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

[Schwartz]

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

Nobody notices discrimination against the majority. Being a minority in the US gives you outstanding rights for advocating your uniqueness and at the same time disadvantages.
Here is the real problem. More than 50% of American citizens face religion-induced discrimination all over the country on daily basis and nothing is being done about it. Christians have no right to discriminate against gays but for some reason Orthodox Jews have a right to discriminate against all American women.

 

[Cardinal]

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

Nobody notices discrimination against the majority. Being a minority in the US gives you outstanding rights for advocating your uniqueness and at the same time disadvantages.
Here is the real problem. More than 50% of American citizens face religion-induced discrimination all over the country on daily basis and nothing is being done about it. Christians have no right to discriminate against gays but for some reason Orthodox Jews have a right to discriminate against all American women.

Is this thread supposed to be in the context of the ongoing topics regarding discrimination against gays by businesses? Please tell me it isn't.

 

[Chaddelamancha]

It's ridiculous articles like this that keep us mired in ridiculous arguments. The Orthodox Jew doesn't have any requirement to shake her hand. If she was insulted by this, that's her problem. It's his belief, let him have it. Now, if she was kicked off a plane because he refused to sit next to her, that's a difference scenario.

She "deserves better"? WE deserve better than this article.

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

Nobody notices discrimination against the majority. Being a minority in the US gives you outstanding rights for advocating your uniqueness and at the same time disadvantages.
Here is the real problem. More than 50% of American citizens face religion-induced discrimination all over the country on daily basis and nothing is being done about it. Christians have no right to discriminate against gays but for some reason Orthodox Jews have a right to discriminate against all American women.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Is this thread supposed to be in the context of the ongoing topics regarding discrimination against gays by businesses? Please tell me it isn't.

That is not quite what the article is on about. It is more an argument about the correlation between discrimination against women accepted in some cultures as compared to other forms of discrimination that for one social reason or another has diminished over time. Not necessarily just about gays.

The main question is about what overrides, respect for religion that includes various discrimination as a hallmark *or* a social norm that rejects all notions of discrimination.

The OP article seems like a precursor conversation leading into a probable argument against "religious freedom" acts, under the suggestion that these initiatives are a back door method to allowance for various discrimination against women, other races, other faiths, perhaps gays as well but all in the Old Testament, or Jewish text, or Islamic Faith teachings sense (as examples.)

For this thread we could probably discuss the potential for religious freedom acts as a method to go back to a time where men told women they are 2nd for one reason or another. In the context of some Jewish faith interpretation, or all Islamic faith interpretation, or in the Christian fundamentalism sense, or even some far eastern cultures we are talking about existing yet long term ideologies all over 1000 years old (in some cases much older than that) that suggests a place (or role) for women that in our society today does not mesh.

Consider this a subset of the one way tolerance debate, how do we tolerate something where discrimination is part of the picture?

 

[Chaddelamancha]

The OP article didn't show discrimination in the same way that the "religious freedom" acts would allow. She wasn't denied any service, she wasn't forced to change seats, nothing. We live in a great big world, inhabited by people who beliefs are different. Until those beliefs infringe upon your rights, it's okay for those beliefs to be discriminatory.

That is not quite what the article is on about. It is more an argument about the correlation between discrimination against women accepted in some cultures as compared to other forms of discrimination that for one social reason or another has diminished over time. Not necessarily just about gays.

The main question is about what overrides, respect for religion that includes various discrimination as a hallmark *or* a social norm that rejects all notions of discrimination.

The OP article seems like a precursor conversation leading into a probable argument against "religious freedom" acts, under the suggestion that these initiatives are a back door method to allowance for various discrimination against women, other races, other faiths, perhaps gays as well but all in the Old Testament, or Jewish text, or Islamic Faith teachings sense (as examples.)

For this thread we could probably discuss the potential for religious freedom acts as a method to go back to a time where men told women they are 2nd for one reason or another. In the context of some Jewish faith interpretation, or all Islamic faith interpretation, or in the Christian fundamentalism sense, or even some far eastern cultures we are talking about existing yet long term ideologies all over 1000 years old (in some cases much older than that) that suggests a place (or role) for women that in our society today does not mesh.

Consider this a subset of the one way tolerance debate, how do we tolerate something where discrimination is part of the picture?

 

[OrphanSlug]

The OP article didn't show discrimination in the same way that the "religious freedom" acts would allow. She wasn't denied any service, she wasn't forced to change seats, nothing. We live in a great big world, inhabited by people who beliefs are different. Until those beliefs infringe upon your rights, it's okay for those beliefs to be discriminatory.

