Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just to be the devil's advocate, it was totally a workplace dresscode, and was only for public sector employees. It had nothing to do with the private sector and nothing to do with everyday life on the streets.
Because religion is not a piece of clothing that people take on and off. There are exceptions to the rule. And I am not one of those Mennonites whose beliefs include a dress code like the Hutterites or Amish, but it is not the same for everyone.
I think it is very easy for people who are not religious to make the assumption that people can just change their faiths on a whim or a court order. To me that is a little bit like the people who are racists but say they aren't, that they just want a certain race to "act white." Or the people who think that the whole world should just speak English. Or, and as someone in the Carter administration supposedly lamented about the Jews and the Arabs - "Why can't the Jews and the Arabs get along like the good Christians we all are?" That might have been a joke that ended up passing for truth, but there's some truth to the joke part too.
It is also a racist law, in that, at least the last I heard, allowed crosses as 'cultural' but did not make the same allowance for anyone else.
Speaking of respecting religion, what if I am a nudist? Should I be allow to work in the public sector completely nude?
Government should be secular. I for one will feel uncomfortable to go to the public service and served by someone in burqa, and that has nothing to do with xenophobia. Having a religion is one thing. To express it in the public service is another.
Speaking of respecting religion, what if I am a nudist? Should I be allow to work in the public sector completely nude?
Government should be secular. I for one will feel uncomfortable to go to the public service and served by someone in burqa, and that has nothing to do with xenophobia. Having a religion is one thing. To express it in the public service is another.
Sounds a lot to me like people who don't want to be served in the public sector by people of a skin colour other than white.
Because religion is not a piece of clothing that people take on and off. There are exceptions to the rule. And I am not one of those Mennonites whose beliefs include a dress code like the Hutterites or Amish, but it is not the same for everyone.
I think it is very easy for people who are not religious to make the assumption that people can just change their faiths on a whim or a court order. To me that is a little bit like the people who are racists but say they aren't, that they just want a certain race to "act white." Or the people who think that the whole world should just speak English. Or, and as someone in the Carter administration supposedly lamented about the Jews and the Arabs - "Why can't the Jews and the Arabs get along like the good Christians we all are?" That might have been a joke that ended up passing for truth, but there's some truth to the joke part too.
It is also a racist law, in that, at least the last I heard, allowed crosses as 'cultural' but did not make the same allowance for anyone else.
All true but it's not a total free for all either.
People make sacrifices or compromises all the time for their jobs.
Strict Catholic doctors prescribe contraception all the time.
Observant Jews who own businesses work on Saturday which is their Shabbat.
Jews and Muslims who work in restaurants handle pork products because it's on the menu. (And Muslims also serve alcohol to patrons.)
Sounds a lot to me like people who don't want to be served in the public sector by people of a skin colour other than white.
So I guess the debate then is whether for some people the prescribed dress of their religion is something as unchangeable and permanent as the colour of one's skin.
Because religion is not a piece of clothing that people take on and off. There are exceptions to the rule. And I am not one of those Mennonites whose beliefs include a dress code like the Hutterites or Amish, but it is not the same for everyone.
I think it is very easy for people who are not religious to make the assumption that people can just change their faiths on a whim or a court order. To me that is a little bit like the people who are racists but say they aren't, that they just want a certain race to "act white." Or the people who think that the whole world should just speak English. Or, and as someone in the Carter administration supposedly lamented about the Jews and the Arabs - "Why can't the Jews and the Arabs get along like the good Christians we all are?" That might have been a joke that ended up passing for truth, but there's some truth to the joke part too.
It is also a racist law, in that, at least the last I heard, allowed crosses as 'cultural' but did not make the same allowance for anyone else.
Agreed. I'm not religious, but I found the proposed law offensive. People should be able to wear religious symbols to work, as long as they do their job without having their personal beliefs affect that job.
I saw it as racist as well. I'm glad Quebeckers have the heave ho to Marois and her backward idea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
