Gael,
I mentioned it earlier but want your opinion.
Is it fair that an american muslim gets a job as a store clerk and then refuses to scan alcohol or pork products?
To me its the same case as the Harvard gym.
If you can’t workout in your Burka, then tough shit, stay at home. What is stopping someone at Harvard from saying “you know, I really like to workout butt naked, and I think you should give me a set schedule and not allow anyone else to workout during that time.”
[quote]Rainjack wrote:
I asked a question earlier that no one has even attempted to answer - so before we get to yours, how about answering me this:
If it was a group of right-wing, fundamentalist, evangelical christian women asking for the special treatment - would you still think it was such a non-issue?[/quote]
When you made the point earlier, it wasn’t a question, it was a conclusive statement, and it was correct – such a move would be ridiculed. However, the current situation has been ridiculed as well, and people such as yourself have gone a good step or two beyond ridicule.
To answer your question, I will admit to a personal bias against such groups which would probably cloud my judgment. However, if group of evangelical Christians succeeded in passing this policy, a rational person shouldn’t view it as a big deal.
[quote]Gael wrote:
When you made the point earlier, it wasn’t a question, it was a conclusive statement, and it was correct – such a move would be ridiculed. However, the current situation has been ridiculed as well, and people such as yourself have gone a good step or two beyond ridicule.[/quote]
How so? It is no different than someone calling christians, bible thumpers. And in all honesty - I do wish they would all jsut go back home. There wouldn’t be a news story of they weren’t here in the first place, trying to get preferential treatment.
I don’t think it is a big deal. I just think that the liberal elite will go out of their way for these people. And they seem to be doing just that.
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Borrowing some legal analysis here:
lixy wrote:
Do you think anyone would want to go down that road against Harvard?[/quote]
Yeah. Any annoyed student. Particularly a rich one with an ax to grind.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
…
I think what worries some of us is if this is the beginning of a slide down a slippery slope where, under the banner of multiculturalism, we have to tolerate any tradition, no matter how reactionary and anti-liberal (in the broader sense of that term). [/quote]
The beginning of the slide? We’re half way down and gaining momentum.
[quote]Gael wrote:
Right, nor is it an issue based on any real grievance about the hours. If these were “maintenance hours” during which the whole gym was closed off to everyone, no one would care as much, and most wouldn’t care at all. Why do people care? Because they don’t like to see private institutions catering to the requests of religious people.
What if the people who pushed for this move weren’t religious? Many women feel uncomfortable with gawking gym males, my girlfriend included. What if a group of non religious women pushed for this move and won?
[/quote]
It’s an issue of equal application of the law. Either separate accommodation is disallowed or it isn’t.
The right to religious freedom, the right not to be discriminated against, equal rights between the sexes. Now they want their own special times to do their thing. Equality has only one meaning and I don’t have a problem with it.
I do have a problem with, we want equal rights and our special rights. FUCK THEM!!!
I don’t agree that a christian group would be ridiculed or that the university would not make other accomodations for them. This simply wouldn’t be one of their requests because the tenants of christianity require nothing like separation of men and women in this context. I’m pretty sure that if you looked it up, you’d find that Harvard DOES make accomodations for Christian and other religious groups and non-religious groups. As far as actual equal use of resources and impedeing other student rights, I’m not sure what I think. I have to think about it for.
[quote]ukrainian wrote:
And lets not forget that the slaves got free housing and a reliable food source. [/quote]
Never ever say this sort of stuff unless you are black. You might get a serious smack in the head.
[quote]lixy wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
And lets not forget that the slaves got free housing and a reliable food source.
Never ever say this sort of stuff unless you are black. You might get a serious smack in the head.[/quote]
Of course, if he truly is Ukrainian, and therefore a Slav, he might just descend from slaves himself, in which case he probably has just as much right to talk about slavery as a black man.
The word “slave” derives from the word “Slav,” after all.
[quote]dk44 wrote:
Is it fair that an american muslim gets a job as a store clerk and then refuses to scan alcohol or pork products? [/quote]
Fair for whom?
