What I'm saying, is that if they truly believe that they're not allowed to touch women (except as per the stated exceptions), they're in an extremist branch of Islam. Such as the Taliban, which has such fucked up ideas as Women cannot be examined by male doctors (that aren't related to them), only women can examine and touch them, but then they say women can't be doctors.
Way to jump off the deep end on that one. I guess the Muslims who remove their shoes before going into the mosque to worship are also extremists to be lumped in with the relatively small population of Muslim terrorists.
It's not your's or anyone's decision as to why they interpret the Koran like they do. As long as they're not hurting anyone else (and from what I can see they suggested an alternative that was not all that far away), then no one has a right to demand that they break their religion and go against their faith to accommodate someone else. They did not deny her because she is a lesbian, they denied her because it would be going against their faith. The news story putting that spin on it does not make it automatically relevant.
nope, just saying that the shop owners are closer to the more fundamentalist version of Islam than the more moderate varieties.
They can interpret the Koran however they like. Putting some of that into practice in Canada, when it results in discrimination based on sex, is another story.
Not close enough to be lumped in with the Taliban, IMO.
At what point does it start violating their freedom to practice the religion they choose? Why is one right greater than the other? There have been several valid reasons presented as to why she was unable to get her hair cut at that location. They offered her a very viable and convenient alternative. It sounds to me like she's making a massive deal out of this and she is perfectly willing to stomp all over someone else's (just as valid) right to practice their faith as they choose.
Way to jump off the deep end on that one. I guess the Muslims who remove their shoes before going into the mosque to worship are also extremists to be lumped in with the relatively small population of Muslim terrorists.
It's not your's or anyone's decision as to why they interpret the Koran like they do. As long as they're not hurting anyone else (and from what I can see they suggested an alternative that was not all that far away), then no one has a right to demand that they break their religion and go against their faith to accommodate someone else. They did not deny her because she is a lesbian, they denied her because it would be going against their faith. The news story putting that spin on it does not make it automatically relevant.
Reply
They can interpret the Koran however they like. Putting some of that into practice in Canada, when it results in discrimination based on sex, is another story.
Reply
At what point does it start violating their freedom to practice the religion they choose? Why is one right greater than the other? There have been several valid reasons presented as to why she was unable to get her hair cut at that location. They offered her a very viable and convenient alternative. It sounds to me like she's making a massive deal out of this and she is perfectly willing to stomp all over someone else's (just as valid) right to practice their faith as they choose.
Reply
Leave a comment