this should open an interesting can of worms

[Slytovhand]

Oh, Greenday, I'm not saying the same situation applies with my recall - just mentioning that I recalled it, and there are some similarities, tis all....

Yes, said owner has to abide by the laws of the land (if you wish to not get in trouble with the law enforcers). But, are the anti-discrimination laws black and white? Or is there room for grey? And in this case, I see a case for both to scream anti-discrimination - so whose takes precedence? I know it's damn easy to side on the non-religious when you don't happen to agree with it.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I vote with the blind guy. This reminds me of those cases where these jackasses try to deny women their birth control prescriptions based on "religious conscience." In this case the shopkeeper might well truly BE religious, but public place + Seeing Eye dogs allowed by law = no basis for discrimination, IMO.

[Pedersen]

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

Now you're just being confrontational..

Hi Pot. I'm Kettle. Now, what's this about me being all black?

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

Being all kinds of nitpicky, but nothing is forcing him to remain so. He has chosen a religion that has a belief that, if universally imposed, would bring harm to a segment of society. Not for 5 minutes. Not for a day. For their entire lives. His choices can change. The people being harmed by his choices don't get to change.

And therein lies the crux of the issue for me: By allowing one man to claim "My religion forbids me to allow you to do this," we allow anybody to use that argument. All they have to do is show how their religion requires them to discriminate.

For example, Genesis 3:16 states that man shall rule over women ( http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/3.html#16 ). Now, there is no requirement for a Christian to accept orders from a woman.

Another one: Exodus 20:3 states "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." Any good Christian can now harass any non-Christian because they don't worship the correct god.

Another one: Exodus 22:18 states "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." This one calls for outright murder of any who can be proven to practice witchcraft. How many pagans would this person be allowed to kill?

I haven't touched on the intolerances in other religions. It's not necessary to make the point, I don't think. As soon as we allow people to start excluding others exclusively on the basis of "God told me to tell you to fuck off," we might as well forget about either having morality or the rule of law to protect people.

Religion has been used to justify more and greater atrocities than anything else in the history of the world. Allowing this man the right to say "Your laws discriminate against me, and therefore I do not have to follow them" is tantamount to simply tossing out every shred of civilization.

What he did was wrong. No grey about it. He excluded someone else on the basis of something that was out of that man's control.

Oh, and another thing: Telling him he could tie up the dog outside? It's December, in England. It's cold outside. The dog would have to brave the elements, and the owner would have to take the risk of the dog being stolen. And this would not have been for five minutes. This was a birthday party at a restaurant. Have you ever seen a birthday party at a restaurant go for less than an hour? The risks were real.

And the owner in no way is making this person's life more harm-filled.

Incorrect. He is actively following a religion that requires him to exclude others. Furthermore, he is putting himself in a position that makes it possible for him to do so. In so doing, he is also requiring any of his staff to follow his example. He is, therefore, actively requiring that others follow his same beliefs.

He is causing harm, and coercing others to cause harm. His religion, and his choices, will ostracize an entire segment of the population. This is reprehensible behavior.

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.

If that were what I was suggesting, I'd agree that my premise is false. It's not.

The owner is ostracizing others for things that are outside of their control, and not giving them ways to rejoin society in a meaningful way.

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.

Oh, I can scream that all I want, but I'll be wrong then. The difference between them is the basis for the refusal to provide service. In your example, we have a known disruptive influence that has been banned for a specific business reason that was disrupting services being offered.

The blind man is being kicked out because god said so. The invisible friend won't stand up for you in court, so he doesn't get to say who can come into your public place of business.

Blindness is not. Now tell me, what is the dog going to do for the customer while inside the restaurant?

Irrelevant to the issue. That only matters after accepting the initial premise that their is a valid reason to keep the dog out. Since I don't accept that, this point simply doesn't matter.

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.

Ah, if you would like to discuss this issue in those terms, let's do so: This restaurant owner's target market appears to be "The members of the public who do not require service animals to function normally."

Not quite the same as the eHarmony case, now is it? I mean, after all, at least there the argument could be made that their software couldn't accommodate the homosexual community. Here, making the accommodation is not a material burden on the restaurant owner.

The restaurant owner is quite definitely in the wrong. I'd say you are, too, except you haven't taken a side yet. You're just arguing to be ... what's the word you used? Oh, yeah:

confrontational

Something I find rather interesting from the article: The owner himself did not confirm his religious beliefs to the reporter: the brother of the owner did that.

The owner's religious beliefs are so important to him that he will kick someone out, threaten to call the police, but will not even stand up and admit to them for the reporter. That says a lot about the owner, actually.

BTW, I realize this came off rather vitriolic. I do apologize. This owner set me off, though. I don't even know why, since this sort of thing shouldn't get me so riled up. But he did. And I find myself hoping that he either publicly apologizes or loses his business over this. He was in the wrong, and needs to admit it or have consequences.

[Slytovhand]

Hi Kettle. Are you Ma or Pa??

BTW, I realize this came off rather vitriolic. I do apologize. This owner set me off, though. I don't even know why, since this sort of thing shouldn't get me so riled up.