You are missing what I am saying, and it seems deliberate.

I did not claim support for the article, and I was careful to mention what I thought the point would be in terms of additional arguments or conversations related to the subject others brought up.

I would simply request that you review the spirit of what I was trying to convey, but if that is not in the cards then bone up on that arrogance tell me what you think my argument was and we'll go at it.

 

[Chaddelamancha]

I wasn't trying to imply your support for the article. And there was no deliberate misinterpretation of what you said, it was accidental. I see now that your post was trying to solicit a debate on the "what-if" that one of these "religious freedom" laws were to allow the discrimination of women based on their religious belief.

It's a very valid argument, and I do wonder if society would get behind a baker refusing service to a woman because of her sex. I would wager that the company denying her service wouldn't generate much support.

My problem with this article is the way it begins and ends. She seems entirely too focused on an Orthodox Jew refusing to shake her hand. She deserves better? Would it be more fair to force the Jew to shake her hand?

You are missing what I am saying, and it seems deliberate.

I did not claim support for the article, and I was careful to mention what I thought the point would be in terms of additional arguments or conversations related to the subject others brought up.

I would simply request that you review the spirit of what I was trying to convey, but if that is not in the cards then bone up on that arrogance tell me what you think my argument was and we'll go at it.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I wasn't trying to imply your support for the article. And there was no deliberate misinterpretation of what you said, it was accidental. I see now that your post was trying to solicit a debate on the "what-if" that one of these "religious freedom" laws were to allow the discrimination of women based on their religious belief.

It's a very valid argument, and I do wonder if society would get behind a baker refusing service to a woman because of her sex. I would wager that the company denying her service wouldn't generate much support.

My problem with this article is the way it begins and ends. She seems entirely too focused on an Orthodox Jew refusing to shake her hand. She deserves better? Would it be more fair to force the Jew to shake her hand?

My apologies then, I took it too far.

I am not as familiar with the various splinters of the Jewish faith to suggest the examples from the article are reasonable or not. But, I would agree it seems dubious to pick on the Jewish faith while ignoring so many other, perhaps even more forward, examples of prejudices.

The OP article itself point to other arguments (links at the bottom) I was talking about on the fine line between religious freedoms and anti-discrimination efforts.

As to your questions, I honestly am unsure. I doubt it makes much sense for anyone to force anyone else to shake someone's hand. Does she deserve better? Probably but how we go about that unlocks a series of complications.

 

[D_NATURED]

I find it strange how many "religious" discussions have nothing at all to do with the sky man. What kind of stupid god forbids the selling of cakes to lesbians or the shaking of female hands? Is selling cake or giving a hearty handshake REALLY a religious exercise? My sense is that much of what religious people do is treat their versions of higher powers as obsessive, nit-picking prudes.

What if everyone were so faith-centric in our society? Nothing would get done. I, as an atheist, for instance, might have to refuse to do IT work for any client who might choose to surf a christian site. A Hindu would not sell me a cheese burger. A buddhist might refuse to sell anything that might be used as a weapon. The possibilities are endless for people to use their fear-avoidance mechanisms to justify treating other, legally equal beings as less-than. The stupid part of it all is that each religious group would argue that their faith transcends human divisiveness.

The evidence seems to be mounting that suggests, when given the opportunity, people will use their gods to bludgeon others with, in whatever way they can do legally. It's also obvious that the freedom of religion that we talk so much about is relative to the paranoia and bigotry of the dominant ideology. Rarely does an issue demonstrate so well the inhuman potential of faith to authorize people to act in anti-social ways. I, for one, am left wondering how this vestigial meme called "faith" does anything to serve contemporary man when so much violence and hatred are perpetuated in its name.

Who knows, maybe the evolutionary benefit of faith is population control, in general, or just the thinning of the dumbest from the herd. Either way, it's doing a lousey job.

 

[Chaddelamancha]

The majority of the time, I tend not to wade into religion and our rights discussion because of the amount of religious fanatics that come out of the woodwork and derail the thread. Also, as an atheist, I cringe because it's inevitably some atheist will pop on and spout off about "sky god" this, "faith" that, and proceed to mock those who believe. It's an embarrassment on both sides. But I digress.

Faith-centric societies work just fine, for private business. You don't want to service Christians, okay, you will just lose clients. Buddhists wouldn't own weapon stores and Hindus wouldn't open a McDonalds. I have no problem with you, an atheist working for a private company, from refusing service for a Christian. However, if you work for a public entity, then your companys private rights are gone. If you accept money from a pot that is filled by all religious types, then you have to cater to them.

