Pastafarian wins right to wear strainer in driving licence photo

[crazy canuck]

Only smart people can get into university.

And you were doing so well before you came to this point.

[Barrister]

Mongers, just because we value religious expression, doesn't mean we value it absolutely.

Some muslims (and sikhs, and Christians) have amde demands for things I don't agree with.  TThat doesn't mean we shouldn't still grant reasonable accomodations.

Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.

But in the example I gave they weren't demanding too much, but were taking action to curtail the rights of other because it offended their own faith.

But so what?  Why should that change what we consider to be reasonable accomodations of their religion?

Canada has had all the same debates regarding the turban and kirpan, and some of them have been quite contentious back in the day (anyone remember the RCMP / turban debate).  But we've generally come to a consensus - Sikhs can wear a small, ceremonial kirpan in almost any place (including an airplane).  They can wear a turban and be exempt from "no hats" policies, and even accomodations to standard uniforms.  However, I believe they are still required to wear safety helmets / hard hats where required.

And you know what?  Sikhs have become tremendously well integrated into Canadian society.

[Barrister]

Only smart people can get into university.

And you were doing so well before you came to this point.

You know what I'm saying.

[Iormlund]

You don't treat people differently based on what they think or believe?  What kind of unthinking asshole are you?

No - seriously.  If a gues doesn't like fish, I won't serve them fish, even though there's nothing objectively wrong with eating fish.  If someone doesn't like horror movies I won't insist on them watching a horror movie.

Muslims believe they need to pray 5 times a day.  Unless there's a good reason, why shouldn't we let them?  It's just simple courtesy.

We're talking about the law here.  Not me. Why would the law have to force me to serve meat to my friend who doesn't like fish?

If I had a Muslim employee carving wood at home I would be more than willing to let him work whenever he liked to as long as he fulfilled his contract. Just like any other wood carver I employed.
If, OTOH, he was working in an assembly line and stopped it 5 times a day costing me a fortune each time, I would obviously look to get rid of him. Yet you say the law should force me to keep him or at the very least cost me a kidney in lawyer fees to get rid of him.

[The Minsky Moment]

free from uncessary government interference

There is a school of thought that this should apply to whatever the hell a person wants to do. This school has gained ground the latest centuries, and this is one of the reasons that having special rights for religions is seen by some as being fairly archaic.

I am not familiar with your school of thought, but find it passing strange that a subject of monarchy is so quick to pass judgment as to which political concepts are archaic.

[The Brain]

Mongers, just because we value religious expression, doesn't mean we value it absolutely.

Some muslims (and sikhs, and Christians) have amde demands for things I don't agree with.  TThat doesn't mean we shouldn't still grant reasonable accomodations.

Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.

But in the example I gave they weren't demanding too much, but were taking action to curtail the rights of other because it offended their own faith.

But so what?  Why should that change what we consider to be reasonable accomodations of their religion?

Canada has had all the same debates regarding the turban and kirpan, and some of them have been quite contentious back in the day (anyone remember the RCMP / turban debate).  But we've generally come to a consensus - Sikhs can wear a small, ceremonial kirpan in almost any place (including an airplane).  They can wear a turban and be exempt from "no hats" policies, and even accomodations to standard uniforms.  However, I believe they are still required to wear safety helmets / hard hats where required.

And you know what?  Sikhs have become tremendously well integrated into Canadian society.

They get exceptions for cases where they cause risk to others but are forced to comply when their own safety is the only thing at stake? How... Canadian.

[Malthus]

Do they, all the time ?

In the example given Sikh weren't "resisting extending rights to others" buy actually attempting to curtail the universal traditional rights of others.

Sure. As a lawyer, I get to see plenty of it. 

Point is, people love freedom of expression - as long as it is expression they agree with. Not the expressions of those other fuckers, you know, the ones the state ought to ban for everyone's good.

The Sikhs you describe are hardly unique in this. It's a natural human tendency. One that ought not to be allowed to influence our thinking at all.

[The Brain]

free from uncessary government interference

There is a school of thought that this should apply to whatever the hell a person wants to do. This school has gained ground the latest centuries, and this is one of the reasons that having special rights for religions is seen by some as being fairly archaic.

I am not familiar with your school of thought, but find it passing strange that a subject of monarchy is so quick to pass judgment as to which political concepts are archaic.

I take from your jocular response that you understand my point.

I am not a destroyer of religions. I am a liberator of them.

[mongers]

Mongers, just because we value religious expression, doesn't mean we value it absolutely.

Some muslims (and sikhs, and Christians) have amde demands for things I don't agree with.  TThat doesn't mean we shouldn't still grant reasonable accomodations.

Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.

But in the example I gave they weren't demanding too much, but were taking action to curtail the rights of other because it offended their own faith.

But so what?  Why should that change what we consider to be reasonable accomodations of their religion?

.....

