Page 5 of 6

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:42 pm
by Len Hyet
Dahon wrote:
Len Hyet wrote:Because its unhygienic?

Yall, feet are nasty. They don't just collect the same amount of bacteria as shoes, they provide a nice warm wet breeding ground for them, as well as potentially providing a conduit for anything the person has to be spread around them.


Those dirty filthy feet aren't being used to help one eat and drink, so I don't really care.

No they're just tracking all that nasty bacteria into a place that serves food.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:43 pm
by Valgora
Len Hyet wrote:
Dahon wrote:
Those dirty filthy feet aren't being used to help one eat and drink, so I don't really care.

No they're just tracking all that nasty bacteria into a place that serves food.

Onto the ground in which shoes have already tracked bacteria onto.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:44 pm
by Uiiop
Len Hyet wrote:
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:....
My feet aren't wet :unsure:

Feet sweat amigo. And bacteria love sweat. Sweat is great, it's full of all sorts of electrolytes for them. Hell where do you think BO comes from? It's not sweat, it's bacteria digesting the sweat.

My shoes must be so full of them rn.
Which isn't to bad for me since i've got socks but that doesn't mean they aren't a problem.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:44 pm
by Ungvarnfjall
Len Hyet wrote:
Dahon wrote:Unless the guy was shoveling morsels of food through his mouth with his toes, I see no reason for the cafe not to bend over backwards for his creed -- if indeed a creed it was.

Because its unhygienic?

Yall, feet are nasty. They don't just collect the same amount of bacteria as shoes, they provide a nice warm wet breeding ground for them, as well as potentially providing a conduit for anything the person has to be spread around them.

That's a good point. I personally think that the student might have made the 'IT'S MY RELIGION' portion up, but if not, I'd say they're better off just eating somewhere barefoot-friendly or at least putting some socks on. I doubt the Almighty will smite him to his Hel-equivalent for a thin layer of cloth that keeps people from shrieking in horror at the sight of his holy cankles.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:45 pm
by Len Hyet
Valgora wrote:
Len Hyet wrote:No they're just tracking all that nasty bacteria into a place that serves food.

Onto the ground in which shoes have already tracked bacteria onto.

Which, if you read the chain you were replying to, you would see I have already addressed.

Shoes carry bacteria, yes. Feet breed bacteria.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:50 pm
by Valgora
Len Hyet wrote:
Valgora wrote:Onto the ground in which shoes have already tracked bacteria onto.

Which, if you read the chain you were replying to, you would see I have already addressed.

Shoes carry bacteria, yes. Feet breed bacteria.


How do feet provide a breeding ground that is good enough to be a significant difference than that of the outside of a shoe?
"they provide a nice warm wet breeding ground for them"
Feet ain't that much warmer barefoot compared to the outside of a shoe; they would provide a warmer environment when the foot is inside the shoe.
Wet? Maybe if we're talking sweat, which would be more likely to happen to feet inside shoes compared to going barefoot.

Also, those bacteria are still on the ground.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 7:55 pm
by Dahon
Len Hyet wrote:
Dahon wrote:
Those dirty filthy feet aren't being used to help one eat and drink, so I don't really care.

No they're just tracking all that nasty bacteria into a place that serves food.


As far as I'm aware -- and I know the world is a big place, so I may well be wrong here -- no one drops food into the ground so customers can then eat off of it. I mean, sufferers of pica might find the extra topsoil nourishing, but still --

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:35 pm
by Narland
Xmara wrote:So today I witnessed something on my college campus that's got me thinking now.

I was sitting outside the cafeteria in the student union when I saw a guy get into an argument with the woman at the counter and a cafeteria worker. The student was not wearing any shoes because shoes violated his religious beliefs (don't know what his religion was; if anyone could shed some light that would be great). He was admitted into the cafeteria but was removed by the cafeteria worker after another student reported his lack of shoes.

Anyway, it turned into a heated argument over freedom of religion and the cafeteria's "no shirt no shoes no service" policy. People were stopping and staring. Finally, the student demanded the name and number of the cafeteria worker because he was going to the president's office over it, the cafeteria worker refused to provide that information even after the student provided his, and the worker walked off as the student was still talking to him.

So this little incident got me thinking: where does freedom of religion end and school policy begin? I know this question has been asked many times before, but I never really thought much about it until today when I saw it in person.

What do I think? I'm conflicted. On one hand I believe strongly in freedom of religion, and I don't think someone should be forced to do something that violates their religious beliefs. On the other hand, it's school rules, and they're there for a reason. Bare feet carry all sorts of germs (the guy's feet were filthy). However, I do think the cafeteria worker was rude by not giving his name and walking off mid-conversation.

What do you think NSG? Was the school right to kick this guy out of the cafeteria because he wasn't wearing shoes? Where does freedom of religion end?