Who knows, maybe the evolutionary benefit of faith is population control, in general, or just the thinning of the dumbest from the herd. Either way, it's doing a lousey job.

I would counter that atheists have a very similar death rate as those who believe. And if you are going for the insult, try spell check next time. It might save you some embarrassment.

 

[beerftw]

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

Nobody notices discrimination against the majority. Being a minority in the US gives you outstanding rights for advocating your uniqueness and at the same time disadvantages.
Here is the real problem. More than 50% of American citizens face religion-induced discrimination all over the country on daily basis and nothing is being done about it. Christians have no right to discriminate against gays but for some reason Orthodox Jews have a right to discriminate against all American women.

umm not shaking her hand is discrimination based on religion???yeah its a religious practice,but calling descrimination?????

im assuming the man was probably a bhuddist monk,as most i have ever met will not shake a females hand or even touch them by there religious rules.


ok i went through the artile and he was an orthodox jew not a bhudist monk,the latter im used to seeing refuse to be in contact with women,still stupid though calling it discrimination.

 

[Schwartz]

It's ridiculous articles like this that keep us mired in ridiculous arguments. The Orthodox Jew doesn't have any requirement to shake her hand. If she was insulted by this, that's her problem. It's his belief, let him have it. Now, if she was kicked off a plane because he refused to sit next to her, that's a difference scenario.

She "deserves better"? WE deserve better than this article.

If you were insulted by this article, that's your problem.

 

[Schwartz]

That is not quite what the article is on about. It is more an argument about the correlation between discrimination against women accepted in some cultures as compared to other forms of discrimination that for one social reason or another has diminished over time. Not necessarily just about gays.

The main question is about what overrides, respect for religion that includes various discrimination as a hallmark *or* a social norm that rejects all notions of discrimination.

The OP article seems like a precursor conversation leading into a probable argument against "religious freedom" acts, under the suggestion that these initiatives are a back door method to allowance for various discrimination against women, other races, other faiths, perhaps gays as well but all in the Old Testament, or Jewish text, or Islamic Faith teachings sense (as examples.)

For this thread we could probably discuss the potential for religious freedom acts as a method to go back to a time where men told women they are 2nd for one reason or another. In the context of some Jewish faith interpretation, or all Islamic faith interpretation, or in the Christian fundamentalism sense, or even some far eastern cultures we are talking about existing yet long term ideologies all over 1000 years old (in some cases much older than that) that suggests a place (or role) for women that in our society today does not mesh.

Consider this a subset of the one way tolerance debate, how do we tolerate something where discrimination is part of the picture?

Thanks for your comment!

That's exactly the thing I was talking about. While certain people are allowed to discriminate against women, others are punished for not serving gays. Some would say it is personal attitude vs. business relations issues. From the point of view of legislation, it is. From humanistic positions it is not. Usual people like me and you run business and express their personal believes though company's actions.

 

[Schwartz]

umm not shaking her hand is discrimination based on religion???yeah its a religious practice,but calling descrimination?????

im assuming the man was probably a bhuddist monk,as most i have ever met will not shake a females hand or even touch them by there religious rules.


ok i went through the artile and he was an orthodox jew not a bhudist monk,the latter im used to seeing refuse to be in contact with women,still stupid though calling it discrimination.

What about asking flight attendant to switch seats with a woman? In this case it is Orthodox Jew's problem he is setting next to a lady, not hers. He is free to follow any religious rules and traditions until it infringes other people. Don't you think so? It is not only about this particular woman, it is about all cases mentioned in the article.

 

[Chaddelamancha]

If you were insulted by this article, that's your problem.

The only thing insulted by this article was my intelligence.

Is the idea that the "religious freedom" laws could have the potential for women to be openly discriminated against an interesting topic for discussion? Yes. However, she mired that topic in an article where she spends her time whining about not getting a handshake. I don't see anywhere in the article where she was actually discriminated against. And the examples she used were sketchy at best. There is nothing wrong with an Orthodox Jew asking if he can be moved, or if another passenger can be moved, if where he is sat is against his teachings. Now, if someone is forced to move, that's a different story.

 

[Chaddelamancha]

What about asking flight attendant to switch seats with a woman? In this case it is Orthodox Jew's problem he is setting next to a lady, not hers. He is free to follow any religious rules and traditions until it infringes other people. Don't you think so? It is not only about this particular woman, it is about all cases mentioned in the article.

There is nothing wrong with asking to be moved.