Because the one enables the other, tell people they have a special set of beliefs that exempt them from certain laws and some of them will be likely to assume their special faith, is just a little more special than the rest of society and it's norms.

Where necessary, I'm suggesting we enact an informal social contract; if you expect certain exemptions from the laws because of your religion, then your co-religionists should be expected to up hold and respect the rights of others in society.

[Malthus]

Mongers, just because we value religious expression, doesn't mean we value it absolutely.

Some muslims (and sikhs, and Christians) have amde demands for things I don't agree with.  TThat doesn't mean we shouldn't still grant reasonable accomodations.

Just because you ask for too much, it doesn't follow that you should get nothing.

But in the example I gave they weren't demanding too much, but were taking action to curtail the rights of other because it offended their own faith.

But so what?  Why should that change what we consider to be reasonable accomodations of their religion?

.....

Because the one enables the other, tell people they have a special set of beliefs that exempt them from certain laws and some of them will be likely to assume their special faith, is just a little more special than the rest of society and it's norms.

Where necessary, I'm suggesting we enact an informal social contract; if you expect certain exemptions from the laws because of your religion, then your co-religionists should be expected to up hold and respect the rights of others in society.

Not necessary. Simply put, everyone who exists in our society is subject to the laws - laws which, in some cases, allow for reasonable accomodation of persons from any religion, ethnicity, belief system.

Seems to work well enough without singling out Sikhs.

[mongers]

Do they, all the time ?

In the example given Sikh weren't "resisting extending rights to others" buy actually attempting to curtail the universal traditional rights of others.

Sure. As a lawyer, I get to see plenty of it. 

Point is, people love freedom of expression - as long as it is expression they agree with. Not the expressions of those other fuckers, you know, the ones the state ought to ban for everyone's good.

The Sikhs you describe are hardly unique in this. It's a natural human tendency. One that ought not to be allowed to influence our thinking at all.

Is it ?

You're making a blanket statement that people act in the way you describe, I suspect different people hold a range of opinions as to how much others rights should be tolerated; personally in the public space I work on the assumption that my own religious beliefs may be entirely wrong.

[Malthus]

Do they, all the time ?

In the example given Sikh weren't "resisting extending rights to others" buy actually attempting to curtail the universal traditional rights of others.

Sure. As a lawyer, I get to see plenty of it. 

Point is, people love freedom of expression - as long as it is expression they agree with. Not the expressions of those other fuckers, you know, the ones the state ought to ban for everyone's good.

The Sikhs you describe are hardly unique in this. It's a natural human tendency. One that ought not to be allowed to influence our thinking at all.

Is it ?

You're making a blanket statement that people act in the way you describe, I suspect different people hold a range of opinions as to how much others rights should be tolerated; personally in the public space I work on the assumption that my own religious beliefs may be entirely wrong.

I'm not saying absolutely everyone does this, I'm saying it is common among groups of people and that Sikhs are by no means unique in having individulas that (a) want rights themselves and (b) want to deprive others of rights.

The fact that some individuals exist who are so benighted as to want things themselves and yet deprive others, should not influence what rights are granted in the first place.

[The Minsky Moment]

In the example given Sikh weren't "resisting extending rights to others" buy actually attempting to curtail the universal traditional rights of others.

So they - the individuals Sikhs (and not Sikhs as an abstract collective) - are hypocrites. 
So what?

[Barrister]

You don't treat people differently based on what they think or believe?  What kind of unthinking asshole are you?

No - seriously.  If a gues doesn't like fish, I won't serve them fish, even though there's nothing objectively wrong with eating fish.  If someone doesn't like horror movies I won't insist on them watching a horror movie.

Muslims believe they need to pray 5 times a day.  Unless there's a good reason, why shouldn't we let them?  It's just simple courtesy.

We're talking about the law here.  Not me. Why would the law have to force me to serve meat to my friend who doesn't like fish?

If I had a Muslim employee carving wood at home I would be more than willing to let him work whenever he liked to as long as he fulfilled his contract. Just like any other wood carver I employed.
If, OTOH, he was working in an assembly line and stopped it 5 times a day costing me a fortune each time, I would obviously look to get rid of him. Yet you say the law should force me to keep him or at the very least cost me a kidney in lawyer fees to get rid of him.

They were examples of taking someone's preferences and beliefs into account, even if they couldn't be objectively quantified.

We allow smokers to take smoke breaks.  I fail to see therefore what is so offensive about a prayer break (and by the way the 5 prayers are over the course of the entire day, so no employer is being interupted 5 times per day).

[Iormlund]

You've obviously never worked on, for example, an assembly line (a common job for uneducated immigrants).

Any delay in one station affects all others in the line. In addition many lines require a long ramp up to full speed. Any interruption can cost tens of thousands in a decently sized plant. There's a whole area of engineering dedicated to minimize these kinds of occurrences.