Richbrau Shuts Out Turban Wearer [Archive] - Realbeer.com Beer Community

corkybstewart

11-27-2006, 02:48 PM

But his cousins went out without their turbans and didn't get "zapped" by God. As a matter of safety I can understand it in these truly screwed up times. Just like the Muslim women wanting drivers licenses in Florida to have their picture wearing veils. What would have happened to the bar owner if he had allowed the exception and once this man got in the bar he pulled a gun from his turban and shot a person say as revenge for raping his daughter. And how is the owner to know if this man is really a Sihk in the first place? Because he has a turban on? I can go and buy a turban and wear it but that doesn't make me a Sihk. Put a policy in place and stick with it. If you lose an occasional customer, so be it.

MeridianFC

11-27-2006, 03:02 PM

His cousins are not him. Plus his turban was on, it's not like he can just whip it off.

It's not my bar and the owner can surely do as he likes, within the law, but this is just plain stupid. Being this intractable in what is certainly a fairly rare situation just seems like bad business.

A bar I used to work at had a policy that no food or beverage could be carried in, very common rule. But a dad stops by with his daughter to grab a pint but the daughter has a sippy cup and hot dog, I'm sure has hell not sending them away, I make an exception to the rule. It just seems everyone is so hell bent on the letter of the law/rule that the spirit of any given rule gets trampled and common sense is out the window.

Virginia has a carry law so concealled weapons aren't really a big issue.

hops99

11-27-2006, 03:02 PM

Put a policy in place and stick with it. If you lose an occasional customer, so be it.

I think many business owners are flexible regarding most customer issues (I know that I am), but there are certain policies that should be set in stone. I would tend to support the Richbrau management here (assuming in good faith that their intentions were not racially motivated), and the Sikh customer that was turned away should have some basic understanding of that.

On a side note, I also found it interesting that he sued Delta Airlines (and won an undisclosed sum of money) for mistakenly being identified as a Middle-Easterner. Could there be some opportunism (under the guise of supposed racial victimization) going on here?

corkybstewart

11-27-2006, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by hops99
I
On a side note, I also found it interesting that he sued Delta Airlines (and won an undisclosed sum of money) for mistakenly being identified as a Middle-Easterner. Could there be some opportunism (under the guise of supposed racial victimization) going on here?

Oh how cynical. Of course not. Like the women who got hired at Hooters and then sued because of the sexist outfits they had to wear. Talk about somebody using common sense, the judge threw that out as the scam it was.

hops99

11-27-2006, 03:23 PM

Oh how cynical.

Who, me?

;)

MeridianFC

11-27-2006, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by hops99

On a side note, I also found it interesting that he sued Delta Airlines (and won an undisclosed sum of money) for mistakenly being identified as a Middle-Easterner. Could there be some opportunism (under the guise of supposed racial victimization) going on here?

That certainly makes this sound like a crock. That is also a complete frontal assault on common sense.

Can you sue for being identified as "middle eastern"? That's nuts.

Dead_Eye

11-27-2006, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by MeridianFC
Common sense should've prevailed in this one.

Yes, he should have taken off the turban or left. Of course, the biased article does not mention what path he chose, except to complain.

This report goes out of its way to portray a fine upstanding religious man who is a big crybaby when the rules do not play his way.

This is America, you can choose where to catch a brew at. If he doesn't like the policy I am sure there is somewhere else he can go. I excercise my right to choose every day, someone should tell this guy how great we have it here.

In our culture it is disrespectful to wear headgear indoors, espically in the chow hall or mess area. During the war the mess decks served as makeshift hospitals and morgues, hence the tradition of removing your lid out of respect.

America is culturally diverse, but we have our own culture. We respect people and their cultures until it interferes with our own.

Unfortunately the bleeding hearts like this newsrag take it too far.

Chiliman101

11-27-2006, 06:05 PM

This is strictly a discrimination issue and the restaurant is in for some significant legal bills here.

Some of you out there know what company I am a franchisee of but I'll leave it out of this conversation. Shortly after 9/11 (about 6 months) a manager of one of our locations did the EXACT same thing to a Sikh gentleman. Our policy was written exactly the same as this restaurants but NEVER enforced on religious items. Our manager disregarded policy and instructions on this. Thousands and Thousands of dollars in legal bills later our company had an agreement with the Dept. of Justice on how we would change our posted dress requirements, how they are enforced, along with a fine, etc, etc.

