Business Owner arrested for No Muslims sign

[cassity]

And yours. But it came up immediately I hit the search button.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1331408

 

It doesn't answer the observations I raised which you've used the thread (linked) as important...it isn't

[RescueDiver]

Religious discrimination is illegal. Even if she was doing it surreptitiously, still illegal if she's caught.

 

Here we go again, none believers are not allowed to discriminate but believers and immigrants are allowed to be blatant about it to the extent that if a member of their family was to, lets just say date a none believer or someone from a different nationality, well you know what often happens. And if you don't, you are not speaking from experience and I am. The point being why can anyone who is religious be discriminatory but someone who isn't, cannot?

[Penistone999]

Twitter post actually, not a sign, but still, she deserves arresting for being so stupid.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11997334/Woman-arrested-over-beauty-salons-no-Muslims-Paris-attack-post.html

 

What she should have done is just say they were fully booked if she didnt want their custom , which she would have been perfectly within her rights to do so .

[ANGELFIRE1]

Maybe we should just ban all kinds of religions, it's all gobblydygook anyhow.

 

Look how the planet is falling apart, all due to some folk believing in some super being been better than some other super being, what a load of tosh.

 

Where is there ANY kind of substantiated proof of a said super being sat in the clouds watching us all go about our daily lives. Replies on the head of a pin please.

 

Angel1

[Mister M]

anti-emetic? You want to punish tweets about stopping vomiting?

 

:hihi:

 

---------- Post added 16-11-2015 at 20:16 ----------

 

What she should have done is just say they were fully booked if she didnt want their custom , which she would have been perfectly within her rights to do so .

 

I'm not sure it would. I do know that the law recognises and prohibits 'indirect discrimination'.

I remember when the B&B owners wouldn't allow 2 gay men to share a room in a devoutly Christian's B&B, there was comment that the owners should've said 'we're full up'. Similarly, if a court could prove that they weren't fully booked then that would've been indirect discrimination.

It would be quite hard to prove possibly.

 

---------- Post added 16-11-2015 at 20:21 ----------

 

Ironically by doing exactly what the likes of IS would and are doing...crushing freedoms with force.

 

But should a civilized country be reduced to doing what IS do? If so, that to me means the terrorists have won.

I believe the vast majority of Muslims will be sickened by the activities of IS. By crushing religious freedom, won't we be alienating civilised people?

[cassity]

 

Look how the planet is falling apart, all due to some folk believing in some super being

 

It isn't, honestly it isn't.

 

---------- Post added 16-11-2015 at 20:27 ----------

 

 

But should a civilized country be reduced to doing what IS do? If so, that to me means the terrorists have won.

I believe the vast majority of Muslims will be sickened by the activities of IS. By crushing religious freedom, won't we be alienating civilised people?

 

This was my point. The paranoid believe that crushing and denying is somehow different to the crushing and denying intent of those they crush. It's why I used the term "ironic".

Edited November 16, 2015 by cassity

[Penistone999]

:hihi:

 

---------- Post added 16-11-2015 at 20:16 ----------

 

 

I'm not sure it would. I do know that the law recognises and prohibits 'indirect discrimination'.

I remember when the B&B owners wouldn't allow 2 gay men to share a room in a devoutly Christian's B&B, there was comment that the owners should've said 'we're full up'. Similarly, if a court could prove that they weren't fully booked then that would've been indirect discrimination.

It would be quite hard to prove possibly.

 

---------- Post added 16-11-2015 at 20:21 ----------

 

 

But should a civilized country be reduced to doing what IS do? If so, that to me means the terrorists have won.

I believe the vast majority of Muslims will be sickened by the activities of IS. By crushing religious freedom, won't we be alienating civilised people?

 

Id love to see the do gooders try and prove it

[cgksheff]

Religion is rarely the 'cause'. Just an excuse.

 

The root causes are often the same old ones. Desire for power, assets, sex etc.

[Mister M]

Id love to see the do gooders try and prove it

 

It's nothing really to do with do gooders, it's the law

 

---------- Post added 16-11-2015 at 20:40 ----------

 

Religion is rarely the 'cause'. Just an excuse.

 

The root causes are often the same old ones. Desire for power, assets, sex etc.

 

I agree....

[Berberis]

anti-emetic? You want to punish tweets about stopping vomiting?

 

lol, typo cyclone

 

---------- Post added 16-11-2015 at 20:53 ----------

 

or 'anti-western' (is that an actual crime?!?!)

 

Its a generic phrase meaning those who try to breed hatred of the west.