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: 1300/1971
(18-Nov-2008 at 12:45)


Shoplifting

Should people be allowed to cover their face in stores, eg. with a hoodie?

Just in the interest of being a smartass... Celtic and I were having a debate over something that I'm still not sure there is really anything to debate about... I think it is obvious a store should be allowed to ban anything that covers your face as a security measure against shoplifting and robberies.

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham

Last edited by Spectre19, 18-Nov-2008 at 12:47.
#1  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 3062/3399
Donated $25.30
(18-Nov-2008 at 14:21)


Re: Shoplifting

Originally Posted by Spectre19: View Post
Should people be allowed to cover their face in stores, eg. with a hoodie?
Well heres the problem, at least in the US, businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason except for to discriminate against others based on sex, race, etc

"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
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Saint Sinner Add Saint Sinner to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 519/742
(18-Nov-2008 at 14:52)


You call the thread shoplifting and create a poll that is almost completely unrelated to it. Anyway, my answer is no, a business shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on clothing as it is no more relevant than sex or race when it comes to preventing theft and robbery. Stigmatizing up front is not a good security policy. Besides, a hoody by no means covers your entire face. If we were talking about exceptional face-covering clothing like integral helmets, burka's or masks it might be an interesting discussion, but hoodies? Or are you only talking about banning the act of wrapping your hoodie entirely around your face??

Your brain is unique in the history of the universe. Use it wisely.
#3  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Dusk Illz Add Dusk Illz to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2424/2825
(18-Nov-2008 at 14:56)


Well i know a few shops who are arleady forbidding to enter with backpacks,large bags and purses so i imagine forbiding to cover your face in the store is not that much of a stretch

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
#4  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1301/1971
(18-Nov-2008 at 15:06)


Quote:
You call the thread shoplifting and create a poll that is almost completely unrelated to it
yeah, yeah... didn't really bother much about the title mod can change it if he feels like it

Quote:
Anyway, my answer is no, a business shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on clothing as it is no more relevant than sex or race when it comes to preventing theft and robbery. Stigmatizing up front is not a good security policy. Besides, a hoody by no means covers your entire face. If we were talking about exceptional face-covering clothing like integral helmets, burka's or masks it might be an interesting discussion, but hoodies? Or are you only talking about banning the act of wrapping your hoodie entirely around your face??
It isn't discrimination, because it applies to everybody... and it is more relevant because someone's race or sex doesn't make it easier to get away with a robbery or shoplifting.

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham
#5  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Celtic20)
Posts: 334/410
(18-Nov-2008 at 17:32)


Would a baseball cap count?

And what if your bald and wearing a hoodie? Could be pretty cold, cold enough to warrant wearing one.
#6  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Celtic22 Add Celtic22 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 3399
Donated $25.30
(18-Nov-2008 at 17:58)


Originally Posted by Dusk Illz: View Post
You call the thread shoplifting and create a poll that is almost completely unrelated to it. Anyway, my answer is no, a business shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on clothing as it is no more relevant than sex or race when it comes to preventing theft and robbery. Stigmatizing up front is not a good security policy. Besides, a hoody by no means covers your entire face. If we were talking about exceptional face-covering clothing like integral helmets, burka's or masks it might be an interesting discussion, but hoodies? Or are you only talking about banning the act of wrapping your hoodie entirely around your face??
It would only be discrimination if the store only banned, for example, anyone that was Asian that wore hoodies, and I believe most stores that employ this rule only ask that the customers take the hood down

Both federal and state laws prohibit businesses from denying public accommodation to citizens on the basis of race, color, religion or national original. The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

In addition to protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.

In the 1960's, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals or Republicans, solely because of who they were.

In cases in which the patron is not a member of a federally protected class, the question generally turns on whether the business's refusal of service was arbitrary, or whether the business had a specific interest in refusing service. For example, in a recent case, a California court decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors" or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

On the other hand, a California court decided that a restaurant owner could not refuse to seat a gay couple in a semi-private booth where its policy was to only seat two people of the opposite sex in such booths. There was no legitimate business reason for the refusal of service, and so the discrimination was arbitrary and unlawful.

