this should open an interesting can of worms

[BlaqueKatt]

Story here

A blind man was turned away from an Indian restaurant - because the owner said it was against his Muslim beliefs to allow dogs into his establishment.

the man even showed his permit for the service animal stating he could not be turned away-the restaurant owner threatened to call the police.

So given the recent threads on here regarding service animals, and "accepting other cultures" this should get interesting-discuss....

[Greenday]

Seeing-eyed dogs are among the quietest, calmest, best behaved dogs out there. The dog is not in the kitchen. The dog did no wrong. To kick him out because he is blind and can't walk around without help is a load of crap and the owner can suck a huge one when he is in court and gets owned by the justice system.

[Slytovhand]

Havent' read story (so shoot me now...), but I would have to go with the restaurant.

While I'm definitely one to get really angsty against religions in general, when it comes down to merely a choice in something (as against a law or enforcing your beliefs on someone unwillingly), then I think you stand your ground.

If he allowed the dog in the restaurant, he wouldn't be true to his beliefs - and I think everyone should remain true their beliefs (... as long as they agree with mine ). I get annoyed when someone berates a believer for a particular belief made public - regardless of what it is (ok, so some beliefs aren't 'popular'.. big whoop! You're still allowed to believe it if it's part of your religion... do we get up the nose of those forbidden to eat pork???)

Back to the specifics, what if a customer was Christian, and objected to Halal meats??? Now how would people view this thread?

[linguist]

normally, i'd err toward freedom of religious practice, but in this case the restaurant was completely in the wrong. if one operates a business open to the public, one must be compliant with all applicable laws, whether you agree with them or not. slyt's example of a christian objecting to halal meats doesn't hold, as there are no laws (that i'm aware of) that force a halal restaurant owner to make accomodations for non-halal customers in the foods they serve, however there are laws (in the u.s., at least, and the u.k. too if i read the article correctly) that state that all businesses open to the public must make accomodations for the disabled, including allowing licensed service animals on premises.

[Slytovhand]

Linguist, I'm not actually debating on legal grounds here. And I think that's why BK posted in the first place - 2 types of discrimination facing up to one another. Should be interesting... especially in the courts. I wonder how it will pan out if the restaurant gets told it's in the wrong, how the Muslim community will react.

So - if we bypass the legalities of the case (unless we've got some professional UK lawyers on the threads...), what are people's opinions. Linguist, if I read you right, you'd favour the restaurant - yes??

[Greenday]

Back to the specifics, what if a customer was Christian, and objected to Halal meats??? Now how would people view this thread?

Then I'd have to ask why he chose THAT restaurant knowing what they serve? Blindness is a disability. A restaurant is not a place of religion, it is a place for food. If it was a religious place, I could understand, but it's not, so I don't.

[linguist]

Linguist, if I read you right, you'd favour the restaurant - yes??

not in this case. as i said, normally i'm in favor of freedom of religious practice in a private setting. if the owner had not allowed the man to come into his home or other such private establishment (and by private i mean restricted access, such as a members only club, not privately owned), i'd support him in that even though i personally don't agree with it. in this case though, the restaurant owner made a choice to operate a business and open it to the public. in doing so he agreed to follow all applicable laws, not just those that fit his beliefs.

[Slytovhand]

Greenday, he didn't. It was a friend's birthday. It reminds me of a time I went to a Chinese restaurant for a birthday with a couple of vegetarians, and they had crap all vegetarian on the menu (read, maybe 1...) and got the 'just pick out the meat' crap... grrrrr. (the chef 'relented'... but still...).

Linguist - Oh, ok.

[Pedersen]

Hmmm, some beliefs from various religions that are viewed with disfavor, and even actively held as illegal here in the US (at least partially, some of these are not uniformly illegal):

• Mormon Fundamentalists believe that polygamy is acceptable.
• The Catholic Church denounces homosexuality, as does Fred Phelps.
• Various Christian groups will go so far as to advocate nothing less than terrorism on people practicing legal professions.