If said American Muslim owns the store, then I don’t think it should be an issue. I never heard of anyone dying from alcohol-thirst or pork-hunger. I did however hear of people dying because they couldn’t get contraceptive means.
If the store owner is OK with the clerk refusing “to scan alcohol or pork products”, then it should be none of your business; it’s literally his not yours!
If the store owner has issue with clerks in his store refusing “to scan alcohol or pork products”, they will then be fired.
Either way, I don’t see it as a major inconvenience.
If you must train in that particular gym at those particular hours, then you have two choices:
Lobby for the school to revoke the privileges granted to the Harvard Center for Women.
Go to a different school.
Somehow, I think the Harvard body is smart enough to be flexible about this whole affair. And if you have to be rigid, they probably don’t want you in their school anyway.
As it stands, it’s rather the other way around. If you can’t accept Harvard’s decision to give women those two hours three times a week, then tough shit!
All you can do from Arkansas about it is bitch. Feel free to do so, but please don’t slip into your idol’s (i.e: the douche) openly bigoted hate language.
I think there are laws against that. But nothing’s stopping that “someone at Harvard” from trying.
It sure didn’t stop these girls:
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/21/europe/EU-ODD-Sweden-Topless-Swimmers.php
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Borrowing some legal analysis here:
lixy wrote:
Do you think anyone would want to go down that road against Harvard?
Yeah. Any annoyed student. Particularly a rich one with an ax to grind.[/quote]
Seriously? You don’t even know what type of documents they give their students to sign during enrollment.
Don’t confuse your wishes with reality.
This is too stupid. The Boston area has plenty of women’s-only gyms… if the Muslim women can afford the tuition, they certainly can afford a membership at one of the gyms there. I went to B.U. and knew several women there who would rather work out at a women’s gym than to deal with our inferior gym and hours.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
I…
This particular incident doesn’t upset me so much. I wouldn’t get so upset, for example, if handicapped students asked to have the gym to themselves for a few hours each week.
…[/quote]
I don’t equate the two at all.
[quote]Gael wrote:
…this being reported? Who cares?
If the gym had set aside male only hours as well as female only hours, no one would have cared. …[/quote]
Are you joking? That would be lawsuit city.
[quote]lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Borrowing some legal analysis here:
lixy wrote:
Do you think anyone would want to go down that road against Harvard?
Yeah. Any annoyed student. Particularly a rich one with an ax to grind.
Seriously? You don’t even know what type of documents they give their students to sign during enrollment.
Don’t confuse your wishes with reality.[/quote]
You are an idiot. Schools, including Harvard face regular legal action from students and others.
[quote]BF Bullpup wrote:
This is too stupid. The Boston area has plenty of women’s-only gyms… if the Muslim women can afford the tuition, they certainly can afford a membership at one of the gyms there. [/quote]
If it is a quid pro quo over Talal’s money (as I suspect it is), then those Muslim women can not only afford gym memberships; they can probably buy them.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lixy wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Borrowing some legal analysis here:
lixy wrote:
Do you think anyone would want to go down that road against Harvard?
Yeah. Any annoyed student. Particularly a rich one with an ax to grind.
Seriously? You don’t even know what type of documents they give their students to sign during enrollment.
Don’t confuse your wishes with reality.
You are an idiot. Schools, including Harvard face regular legal action from students and others. [/quote]
Hear, hear, If such a case goes to court, I’ll stop posting on this board for a month.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Hear, hear, If such a case goes to court, I’ll stop posting on this board for a month.[/quote]
I have never ever been in favor of your religion of murder, but in this case - c’mon extremist muslim, burkah-wearing college chicks.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Gael wrote:
…this being reported? Who cares?
If the gym had set aside male only hours as well as female only hours, no one would have cared. …
Are you joking? That would be lawsuit city.[/quote]
Upenn’s gym’s swimming pool does this, and there are no lawsuits to my knowledge. What’s the difference?