NationStates

Ifreann wrote:

Ithreland wrote:
So if I have guests over, it's semi-public. Interesting. Never thought of it that way.

Yes, inviting people into your home is the same as being a cafe.

Sure.

Whatever.

I... wasn't trying to prove a point and I'm sorry if I mislead you; I didn't mean to imply what you were saying.
But if you're offering food/coffee and free WiFi, it's pretty similar to what I understand cafes to be(at least based on Panera Bread), yes. I'm not equating them or continuing along the problem of bare feet, just commenting on the similarity.

Farnhamia wrote:

Xmara wrote:Did I also mention that the worker told the student that there was also a risk of hot food being dropped on his feet? A small risk, but one nonetheless. Which means he could sue the school if he got burned.

Or if he stepped on something sharp and got cut and then germs got in there and ate his foot. Didn't think of that, did he?

Did we find out what religion prohibits the wearing of shoes?

My closest guess is most likely bhuddism, as most bhuddist take off there shoes before entering homes and such. Or it may be a smaller religion. I dont think we may ever know, but might as well try to detetives.

Farnhamia wrote:

Xmara wrote:Did I also mention that the worker told the student that there was also a risk of hot food being dropped on his feet? A small risk, but one nonetheless. Which means he could sue the school if he got burned.

Or if he stepped on something sharp and got cut and then germs got in there and ate his foot. Didn't think of that, did he?

Did we find out what religion prohibits the wearing of shoes?

I didn’t hear what his religion was. Someone posted a Wikipedia article about religions and bare feet, but I’m still not sure what he was.

Xmara wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Or if he stepped on something sharp and got cut and then germs got in there and ate his foot. Didn't think of that, did he?

Did we find out what religion prohibits the wearing of shoes?

I didn’t hear what his religion was. Someone posted a Wikipedia article about religions and bare feet, but I’m still not sure what he was.

I missed that. There is a "bare-foot-ism" movement. One page I found on the net said the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" started in Oregon when a bunch of hippies moved to some town and outraged local merchants, who leaned on the local authorities. Or something.

I don't see a problem with what he did. I've gone into the supermarket, shops, with bare feet. It's pretty normal in NZ and, afaik, Aussie. His feet aren't touching any food or anything, so no idea how this is a danger. I don't even care about the religious side of things, its just some silly staff.

Negarakita wrote:I don't see a problem with what he did. I've gone into the supermarket, shops, with bare feet. It's pretty normal in NZ and, afaik, Aussie. His feet aren't touching any food or anything, so no idea how this is a danger. I don't even care about the religious side of things, its just some silly staff.

Danger to him and the danger of a lawsuit to the establishment. And, honestly, I don't care to see people's dirty feet in an eating place. Maybe at the beach but around town? No, thanks.

I would be less opposed to banning audible prayer in a non-religious public area when others were present than I would be to banning going barefoot. If there is a ban on going barefoot in public anywhere, then at the very least have an exception for both cases like this and if a certain distance from a pool or body of water where swimming is common or a sandy area.

Farnhamia wrote:

Negarakita wrote:I don't see a problem with what he did. I've gone into the supermarket, shops, with bare feet. It's pretty normal in NZ and, afaik, Aussie. His feet aren't touching any food or anything, so no idea how this is a danger. I don't even care about the religious side of things, its just some silly staff.

Danger to him and the danger of a lawsuit to the establishment. And, honestly, I don't care to see people's dirty feet in an eating place. Maybe at the beach but around town? No, thanks.

What is said danger tho? Should people have to clean their shoes of all dirt to enter shops? And disliking something aesthetically is no reason to ban it.

Farnhamia wrote:

Negarakita wrote:I don't see a problem with what he did. I've gone into the supermarket, shops, with bare feet. It's pretty normal in NZ and, afaik, Aussie. His feet aren't touching any food or anything, so no idea how this is a danger. I don't even care about the religious side of things, its just some silly staff.

Danger to him and the danger of a lawsuit to the establishment. And, honestly, I don't care to see people's dirty feet in an eating place. Maybe at the beach but around town? No, thanks.