Yes, it was right to kick him out. I think it is an affront to people's sincerely held religious beliefs. It can be argued from nature that religion is a matter of conscience in how to best love God and treat others as well (or better than) you treat yourself in ritual and practice. Barefootery in the eatery is none of that. Forcing someone to serve them at the peril of their job is certainly uncaring, disrespectful, and arguably irreligious in and of itself.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:44 pm
by Arkhanic Assassins
Separation of church and state, in this particular case that barefoot guy cannot force an establishment (the cafeteria) to acquiesce to his religious demands the same way the cafeteria cannot force him to wear shoes, but they do however have the power to deny service and remove the guy from their premises.

Next case.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:54 pm
by Greed and Death
Ifreann wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:No he shouldn’t have. We shouldn’t bend over backwards to accommodate every single religion. You can follow your crazy practices in your house or in a place of worship but not a public cafe. And especially not in a school

Places of worship are public places. Anyone can walk in off the street, just like they can walk into a cafe.

Some are some aren't. Followers of the Mālikī train of Islamic thought for instance do not believe non believers are to be allowed into a Mosque.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 9:58 pm
by Fartsniffage
Len Hyet wrote:
Valgora wrote:Onto the ground in which shoes have already tracked bacteria onto.

Which, if you read the chain you were replying to, you would see I have already addressed.

Shoes carry bacteria, yes. Feet breed bacteria.


This makes sense as an argument only if you demand that people also put on latex gloves before being served in a cafe. Hands breed bacteria and they're going to be touching all over the place. Even the money you get back in change has been touched by lots of bacteria breeding hands.

How can you even leave your sterilised room and face all the hand bacteria that's on everything if a bit of foot bacteria on floors your walking shod on worries you?

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:08 pm
by Cosmopolitan borovan
Is a school qualified as a public place? Once you enter a school, you are in the jurisdiction of that institution. People have the expectation to follow the rules as set by that institution. ANything violated can be taken to the courts but in my opinion, taking off shoes as freedom of religion can be justified but it has to be follow rules. There's health risks and the guy is going to ruin the floor with the germs and besides it's not going to kill him to wear shoes.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 10:34 pm
by Dogmeat
While I think they're within their rights to refuse barefoot individuals, for whatever reason, regardless of religious inclinations... surely we can come to reasonable compromises over something that doesn't matter much.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:16 pm
by The Greater Ohio Valley
Len Hyet wrote:
Valgora wrote:Onto the ground in which shoes have already tracked bacteria onto.

Which, if you read the chain you were replying to, you would see I have already addressed.

Shoes carry bacteria, yes. Feet breed bacteria.

Everything breeds bacteria, and if we’re being human body specific, every part of the body breeds bacteria. Sounds like we need to have everybody suit up in full body clean suits, latex gloves, goggles and surgical masks.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2018 11:55 pm
by Wunderstrafanstalt
Harm reduction. If the institution determined that being barefooted contains health risks, then I think it is okay for the customers to be required to wear shoes/sandals/etc despite religious values. I believe that this not only the best approach, but also applicable. (For example, my country's Indonesian Ulema Council allowed the use of MMR vaccine for health reasons despite its usage of pig. I just wished that they used their brains like this when dealing with asinine cases like blasphemy.)

On the other hand, I believe about freedom of religion and I think they should be allowed to practice it in public spaces as its restrictions usually relies on "our founding fathers' unyielding love for secularism" or other ideological values alone. I'm fine if the reason is for other people's health or security or etc.

As a sidenote, a lot of schools (usually the conservative ones) in my country (I was enrolled to one of them years ago) mandated you to take off your shoes when entering their building (although the reason is cultural, not religious). While it doesn't go well with my appetite I also haven't heard any cases of mass sickness or infectious fungus plagues or something.

Although they didn't violated the law, that worker is rude and I believe being rude isn't a great moral characteristics.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:02 am
by The Free Joy State
Xmara wrote:
So today I witnessed something on my college campus that's got me thinking now.

I was sitting outside the cafeteria in the student union when I saw a guy get into an argument with the woman at the counter and a cafeteria worker. The student was not wearing any shoes because shoes violated his religious beliefs (don't know what his religion was; if anyone could shed some light that would be great). He was admitted into the cafeteria but was removed by the cafeteria worker after another student reported his lack of shoes.

Anyway, it turned into a heated argument over freedom of religion and the cafeteria's "no shirt no shoes no service" policy. People were stopping and staring. Finally, the student demanded the name and number of the cafeteria worker because he was going to the president's office over it, the cafeteria worker refused to provide that information even after the student provided his, and the worker walked off as the student was still talking to him.

So this little incident got me thinking: where does freedom of religion end and school policy begin? I know this question has been asked many times before, but I never really thought much about it until today when I saw it in person.

What do I think? I'm conflicted. On one hand I believe strongly in freedom of religion, and I don't think someone should be forced to do something that violates their religious beliefs. On the other hand, it's school rules, and they're there for a reason. Bare feet carry all sorts of germs (the guy's feet were filthy). However, I do think the cafeteria worker was rude by not giving his name and walking off mid-conversation.

