The South discriminates again. Store owner tells "sisters" which days they can shop.

Populism

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 11, 2014
185
2,970
South France, that is, and a Muslim store owner.

http://www.france24.com/en/20150623-outrage-over-gender-ban-bordeaux-muslim-grocery-store?dlvrit=66745

A Muslim-owned grocery store in the southeastern French city of Bordeaux has prompted outrage after putting up a sign imposing male and female-only days for customers.

The shop displayed a sign in the window asking “sisters” to come on Saturdays and Sundays, and “brothers” to visit on weekdays.

The shop owner, Muslim convert Jean-Baptiste Michalon, insisted he had acted in good faith and was not telling customers when they could or couldn’t visit his shop.

“We did this in response to requests from ‘sisters’ who preferred to come when my wife is working,” he told AFP. “We do also sell clothes here.”

“It was a sign meant entirely for clients who understand that mixing of sexes is not permitted in our [Muslim] religion,” Michalon, a recent convert to Islam, said. “It was not meant to be compulsory. I had no idea that it was against the law.”

Under the French penal code, discrimination on the grounds of gender is punishable by fines of up to 45,000 euros and a maximum of three years in jail.

Bordeaux mayor Alain Juppé, who was prime minister under former conservative president Jacques Chirac, said the sign was “in complete contradiction to republican rules on equality and gender mixing” and called for an inquiry.

Tareq Oubrou, the imam of the city’s main mosque, was shocked by the shop sign.

“Even during the era of the prophet there were no such rules,” he told France 3 TV. “It’s a bit strange to try to apply [gender separation] in a culture where equality has been firmly established. Maybe the shop owner’s choice was personal, rather than theological.”

Michalon removed the sign from his shop window on Monday, but told AFP he was bewildered by the reaction.

“I’m shocked that I have been accused of discrimination,” he said. “After all, hammams (steam baths) have different times for men and women.”
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,439
United Kingdom
No different to the Christians in the U.S. refusing service due to somebody's sexual orientation.

Neither should be allowed. If the Muslim felt his business, operating under public law, was violating his deeply held beliefs, he should establish a non-profit religious establishment instead. Or shut down.

Edit: I re-read the OP and the business owner stated that this policy was "not meant to be compulsory". In which case I have no problem with it. He can request his customers do anything. If it's not a "rule" that he was enforcing then this thread is pointless.
 

Populism

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 11, 2014
185
2,970
No different to the Christians in the U.S. refusing service due to somebody's sexual orientation.
I never understand the injection of Christianity into Muslim threads. Is the idea that if a parallel can be drawn between a Muslim action and a Christian action that somewhere the Archangel of Hypocrisy gets its wings? For those of us who are neither Christian nor Muslim, what is the point of drawing the parallel? Might as well compare and contrast the Muslim store owner with a baked potato.

Unless the (needless, insincere, apologist) comparison serves only stifle conversation about Islam. Which by any measure that seems to be the point.
 

dec.

Suspended
Apr 15, 2012
1,322
747
Toronto
No different to the Christians in the U.S. refusing service due to somebody's sexual orientation.

Neither should be allowed. If the Muslim felt his business, operating under public law, was violating his deeply held beliefs, he should establish a non-profit religious establishment instead. Or shut down.

Edit: I re-read the OP and the business owner stated that this policy was "not meant to be compulsory". In which case I have no problem with it. He can request his customers do anything. If it's not a "rule" that he was enforcing then this thread is pointless.
What a lame and sad attempt to deflect the topic to "Christianity" based on a very poor "comparison". If you had read the article you would have come to the understanding that the "muslim" store owner by no means is refusing any service towards women or any other groups - as opposed to the kind of "Christian" pigs that attempt to deny service to people of any unwelcome sexual orientation outright :p ;) .
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheAppleFairy

Meister

Suspended
Oct 10, 2013
5,455
4,265
What a lame and sad attempt to deflect the topic to "Christianity" based on a very poor "comparison". If you had read the article you would have come to the understanding that the "muslim" store owner by no means is refusing any service towards women or any other groups - as opposed to the kind of "Christian" pigs that attempt to deny service to people of any unwelcome sexual orientation outright :p ;) .
Their stores - their rules.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
Is the idea that if a parallel can be drawn between a Muslim action and a Christian action that somewhere the Archangel of Hypocrisy gets its wings?
If the actions taken are similar, then yes, you can draw a line quite easily. In this instance, it's people using their religious beliefs to determine who can and cannot be served.