Luckily, as a franchisee, I wasn't involved with it but I know there is no other way to look at this legally. The stance the owner of the restaurant took is going to cost him dearly! I speak from inside experience.

Our new policy as basically written and approved by the Dept. of Justice says that we do not allow any bandannas, hats, colors, or gang related clothing. That this in now way is meant to require the removal or banning of religious related clothing...blah blah blah.

Randy

zoom6zoom

11-27-2006, 06:19 PM

Well, one of my best friends wears his Yankees ballcap all the time. To him, it's his religion. I don't mind the turban thing so much, but the veils on drivers licenses is just ludicrous.

I'm not sure why a bunch of Sikhs would be spending time in a bar as smoking and drinking are, as I understand it, forbidden in their sect.

Chiliman101

11-27-2006, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Dead_Eye
Yes, he should have taken off the turban or left. Of course, the biased article does not mention what path he chose, except to complain.

This report goes out of its way to portray a fine upstanding religious man who is a big crybaby when the rules do not play his way.

This is America, you can choose where to catch a brew at. If he doesn't like the policy I am sure there is somewhere else he can go. I excercise my right to choose every day, someone should tell this guy how great we have it here.

In our culture it is disrespectful to wear headgear indoors, espically in the chow hall or mess area. During the war the mess decks served as makeshift hospitals and morgues, hence the tradition of removing your lid out of respect.

America is culturally diverse, but we have our own culture. We respect people and their cultures until it interferes with our own.

Unfortunately the bleeding hearts like this newsrag take it too far.

Rules??? Constitution and law are a bit more than RULES..

If only that pesky Constitution didn't get in your way.

Wearing a turban in a restaurant interferes with your culture?? Bull.

Chiliman101

11-27-2006, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by zoom6zoom
Well, one of my best friends wears his Yankees ballcap all the time. To him, it's his religion. I don't mind the turban thing so much, but the veils on drivers licenses is just ludicrous.

I'm not sure why a bunch of Sikhs would be spending time in a bar as smoking and drinking are, as I understand it, forbidden in their sect.

Sounds a bit school yardish...now we are making foolish comments about sports team hats and comparing Sikhs to Muslims?? I suspect most of us know they are literally hate each other right?

I also hope most people have enough education to remember why this country was founded...RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

This coming from me..about the whitest, straight laced Republican, non religious guy you'll ever find.

Can we go back to drinking beer?

MeridianFC

11-27-2006, 06:37 PM

I think some of this points to the place where common sense gets left behind. Somewhere between "man goes to bar to be offended" and "these are the rules that shall not bend" all hope is lost.

On a side note, something said earlier got me thinking. I know why most places have these kind dress code things in place, I have good friends and family that run licensed establishments with these rules, but I was wondering how many here believe or were brought up with the idea that wearing a hat (cover/headgear/etc.) indoors is impolite. I'm originally from CA but spent most of my formative years in SC and have lived in DC for 20+ years, so I've got a bit of variety as far as "our culture" goes. I never recall hearing about the hat indoors thing till I moved to the South. I did time in NJROTC in high school and it was certainly drilled into us there, though at the time I thought only the Navy and Marines had the uncover inodoors unless under arms rule. In any case did everyone grow up with this cultural rule? I've been all over this great land of ours and I can say that a whole lot of folks wear hats indoors, though it's more prominent in some places than others.

xtalman

11-27-2006, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by MeridianFC
In any case did everyone grow up with this cultural rule? I've been all over this great land of ours and I can say that a whole lot of folks wear hats indoors, though it's more prominent in some places than others.

I grew up in the northeast, NJ/NY area, and it was usually assumed that you remove your hat indoors and definitly at the table during a meal. Of course over the last 20 years or so most of the old rules seemed to have gone out the door.
:rolleyes:

DecoJuicer

11-27-2006, 07:54 PM

Many places don't allow headgear because of gang or biker club affiliations. Many of the bars that I worked in did not allow headgear for that very reason.

Why should the owner of Richbrau have to change his businesses policy just to suit one persons PERSONAL, RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE? Our Constitution only says that the government can make no law against religion, it doesn't say that this guy has the right to where his gear into a private business. We have freedom of religion in this country, but it is important to remember that we also have freedom FROM religion.