Meh, Don't worry about it. I think we both like to stir the pot a bit from time to time. That's what makes us both valid targets to each other (oh, that and when we do lock horns in a nice logical straight-forward way). I am curious, though... what has gotten you riled up??

Yes, I certainly do think there should be a consequence by losing business over it.

Amethyst's point does come into it though - do people unable to get contraceptives have the right to scream discrimination, and then sue for it?

Although you (Ped) haven't actually gone too much into how intolerant religion is, the point will be made that it does already do as you have suggested - discriminates against people. Some things now have laws saying you can't, others don't. Just depends on who's in control, and where. After all, you go to Islamic countries, you'll start to feel the heat.

Originally Posted by Slytovhand View Post

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.

If that were what I was suggesting, I'd agree that my premise is false. It's not.

Ah, that'd be the: "Find a way to make it work, or get another religion" that I was referring to.

and not giving them ways to rejoin society in a meaningful way

Poppycock! Confusing 'a restaurant for a couple of hours' with 'society'???? Bah - humbug!

The restaurant's target market is: people who want to eat Indian food, as prepared and following Islamic tradition. I still think the eHarmony connection runs true - the only significant difference being that with the eHarmony situation, the individual wasn't put in a situation of having to deal with the issue, while the customer in the restaurant was.. he was right there, and asked to leave. He was put on the spot, and an ultimatum (and threat - that of ringing the police) was given. Also, in said article, I don't recall reading anything about the police response....

Would the same case be made if the birthday organisers had enquired of the restaurant first, and then be told no dogs inside?

A couple of things that I do agree with here - December in UK (didn't notice that bit at first). Stupid to say dog has to go outside....

Secondly (and hasn't been mentioned here yet...), if they have the problem with the dog and the religion, surely they should also be following all other laws/traditions of Islam? Wouldn't that mean the women would have to change their behaviour? And how you eat (IIRC - no using the left 'unclean' hand??) etc etc. Bit of hypocrisy there! I didn't get that he refused to confirm his religion with the reporter, though. I figure that's just misinterpretation or misunderstanding...

Btw, I'm thinking my 'side' is..... in the middle! On one hand, I believe that people have the right to follow their religion/beliefs of choice, and have the right to discriminate on their own property - even if it's extremely exclusive. That's a part of the society we live in, and it's called 'diversity'. Also, it's 'tolerance'. All religions and beliefs are discriminatory in one way or another - that's a fact of life (and part of the definition). And the solution for all of us who don't follow that religion? Simple, don't put yourself in their firing line. ie - steer clear of those situations. I wouldn't wear my shoes in a temple/church that required I take them off. When I go out to a place of business, they have business rules. If I don't like them, I leave.

On the other hand, I'm thinking as you do - we, as a race that is supposed to be intelligent - should have gotten over such silly petty things as 'my god has said that X practice is out, even though it's silly, stupid and has no real place in intelligent society'. For a race that is so 'intelligent', we're also so damn ignorant. And let's not make people's lives unnecessarily difficult.

So, I can't say they were in the wrong... but I'm not prepared to say they were 'right' either.


Btw - nitpick... "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live amongst you" is a mistranslation from the King James Bible. The actual word which has been translated as 'witch' is better translated as 'poisoner', in both the literal and metaphorical sense (ie, poisoner of minds... aka, gossip-monger). Of course, this still has little to do with people who choose to follow that particular religious interpretation....

[AFPheonix]

Oh, Greenday, I'm not saying the same situation applies with my recall - just mentioning that I recalled it, and there are some similarities, tis all....

Yes, said owner has to abide by the laws of the land (if you wish to not get in trouble with the law enforcers). But, are the anti-discrimination laws black and white? Or is there room for grey? And in this case, I see a case for both to scream anti-discrimination - so whose takes precedence? I know it's damn easy to side on the non-religious when you don't happen to agree with it.

In this case, I would figure that the British version of the ADA is pretty black and white regarding service animals. Since there is no direct law regarding muslims not having to tolerate dogs, I would say the direct letter of the law of the land trumps the possibly culturally-influenced fuzzy law from an ancient book.
Laws of the land regularly trump such religious rules, including Jewish law found in the Pentateuch.

[smileyeagle1021]

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.

.

I know of at least 5 people who would disagree with you... those being the 5 people I know who are blind who depend solely on their cane... granted they do get help, you'd be amazed the kindness of strangers in telling them when it's safe to cross streets, where they are, etc... but they've told me (and I believe them) that even all by themselves they can handle with minimal difficulty sense they have learned how to deal with it... much like a diabetic will learn how to deal with controlling blood sugar, a deaf person will learn how to read lips, and a paralyzed person will learn how to get around quickly in a wheelchair. No it's not easy but it's doable.

That and as has been mentioned, the shop owner, to my understanding, did not say that the man must give up his dog permanently, just that the dog could not come in the restaurant... could not the customer and owner come to an agreement where the blind man left the dog outside and the store owner had someone keep an eye on the dog to make sure no one stole it? This doesn't have to be a black and white issue, there are many shades of gray that could be utilized.