Each of those items is, in varying degrees, illegal here in the US. In other words, we have gone to the point of saying "Your religious beliefs are irrelevant when they are being used to allow or advocate harm to another."

Legalities aside, being a moral person involves doing as little harm to others as possible. In this case, the man who was ejected faces a real possibility of harm: He requires aid to get around. The only aid he can rely on is his guide dog. If one place is allowed to eject him based on religious beliefs, then any place can reject him using those same claims. He faces potential ostracism for no other reason than the source of his aid to get around.

The restaurant owner should be ashamed of himself for allowing this to occur. His actions are illegal, and immoral.

[Slytovhand]

Ah Pedersen, I just know you're waiting for someone to come along and point out the glaringly obvious hole in your argument, yes??? I'm sure you left it there deliberately so that someone can point it out, and keep the discussion going....

[Pedersen]

I do know of at least one hole in there, I'll admit it. But I'm not so sure it's a relevant one. If it was, I rather doubt you'd have left it alone

[Slytovhand]

well, I didn't think the analogies were relevant too much. After all, if same-sex marriages become legal in various states, and a couple decides to ask a Catholic priest to do the honours and refuses - is that relevantly similar?? The majority of our laws are based on religious tenets.

No, the hole was that the gentleman in question wasn't refused service for being blind, he was refused service because he wouldn't take his dog outside - that's the actual hole in the argument. And I think it is relevant. After all, you suggest that having the god (oops, sorry, I mean 'dog' ) was the only means for him to get around. Grossly untrue and inaccurate.

But, the line I'm in general going for is - should a person (or business) give up it's religious beliefs for those who don't fit into them? After all, when it comes to religion, we are talking about a person's immortal soul, and thus, earthly law should take a backseat when it doesn't involve 'harm' to another person. 'Harm' takes on specific meanings, naturally, but usually doesn't involve 'inconvenience' nor 'embarrassment'.

(btw - I'm seeing the other side, not necessarily advocating a stance...)

[Pedersen]

No, the hole was that the gentleman in question wasn't refused service for being blind, he was refused service because he wouldn't take his dog outside - that's the actual hole in the argument. And I think it is relevant. After all, you suggest that having the god (oops, sorry, I mean 'dog' ) was the only means for him to get around. Grossly untrue and inaccurate.

Well, if you'd like to be ornery about it, let me be ornery right back. Is the guide dog the only way for this man to get around? No, of course not. By the same token, is Islam the only way for this shop owner to save his immortal soul? If so, then I can think of a few other people who have some rude awakenings coming (Christians, Buddhists, Hebrews, Taoists, to name a few).

Just as the blind man is able to find a different means of getting around, so is the Muslim able to choose a different means to save his immortal soul. And for each of them, the change is roughly as dramatic and traumatic.

But, the line I'm in general going for is - should a person (or business) give up it's religious beliefs for those who don't fit into them? After all, when it comes to religion, we are talking about a person's immortal soul, and thus, earthly law should take a backseat when it doesn't involve 'harm' to another person. 'Harm' takes on specific meanings, naturally, but usually doesn't involve 'inconvenience' nor 'embarrassment'.

(btw - I'm seeing the other side, not necessarily advocating a stance...)

The point I am trying to make, though not necessarily well, is that the blind man's choices are limited. We live in a world that relies heavily on sight. In order for him to get around, his choices are, pretty much, as follows:

1. Exceptional hardship. No assistance. No person, no assisting animal, just a cane, and counting steps.
2. A constantly available person whose primary function is to take this person around. Without that, the blind man is unable to move about freely, and is entirely dependent on someone else.
3. A guide animal of some variety.

Not being blind, there may be options that I have missed. I am unable to conceive of them, though.

Now, option 1 is not fair. As a civilized society, we need to try to level the playing field. No, life itself is not fair. That does not mean we should not try to make things better. Option 1 makes hardship where none is required, and thus does harm.