Admittedly, I am a bit biased against the Sihks, because we have had hundreds of problems with a church in the city that I work in(in-fighting, sihk vs sihk protests, fake 911 calls, etc), but the fact is we are talking about a private business that had a policy in place, that was enforced, long before this idiot came strolling through the door. As long as that policy is not in place to keep any specific religious group or race of people out, then this guy doesn't have a complaint. He should take his business elsewhere, and tell all of his friends at the temple to do the same.

Also, much of my family in Oklahoma will knock your hat right off your head if you wear it to a place where there is food being served. I know because I have had mine knocked off.

hops99

11-27-2006, 09:45 PM

but I was wondering how many here believe or were brought up with the idea that wearing a hat (cover/headgear/etc.) indoors is impolite.

My mom is from Michigan, but we grew up in Connecticut. Wearing a hat indoors was considered rude growing up, and my mom still yells at me if I wear a hat to the dinner table the few times I see her a year (she now lives in Florida), and I'm 36!

I remember a Sopranos episode a few years back where Tony and the gang are eating at an Italian restaurant, and in the middle of the meal they all get up and walk over to some 20-ish guy who is wearing a Yankees cap at the table. They effectively coerce him to take it off....

dparsons

11-27-2006, 10:56 PM

Too much attention to a piece of cloth from both sides. I understand the restaraunts point of not wanting headwear, but they pushed the wrong issue too far in this case.

As far as placing religious significance on a piece of cloth, I'll be politically incorrect and say that is bogus. If somebody can attack your religion by messing with a piece of cloth, then your focus is out of line. Anybody can make a fool of themselves. Truth, beauty, good character cannot be made foolish. When we try to mock God, we become fools. In this interaction there were fools on both sides.

denver brewhoo

11-28-2006, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by corkybstewart
[B]There's a contradiction in this article. Several times the writer points out that the turban is mandatory, part of his body, essential to his religion, etc. The cousins he went with, who are also Sikhs, do not wear the turbans. There must be a little wiggle room here.

or maybe the cousins are about as devout Sikhs as I am a Presbyterian, i.e. not very, or maybe it's like Jewish guys, most of whom I know who are more likely to have on a Yankee cap than a yarmulke, except in the actual synagogue, whereas others I see around town have yarmulke or head covering at all times , unshorn forelocks etc. Wonder would the manager demand removal of yarmulke?

I feel for the chiliman, must be hard to run a freakin' restaurant these days, but I understand the Sikh too...

Chiliman101

11-28-2006, 12:40 PM

Hey, like it or not what was done was against the law. Again, I only speak from experience. Again, our company had the exact situation arise and I mean eerily exact. If your intent is to uphold a dress code to keep the undesirable element out (which is exactly what this and every other dress code like this around here is for) and you then do not let someone in based on their wearing a religious item, it is discrimination. Don't like it, well, thank god (no pun intended) we have sensible laws to put your intolerance in it's place. Assimilation into the American society does not mean disregarding one's religious beliefs and requirements.

When we had a manager step out of line like this we got in front of it and cooperated with the Justice Dept. This guy is setting himself up for a long expensive battle with his public comments. All they have to do is find one Jewish person that was allowed in there with a yamika (sp?) and he's toast. Even if they don't it doesn't matter. You do not have the supposed right to have a business open to the public and decide who can and cannot come in based on their religious clothing, I assume everyone knows that whether they for some reason agree or don't. You can have dress codes that keep with community standards and that is what we now have and what was approved by the Justice Dept.

steveh

11-28-2006, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by denver brewhoo
unshorn forelocks etc.

Unshorn, or Hasidic?

Wonder would the manager demand removal of yarmulke?

Like to think so, just for the sake of consistent messaging and keeping from hypocrisy.

Anyone have a way to follow this story to see how it turns out?

S.

chazwicke

11-28-2006, 02:56 PM

I believe that the manager has apologized. But I could not raise the link that was posted on DC-Beer.

HogieWan

11-28-2006, 04:08 PM

Originally posted by Chiliman101
Hey, like it or not what was done was against the law.

which law?

MeridianFC

11-28-2006, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by HogieWan
which law?

I'd guess this one:

Virginia Human Rights Act
Virginia Code Chapter 39

It is the policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia:

To safeguard all individuals within the Commonwealth from unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status or disability, in places of public accommodation, including educational institutions and in real estate transactions; in employment; to preserve the public safety, health and general welfare; and to further the interests, rights and privileges of individuals within the Commonwealth; and to protect citizens of the Commonwealth against unfounded charges of unlawful discrimination.

