Accommodating religion, how far should secular groups go?

[pomology]

The school is well within their rights to do what they did. I don't know why they did it (politeness, business, etc.), but that's their prerogative.

Would I have done it? Probably not, unless I had a really compelling reason to do so. But I don't have a problem with others doing it. And I wouldn't boycott or get annoyed with a business that did it.

[emmiedahl]

That sounds a lot like when some racist says "Well this is (my version of) America, if you don't like (my version of) it, you can leave!"

People have the right to be respected. It shouldn't be an ultimatum of "If you don't like my asshole attitude you need to leave".

I think private business is different from the way we should run an entire country. I don't want to live in Fundie-Land and I don't think they have the right to make me do so. But I can choose which businesses to patronize.

Hassidic Jews have very specific demands when it comes to activities like these. It can be very good for a business owner to accommodate them. One Hassidic girl whose modesty is respected could turn into an entire business, because they do talk. I see this is as similar to a grocery store putting in a kosher section. They are not required to do it, nor should they be, but it can be a solid business move to cater to a large subculture.

I do feel bad for the little girl. But dancing in a tutu for a mixed audience was never on the table for her. I'm glad she can dance at all.

[debrand]

And it also holds true that if some of the parents are upset that the studio made the choice to accommodate this girl then those parents could also choose to start using a different dance studio.

Of course. Either side can go elsewhere. The studio is a private organization so there isn't really a right or wrong to this issue.

It would be nice if the studio had decided this before Bella paid for the classes though.

[Guest Anonymous]

Of course. Either side can go elsewhere. The studio is a private organization so there isn't really a right or wrong to this issue.

It would be nice if the studio had decided this before Bella paid for the classes though.

Oh, I missed where she said that - I thought she said the classes started yesterday and the teacher told her beforehand about the boy student. I thought the Jewish girl issue happened last year when her daughter wasn't even enrolled at the school?

[debrand]

Oh, I missed where she said that - I thought she said the classes started yesterday and the teacher told her beforehand about the boy student. I thought the Jewish girl issue happened last year when her daughter wasn't even enrolled at the school?

Maybe I am the one mistaken. Don't you pay for dance classes in advance?

[emmiedahl]

I have always paid month-to-month. But it can be hard to leave one dance studio and join another simply because the child would be joining a pre-existing class and have to be the new kid.

Bella also noted that the school has more modest costumes; it would be hard for me to leave that behind just because so many studios get too Toddlers and Tiaras for my taste.

As for the two recitals, I would tell the school that we will not be at the Women-Only one because we want to focus our energy on the one that our whole family can attend.

[dairyfreelife]

That sounds a lot like when some racist says "Well this is (my version of) America, if you don't like (my version of) it, you can leave!"

People have the right to be respected. It shouldn't be an ultimatum of "If you don't like my asshole attitude you need to leave".

But it is often an ultimatum. If we don't like a business's ideas, beliefs, attitudes, we can and do leave. I'm not getting the America comment because as a whole, we (ought to) accept everyone and we have accepted almost any culture, religion, etc. into this country. Individuals businesses are different. Any idiot can say this how American needs to be so leave otherwise, but few people would agree and this country as a whole has laws governing how people are supposed to be treated. Businesses can refuse employment and service to anyone they want and we as individuals can refuse to bother with them for their refusal. Besides, there is not an accommodation requirement for skin tone, just there is for impairments, which cannot be helped and beliefs, which can and that's up to a business. If I don't like how they do it, I can take my money elsewhere.

Do people have a right to be respected? Do you respect people who are being disrespectful to you? I do try to be respectful of everyone, but when people are not showing you the same courtesy, it is not as easy. I dont think people have a right to be respected, but I think most of us wish to be and should be.

As for the topic at hand, I'm not seeing the problem really. Is it really that upsetting for a business to accommodate someone with slightly different beliefs? If you don't like the idea of a female only show, can you just not go to that one? When I took dance as a child, parents waited in a separate room while their children took their class so the mirrors weren't a problem. There were boys and girls in the classes though it was almost entirely female. It wasn't a big deal, but if we had two separate shows to accomodate it someone, I don't think it would have bothered me. You get to wear the expensive costumes twice and get more bang for your buck. I guess my personal view on the q: how far should secular groups go to accomodate others? is: As far or as short as they want.