[Boozy]

Service dogs are allowed in restaurants. A blind individual depends on their service dogs for their independence, self-reliance, and dignity. And the law does not allow restaurant owners to tell blind people to check these things at the door.

Slyt - Why do you still insist that businesses can serve or not serve whomever they want? Businesses are not private property.

[Rapscallion]

It's debatable that a business is not private property. The business owner either owns the premises or pays the lease - therefore within reasonable limits they can say who can enter. Does that sound reasonable?

The limits for the UK are usually at the owner's discretion, I believe, with the exception of certain categories. A business owner cannot bar entry to someone on grounds of race or gender, for example. I suspect Crazylegs will give a better run down of UK legislation than I could.

Just had a look at the article - the law is stated fairly clearly there, though the Daily Mail is more of a hard wing newspaper, in my experience. It's generally amongst the first to scream 'No' to immigration.

Is it ethically wrong to force them to accept the dog? I don't think so - when they opened a business, they should have known this could happen and be prepared to deal with the results.

Rapscallion

[Boozy]

It's debatable that a business is not private property. The business owner either owns the premises or pays the lease - therefore within reasonable limits they can say who can enter.

The law doesn't consider it debatable. It's pretty clear on the subject.

The law in the US (and Canada) says that businesses that are open to the public are not private property. Just because something is owned and paid for by a private citizen does not necessarily mean that it is not a public place.

Businesses are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religious persuasion, or sexual orientation. And a shop or restaurant isn't forced to be wheelchair accessible, but they are forced to make reasonable accommodations (ie, those that do not cost you anything out of pocket) for those with disabilities. Service dogs do not cost the business anything to allow in, so therefore they are required by law to permit them entry.

One may agree or disagree with these laws, but that's the way it is. I agree with these laws, given that many areas would still be almost completely racially segregated without them.

If I were an adherent of ultra-fundamentalist Islam, I might require any women in my presence to wear a burkha. And I could also open a restaurant. But I cannot open a restaurant and refuse entry to any woman not wearing a burkha.

[smileyeagle1021]

Businesses are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religious persuasion, or sexual orientation. .

just nitpicking... in some places it is still legal to discriminate based on sexual orientation... Utah being one of them. If I wanted to refuse to rent a room to a gay couple (which I wouldn't do for two reasons, one being that I see nothing wrong with being a gay couple, and the second being that, and I know this one for a fact, a gay man's money will spend just the same as a straight man and with the economy the way it is, the hotel needs as much revenue as possible) I could do so with minimal legal consequences (at least from the state... we'd be in violation of our franchise agreement and would have legal trouble there).

And back on the original topic... I think I'll stick with saying that this is a case of shades of gray... it seems like neither side wanted to accommodate the other or even come to a compromise, which while wouldn't be easy, would be possible. (IE, have an employee look after the dog outside while the customer was inside or bring his purchase out to him... neither is perfect, but both would have worked if the owner was insistent on no dogs inside).

[linguist]

That and as has been mentioned, the shop owner, to my understanding, did not say that the man must give up his dog permanently, just that the dog could not come in the restaurant... could not the customer and owner come to an agreement where the blind man left the dog outside and the store owner had someone keep an eye on the dog to make sure no one stole it? This doesn't have to be a black and white issue, there are many shades of gray that could be utilized.

a properly trained and certified service animal represents a time and money investment of hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars in training, and there are waiting lists months or even years long to get one. would you be willing to leave something like that tied up outside, even with someone watching, knowing that if something were to happen it would be a very long time indeed before you were able to get another, and that chances were very good that you wouldn't be compensated?

[Flyndaran]

Since gays can't get married, I would claim that all the U.S. discriminated based on sex.

As to the religious doofus and blind guy....
There are such creatures as minitrue seeing eye horses. The live longer and are less temperamental.

This is also a queistion abput how much accomodation should handicapped people make to others as well as religious freedom to discriminate.

A blind man's dog isn't really needed in the restaurant. But of course a seeing eye dog isn't a pet. They are medically needed employees. It would be like refusing entrance to a man with an oxygen tank because the owner doesn't belive in prolonging life.

[Rapscallion]

The law doesn't consider it debatable. It's pretty clear on the subject.

This tale is in the UK - quite frankly, I don't know what the exact legislation is over here. That's why I'd be very interested in hearing from Crazylegs.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

Boozy - as Raps has indicated, businesses (in some parts of the world) do have certain rights regarding who they serve and who they don't. 'Discrimination' - ie, choosing not to serve someone based on a completely irrelevant bias, is out in this country. That doesn't stop them from having legitimate reasons to not serve someone. And it's also the reason that businesses have the right to 'evict' someone and have them charged with trespass. It is also why businesses must have insurance to cover against personal injury (rather than it being public space, and thus would fall under public space).

Well - at least the subject of this is good... it's opening up a can of worms.

[MannersMakethMan]

I can remember not long ago that an imam issued a fatwah to allow a blind man in Leicester to bring his guide dog into the mosque for prayer. There is room to work together on this if both parties are willing. I have no idea of legalities, but there certianly exists a precedent for allowing the dog in.