Unlawful Discriminatory Practice Defined

Conduct which violates any Virginia or federal Statute or regulation governing discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status or disability.

-------------------------------------------

There's certainly no need for any to make a federal case from all of this. The guy should've explained his situation, the manager on duty should've accepted it and made an excpetion. It's certainly not serving the spirit of the exclusion policy to keep this customer out and the exemption is certainly rare and reasonable. In all of this my concern is not with the laws behind it, though the legal debate is of interest, it's with the spirit with which the establishment in question is run.

HogieWan

11-28-2006, 05:33 PM

if you do it for everyone, it's not discrimination - let one exception means you discriminated against everyone who had to take off their headwear that happens to not be Sikh

MeridianFC

11-28-2006, 06:09 PM

I guess the converse would be, since headgear is mandatory for practicing Sikhs, having such a rule in place is de facto discrimination against them. A more interesting twist is what someone said earlier about "freedom from religion". I wonder if it would be leaglly possible to exclude based on any relgious wear whatsoever based on a devout form of atheism.

Again all of this is part of the legal debate, which is not as important to me as the owner/manager of an establishment being intractable given the parameters of this situation.

DecoJuicer

11-28-2006, 07:08 PM

A few years ago, some friends and I went to a T.G.I. Fridays for a few drinks and some appetizers one day. We new that this place was popular with a certain religious group who we felt were pompous jerks. My friend, Dickey, wore a shirt that said "I Love Satan". We started getting some angry looks, and the manager was being called over to a lot of tables. Finally, he came over and asked us to leave(which took some major stones on his part, because at the time I looked like I just got out of prison and I was quite drunk). We told him that we had freedom of religion, and we were staying. He pointed to a sign over the bar that said the bar reserves the right to refuse service to anyone, and said that if we didn't leave, he would call the police.

We had to secured our tab with a credit card and he already had our bill in his hand. We signed, and out the door we went to much applause.

Keep in mind, we were semi-regulars at the place because it was right around the corner from our houses. Also, none of us were actually devil worshipers. The manager had every right in the world to send us packing. IT'S HIS BUSINESS!!! Was it the right thing to do? Yes, it was. Had they not thrown us out, then the other group would have left, and it would have cost him a lot of money.

If the owner at Richbrau were to let this mope wear his turban, then the dress code at his bar would be useless. From that point on, anytime a guy with thinning hair and a ball cap came in, all he would have to say is, "You let him do it!" This owner wanted to keep his business a nice place, and not have a bunch of bangers or bikers in there. He also probably is trying to attract a professional(shirt & tie) type of clientelle. Who can blame him for that?

Why should he have to make exceptions for one group? Then another group is going to want some type of exception, then another and another. That is why this country is in the terrible shape that it is. We keep making exceptions instead of drawing a line and saying, "If you don't like it, there's the door."

This Sikh had a choice. He could either remove his headwear like everybody else, go in and enjoy a tasty beverage and some grub, or he could take his business elsewhere and tell all of his friends to do the same. He chose to try to grab the spotlight and play the victim. Screw him, he gets no sympathy from me.

MeridianFC

11-28-2006, 07:46 PM

So if you have rule like "no hats" in place, there's never any case for exception?

I respect the "it's his business rule", but there is a logical limit. Then there's a legal limit which is being discussed simulataneously. Can a man refuse entrance to someone because the color of the skin? It doesn't matter if "it's his business" does it? Religion, for good or ill, gets the same protection in this country.

A more clear (or challenging) example for me would be the women who want to wear the burqa on their photo id's, which completely negates the effectiveness of the process.

jjpm74

11-28-2006, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Chiliman101
Rules??? Constitution and law are a bit more than RULES..

If only that pesky Constitution didn't get in your way.

The rule in the Constitution you are getting confused over is pretty cut and dry:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Show me which part of that amendment applies to private establishments; or is this place owned by Congress?

What this establishment did to this guy was wrong and should not have happened and may very well be in violation of local or state laws, but it is not in violation of the Constitution.

Chiliman101

11-28-2006, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by jjpm74

What this establishment did to this guy was wrong and should not have happened and may very well be in violation of local or state laws, but it is not in violation of the Constitution.

You are absolutely right! I should have edited that out as soon as I caught myself saying it. This is an issue of state and more to the point federal law.

DecoJuicer

11-28-2006, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by MeridianFC
So if you have rule like "no hats" in place, there's never any case for exception?