[holierthanyou]

Businesses can refuse employment and service to anyone they want and we as individuals can refuse to bother with them for their refusal. Besides, there is not an accommodation requirement for skin tone, just there is for impairments, which cannot be helped and beliefs, which can and that's up to a business. If I don't like how they do it, I can take my money elsewhere.

I don't know where you live, but I am surprised (if I am understanding correctly) that your country really has no requirements for private businesses in regards to human rights issues.

So in your country does that mean a small business owner can choose to put up a sign in his private window saying "Dance classes are White only- Blacks go elsewhere"? Seriously, the citizens of your country accept that and just see their only option as "If I don't like how they do it, I can take my money elsewhere". Yikes. Hopefully I am just misunderstanding what you were trying to say.

[emmiedahl]

I don't know where you live, but I am surprised (if I am understanding correctly) that your country really has no requirements for private businesses in regards to human rights issues.

So in your country does that mean a small business owner can choose to put up a sign in his private window saying "Dance classes are White only- Blacks go elsewhere"? Seriously, the citizens of your country accept that and just see their only option as "If I don't like how they do it, I can take my money elsewhere". Yikes. Hopefully I am just misunderstanding what you were trying to say.

You cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, disability, etc, but that does not necessarily mean that you have to accommodate special needs. For example, the ballet studio in question would not legally be able to put up a sign that says "no Jews allowed" but they don't have to make special classes for a Hassidic child.

[Witsec1]

I think reasonable accommodations are the smartest and politest thing to do. It's entirely possible that the school asked the parents in the girls only class if they could do two shows, and the parents agreed.

At my school, there was a huge problem with trying to simply get the school to label foods based on both allergens and meat content. We have a large population of Muslim students who eat vegetarian as well as the usual folks who have food allergens. Sadly, the chef we had didn't always make the vegetarian food exactly vegetarian... and claimed we were asking too much for him not to use chicken broth.

I think MOST people just want their beliefs to be respected.

It sounded like the whole studio had two holiday shows, not just a separate little performance for just that class. My daughter took dance lessons, and the yearly show was a huge production.

I see this as different than accommodating food preferences, because it does involve discriminating by refusing admittance to fathers. I wouldn't want part of my class fee going to a performance that excluded people based on gender, race, religion, etc.

[Witsec1]

I don't know where you live, but I am surprised (if I am understanding correctly) that your country really has no requirements for private businesses in regards to human rights issues.

So in your country does that mean a small business owner can choose to put up a sign in his private window saying "Dance classes are White only- Blacks go elsewhere"? Seriously, the citizens of your country accept that and just see their only option as "If I don't like how they do it, I can take my money elsewhere". Yikes. Hopefully I am just misunderstanding what you were trying to say.

A business can refuse service to anyone, but they can't do it on the basis of race, disability, etc. That's why the businesses that said outright they wouldn't serve gays got sued. If they had just said "Oh, we just can't do your wedding, sorry", the responsibility would be on the other party to prove their was a pattern of discrimination. Again, there's a huge difference between putting up a sign that says "No Jews" and not accommodating a customer's demand to be served kosher food.

[Bella99]

This school charges month to month, so our investment thus far is not a huge concern, but you can't just waltz in to a different school mid season because recitals are being planned, costumes ordered, etc. In addition to the whole new kid issue Emmie pointed out.

We just started so the two Christmas show issue did not affect us personally. The holiday show is a smaller event held at the school, but they have a nice large studio, use pretty scenery and make a real effort. They rent a larger venue for the Spring recital, so I can't see it being feasible for them to do a separate show then. I have no idea exactly how last season went down. The only reason I learned about the two holiday shows was when I commented to Ballet Boy's mom that I thought it was silly for the owner to feel the need to make sure I was okay with there being a boy in the class.

I'm sure to some I seem petty, and I would have gone along with the two shows rather than behave like an ass to a little girl who just wants to dance and have fun. It does put the other parents on the spot though. I'm the type of parent who invites every child in her class to the birthday parties because I know how painful it can be to be excluded.

[Kelya]

We would not be attending the second show, and if the second show really did not permit men (husbands, uncles, brothers, fathers, cousins, etc) to attend, we would be switching studios. If there were any issues with men watching practices, we would switch as well. I have some great memories of my dad getting out of work early to pick me up at tap dancing or baton twirling when I was a child and young teenager, and remember fathers came to pick up kids, brothers came to play in the waiting room, etc. There were windows where parents could observe class quietly.