So in the end if a business feels that by allowing customers to wear hoods while in the store could attract a more violent and dangerous base than they are fully in their rights to refuse service to anyone that doesn't comply with this dress code just as they have the right to refuse service to those that don't wear shirts or shoes ect ect

Now I do remember something about one club out west that was being sued based on "clothing discrimination" because they refused service to those that wore a certain brand of clothing which is different than a type of clothing.
So I guess its ok for a store to refuse people that wear ski masks but NOT ok to refuse only those that wear SaSi Winter Wear™ ski masks

Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
Well i know a few shops who are arleady forbidding to enter with backpacks,large bags and purses so i imagine forbiding to cover your face in the store is not that much of a stretch
I have known a few shops that have been doing that for years now, though normally only during school months to try and cut down on the amount of shoplifting, and yes from a couple of the owners I spoke with they said that it helped dramatically.

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.
Most stores probably not, but I have heard of at least one store that did

I was once asked to remove my hoody during the winter months and i did mention that I was cold but they seemed not to care. I did feel like they singled me out considering how I look but it could have just been store policy or the girl was just a bitch but regardless I threw my stuff on the floor and walked out
I never shopped there again

"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, 18-Nov-2008 at 17:59.
Edit reason: *waves hand* nothing to see here ... move along
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Saint Sinner Add Saint Sinner to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2040/2069
Donated $5.36
(18-Nov-2008 at 18:26)


tsk tsk, SaSi, you should always cite your sources.

The hitch in this debate is that specific types/styles of clothing can be so strongly identified with a specific racial/cultural group as to practically be a secondary race signifier.

No Comment
#8  
View Public Profile Find more posts by BrandonC Add BrandonC to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 520/742
(18-Nov-2008 at 19:02)


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

Originally Posted by BrandonC: View Post
The hitch in this debate is that specific types/styles of clothing can be so strongly identified with a specific racial/cultural group as to practically be a secondary race signifier.
That's exactly what i had in mind as well. Clothing may seem neutral enough to enforce bans on, but that's usually a veiled way of excluding the group that tends to wear those clothes. The way i see it, if you wanna avoid shoplifting you ban bags and such, if you wanna be able to identify people you ban full face coverings; but there's no good reason to ban specific clothing types.

Your brain is unique in the history of the universe. Use it wisely.
#9  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Dusk Illz Add Dusk Illz to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 3064/3399
Donated $25.30
(18-Nov-2008 at 20:24)


Originally Posted by BrandonC: View Post
tsk tsk, SaSi, you should always .
I actually have a reason why I dont do that here and I think you know why


Quote:
The hitch in this debate is that specific types/styles of clothing can be so strongly identified with a specific racial/cultural group as to practically be a secondary race signifier.
Wouldnt that be stereotyping? I didnt think you did such a thing

Originally Posted by Dusk Illz: View Post
That's exactly what i had in mind as well. Clothing may seem neutral enough to enforce bans on, but that's usually a veiled way of excluding the group that tends to wear those clothes.
Thats a pretty weak argument. I'm not saying it doesnt happen .. im just saying it doesnt happen on a grand scale like you imply

Quote:
The way i see it, if you wanna avoid shoplifting you ban bags and such, if you wanna be able to identify people you ban full face coverings; but there's no good reason to ban specific clothing types.
Full face coverings are a specific clothing type
Anyway its all about identifying people but less about it from the stores staff and more about it from the security cameras to which you can more easily hide your face from if you wear a hood

"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, 18-Nov-2008 at 20:26.
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Saint Sinner Add Saint Sinner to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2041/2069
Donated $5.36
(18-Nov-2008 at 20:34)


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

Originally Posted by Saint Sinner: View Post
I actually have a reason why I dont do that here and I think you know why
Because you want people to think you know lots of stuff?



Quote:
Wouldnt that be stereotyping? I didnt think you did such a thing
So saying that Burkas aren't allowed wouldn't be targeting a specific cultural group? Beyond the obvious, though, to claim that specific cultural groups use clothing as an in-group signifier isn't stereotyping; it's fact. This is one means by which social/cultural groups self-identify.