It'd only be hypocritical if someone lambasted the Christians while excusing the Muslims for doing almost the exact same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grey Beard

chown33

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 9, 2009
8,357
4,337
Gourd City
I never understand the injection of Christianity into Muslim threads. Is the idea that if a parallel can be drawn between a Muslim action and a Christian action that somewhere the Archangel of Hypocrisy gets its wings? For those of us who are neither Christian nor Muslim, what is the point of drawing the parallel? Might as well compare and contrast the Muslim store owner with a baked potato.

Unless the (needless, insincere, apologist) comparison serves only stifle conversation about Islam. Which by any measure that seems to be the point.
I only like baked potatoes when they're non-kosher and non-halal. Specifically, covered with sour cream and bacon.

However, if I were to see a store owner covered with sour cream and bacon, I would probably avoid that store. I hope this hasn't served to stifle any conversation on the question of attire for store owners.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
Their stores - their rules.
Nope. If you open a store to the public in a commercial district, you have to serve the public that comes through there.

And before someone inevitably does it, let me degrease the slippery slope and say that there are exceptions. If someone is breaking your stuff, causing a scene, and being an all around ***hole, you can kick them out of your store and blacklist them to your hearts content. But you can't refuse to serve a well behaved, potentially paying customer because you don't like the color of their skin or what set of genitalia they like having thrown in their face in the wee hours of the morning.

You wanna do that? Start a club. Mark it as a private organization, and make it members only. No one's stopping you from doing that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0098386

Meister

Suspended
Oct 10, 2013
5,455
4,265
Nope. If you open a store to the public in a commercial district, you have to serve the public that comes through there.
Every time we buy and sell something, we enter a contract.
Nobody should be forced to enter a contract.

It's different with the state and corporations.
They are not people and they should be forced to server everyone equally.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
Every time we buy and sell something, we enter a contract.
Nobody should be forced to enter a contract.

It's different with the state and corporations.
They are not people and they should be forced to server everyone equally.
If you open a bakery, it's an expected standard that someone should be able to walk into your store and buy a loaf of bread. When you sell that loaf of bread, you're not entering into a binding contract. You're making a transaction of goods with a couple of legal caveats.
 

Meister

Suspended
Oct 10, 2013
5,455
4,265
If you open a bakery, it's an expected standard that someone should be able to walk into your store and buy a loaf of bread. When you sell that loaf of bread, you're not entering into a binding contract. You're making a transaction of goods with a couple of legal caveats.
I am not really sure about the US, but where I live this is considered a complete legal contract.
In fact, children under a certain age are theoretically not able to buy stuff here, because they cannot consent to the contract.
 

zin

macrumors 6502
May 5, 2010
488
6,439
United Kingdom
I never understand the injection of Christianity into Muslim threads. Is the idea that if a parallel can be drawn between a Muslim action and a Christian action that somewhere the Archangel of Hypocrisy gets its wings? For those of us who are neither Christian nor Muslim, what is the point of drawing the parallel? Might as well compare and contrast the Muslim store owner with a baked potato.

Unless the (needless, insincere, apologist) comparison serves only stifle conversation about Islam. Which by any measure that seems to be the point.
The point is that they're both religions? The Christian store owner discriminating because of sexual orientation and the Muslim store owner discriminating because of sex. When I re-read the post, it was clear the Muslim was not enforcing any kind of rule. It was not compulsory. I made that clear in my edit.

