Why is it okay to discriminate against women for religious reasons?

[g5000]

Someone didn't shake a gal's hand so there's an epidemic of abusing women in the workplace?

I don't touch blacks! Except when I'm lynching 'em.

 

[SAYIT]

Someone didn't shake a gal's hand so there's an epidemic of abusing women in the workplace?

I don't touch blacks! Except when I'm lynching 'em.

So exactly what has that to do with the subject of this thread?

 

[Iceweasel]

Someone didn't shake a gal's hand so there's an epidemic of abusing women in the workplace?

I don't touch blacks! Except when I'm lynching 'em.

There's something wrong with you.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Someone didn't shake a gal's hand so there's an epidemic of abusing women in the workplace?

I don't touch blacks! Except when I'm lynching 'em.

So exactly what has that to do with the subject of this thread?

Somewhere between zero and nil I would say.


It appears as if some people believe in being as entirely indiscriminate in their approach as the author of the piece in question who referred to her little Jewish problem despite the fact precious few Jews act in the ways she finds so reprehensible.

 

[hadit]

Not shaking someone's hand is not discrimination. Will this BS ever end?

That answer to that question is most emphatically "NO". It will never end, because we are the United States of the Perpetually Offended. They will not stop until every action, every interaction, every thought is brought under total control. They are at heart authoritarians. No one, absolutely no one, is to be left alone to decide how they want to think.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In the public forum, if men or women are discriminating wrongfully in terms of the law, the law can and should intervene.

Fine. Was the woman in question discriminated against by the guy who would not touch her?

Thank you for agreeing on the principle. Whether or not this particular issue is discrimination must be dealt with in the courts if it is a public forum issue.

So you think the matter of whether or not his actions rose to the crime of discrimination should be determined in court? You have no opinion one way or another? I mean, anything can be deemed a "public forum issue" if that is ones agenda.

You are entitled to your view as you wish. Mine is for myself, and I won't quarrel with you over this issue.

We aren't quarrelling. I asked what seems to be a straight forward question: do you think the matter of whether or not his actions rose to the crime of discrimination should be determined in court?

Yes, you are quarreling. I won't do that. You can find my answer above.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Not very long ago I met a young man at a business function. “Hello, I’m Amanda,” I said, sticking out my hand in greeting. He kept his arms glued to his side. “I don’t touch women,” he said.

Why is it okay to discriminate against women for religious reasons - The Washington Post

Discrimination against gays for religious reasons is bigotry and has nothing to do with true notion of Christianity, as we all know now. Example of Indiana clearly showed Americans' opinion on balance between civil and religious rights. It is OK though to discriminate against women, especially by religious minorities - Muslims and Jews - as we don't want to hurt their feelings. While gays constitute only 3.8% of this nation, there are about 158 mln. women.
There is much wider bigotry against more than 50% of American population and everybody keeps silent.

Orthodox Jewish men don't touch women unless their wife or relative. Isn't discriminatory though. Physical touch can be very personal. Look at laws governing sex harassment where inappropriate touching is involved.

While I'm not religious this is one of the things I've stuck with because I see the wisdom of it. Touch is very personal, and what may be acceptable to some may not be to others. In some cultures, a married woman shaking a man's hand is highly suspect, possibly even "adulterous." In triabl cultures like Judaism and Islam you can find yoruself in a world of trouble touching another man's wife. So better just not to touch anyone unless they're your wife.

 

[SAYIT]

Fine. Was the woman in question discriminated against by the guy who would not touch her?

Thank you for agreeing on the principle. Whether or not this particular issue is discrimination must be dealt with in the courts if it is a public forum issue.

So you think the matter of whether or not his actions rose to the crime of discrimination should be determined in court? You have no opinion one way or another? I mean, anything can be deemed a "public forum issue" if that is ones agenda.

You are entitled to your view as you wish. Mine is for myself, and I won't quarrel with you over this issue.

We aren't quarrelling. I asked what seems to be a straight forward question: do you think the matter of whether or not his actions rose to the crime of discrimination should be determined in court?

Yes, you are quarreling. I won't do that. You can find my answer above.

Nope. In none of your posts is there an answer to the very simple, very direct and very pertinent question. You raised the specter of dealing with the issue of a man's refusal to touch a woman in a court. Do you believe his actions were legally discriminatory?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sayit is now quarreling and trolling. I gave him my answer, he does not like my answer, so he apes Valerie or Hollie. Sayit, you have been answered. That's it.

 

[Syriusly]

In the public forum, if men or women are discriminating wrongfully in terms of the law, the law can and should intervene.

