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

[g5000]

I'm not sexist. I'll let any woman touch me.

 

[SAYIT]

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'?

And the more pertinent question, IMHO, is if there is nothing discriminatory about the guy's declining to touch a woman, why does Starkey believe it should be "determined in court" and why was the article even written? There are probably excellent examples of religiously or culturally motivated discrimination.
Why focus on a situation that does not apply?

 

[Syriusly]

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'?

And the more pertinent question, IMHO, is if there is nothing discriminatory about the guy's declining to touch a woman, why does Starkey believe it should be "determined in court" and why was the article even written? There are probably excellent examples of religiously or culturally motivated discrimination.
Why focus on a situation that does not apply?

I have no idea- nor do I care what Starkey believes.

Why was the article written?

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'?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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'?

And the more pertinent question, IMHO, is if there is nothing discriminatory about the guy's declining to touch a woman, why does Starkey believe it should be "determined in court" and why was the article even written? There are probably excellent examples of religiously or culturally motivated discrimination. Why focus on a situation that does not apply?

Because court is how we determine conclusions to stupid situations.

Sayit is disturbed that I won't discussion the matter with him/her, so Syriusly gets asked why I won't? Seriously.

 

[SAYIT]

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'?

And the more pertinent question, IMHO, is if there is nothing discriminatory about the guy's declining to touch a woman, why does Starkey believe it should be "determined in court" and why was the article even written? There are probably excellent examples of religiously or culturally motivated discrimination. Why focus on a situation that does not apply?

Because court is how we determine conclusions to stupid situations.

Sayit is disturbed that I won't discussion the matter with him/her, so Syriusly gets asked why I won't? Seriously.

Court is not where such stupid situations should be examined and I asked no one why you so adamantly refused to make yourself plainly understood when asked.
Why is it you must lie to make your bones?

 

[Katzndogz]

The right not to be touched will never be the subject of a lawsuit. Unless it's a harassment suit.

This is so stupid. It's like trying to force someone who refuses to date outside their race to do so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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'?

And the more pertinent question, IMHO, is if there is nothing discriminatory about the guy's declining to touch a woman, why does Starkey believe it should be "determined in court" and why was the article even written? There are probably excellent examples of religiously or culturally motivated discrimination. Why focus on a situation that does not apply?

Because court is how we determine conclusions to stupid situations.

Sayit is disturbed that I won't discussion the matter with him/her, so Syriusly gets asked why I won't? Seriously.

Court is not where such stupid situations should be examined and I asked no one why you so adamantly refused to make yourself plainly understood when asked. Why is it you must lie to make your bones?

Now you are playing Rush's Rules, accusing me of doing what you are in fact doing - lying, and accusing me of doing that. I told you what I thought, and I refused to explain it further. You have been whining ever since. Get over it.