Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Polls Heaven

View Poll Results: Should people be allowed to cover their face in stores, eg. with a hoodie?
Yes 12 36.36%
No 21 63.64%
Who voted? Voters: 33
You may not vote on this poll

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 989/1003
Donated $0.44
(19-Nov-2008 at 10:27)


There were too many posts for me to read at this specific moment (just lazy).

But I will respond anyways before I am tainted by other thoughts. In my opinion there is no exactly right or wrong answer. In terms of working at a store, anyone who comes in covering there face is a possible risk - a good example is at Halloween time all the stores I know of have signs that say you can NOT wear a mask (although you can wear face paint which I imagine can be just as difficult). If someones face is covered, it is more so an issue with trying to catch the person and not so much with prevention. Although I'm sure a solid amount of people would be less likely to not rob someone if they can't wear a mask BUT what is to stop someone who has plans to rob a place from wearing a mask? I'm sure it is possible that someone coming in to rob somewhere wearing a mask if caught right away and told to take off the mask might be caught off guard but what are the odds?

The other side of it is a concern about discrimination. While there is no need to be concerned about those who just wear a mask, or some basic piece of clothing to cover their face there are those who for religious reasons cover their face. So then if you ban people from covering their face you will be going against the rights of certain individuals right to religious freedom. These people will then be left with two choices: the first of which is to go without the use of the store, the second of which is to go against your beliefs and expose your face to go into the store - neither of which are good options for such a person.

Now for me it is pretty close to 50/50 but with more so leaning towards it should be legal to refuse service to those with their face covered. Not so much because it will protect those in the store (odds are it won't) but to help prevent and protect those in the future from being robbed or put in threat again by the same person.

And pretty much any time it comes down to safety over religious belief I always choose the safety of the people. As an example in a certain religion the people carry around a dagger (or sword, or knife, or something of that nature since I don't remember the specifics anymore) and it came up whether or not they should be allowed to carry it around. Infringe on their religious rights or protect the peoples potential safety. And well I chose safety. While I don't think the odds of one of these people doing anything is high, if the rest of society aren't allowed to bring the same type of weapon then the people of faith shouldn't be either.

But hopefully one day we can find a way to preserve both our safety and also the religious rights of the people.

I finally found my old account again, so I am now using this instead of my newer account - VaX

Only over time, long after we are gone, will we know if our actions were just
#21  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Emperor Sidious Add Emperor Sidious to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2429/2825
(19-Nov-2008 at 11:48)


Quote:
It is discriminant because it targets a specific demographic, even if theoretically white people wearing Burkas are restricted as well.
Yes the demographic that covers their faces. Which also happens to include robbers.

Quote:
The "nobody is forcing" argument falls flat, because like it or not it is a cultural identification. If I have an establishment and ban anyone entering wearing a fez, this is illegal discrimination. It is targetting a specific minority for exclusion, even if they can "choose" to abandon their cultural heritage so as to be accepted.
Not as long as there is a sound and logical reson to do it. I think the rights of the store owner as long as they are founded on good reasons like security should trump over the rights of people to dress however they like for whatver reason

Quote:
Ah, yes... 'Excuse me ma'am, please leave your religious and cultural practices at the door.' You can be polite as you damn well please, but it's unnecessary religious bigotry none-the-less.
Actually it is necessary since it presents a possible security risk. You might have a case if the store owner forbid something like wearing a cross but head covering is a competly different thing. But hey if they want to keep their faces covered so desperately i guess they could do it as long as they provide their fingerprints before entering the store or a quick retinal scan

Quote:
You remove head coverings in official state-enforced identification pictures because clothing can be changed and those pictures are for concrete personal identification. A convenience store does NOT need to ID me to proffer services.
No it needs to ID you for possible security reasons if you commit a crime. A normal safety precaution.

Quote:
Statistically ethnic minorities are more prone to commit crimes. As a shop owner, am I therefore entitled to disallow them from entering?
Nope. But i believe that you should be entitled to forbid a baseball team from entering with their bats, say a samurai or a profesional fencer from entering with his sword,hunters with their rifles,random person entering with with his face covered so that the cameras can't identify him and so on

Quote:
I do technically have a valid security concern, do I not?
Nope but nice try

Quote:
Save for draconion police states, security is NOT a magic word to make the rights of individuals vanish.
So if we want to respect only the rights of indivduals and not those of the store owners why don't we force them to remove the scurity cameras from their stores. I am sure there will be someone complaining about illegal surveilance,right to privacy and so on. Oh wait what about airports. Why on earh should i allow those people to infringe on my rights and put my lugage through X-ray or me through a metal detector?