Fine. Was the woman in question discriminated against by the guy who would not touch her?

Thank you for agreeing on the principle. Whether or not this particular issue is discrimination must be dealt with in the courts if it is a public forum issue.

So you think the matter of whether or not his actions rose to the crime of discrimination should be determined in court? You have no opinion one way or another? I mean, anything can be deemed a "public forum issue" if that is ones agenda.

You are entitled to your view as you wish. Mine is for myself, and I won't quarrel with you over this issue.

We aren't quarrelling. I asked what seems to be a straight forward question: do you think the matter of whether or not his actions rose to the crime of discrimination should be determined in court?

What 'crime of discrimination' are you talking about?

An individual can discriminate anyway an individual wants to.
A business has to follow the law and not discriminate- but nothing says a businessman has to shake hands with anyone.

 

[Brian_1349]

Not very long ago I met a young man at a business function. “Hello, I’m Amanda,” I said, sticking out my hand in greeting. He kept his arms glued to his side. “I don’t touch women,” he said.

Why is it okay to discriminate against women for religious reasons - The Washington Post

Discrimination against gays for religious reasons is bigotry and has nothing to do with true notion of Christianity, as we all know now. Example of Indiana clearly showed Americans' opinion on balance between civil and religious rights. It is OK though to discriminate against women, especially by religious minorities - Muslims and Jews - as we don't want to hurt their feelings. While gays constitute only 3.8% of this nation, there are about 158 mln. women.
There is much wider bigotry against more than 50% of American population and everybody keeps silent.

Considering the fact that only a tiny percentage of Jews in this country are so ultra-orthodox as to exhibit the behavior in question,my question would be to ask why this deceptive columnist is attempting to portray Jewish people in this light?

The actual truth of the matter is that American Jews are one of the most consistently liberal segments of the population, and there is no wide bigotry against women among Jews.

Trying to influence perceptions against an entire people by painting them according to only the tiniest percentage of extremists should be beneath the dignity of any sort of reputable newspaper.

It is clearly stated in the article she is addressing only Orthodox Jews, not the entire Jewish population of the US. The problem is not only about Jews, however. Discrimination against women among Muslims is widespread, as well. One incident of such kind is already enough to raise the alarm
Stop plying racism card, it is not the case here.

 

[Brian_1349]

Someone didn't shake a gal's hand so there's an epidemic of abusing women in the workplace?

I don't touch blacks! Except when I'm lynching 'em.

So exactly what has that to do with the subject of this thread?

That has a lot to do with the subject of this thread actually. Not shaking black's hand would be immediately called racist, which is a clear case of discrimination. Why do you think it is acceptable to refuse handshake with woman only because she is a woman? That's just the same.

 

[SAYIT]

Fine. Was the woman in question discriminated against by the guy who would not touch her?

Thank you for agreeing on the principle. Whether or not this particular issue is discrimination must be dealt with in the courts if it is a public forum issue.

So you think the matter of whether or not his actions rose to the crime of discrimination should be determined in court? You have no opinion one way or another? I mean, anything can be deemed a "public forum issue" if that is ones agenda.

You are entitled to your view as you wish. Mine is for myself, and I won't quarrel with you over this issue.

We aren't quarrelling. I asked what seems to be a straight forward question: do you think the matter of whether or not his actions rose to the crime of discrimination should be determined in court?

What 'crime of discrimination' are you talking about?

An individual can discriminate anyway an individual wants to.
A business has to follow the law and not discriminate- but nothing says a businessman has to shake hands with anyone.

It was the article's author who tried to make the case that the refusal of an Orthodox Jew to touch a woman was discriminatory and Starkey who said, "Whether or not this particular issue is discrimination must be dealt with in the courts..."
I've been asking him if he actually believes the matter of refusing to touch a woman on religious or cultural grounds should be "in the courts" but he adamantly refuses to answer.

 

[SAYIT]

Someone didn't shake a gal's hand so there's an epidemic of abusing women in the workplace?

I don't touch blacks! Except when I'm lynching 'em.

So exactly what has that to do with the subject of this thread?

That has a lot to do with the subject of this thread actually. Not shaking black's hand would be immediately called racist, which is a clear case of discrimination. Why do you think it is acceptable to refuse handshake with woman only because she is a woman? That's just the same.

So you believe that in this case the woman's right to a handshake trumps the guy's right - no matter how it seems antiquated to most of us - not to touch her? Does she even have a right to demand a handshake?

 

[deltex1]

Not very long ago I met a young man at a business function. “Hello, I’m Amanda,” I said, sticking out my hand in greeting. He kept his arms glued to his side. “I don’t touch women,” he said.