Your use of smileys is an excellent rhetorical strategy, though. Kudos.

No Comment
#11  
View Public Profile Find more posts by BrandonC Add BrandonC to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 3065/3399
Donated $25.30
(18-Nov-2008 at 20:53)


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

Originally Posted by BrandonC: View Post
Because you want people to think you know lots of stuff?
No, I actually do it to annoy you
I was actually thinking right before I posted "If I post this I know for a fact Brandon will post something about citing"
its like I can see the future or something
*shrugs*



Quote:
So saying that Burkas aren't allowed wouldn't be targeting a specific cultural group?
No, what i'm saying is that a business has a right to enforce a specific dress code if the reasons for that code can be explained.
Its not targeting .. its business.
I actually thought you would have seen that

Quote:
Beyond the obvious, though, to claim that specific cultural groups use clothing as an in-group signifier isn't stereotyping; it's fact.
No its pretty much stereotyping. You cant say all hippies wear tie-dye just as you cant say that anyone who wears tie-dye is a hippy. Even at the height of the movement that wasnt true .

Sure you could say that inner city gang members of The Harper St Ballas all wear green to signify which street they live on but to say that anyone that wears green is a member of that gang would be wrong

Quote:
Your use of smileys is an excellent rhetorical strategy, though. Kudos.
Thanks

"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
#12  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Saint Sinner Add Saint Sinner to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1976/2035
(18-Nov-2008 at 21:35)


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

Originally Posted by Saint Sinner: View Post
No, what i'm saying is that a business has a right to enforce a specific dress code if the reasons for that code can be explained.
Its not targeting .. its business.
I actually thought you would have seen that
One of the issues, as was pointed out, is that even with valid reasons, discrimination of this sort can be used as a proxy for racial or other minority discrimination. Where I come from, if you banned "hoodies", you would predominantly be denying Hispanic and Black customers service, but not whites. That is not to say no whites wear hoodies, but it could (and in places would) be used as a covert discriminatory technique to deny service to individuals who were 'sketchy' (aka, a youth minority). Having a valid or just 'reasoning' is simply not enough in certain circumstances. It is an undisputed fact that the poor are more prone to theft; a shopkeeper would therefore have fair reasoning to disallow impoverished individuals (again, discriminating primarily against minority racial groups) from shopping at their establishment.

Originally Posted by Saint Sinner: View Post
No its pretty much stereotyping. You cant say all hippies wear tie-dye just as you cant say that anyone who wears tie-dye is a hippy. Even at the height of the movement that wasnt true .

Sure you could say that inner city gang members of The Harper St Ballas all wear green to signify which street they live on but to say that anyone that wears green is a member of that gang would be wrong
To exhaust an example already well used in this thread, how many women who wear Burkas are not Muslim and of Arabic or African descent? Very few. So banning that item of clothing is the equivelent of saying that no female Muslims may enter my establishment. To a lesser extent, as I hopefully demonstrated above, this is true for disallowing hoodies as well. Since one demographic group happens to overwhelmingly favor a certain clothing fashion, you can effectively discriminate against them by disallowing whatever that piece of fabric is.

No one has made the argument that certain minority groups are genetically predisposed towards certain types of fashion. Nor do they put forward the claim that all of a specific demographic wear item X. They are not stereotyping, they are documenting factual cultural trends. Being Hispanic, for instance, has no impact on an individual's choice of clothing. However, there exists certain ethnically defined cultural groups to whom identification with will influence one's fashion sense.

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard
"Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know."
- Lao Tzu
More Quotes...

Last edited by Syke, 18-Nov-2008 at 21:43.
#13  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Syke Add Syke to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1303/1971
(19-Nov-2008 at 01:31)


Just in the interest of clarity, when I say banning hoodies, I really mean that shops should be allowed to ask you to lower the hood (I think someone said this somewhere) and not kick you out just because your jumper has a hood if you aren't wearing it.

