I don’t really know how to explain this to you but (1) I’m gay and (2) I explicitly said people should speak out and say something!https://twitter.com/tomcoates/status/1004069884731375616?s=21 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Replying to @tomcoates @NorthCaliGrl and
Seventeen retweets and 37 likes for a statement criticizing me - saying I should say precisely what I said. The only bit that seems insane is *banning* people from wearing clothes and following their religions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomcoates @NorthCaliGrl and
I suspect that tweet above was to support your point, not counter it. At least that’s how I read it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @YasMohammedxx @ConfessionsExMu and
I don’t think it is, but just in case anyone is confused, I’ll restate my point - I don’t think it’s okay to ban anyone’s religious expression (unless it hurts someone else), and generally people should be free to worship how they wish or not at all.
10 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @tomcoates @NorthCaliGrl and
I agree w you. I think your ‘unless it hurts someone else’ caveat is key when it comes to niqab. I wore it myself and I can tell you, it hurts the wearer first and foremost. Other than that, it’s as much a societal safety concern as a balaclava or anything else hiding identity.
1 reply 2 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @YasMohammedxx @tomcoates and
I believe in one law for all. I don’t think there should be religious exclusions. If no one can walk into a bank or a school or an airport etc with their face covered...then no one can. No exceptions.
3 replies 12 retweets 30 likes -
Replying to @YasMohammedxx @ConfessionsExMu and
I understand the rationale - I would argue that placing a barrier between someone’s actually held belief and their ability to function in the world could be highly counter-productive.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomcoates @ConfessionsExMu and
And there are different ways to express “one law for all”. Another might be that non-damaging expression of faith shouldn’t be banned from core businesses. That would apply to Christians, Jews, Muslims equally.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomcoates @ConfessionsExMu and
Sometimes this feels like some of the ways women have been held back - the law is the same for everyone, you get no time off, doesn’t matter if you’re giving birth etc. etc. until the law steps in and finds a reasonable accommodation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
That’s not a religious accommodation. That’s a different issue. Again, if something is illegal for one person, it’s illegal for everyone, regardless of what’s written in any old books.
-
-
Replying to @YasMohammedxx @ConfessionsExMu and
Western society was not built - quite rightly - to accommodate Islamic traditions. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to help out people who conform with them if possible. Most western states take Christmas off, for example. That’s a faith-based holiday. We work with faith.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomcoates @ConfessionsExMu and
I should add, I agree with you in many places - it seems to me clear that highly sensitive areas might have more complex and Draconian laws. We all take off our belts and jackets and shoes when we go through security.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