Option 2 is not fair, either, as it makes someone else subservient to the whims of another. It removes the hardship for one, and places it on another. Furthermore, if the blind person has any conscience, he will feel guilty at being such a burden for someone. One person subservient, one person with a heavy conscience? This is counted as doing harm in my book.

Option 3 allows someone to give a home to an animal that, otherwise, might not have one. The animal gets the benefits of living with someone who is wholly dependent on the animal, which means that it will get better than average treatment, and certainly have a better life than if it were struggling for scraps on the street. Furthermore, the person gains back a strong measure of their freedom. Not all of it, but definitely a significant piece of it. This option actually manages to do significantly more good than harm.

As such, as a civilized society, we absolutely should step up and say "Your religion may well tell you that this is wrong. If so, your religion advocates harming another, and therefore your religion itself is wrong. Find a way to make it work, or get another religion. At least you have a real choice in the matter, unlike the blind man whom you are harming."

As I said, allowing this man to cite religious beliefs as a reason for discrimination allows others to do the same. And that is why my analogies were wholly appropriate. We already tell people, as a society, that their religion is wrong and they must therefore change it. We already back this up by force of law.

We do this because allowing one person to harm another in the name of religion is wrong.

This is one of those very rare instances where what's legally right is also what's morally right.

[Greenday]

Greenday, he didn't. It was a friend's birthday. It reminds me of a time I went to a Chinese restaurant for a birthday with a couple of vegetarians, and they had crap all vegetarian on the menu (read, maybe 1...) and got the 'just pick out the meat' crap... grrrrr. (the chef 'relented'... but still...).

I was responding to your hypothetical situation. I know the person in question in the original situation didn't choose the place. I just don't think the hypothetical situation your proposed was similar at all to the situation at hand.

As Pedersen said, the blind guy did not choose his situation. The owner of the restaurant did. He chose to open a PUBLIC place, therefore he should have to follow all anti-discrimination laws, and whether he's kicking the guy out because he's blind or he's kicking out the guy because of the dog, no matter which reason the owner uses, he's being kicked out as a result of his blindness.

[Slytovhand]

Now you're just being confrontational..

To a Muslim, following the will of Allah via the dictates of Mohommad is the only way to save one's immortal soul.

No-one is saying this person shouldn't have lifelong access to one's means to help get on in life. The restaurant owner at no time said that people shouldn't have their life made easier on them. And the owner in no way is making this person's life more harm-filled.

Your 3 choices here have little to do with the OP. Your argument is suggesting that the owner is demanding that the customer change his entire way of life to accomodate that one instance. Obviously, that's completely false.

What is happening is that the owners are saying "In my place of business, dogs - any dogs - are not allowed inside". End of story! We already have laws (well, down here, at any rate) that say the business has the right to refuse service.

If you were to come to my bar with a person who has already been banned for fighting, and I refuse to serve you because you insist on bringing your friend in (because he's paying), are you going to scream the same arguments? Sure, that's a choice of yours. Blindness is not. Now tell me, what is the dog going to do for the customer while inside the restaurant? Anything that any other person in the party was unable to do for 5 minutes (contrary to your Option 2 analogy). 5 minutes is not 'constantly', thus the analogy fails (Fallacy of Composition). So, where's the 'trauma' and 'drama' connected with that? Does he always take his dog with him, no matter where he goes? Or, does his cane come in handy from time to time??

Now - your 'examples' of analogy - #3 is clearly harmful to people (I presume no argument there??). #2 is already on the books (so to say). Homosexuality was illegal. Now, same-sex marriages still are in many places. And, it is unlikely that the Catholic church (or any other that opposes it) is likely to be effectively sued for not marrying same-sex couples - that's a choice. #1 is only a matter of time - after all, it is accpetable in some countries, and people on this forum have argued that it also is a life choice that the government should stay out of our private lives - again, no harm is done (well - different thread ).


My question basically comes down to the same argument I presented on the eHarmony thread - surely we are allowed to conduct business based on choice - choices which may not accomodate or cater to everybody.