And as SaSi said (and I'm not sure why it's not obvious anyway) if you are wearing a hood, it is extremely easy to hide your face by the way you hold your head. It is not a full face covering, but it very much obscures your face to make identification difficult. And it is not so much about targetting groups that are more likely to steal as it is about ensuring that ANYBODY in your store is able to be identified if they DO steal - thus reducing the likelihood that any of them would.

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham

Last edited by Spectre19, 19-Nov-2008 at 01:31.
#14  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1978/2035
(19-Nov-2008 at 02:00)


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

Originally Posted by Spectre19: View Post
Just in the interest of clarity, when I say banning hoodies, I really mean that shops should be allowed to ask you to lower the hood (I think someone said this somewhere) and not kick you out just because your jumper has a hood if you aren't wearing it.
In that case they better provide some damn good heating in their store. During the winter in many places in the US it would be borderline suicidal to go anywhere without some form of head covering. Especially when it gets windy in Chicago, for instance, it's not uncommon at all for people to be wearing full ski masks (the bank robbing kind).

Originally Posted by Spectre19: View Post
And as SaSi said (and I'm not sure why it's not obvious anyway) if you are wearing a hood, it is extremely easy to hide your face by the way you hold your head. It is not a full face covering, but it very much obscures your face to make identification difficult. And it is not so much about targetting groups that are more likely to steal as it is about ensuring that ANYBODY in your store is able to be identified if they DO steal - thus reducing the likelihood that any of them would.
Perhaps YOU feel you aren't targetting specific demographics with this policy. Unfortunately, this realistically is not going to be the case. For instance, in the pre-civil rights era south, after blacks were given the right to vote, those in power instituted many reforms to continue to disenfranchise black voters. One tactic was the implementation of 'literacy tests.' These had 'reasonable' stated aims- to ensure a certain level of competency and understanding in potential voters. Of course this was just a thin veil to hide the true intent, which was to restrict a specific minority from being able to exercise their rights. While your intent in championing this cause may not be so insidious, it still targets- even if inadvertantly- minorities. Also, again, how do you deal with those whose religion requires them to cover their faces?

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard
"Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know."
- Lao Tzu
More Quotes...
#15  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Syke Add Syke to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1304/1971
(19-Nov-2008 at 03:08)


Quote:
In that case they better provide some damn good heating in their store. During the winter in many places in the US it would be borderline suicidal to go anywhere without some form of head covering. Especially when it gets windy in Chicago, for instance, it's not uncommon at all for people to be wearing full ski masks (the bank robbing kind).
I am sure you will freeze to death without a hood inside a store

Quote:
Perhaps YOU feel you aren't targetting specific demographics with this policy. Unfortunately, this realistically is not going to be the case. For instance, in the pre-civil rights era south, after blacks were given the right to vote, those in power instituted many reforms to continue to disenfranchise black voters. One tactic was the implementation of 'literacy tests.' These had 'reasonable' stated aims- to ensure a certain level of competency and understanding in potential voters. Of course this was just a thin veil to hide the true intent, which was to restrict a specific minority from being able to exercise their rights. While your intent in championing this cause may not be so insidious, it still targets- even if inadvertantly- minorities. Also, again, how do you deal with those whose religion requires them to cover their faces?
Obviously if you are weighing someone's right to cover their face in the name of religion and a shopkeeper and his staff having the right to safety, you choose the latter - especially when it is their privately owned store.

Your suggestion that this would be used as a way to discriminate is laughable. The only instance where it could cause an issue is in the case of burkhas - as a patent issue of the oppression of women, the morality of allowing burkhas at all is questionable anyway, I think the fact that you can in no way even determine the gender or skin colour (two crucial parts of identifying a person) of a person wearing a burkha takes this into the region of we should not allow the wearing of such clothing anywhere in public, let alone in a place of business that is liable to be robbed.