Are you also in favor of mandating scars on skin usually exposed be covered? That is more gross in appearance than feet, which even if barefoot, are not much filthier than shoes of someone walking in the same conditions.

Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Danger to him and the danger of a lawsuit to the establishment. And, honestly, I don't care to see people's dirty feet in an eating place. Maybe at the beach but around town? No, thanks.

Are you also in favor of mandating scars on skin usually exposed be covered? That is more gross in appearance than feet, which even if barefoot, are not much filthier than shoes of someone walking in the same conditions.

Scars? No, I don't see why. Not worse than bare feet. And dirty shoes are not the same as dirty feet, sorry.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Thanatttynia wrote:I mean, as risks go, that's a pretty minor and inconsequential one. I think erring on the side of greater personal freedom is the way to go unless there is a significant public safety risk.

I'm prepared to accept arguments about freedom revolving around your right to clothe yourself mostly as you see fit. But the second this guy used religion as his reason without secular back up I have to reject it out of hand.

This strikes me as a limited form of freedom honestly. If one should be free to dress by and large, they should be free to believe by and large as well.

Thermodolia wrote:Freedom of religion shouldn’t apply to public places. You are free to worship but that doesn’t extend to the public sphere

Most religions involve doing stuff in public spaces. Excluding religion from the public sphere violates religious rights and borders on state atheism.

Ostroeuropa wrote:

Thanatttynia wrote:I mean, as risks go, that's a pretty minor and inconsequential one. I think erring on the side of greater personal freedom is the way to go unless there is a significant public safety risk.

I'm prepared to accept arguments about freedom revolving around your right to clothe yourself mostly as you see fit. But the second this guy used religion as his reason without secular back up I have to reject it out of hand.

It is statements like these that express the faux neutrality of secularism. Secularism is an ideological position that places itself above other ideologies or religions. Secular philosophy is forcibly declared inherently better than religious philosophy, yet the former still has silly pretensions that it is in any way neutral.

Farnhamia wrote:

Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio wrote:Are you also in favor of mandating scars on skin usually exposed be covered? That is more gross in appearance than feet, which even if barefoot, are not much filthier than shoes of someone walking in the same conditions.

Scars? No, I don't see why. Not worse than bare feet. And dirty shoes are not the same as dirty feet, sorry.

Why not? You're more likely to walk through disgusting stuff in shoes than barefoot. More germs that way.

Negarakita wrote:

Farnhamia wrote:Scars? No, I don't see why. Not worse than bare feet. And dirty shoes are not the same as dirty feet, sorry.

Why not? You're more likely to walk through disgusting stuff in shoes than barefoot. More germs that way.

Watch where you walk. *shrug* Sorry, I find dirty feet more offensive than dirty shoes.

Hakons wrote:

Ostroeuropa wrote:
I'm prepared to accept arguments about freedom revolving around your right to clothe yourself mostly as you see fit. But the second this guy used religion as his reason without secular back up I have to reject it out of hand.

It is statements like these that express the faux neutrality of secularism. Secularism is an ideological position that places itself above other ideologies or religions. Secular philosophy is forcibly declared inherently better than religious philosophy, yet the former still has silly pretensions that it is in any way neutral.

#Notallsecularists

I for one couldn't care less why one person wears and would allow whatever religious clothes they seem fit.

Hakons wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Freedom of religion shouldn’t apply to public places. You are free to worship but that doesn’t extend to the public sphere

Most religions involve doing stuff in public spaces. Excluding religion from the public sphere violates religious rights and borders on state atheism.

I am going to point out that as far as I am aware, Therm would be fine with state atheism.

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.

Valgora wrote:

Hakons wrote:
Most religions involve doing stuff in public spaces. Excluding religion from the public sphere violates religious rights and borders on state atheism.

I am going to point out that as far as I am aware, Therm would be fine with state atheism.

No but only because it's impractical.
IIRC Laïcité is the closest/next best thing for him.

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.

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.

Ableist!

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.

....
My feet aren't wet

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.

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

El-Amin Caliphate 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.

....
My feet aren't wet

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.

Farnhamia 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.

Ableist!

If on the other hand the man's legs are the only limbs he has, well... feed him.