Why is it okay to discriminate against women for religious reasons - The Washington Post

Discrimination against gays for religious reasons is bigotry and has nothing to do with true notion of Christianity, as we all know now. Example of Indiana clearly showed Americans' opinion on balance between civil and religious rights. It is OK though to discriminate against women, especially by religious minorities - Muslims and Jews - as we don't want to hurt their feelings. While gays constitute only 3.8% of this nation, there are about 158 mln. women.
There is much wider bigotry against more than 50% of American population and everybody keeps silent.

Where can I get a copy of your book, "Stupid Questions Liberals Ask"?

 

[SAYIT]

Not very long ago I met a young man at a business function. “Hello, I’m Amanda,” I said, sticking out my hand in greeting. He kept his arms glued to his side. “I don’t touch women,” he said.

Why is it okay to discriminate against women for religious reasons - The Washington Post

Discrimination against gays for religious reasons is bigotry and has nothing to do with true notion of Christianity, as we all know now. Example of Indiana clearly showed Americans' opinion on balance between civil and religious rights. It is OK though to discriminate against women, especially by religious minorities - Muslims and Jews - as we don't want to hurt their feelings. While gays constitute only 3.8% of this nation, there are about 158 mln. women.
There is much wider bigotry against more than 50% of American population and everybody keeps silent.

Considering the fact that only a tiny percentage of Jews in this country are so ultra-orthodox as to exhibit the behavior in question,my question would be to ask why this deceptive columnist is attempting to portray Jewish people in this light?

The actual truth of the matter is that American Jews are one of the most consistently liberal segments of the population, and there is no wide bigotry against women among Jews.

Trying to influence perceptions against an entire people by painting them according to only the tiniest percentage of extremists should be beneath the dignity of any sort of reputable newspaper.

It is clearly stated in the article she is addressing only Orthodox Jews, not the entire Jewish population of the US. The problem is not only about Jews, however. Discrimination against women among Muslims is widespread, as well. One incident of such kind is already enough to raise the alarm
Stop plying racism card, it is not the case here.

Have you or the author established her right to demand he touch her or that his refusal to do so constitutes discrimination and if not what is the purpose of the article?

 

[Sunni Man]

I've been asking him since if he actually believes the matter of refusing to touch a woman on religious or cultural grounds should be "in the courts" but he adamantly refuses to answer.

Good Luck with trying to get Fake Jake to answer a direct question.

Never seen him answer one since he's been on the board. ......

 

[Agit8r]

Well it is wrong. That said, I don't think that hand-shaking falls within public accommodation.

 

[Syriusly]

Thank you for agreeing on the principle. Whether or not this particular issue is discrimination must be dealt with in the courts if it is a public forum issue.

So you think the matter of whether or not his actions rose to the crime of discrimination should be determined in court? You have no opinion one way or another? I mean, anything can be deemed a "public forum issue" if that is ones agenda.

You are entitled to your view as you wish. Mine is for myself, and I won't quarrel with you over this issue.

We aren't quarrelling. I asked what seems to be a straight forward question: do you think the matter of whether or not his actions rose to the crime of discrimination should be determined in court?

What 'crime of discrimination' are you talking about?

An individual can discriminate anyway an individual wants to.
A business has to follow the law and not discriminate- but nothing says a businessman has to shake hands with anyone.

It was the article's author who tried to make the case that the refusal of an Orthodox Jew to touch a woman was discriminatory and Starkey who said, "Whether or not this particular issue is discrimination must be dealt with in the courts..."
I've been asking him if he actually believes the matter of refusing to touch a woman on religious or cultural grounds should be "in the courts" but he adamantly refuses to answer.

Nothing in the article discussed any discrimination that would be discrimination that would be addressable in a court.

Religions can discriminate as they wish. Religious people can discriminate so long as they are not breaking laws when they do so.

The bigger question in the article- which I find interesting is:
"When is it socially acceptable for a religious person to discriminate against someone because of their own religious rules'?

 

[Katzndogz]

Someone didn't shake a gal's hand so there's an epidemic of abusing women in the workplace?

I don't touch blacks! Except when I'm lynching 'em.

So exactly what has that to do with the subject of this thread?

That has a lot to do with the subject of this thread actually. Not shaking black's hand would be immediately called racist, which is a clear case of discrimination. Why do you think it is acceptable to refuse handshake with woman only because she is a woman? That's just the same.

So you believe that in this case the woman's right to a handshake trumps the guy's right - no matter how it seems antiquated to most of us - not to touch her? Does she even have a right to demand a handshake?

No. No one has the right to be touched by another person.