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham
#16  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1979/2035
(19-Nov-2008 at 07:47)


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

Originally Posted by Spectre19: View Post
Obviously if you are weighing someone's right to cover their face in the name of religion and a shopkeeper and his staff having the right to safety, you choose the latter - especially when it is their privately owned store.
Then you shouldn't be allowed to wear a hoody or a burka on the street either. My right to safety when walking in public spaces trumps your right to be warm or practice your religion. You're arguing for straight up bigotry under the guise of 'safety.'

Originally Posted by Spectre19: View Post
Your suggestion that this would be used as a way to discriminate is laughable. The only instance where it could cause an issue is in the case of burkhas - as a patent issue of the oppression of women, the morality of allowing burkhas at all is questionable anyway, I think the fact that you can in no way even determine the gender or skin colour (two crucial parts of identifying a person) of a person wearing a burkha takes this into the region of we should not allow the wearing of such clothing anywhere in public, let alone in a place of business that is liable to be robbed.
Laughable? Really? Have you ever seen or experienced racism? Not all of us can have a personal background with it perhaps, but pretending like it doesn't exist and mocking it is completely and ridiculously ignorant.

Hopefully you're just letting your distaste towards that specific religious practice color your views in this matter or else you're arguing for a border-line police state. What business is it of yours whether or not you can immediately visually identify an individual's skin color or gender when harmlessly walking down the street? So much for innocent until proven guilty, let alone innocent until a crime or even a conspiracy has been committed. You can't racially and/or religiously discriminate simply because you find a cultural practice not to your liking. You especially can't restrict people's rights to dress themselves in garb that holds zero direct correlation towards the restriction of your rights. You don't arrest someone for wearing a fishnet stocking over their head, you arrest them for robbing a bank. You don't arrest someone for wearing clothing that signifies their religious devotion, you don't arrest them at all because they are absolutely, perfectly harmless.

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard
"Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know."
- Lao Tzu
More Quotes...

Last edited by Syke, 19-Nov-2008 at 07:54.
Edit reason: So many shades of ignorant right there...
#17  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Syke Add Syke to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2427/2825
(19-Nov-2008 at 08:11)


Quote:
I am sure you will freeze to death without a hood inside a store
Well if you are near the freezers. And soemtimes with all the frozen food and other products they sell they can be all over the store yes you can get quite cold if the store doesn't offer good heating


Quote:
. So banning that item of clothing is the equivelent of saying that no female Muslims may enter my establishment.
If you ban this special item of clothing only yes altough in case you aren't aware many famle muslims don't wear this but stil it can be seen as inocorrect.If you can ban any compelete head covering that prevents from beind indetified no i don't see it as real discrimination

Quote:
Since one demographic group happens to overwhelmingly favor a certain clothing fashion, you can effectively discriminate against them by disallowing whatever that piece of fabric is
I don't see why privately owned business should cater to fashion trends.Nobody is forcing these people to wear this clothing. It's a completly personal choice. And with hoodies it's very easy just to lower it or to put your ski mask in your pocket

Quote:
Also, again, how do you deal with those whose religion requires them to cover their faces?
You asked them politely to remove their head covering. if they refuse you politely explain them that you have to refuse service because due to security precautions the store prefers all if it's clients to be indetifiable

Quote:
Then you shouldn't be allowed to wear a hoody or a burka on the street either. .'
Strets are a pretty extreme example(and not privately owned). How about less dramatic examples. Should people be forced to remove their head covering when taking their pictures for id cards,drivers licenses,to identify them concerning financial transactions,when the police asks them so that they can be indetified? I believe so. And i believe that the same should go for buisneses where they owners feels that their security is better guaranteed if the customers can be identified

Quote:
can't racially and/or religiously discriminate simply because you find a cultural practice not to your liking
As long as you have a valid legal reason like security concerns i believe that you should be able to

Quote:
You don't arrest someone for wearing clothing that signifies their religious devotion, you don't arrest them at all because they are absolutely, perfectly harmless.
This is not about arrests this is about refusing service on your own private buisnes due to security concerns

Quote:
Also, again, how do you deal with those whose religion requires them to cover their faces?
By the way can you give me a quote from any significant religions holy texts that forces woman to cover their faces?