I respect the "it's his business rule", but there is a logical limit. Then there's a legal limit which is being discussed simulataneously. Can a man refuse entrance to someone because the color of the skin? It doesn't matter if "it's his business" does it? Religion, for good or ill, gets the same protection in this country.

No, there is no case for exception IF you want to remain fair to everybody. Why give this guy a pass, and not the next guy. How about the guy who's hair all fell out from cancer treatments, does he get a pass? Why even have the damn rule if you are going to keeping letting certain people slide on it. This is a no brainer. He didn't make up the rule to keep Sikhs out. If he did, it didn't work because the guys cousins were in there. He didn't say that the Sikh couldn't come in. He only said that if he wanted to come in, then he had to remove his headgear. The crybaby then took it to mean that he and his religion were being descriminated against. Now it is probably going to cost the bar owner a lot of money in bad publicity and legal fees, when he did nothing wrong.

Your second question is irrelevant. Nobody was denied entrance due to the color of their skin OR the religious choice. He was denied service because he refused to follow the rules of that bar, which was "no hats". You follow the rules of the house, or you take your party somewhere else. What is so wrong with that?

As far as there being a logical limit, what is that? Can you tell me what that limit is? What if my religion says that I am not to wear shoes? Is it ok if I enter a business that has a sign that says, "No shoes, No Shirt, No service"?

If there is a rule in place, and it is not a life threatening situation, then it shouldn't be broken or bent for one person. They should have to conform to the rule, the rules shouldn't have to change to fit their needs.

Doesn't it bother anybody that we are spiralling into such a nanny state that a person can't even make rules in their own business anymore?? More and more, people are screaming for legislation telling others how they should speak and worse yet, THINK. Pretty soon, the thought police are going to be reading our blogs and kicking down our doors.

I'm not being paranoid about this. A few years back, a sex offender had his parole revoked because he wrote in his journal that he was have DREAMS about sex with young girls, and his parole agent read it. This man was meeting all of his parole requirements, he was attending therapy sessions, and he was trying to make a change in his life. But because he was DREAMING about having sex with underage girls, he got violated. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that he should have been let out of prison in the first place, but WTF!?!?!? You send a man to prison for DREAMING?!?!?

I think that I need to move to Alaska, in the wilderness and only come to town twice a year. I've had it with this b.s.

Chiliman101

11-28-2006, 08:51 PM

Individuals have the right to dislike whatever group or person you want. Going beyond that then you are just throwing out a bunch of non-sensible blabber.

Dress codes can ban offensive language and clothing. A shirt that says "I love satan", in my opinion, shows low class but not offensive to the point I would not allow you in my business. But I could legally. Again, not opinion, FACT as approved by the federal government. Now I will ask any group that is getting complaints from other guests around them to have respect for others and if I feel they are being out of line I will ask them to leave. Again, not discrimination and perfectly within my legal rights. No public business can "refuse service to anyone", regardless of any sign, if that decision is being made in whole or part based on race, religion, or ethnicity. Any thoughts to the contrary are foolish and show a lack of understanding of the legalities involved. Disagreeing with, ignoring, or not understanding the law makes no difference on it's effect

Now, this idea that allowing someone to wear their turban, as is required by law, makes their dress code useless. Well, that's ridiculous. Hundreds of thousands of businesses have dress codes and they don't discriminate as this incident seems to have done. The intent of the dress code is not to keep any religion out, it is to keep undesirable elements out. I suspect everyone knows that and is pointed out. Then comparing baseball caps to religious clothing...that has no merit both legally and in any reasonable person's mind. Anyone that said "you let him in" I look at, laugh at them, tell them to grow up, take the cap off or leave. If they don't I escort them out. Usually anyone being that plain dumb and immature is some 18-25 year old with an attitude.

A comment like "you don't like it...there's the door". I suppose you'd be the person setting the limits? Maybe Nancy Pelosi and her ilk? Maybe we can dredge up David Duke and his nuts? Who sets the standards? I agree with you that people from other cultures should assimilate into our society. But no one with a reasonable head on their shoulders or a sense of history of this countries founders and traditions would ever believe assimilation includes giving up ANYTHING about their religion.

Again, everyone has the right to their opinions, no matter what I or anyone else thinks of them for being that way. If anyone believes a business has the same legal rights of an individual, you just do not understand the law or good business practices for that matter.