There's a huge difference between allowing minor costume alterations (providing they're done at the expense of those requiring the modifications), and staging a whole second show that excludes an entire demographic of people based on their gender.

While of course the business owner should do whatever is best for their business, I do not have to patronize that business. If I was the owner, I would have suggested the girl arrange with her classmates to put on a private performance for people her family deems acceptable, at their own cost and location. If there was enough demand to create a special "female only viewers" class I would do so, but not just for one child, and I'd still feel squicky about it.

Additionally, I really dislike it when any religious group demands that other groups bend to their extremely far outside of the norm customs. Men see women dance all the time- on TV, at events, in school, on the street, it isn't something strange and tantalizing and exotic (unless you're of an appropriate age and dancing purposefully in that way), so implying that a young girl dancing to the goodship lolly pop or whatever is somehow...sexual? tempting? inappropriate? is just messed up and not something I'll endorse, by ANY religious group.

[emmiedahl]

This school charges month to month, so our investment thus far is not a huge concern, but you can't just waltz in to a different school mid season because recitals are being planned, costumes ordered, etc. In addition to the whole new kid issue Emmie pointed out.

We just started so the two Christmas show issue did not affect us personally. The holiday show is a smaller event held at the school, but they have a nice large studio, use pretty scenery and make a real effort. They rent a larger venue for the Spring recital, so I can't see it being feasible for them to do a separate show then. I have no idea exactly how last season went down. The only reason I learned about the two holiday shows was when I commented to Ballet Boy's mom that I thought it was silly for the owner to feel the need to make sure I was okay with there being a boy in the class.

I'm sure to some I seem petty, and I would have gone along with the two shows rather than behave like an ass to a little girl who just wants to dance and have fun. It does put the other parents on the spot though. I'm the type of parent who invites every child in her class to the birthday parties because I know how painful it can be to be excluded.

I don't think it is petty at all. I would be perplexed, and we probably would not attend the female-only recital because I think my husband (who was one who took my daughter to ballet when she was in it) would be hurt at having to stay home.

I want to accommodate everyone as much as possible, it's how I personally do things. I think that secular groups should accommodate religious people to the extent that they are able, and that religious groups should be equally accommodating of secular needs (as if!). But we all have a higher responsibility to our own family.

Also, it's funny that the Hassidic family is going to be in a Christmas recital if they are haredi, just sayin' :lol:

[dairyfreelife]

You cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, disability, etc, but that does not necessarily mean that you have to accommodate special needs. For example, the ballet studio in question would not legally be able to put up a sign that says "no Jews allowed" but they don't have to make special classes for a Hassidic child.

Yes, you can discriminate on religion as a religious institution. I'm not sure about the law on that, but I know they do. In my home state, places also don't make a clause that says they have accept employment/business from those with non-hetero sexual orientation. However, if I know a business here refuses to serve homosexuals, I would refuse to shop or partake there. There are already political fights about getting people to not discriminate based on that. Most business owners don't want to discriminate though as that is bad business. People can sue and refuse and boycott when they see something is discriminatory and demand law changes, but forcing people out of business by action has been done before as well.

Accommodating others is an individual business's perogative. Skin tone is not the same, but it was not that long ago that businesses did legally refuse to serve or employ those with darker skin tones. Disability is not an accommodation, but disabilities can require accommodations and businesses themselves decide how much they want to accommodate. We don't have to accept any business's ideas-we can run them out of business if we can't get them in trouble, we do not have to sit and take something we don't like or agree with. If someone is unhappy with the lack of accommodation or that an accommodation is being made, they can leave, that's the one good thing about capitalism. I don't see race as the same, that's what I was saying. I didn't bring up the skin tone, you did when you brought up racists telling people to leave the country if they don't like their beliefs. Leaving a business for a disagreement on their accommodations or lack there of is not the same as leaving a country. And race is not the same as giving an extra recital to accommodate. Having a separate mass in Spanish is an accommodation a church makes, but not allowing hispanics to come in at all is discriminatory. They are separate.

[Sola]

I think the dance class did the right thing, but when you think about it, it is a dodgy area.

In the UK our discrimination laws also apply to the private sector. I wonder what would happen over here in this situation. We do have 'women only' sessions at a gym near us, as a result this is often frequented by Muslim women. I actually prefer the women only sessions as I never feel comfortable in a swimsuit if there are men around, nothing to do with religious modesty for me though.