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 08:17.
#18  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DHoffryn Add DHoffryn to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1980/2035
(19-Nov-2008 at 09:04)


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

Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
If you ban this special item of clothing only yes altough in case you aren't aware many famle muslims don't wear this but stil it can be seen as inocorrect.If you can ban any compelete head covering that prevents from beind indetified no i don't see it as real discrimination
It is discriminant because it targets a specific demographic, even if theoretically white people wearing Burkas are restricted as well.

Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
I don't see why privately owned business should cater to fashion trends.Nobody is forcing these people to wear this clothing. It's a completly personal choice. And with hoodies it's very easy just to lower it or to put your ski mask in your pocket
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.

Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
You asked them politely to remove their head covering. if they refuse you politely explain them that you have to refuse service because due to security precautions the store prefers all if it's clients to be indetifiable
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.

Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
Strets are a pretty extreme example(and not privately owned). How about less dramatic examples. Should people be forced to remove their head covering when taking their pictures for id cards,drivers licenses,to identify them concerning financial transactions,when the police asks them so that they can be indetified? I believe so. And i believe that the same should go for buisneses where they owners feels that their security is better guaranteed if the customers can be identified
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.

Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
As long as you have a valid legal reason like security concerns i believe that you should be able to
Statistically ethnic minorities are more prone to commit crimes. As a shop owner, am I therefore entitled to disallow them from entering? I do technically have a valid security concern, do I not? Save for draconion police states, security is NOT a magic word to make the rights of individuals vanish.

Originally Posted by DHoffryn: View Post
By the way can you give me a quote from any significant religions holy texts that forces woman to cover their faces?
Where is it required that one must have a significant religious text for one's religious practices or beliefs to be validated? Regardless, this is highly irrelevant to the discussion at hand; if you want to debate this please devote a separate thread to it. 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.

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard
"Those who know don't say, and those who say don't know."
- Lao Tzu
More Quotes...

Last edited by Syke, 19-Nov-2008 at 09:14.
Edit reason: Stupid constitution always getting all up in everybody's grill, with it's "rights" this, and "protections" that.
#19  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Syke Add Syke to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1305/1971
(19-Nov-2008 at 10:08)


Quote:
It is discriminant because it targets a specific demographic, even if theoretically white people wearing Burkas are restricted as well.
What specific demographic wears hoodies?

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.
They need to identify you if you rob the store.....

Quote:
Statistically ethnic minorities are more prone to commit crimes. As a shop owner, am I therefore entitled to disallow them from entering? I do technically have a valid security concern, do I not? Save for draconion police states, security is NOT a magic word to make the rights of individuals vanish.
But that is a different issue... its not about it being statistically more likely that people who like hoodies will rob a store, it is that IF they rob the store they get away with it. Requiring the removal of a hood is not an invasion of privacy or rights. Nor should be requiring the removal of a burkha. It is hypocritical anyway. Our society forbids us to "discriminate" by requiring the removal of a burkha, but doesn't forbid the inherent oppression of women found in such a practice. Why do we protect religious values over gender equality values?

Quote:
Where is it required that one must have a significant religious text for one's religious practices or beliefs to be validated? Regardless, this is highly irrelevant to the discussion at hand; if you want to debate this please devote a separate thread to it. 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.
OK, my religion tells me I have to rob stores... does that mean I should be allowed? And don't say something stupid like "well that's just an absurd example". If I can construct an absurd example from your assumptions, your assumptions are wrong.

And it is on topic - the thread isn't just about hoodies, it is about head-coverings, and why they should or shouldn't be allowed.

-------------------------

Syke, I agree that combatting disrimination is important, and I don't say that it doesn't exist. But you have to consider whether there is any real damage or if it is all just your adament anti-discrimination principles... nobody needs to wear a hoodie, and nobody needs to wear a burkha (which is discriminatory against women anyway and should not be allowed in any liberal nation). If you ask them to remove it, even if it is discrimination - and in the case of the hoodie, that is a hilarious notion - it's not a big deal as compared to the need to prevent crime like shoplifting and robberies.

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham
#20  
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 12:36.

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