's discrimination too by the woman. Just because it's in reverse doesn't make it any different. It's hard to justify not serving people on religious grounds in a country like Canada or the US. Hair isn't a part of uniform, if it was there would have to be some military-esque required haircut. It can be clearly shown not to be a part of uniform with the insanely weird haircuts soccer players have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted August 9, 2014 Author Share Posted August 9, 2014 Would the Charter really apply if it's the customer doing the discrimination? I'd have thought that would be only if it was the other way around, but I'm not a lawyer. If it's an outright refusal, I think the right thing for the business to do would be tell the customer to take a hike. If it's a request, then it's more discretionary. Either way, it's a crapty thing for the customer to do. Again, though, what if a group of Christians asked to not be served by a homosexual, should it be up to the business to exercise discretion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Again, though, what if a group of Christians asked to not be served by a homosexual, should it be up to the business to exercise discretion? Legally, yeah. I know I'd tell the customer to find another place to do business in that case, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Not to change the topic of the thread but things will never be decided in a manner to please both sides, ever. There will always be one side that feels it got the shorter end of the stick so doesn't really matter in the sense that there will never be a a perfect solution if you get where I'm coming from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbal23 Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Legally, yeah. I know I'd tell the customer to find another place to do business in that case, though. That would be cool and all but a large portion of people, especially business owners, care more about the $ then about the actual customer. If switching the server gets them to order, a large chunk will do that because of "The customer is never wrong" bull%@$# that people have been taught over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted August 9, 2014 Author Share Posted August 9, 2014 Legally, yeah. I know I'd tell the customer to find another place to do business in that case, though. Should businesses be able to legally decide on this sort of thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Hair isn't a part of uniform, if it was there would have to be some military-esque required haircut. It can be clearly shown not to be a part of uniform with the insanely weird haircuts soccer players have. Has nothing to do with hair, it's additional attire. If additional attire on the head is not allowed (and the vast majority of cases, it's done for good reason), then there should be no exceptions just because someone is religious. This wouldn't be a charter issue at all. But fret not, FIFA has allowed those religious head attire to be worn. I wouldn't protest that either, it's their organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Should businesses be able to legally decide on this sort of thing? It's not a legal decision. If a business won't oblige to their clearly discriminatory request, and they refuse to be served at the logical discretion of the business, they really have no reason for being on the premise. It is not within the scope of any secular country that a customer be allowed to force a business to accommodate religious discrimination/bigotry. That's just silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drummer4now Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 NOTE: this video is not from youtube so you will have to click on the link and watch it off of CBC on demand if you would like to get some perspectives from three of our MPs into the different sides of the issue. http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/Power+%26+Politics/ID/2484841075/ Anyways, this thread is to start a debate regarding reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs in Canada. It is in no way intended to spur bigotry or racism--although I have a feeling there might be some of that to follow (I suggest ignoring it)--I am sincerely trying to get a good dialectic going, on what I think is an important and interesting topic. After watching the video and getting a little insight into the issue, I would like to hear some comments and ideas, and to help with the conversation I will pose some questions and comparisons that I think will be applicable and worthy of consideration for this topic: i) Using an example from a year ago, or so, regarding a Sikh soccer player in Quebec who wanted to wear his turban while playing soccer (which was later overturned by Fifa, if I recall correctly, after he was first refused accommodation), considering that his request for accommodation did not affect anyone else, IMO I see nothing wrong with this. Thoughts? ii) When it comes to reasonable accommodation, does a situation change and become unacceptable when the accommodating action affects another person? as in the case in recent news and in the video link presented, which involves a group of male Hindu priests at a Canadian airport asking to not be served by a women? iii) Comparison: if it is not ok for a Christian to refuse serving homosexuals, is it ok for a person of another faith to refuse being served by a women? What if someone then decided they didn't want to be served by a person of colour, for example? Is this a legitimate concern, or is this merely a slippery slope fallacy? Is this even a fair comparison? I welcome any other comparisons and debate spurring questions. And let's please keep this thread as clean as possible, people, and seriously try to use our heads before our emotions, eh? I think the Sikh one was perfectly fine because its an obligation by some ultra religous sikhs to have uncut hair and beards. I dont see how it would cause a disadvsntage to opposing team players, probably more of a disadvantage to the sikh player himself because he cant properly head the ball.... The Hindu priest one is understandable, but out of line and not sustainable in our society. The priests act similarrly to how catholic priests abstain from sexual contact, except that the hindu priests don't interact with females ever... These priests are ultra religous almost orthodox in nature and it should be noted not all hindu priests are like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.