Quote:
Where is it required that one must have a significant religious text for one's religious practices or beliefs to be validated?
Ok then what are requirments. Do we need to have an x amount of people doing it for an y amount of years?

Quote:
Regardless, this is highly irrelevant to the discussion at hand; if you want to debate this please devote a separate thread to it
Actualy i think it is. How do we rank the importance of which rights should be kept and should trump over the store owners rights over his store?

The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common; they don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit the views

Last edited by DHoffryn, 19-Nov-2008 at 11:55.
#22  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 3066/3399
Donated $25.30
(19-Nov-2008 at 13:49)


Re: Right to refuse service?(The Hoody debate)

Originally Posted by Syke: View Post
It is discriminant because it targets a specific demographic, even if theoretically white people wearing Burkas are restricted as well.
Burkas are not the topic of discussion, but if they were they are not specifically mentioned in the Quran so its not protected by the US Constitution regarding religion



Quote:
The "nobody is forcing" argument falls flat, because like it or not it is a cultural identification.
cultural identfication is not a valid argument vs the safety of a stores owner or employees

Quote:
If I have an establishment and ban anyone entering wearing a fez, this is illegal discrimination. It is targetting a specific minority for exclusion, even if they can "choose" to abandon their cultural heritage so as to be accepted.
IIRC a fez is a hat, so that doesnt apply to the discussion


Quote:
Ah, yes... 'Excuse me ma'am, please leave your religious and cultural practices at the door.' You can be polite as you damn well please, but it's unnecessary religious bigotry none-the-less.
Refusing to serve a person based on religion is illegal, however cultural practices would not be if those practices included violence of a sort ect ect



Quote:
You remove head coverings in official state-enforced identification pictures because clothing can be changed and those pictures are for concrete personal identification. A convenience store does NOT need to ID me to proffer services.
Though that is true its also not an argument that you can win with



Quote:
Statistically ethnic minorities are more prone to commit crimes. As a shop owner, am I therefore entitled to disallow them from entering?
Statistically speaking poor, out of work, homeless people are more prone to committing crimes. This isnt about race

Quote:
I do technically have a valid security concern, do I not?


Quote:
Save for draconion police states, security is NOT a magic word to make the rights of individuals vanish.
Yes and no. While I will agree that individual rights are important so is the rights of the store owner and the employees


Quote:
I have personally defended only the rights of individuals to not be discriminated against on the basis of racial or religious grounds, not the sanctity of any religious practice in question.
And the debate isnt about discrimination

Its about the rights of the store vs the rights of the individual.

Now since a convenience store is private property the store owner has rights

So lets assume that wearing a hoody is a "cultural practice" and is protected by the freedom of speech
The right to free speech only extends as long as it does not infringe on other rights of another (ie harm principle/offense principle)

Here's scenario

Someone in a hoody pulls the hood down low and verbally harasses the store clerks, at this point they have a right to throw him out, however because he wasnt ID'd he is free to do it again maybe even next time bring a gun.

If you want to argue that it doesnt deter people from committing crimes you would be wrong because it does .. I wont argue the point that it prevents crime altogether because it doesnt

A good example

I was working a 7-11ish type store and one night during a shift change i was standing around BSing with the guy getting ready to leave who I had been friends with for years. In comes another friend whom we both knew for years, heads straight back to the cooler, picks up a case of beer, and then walks straight out the door. We watched him walk the two blocks down to where he lived before calling the cops. Bit of a freaky moment but a good example of if someones going to commit a crime they are just going to do it but at the same time would he have been too scared had he been sober to begin with?
Most criminals wear masks and hoods because they are cowards and need the security of obscurity

In the end the store owner has the right to protect himself, his property, and is obligated by law to provide a safe work environment for his employees who also has the right to have that safe work environment. The individual doesnt have the right, by way of freedom of speech/expression, to compromise that based on the argument that its a "cultural practice" especially when you are on his property.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
R.I.P. InJustice!
Hit me up on Facebook

EWE-tah

Last edited by Saint Sinner, 19-Nov-2008 at 13:51.
Edit reason: i talk too much
#23  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Saint Sinner Add Saint Sinner to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2179/2515
(04-Jan-2009 at 21:49)


No. Most stores will be suspicious of people with hoodies, but it just covers everything except for your face. Face to face with a person wearing a hoodie you can clearly see their face (unless the draw string is pulled tight.) I have been to stores which ask me to take my bag off and leave it at the front, but never been asked to take my hoodie down.
#24  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Acadian9 Add Acadian9 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 3128/3399
Donated $25.30
(06-Jan-2009 at 17:22)


Re: Right to refuse service?(The Hoody debate)

