3 ms·

>Instead the store owner prohibits employees from wearing head scarves. Presto! Now most Muslim women would be unable to work there. Instead the store owner fo

>Instead the store owner prohibits employees from wearing head scarves. Presto! Now most Muslim women would be unable to work there. Instead the store owner forces employees to wear head scarves. Presto! Now most non-religious women would be unable to work there. Unfortunately, there is no law that can help them. This asymmetry is a discrimination against non-religious citizens.

joshuacc 16y ago
"Now most non-religious women would be unable to work there." Not true. Most non-religious women have no problem with head scarves. "This asymmetry is a discrimination against non-religious citizens." Asymmetry != discrimination. The asymmetry of the law is due to the asymmetry of religious discrimination. Namely, it is easy to target religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws, while it is hard to target non-religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws. This is due to the fact that the non-religious are free to do or not do these things (head scarves, dreadlocks, etc.), while the religious have no choice if they are to be faithful to their beliefs.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >Asymmetry != discrimination. The asymmetry of the law is due to the asymmetry of religious discrimination. yep. asymmetry of religious discrimination. It is definitely here. If history is any indicator, the religious discrimination, especially in its most nightmarish forms, has almost always been perpetrated by religious people (just of another religion), and not by non-religious people >Namely, it is easy to target religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws, while it is hard to target non-religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws. absolutely unfounded claim. There are a lot of religious practices, that if "dress-coded" would prevent, for example, me from going there, and i'd have no "religious accommodation" way of getting around them.

joshuacc 16y ago

"Now most non-religious women would be unable to work there." Not true. Most non-religious women have no problem with head scarves. "This asymmetry is a discrimination against non-religious citizens." Asymmetry != discrimination. The asymmetry of the law is due to the asymmetry of religious discrimination. Namely, it is easy to target religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws, while it is hard to target non-religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws. This is due to the fact that the non-religious are free to do or not do these things (head scarves, dreadlocks, etc.), while the religious have no choice if they are to be faithful to their beliefs.

VladRussian 16y ago
>Asymmetry != discrimination. The asymmetry of the law is due to the asymmetry of religious discrimination. yep. asymmetry of religious discrimination. It is definitely here. If history is any indicator, the religious discrimination, especially in its most nightmarish forms, has almost always been perpetrated by religious people (just of another religion), and not by non-religious people >Namely, it is easy to target religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws, while it is hard to target non-religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws. absolutely unfounded claim. There are a lot of religious practices, that if "dress-coded" would prevent, for example, me from going there, and i'd have no "religious accommodation" way of getting around them.