No Jews...

[sp1814]

What do you make of this story?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sports-direct-security-guard-banned-jewish-schoolboys-and-told-them-no-jews-no-jews-9735919.html

I would be particularly interested to hear the opinion of those who supported the Christian B&B couple who refused a let a room because of their religious convictions.

Were Sports Direct right to sack this security guard?

If so, why?

Me I think is was totally right to remove this guard, as this is *competely* unacceptable.

However, I believe there are some people who think that shops and service providers should have free will...

So...is there anyone who agrees with the actions of this guard?

And if so, why?

[whiskeryron]

I would still like to hear the security guard's side of this ( it all sounds rather fishy to me & we are only reading the news reporters version )

[sp1814]

I will explain the correlation between this story and the story of the B&B owners.

At that time, there were many who said that the owners have every right to refuse service to, and in that instance it was their religious beliefs which were paramount.

That being the case, can't any company or individual have the right not to accept Jews into their establishment, simply because they are Jews?

Similarly, the Christian registrar who was sacked for refusing to officiate at Civil Partnership ceremonies. Was it right or wrong for her to be sacked?

[Svejk]

You tried stirring with that erroneous correlation and it didn't work, sp.
The people(on AB) have spoken. ;-)

[sp1814]

Svejk

I am not convinced!

[Svejk]

Keep plugging away, then, sp. You may find someone who agrees with you. ;)

[naomi24]

sp, There is no correlation between the two incidents. The Christian couple who refused to allow a gay couple to stay owned their business - they weren't employees - and therefore they made the rules. An individual doesn't have the right to make decisions on behalf of the company he's employed by if the decision he makes is contrary to company policy.
Anyone who feels unable to do the job they are employed to do should either leave voluntarily, or be sacked, and that applies not only to Christians who refuse to conduct Civil Partnership ceremonies, but also to Muslim employees of supermarkets who refuse to handle pork or alcohol.

[sp1814]

But surely the owners of a business have to abide by the same laws that employees must face?

[sp1814]

Svejk

The point of this thread is not to gather together agreement, but to discuss the topic at hand.

[joggerjayne]

We're they carrying drinks?

Maybe the security guard was saying "No juice!"

Lots of shops that sell clothes don't allow food or drink.

Has this been suggested already?

[naomi24]

I think we're going to meet ourselves coming back here. Look, the Christian couple made it 'company' policy to break the law. The shop didn't. If the report is correct, the decision that was made there was entirely of the individual's choosing.

[joggerjayne]

ps ...

My iPad turned "were" into "we're" !

[sp1814]

What *is* very odd about this story, is that the security guard actually said this in the first place and think he could get away with it.

I would have thought most people would know that you cannot get away with this kind of bigotry.

[naomi24]

Perhaps he didn't say it. It's not unknown for people with an axe to grind to use their particular foible in an attempt to misrepresent the facts and gain sympathy.

[joggerjayne]

Noooo, Naomi ...

People don't make up things about what other people said.

Well, apart from the Police in Downing Street.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// What *is* very odd about this story, is that the security guard actually said this in the first place and think he could get away with it. ///

No he did not 'actually say this in the first place'.

He 'allegedly' said this, the report does not give the security guard's side of the story, and he has not been charged at the moment so the full story has not been aired in a court of law.

Now if this had been a Daily Mail report, all manner of accusations would have been made regarding their reporting.

[sp1814]

Well, if he didn't say it, I would expect him to launch a civil suit against his company.

The fact that Sports Direct acted so quickly, and that the security company gave him the boot would suggest that he did indeed use the term. However, it may be prudent to wait to see whether he sues for unfair dismissal.

[sp1814]

naomi24

Very few 11 year olds have an axe to grind.

[sp1814]

Also, I wouldn't characterise Judaism as a 'foible'!!!

[ludwig]

Where the B&B owners went wrong was they assumed their religious freedom rights would trump the discrimination laws.

They should have realised there's a PC pecking order, and currently christians are right at the bottom of it. If they'd been muslims, the gay couple would probably have been charged for insulting and intimidating them with their homosexual presence.

[whiskeryron]

// People don't make up things about what other people said.

Well, apart from the Police in Downing Street.//
I am still not sure that all has been revealed in that case.

//
ludwig
Where the B&B owners went wrong was they assumed their religious freedom rights would trump the discrimination laws.

They should have realised there's a PC pecking order, and currently christians are right at the bottom of it. If they'd been muslims, the gay couple would probably have been charged for insulting and intimidating them with their homosexual presence. //

Quite so.