Originally Posted by Acadian9: View Post
No. Most stores will be suspicious of people with hoodies, but it just covers everything except for your face. Face to face with a person wearing a hoodie you can clearly see their face (unless the draw string is pulled tight.) I have been to stores which ask me to take my bag off and leave it at the front, but never been asked to take my hoodie down.
different styles of hoodies have different style hoods
I have one that covers up half my face without the use of draw strings
though I never wear it like that since the back of the hood ends in a weird point and when pulled down makes its way to the top of my head making me look like some weird hippy wizard or a gay KKK member

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
R.I.P. InJustice!
Hit me up on Facebook

EWE-tah
#25  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Saint Sinner Add Saint Sinner to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2265/2670
(13-Jan-2009 at 23:21)


A hoodie is fine, a hat is fine, but like a ski mask or something? That isnt fine...It depends on the severity of the covering up of the face.....

"Hmph, you and your third dimension."
"What about it?" "Oh nothing, itís cute. We have five."
"Th-thousand."
"Yes five thousand."
"Donít question it."
#26  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Chillin Add Chillin to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 563/564
(25-Jan-2009 at 14:58)


Yes you should be allowed to buy stuff in a store wearing a hoodie. However the store should also be able to ban it..... I voted yes to the poll because some stores do allow it. However I'm on your side in that stores who wish to ban it should be able to do so
#27  
View Public Profile Visit morticianjohn's homepage Find more posts by morticianjohn Add morticianjohn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1948/1988
Donated $2.08
(26-Jan-2009 at 05:04)


That seems fair to me, as it's not prejudicial towards any group. I mean, shouldn't fancy restaurants and golf courses be allowed to have dress codes?

"Why should I have to work for everything?! It's like saying I don't deserve it!" - Calvin.
#28  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Stewie Add Stewie to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 3486/3861
(27-Jan-2009 at 01:06)


Re: Right to refuse service?(The Hoody debate)

Originally Posted by Celtic20: View Post
Would a baseball cap count?

And what if your bald and wearing a hoodie? Could be pretty cold, cold enough to warrant wearing one.
Usually indoors there is heat hense no need for the hoodie

Never Forget

September 11, 2001
#29  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Invictus2001 Add Invictus2001 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1680/1693
(27-Jan-2009 at 09:08)


Re: Right to refuse service?(The Hoody debate)

Originally Posted by Chillin: View Post
A hoodie is fine, a hat is fine, but like a ski mask or something? That isnt fine...It depends on the severity of the covering up of the face.....
On this note: my city, Winnipeg, experiences temperatures of -35C on a fairly regular basis. Ski masks, while not common, are not unfamiliar. It would provoke a second look, but I don't doubt you'd get service from a convenience store.

Thank god for in-line spellcheck. This post would have been far uglier without it.

Rumours of my demise are greatly exaggerated
Do the impossible
See the invisible
ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER
#30  
View Public Profile Visit Eltargrim's homepage Find more posts by Eltargrim Add Eltargrim to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 36/117
(31-Jan-2009 at 01:42)
I've never seen a hoodie that could cover my face, but that's not important.

I was performing in Scotland and England a year or two ago and was shocked to learn that in certain places there were laws against wearing your hood up at night. Perhaps there is some big problem with it, so I could see store owners getting their gitch in a twist, but honestly, refusal of any business means you lose money.

Store owners should be able to refuse anyone service without having to justify it. It is the store owner's loss. The only exception I could see that should be required would be pharmacists or other services that might be life threatening if refused. Frankly if a guy walked into my store in a gorilla suit, as long as he didnt knock anything over, and he paid with money, I would welcome him back.

Only the ignorant have the capacity to be offended.
#31  
View Public Profile Find more posts by IctouCE Add IctouCE to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1427/1971
(31-Jan-2009 at 10:02)


Quote:
but honestly, refusal of any business means you lose money.
True, but it's not really like "GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE NOW" it's more like "excuse me, sir, would you mind please removing your hood?"

Most people would just do it. But if they then refused, it would make me highly suspicious that maybe they really are deliberately covering their face - don't you think? At that point I wouldn't take the risk, and I would ask them to leave.

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham
#32  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bush wades into evolution debate Reichstag Respectable General Discussions 179 07-Nov-2005 14:00
#Debate Obi2Kenobi Respectable General Discussions 0 30-Nov-2004 01:28
"Liberal Media Bias" - Please read Lonely Tylenol Respectable General Discussions 71 13-Oct-2004 23:29
Third Party Debate Belili Respectable General Discussions 11 12-Oct-2004 20:53
VP Debate paintballer Respectable General Discussions 32 07-Oct-2004 06:33


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 03:50.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.