I'm done with this thread. As someone involved in this kind of situation I've tried to inform those who lack the capacity to accept the facts.

jjpm74

11-28-2006, 09:30 PM

Just to play Devil's Advocate here for a moment, what if he were a Rastafarian rather than a Sikh and refused to remove his knit cap which is part of a Rastafarian's spiritual beliefs? Would people be as outraged?

DecoJuicer

11-28-2006, 09:32 PM

Somebody saying that they will not serve me because I am Devil worshipper is a lot different from somebody saying they will not serve me because I am wearing a shirt that says "I love satan". The first is blatant descrimination, while the second is enforcing standards that are set in place to keep the establishment a friendly and enjoyable place for ALL people.

There is no law that says a business owner has to adjust their dress code to allow for YOUR religion. I am well over 25, and I wear a baseball cap almost everywhere that I go. If I were told that I had to remove my cover before I went into a business, and the guy behind was allowed to keep his for any reason, I would be mad. If the rules are meant to be apllied to everybody, then they should be applied to everybody. No exceptions.

What's the difference in you throwing somebody out because they question you for letting a person break the rules and me not letting somebody in because the choose not to follow the rules? Here is the difference, my rules are plainly posted where everyone can see. Yours are arbitrary and you get to break, bend, or enforce them as you see fit. My system is much more fair.

If I was the owner of the establishment, then yes I would be the one setting the limits. It's my business, and if you don't like my rules then you are free to go down the street where they have different rules. I personally don't want ANYBODY from the government setting the limits. I think that should be a personal choice, and the business will live or die by that choice. If you set a dress code that is not conducive to the type of crowd that patronizes your business, then you won't be in business long.

I'm not saying that people have to give up their religion or any part of it to to be part of this society. I am saying that people have to respect the rules of this society.

As far as being compared to David Duke, and you implying that I am not as smart or sensible as you, I never impuned your character or started name calling, so I guess that shows where you stand.

wortchillergoal

11-28-2006, 09:38 PM

What would happen in the following situation? The guy is let in, with his turban on, and he starts trying to convert the other customers to become Sikh. He is doing this loudly and disrupting business. He is asked to leave. Is he being targeted because of his religion or is the business owner within his rights?

I am not a lawyer. Yes, the way the law is written, as proved by Chiliman, can say the business was in the wrong. I don't know that I agree with that. I also wonder that if the court proceedings took place three weeks earlier or later and with a different judge that the ruling might have been different.

Now what happens if this person wants to go into a Christian church on Sunday and practice his religion. Does the law mean that they have to let him? I know my example may not be the best, but puts my line of thought out there.

It is a touchy area to deal with. I agree with Decojuicer that the government is inserting itself to far into places it should not. i also believe we need to respect other peoples' differences. but where do you draw the line? In trying to make this line more defined, we have to remember that there will never be 100% agreement.

corkybstewart

11-28-2006, 09:49 PM

Am I, the business owner, to know and understand every rule of every religion so as not to offend somebody by asking him to remove his revered turban or knit hat? On cold days I wear a knit hat. That doesn't make me a Rastafarian. I agree with the "bare feet" analogy someone made. As long as the rules apply equally to everyone without exception I'm in favor of it. When we start making exceptions for this person's religious practices or another persons whatever then political correctness has won and common sense loses.

MeridianFC

11-28-2006, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by DecoJuicer

Your second question is irrelevant. Nobody was denied entrance due to the color of their skin OR the religious choice. He was denied service because he refused to follow the rules of that bar, which was "no hats".

I used that example because you put forward the "IT'S HIS BUSINESS!!!" statement, I merely used that as an exteme example of a case where it may be your business but there are laws that curtail the length to which one may utilize that power.

Again some of this is getting to ACLU type extremes. Just let the damned guy in because he is a Sikh and he is impelled to where a turban and he just can unwrap it and walk around the bar with 10' of hair hangin' out. This is all over a friggin' hat rule that's meant to keep rowdy frat boys and eejit yo boys in check.

As far as exceptions, it happens. The world is not black and white. There are some rules that should be firmly enforced in these situations (no concealed firearms, no smoking in the no smoking area, no American Express, etc.) and some where lattitude can be given because the rule is just not that important or situation dictates (no outside food or drink of wee ones bottle and biscuit, no hats, no athletic wear). The hat rule is not that important, it's certainly not worth all this hullaballu. It's breach in this case does not bring down the enforcement of other more important rules.