3 ms·
... Somehow I "forgot" that it had to be one that was visually distinguishable I guess? Oh, wait, now I remember. Some religions mandate things about clothing
by drdeca 11y ago
... Somehow I "forgot" that it had to be one that was visually distinguishable I guess?
Oh, wait, now I remember.
Some religions mandate things about clothing which are visually distinguishable. I think that was something that I thought also could have been it.
It's not hard to imagine someone who is not familiar with the practice being unwilling to allow a Sikh to bring their kirpan in the taxi. (Hoping that I'm not misunderstanding something about that)
Now, from the context, I suppose I should have concluded which one they meant.
But people can be discriminated against based on things which are visibly apparent, and are mandated by a religion.
- justin66 11y agoI think that's hypothetically a legitimate point. I have friends who wear a yarmulke and I've never heard of anything happening, but I can see how there might be cities where that sort of thing goes on. Blatant discrimination against Jews happened in the American south in my father's youth, but not so much anymore. ("soft" discrimination is a different matter) Doubly so for Muslims in these times, or Sikhs, and so on. I'm sure bad things happen. I've got to tell you, though, withholding service is a pretty extreme thing and it's only been described as a common experience to me by one group of people. (and I should say, I've also witnessed it) It's the same dull, discriminatory bullshit we've been dealing with in America forever and I strongly suspect we aren't going to destroy it by taking a "we must also think of the Tories who are suffering from discrimination!" approach. That's very silly, and what it implies is dishonest.