If, however, it was a rule, then there'd be no difference between the two. Using religion as an excuse to discriminate.

Which part of that do you disagree with? If you like I'm sure I could make some comparisons to other religions, too. I chose Christianity because most people would be aware of the news articles about discrimination in North America.

What a lame and sad attempt to deflect the topic to "Christianity" based on a very poor "comparison". If you had read the article you would have come to the understanding that the "muslim" store owner by no means is refusing any service towards women or any other groups - as opposed to the kind of "Christian" pigs that attempt to deny service to people of any unwelcome sexual orientation outright :p ;) .
If you had read my post, you'd notice that I posted an edit saying I noticed the rule wasn't compulsory, in which case the thread serves no purpose. There'd be no difference if it was a rule, however.
 

Renzatic

Suspended
I am not really sure about the US, but where I live this is considered a complete legal contract.
In fact, children under a certain age are theoretically not able to buy stuff here, because they cannot consent to the contract.
Then Germany has made things way overcomplicated. Unless you're selling an ongoing service, a transaction of goods is simply that. The only concern is that your product is being sold as advertised. Warranty of Merchantability and all that.
 

dec.

Suspended
Apr 15, 2012
1,322
747
Toronto
Their stores - their rules.
...which is completely irrelevant for my personal evaluation of them being "'Christian' pigs". :)

(besides the fact that your "statement" obviously is false, in general)

If you had read my post, you'd notice that I posted an edit saying I noticed the rule wasn't compulsory, in which case the thread serves no purpose. There'd be no difference if it was a rule, however.
I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek ;) .
 

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,079
A store owner can tell any customer to take a hike. The free market system, as it always has, will see to it if the store does okay or if the store loses business.
 

dec.

Suspended
Apr 15, 2012
1,322
747
Toronto
A store owner can tell any customer to take a hike. The free market system, as it always has, will see to it if the store does okay or if the store loses business.
I'm not sure if your little cake baking "Christian" cultist "Melissa" will agree...
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
Every time we buy and sell something, we enter a contract.
Nobody should be forced to enter a contract.

It's different with the state and corporations.
They are not people and they should be forced to server everyone equally.
You've shot your own argument in the foot.

Businesses are incorporated. That basically is by nature of them being a business. So according to you, they are forced to serve everyone equally.

So your argument of 'his store; his rules' has been completely shot down - by you.

BL.
 

sim667

macrumors 65816
Dec 7, 2010
1,365
2,829
I don't think he's done this maliciously, but I think his wording has just landed him in a spot of hot water.

It doesn't sound like him or his wife are bothered about mixing genders, but possibly some of his customers are bothered, so he put up a noticed saying when they can get served by a male or a female shopkeeper...... I don't see anything wrong with that.

But of course the french with their weird mix of holding people to account for being unjust, mixed with their underlying hatred of anything they don't consider french seemed to have turned this into a story, which unsurprisingly has been jumped on by people who don't even live in france, to fuel an anti islam rhetoric.

Can I go and live on Mars yet?
 

smallcoffee

macrumors 68000
Oct 15, 2014
1,575
1,963
North America
I never understand the injection of Christianity into Muslim threads. Is the idea that if a parallel can be drawn between a Muslim action and a Christian action that somewhere the Archangel of Hypocrisy gets its wings? For those of us who are neither Christian nor Muslim, what is the point of drawing the parallel? Might as well compare and contrast the Muslim store owner with a baked potato.

Unless the (needless, insincere, apologist) comparison serves only stifle conversation about Islam. Which by any measure that seems to be the point.
I think it's always a "but the U.S. does it too" syndrome
 

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,079
I'm not sure if your little cake baking "Christian" cultist "Melissa" will agree...
For time immemorial, the general public decides the fate of a business by voting with their feet and their wallet. Peeved homosexuals and their scum sucking lawyers are a recent phenomenon.