What do you think NSG? Was the school right to kick this guy out of the cafeteria because he wasn't wearing shoes? Where does freedom of religion end?

I believe everyone should have freedom of religion (both of and from religion). However, I believe everyone's freedom of religion stops where it impinges someone else's freedoms: whether that's through attempting to convert them or through placing their beliefs above someone else's rights and/or wellbeing.

Bare feet shouldn't be around food. A tiny nick in the skin -- which a person may not feel -- could harbour bacteria and walk it around an area that needs to be kept hygienic, verrucas and warts spread, and dirty feet smell (which is unpleasant when you're trying to eat).

So, I don't think he should've been in a café with bare feet.

Of course, if he was treated rudely, that shouldn't happen either. His religious beliefs should not have been accommodated to the detriment of others' wellbeing, but he should still have been treated with respect and told the reasons.

I can't find anything about a religion that commands the followers be barefoot all the time. There are religions that require -- more by cultural convention than religious text, I believe -- monks and nuns to be barefoot (Jainism, Buddhism, certain convents) and religions where you must be barefoot to enter places of worship (Hinduism and Islam come to mind), but I can't think of a single religion that commands the followers be constantly barefoot.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:07 am
by Right wing humour squad
Religious laws take second place to secular laws, so if we decide that people should be wearing shoes, then he can go barefoot at home all he wants.

But the hygiene concerns go out the window while we still allow breastfeeding and children at these places.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 12:13 am
by Cetacea
Len Hyet wrote:
Valgora wrote:Onto the ground in which shoes have already tracked bacteria onto.

Which, if you read the chain you were replying to, you would see I have already addressed.

Shoes carry bacteria, yes. Feet breed bacteria.


Which is something of a misnomer. Skin has an acid mantle which works to keep bacteria and other environmental pollutants out, furthermore bare skin is exposed to the drying and cleansing effects of air and sunlight.
Shoes on the other hand,Potentially contain and concentrate pollutants and sweat in an insulated environment that acts as a bacterial incubator

But let’s not exaggerate either possibilty

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:18 am
by Mystic Warriors
Freedom of Religion doesn't apply here, that only applies to government. Unless you can make the argument that the school is an extension of government, then no it doesn't apply.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:04 am
by Unstoppable Empire of Doom
Do whatever you want, claim it is for religious reasons..... Ya... No. I'm not buying it. Everyone should have the same rules applied equally. No exceptions. If you don't like it don't go.

Also what religion says you cannot wear shoes in a cafeteria? Sounds like it's made up.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:53 pm
by Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio
Also, as long as people considers sanitation to be the main reason to ban going barefoot, the toilet seat is likely more sanitary than the average person's phone, but no one cares about people who are handing out food having their phone on them if the food does not touch the phone or their hands.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:59 pm
by Dogmeat
Does anyone know what the origins of the "no shoes" thing is?

I've heard sanitation, but as several people have pointed out: that doesn't really stand up. It seems more likely "no shirt, no shoes" was invented to keep poor and homeless people out of restaurants back when shoelessness was typical among the poor and homeless.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:24 pm
by Conserative Morality
Dogmeat wrote:Does anyone know what the origins of the "no shoes" thing is?

I've heard sanitation, but as several people have pointed out: that doesn't really stand up. It seems more likely "no shirt, no shoes" was invented to keep poor and homeless people out of restaurants back when shoelessness was typical among the poor and homeless.

Wait, how doesn't it stand up? There's a reason athlete's foot got its name. Many parasites and fungi pass through the skin of your soles.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:31 pm
by Farnhamia
Conserative Morality wrote:
Dogmeat wrote:Does anyone know what the origins of the "no shoes" thing is?

I've heard sanitation, but as several people have pointed out: that doesn't really stand up. It seems more likely "no shirt, no shoes" was invented to keep poor and homeless people out of restaurants back when shoelessness was typical among the poor and homeless.

Wait, how doesn't it stand up? There's a reason athlete's foot got its name. Many parasites and fungi pass through the skin of your soles.

Trump's preparing an executive order to put a stop to that as soon as he gets back from Paris.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:36 pm
by Dogmeat
Conserative Morality wrote:
Dogmeat wrote:Does anyone know what the origins of the "no shoes" thing is?

I've heard sanitation, but as several people have pointed out: that doesn't really stand up. It seems more likely "no shirt, no shoes" was invented to keep poor and homeless people out of restaurants back when shoelessness was typical among the poor and homeless.

Wait, how doesn't it stand up? There's a reason athlete's foot got its name. Many parasites and fungi pass through the skin of your soles.

As I understand it, athlete's foot has more to do with a foot being kept in damp conditions for a prolonged period of time. Like in the sweat-soaked sock of an athlete.