I do remember a while back reading in our local paper about a man who had tried to take his son swimming but was told it was a woman only session. Because there were quite a few muslimahs in attendance he thought it was a Muslim session and was quite irate about it. Even after it was explained to him that it was a women only session and any woman was welcome he was still annoyed and did speak of sex discrimination. I'm not sure how that would pan out to be honest. Our laws would give the right to a girl joining a boys soccer team and were used to permit girls joining scouts a couple of decades ago. But how would they stand in regard to a male wanting to swim at a woman only swim session. To permit that would prevent some religious women from attending, but to prevent that might run foul of sex discrimination laws.

[Bella99]

I think the dance class did the right thing, but when you think about it, it is a dodgy area.

In the UK our discrimination laws also apply to the private sector. I wonder what would happen over here in this situation. We do have 'women only' sessions at a gym near us, as a result this is often frequented by Muslim women. I actually prefer the women only sessions as I never feel comfortable in a swimsuit if there are men around, nothing to do with religious modesty for me though.

I do remember a while back reading in our local paper about a man who had tried to take his son swimming but was told it was a woman only session. Because there were quite a few muslimahs in attendance he thought it was a Muslim session and was quite irate about it. Even after it was explained to him that it was a women only session and any woman was welcome he was still annoyed and did speak of sex discrimination. I'm not sure how that would pan out to be honest. Our laws would give the right to a girl joining a boys soccer team and were used to permit girls joining scouts a couple of decades ago. But how would they stand in regard to a male wanting to swim at a woman only swim session. To permit that would prevent some religious women from attending, but to prevent that might run foul of sex discrimination laws.

So what happens when discrimation is necessary for accommodation?

[Sola]

I have no idea. I really don't know what the answer to this is.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'll check if I ever have time how the issue of single-sex facilities and programs are handled under Ontario human rights legislation. We have women-only gym and single-gender schools, and my municipality does have women-only swim times, so I imagine it's permitted.

In this example, it sounds like the business owner acted like a business owner, and tried to accommodate everyone to the best of her ability. My girls went to a similar dance school - they were strictly recreational, not competitive, and I noticed over the years that they were promoting themselves to the religious community and that the recital costumes became much more modest.

Bella - it may seem counter-intuitive, but making accommodations actually results in more opportunities and fewer restrictions for religious kids. Realistically, this little girl was not going to be allowed to dance in a skimpy costume in a mixed class, and at a mixed recital, and there is nothing that you could do about that. If there was no way to accommodate, she would have been told that she couldn't dance, period. Girls-only programs allow her to participate, just like the women-only gym and women-only swim times in my area give religious women a way to keep fit.

[alba]

In general, I think people should strive to accommodate religious beliefs as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others or pander to discrimination or other morally objectionable acts. For instance, I've been thinking a lot about same-sex marriage recently as my country's government held a consultation on legalising it (as opposed to same-sex civil partnerships, which are already legal). This got me thinking about whether or not religious organisations should be forced to perform same-sex marriages. On the one hand, I don't believe that their discrimination should be condoned, and that if someone is unwilling to marry two consenting adults that person should not be allowed to perform marriages. However, the pragmatic side of me understands that forcing religious groups to do something they deem immoral risks appearing to discriminate against religion, so instead I think a more prudent option would be to legalise same-sex marriage, religious or civil (as it is in Canada), but only force civil officiants to solemnise same-sex marriages. Hopefully, in time more and more religious figures will be happy to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies as it becomes more acceptable in society as a whole.

Anyway, the point I'm making here is that even though a religious group's stance might seem wrong, like not permitting young girls to dance in front of boys or men, it's not necessarily constructive to expect them to abandon that way of thinking. For instance, if the dance studio had refused to make any accommodations for this girl, she likely would have been withdrawn from dance classes altogether and no longer permitted to do something she probably enjoys. The parents might also view a refusal to accommodate as anti-semitic behaviour, and discourage friends from sending their children to that studio. Given that male relatives can still watch the co-ed recital, and boys are not prohibited from dancing there, I think the studio struck the best balance it could.

[Kelya]

Is the little boy going to be allowed to dance at the women only recital?

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Where I think this differs from the women-only gym classes is in the fact that it's a recital, and you can't have a recital without at least most of the performers present. So you're asking people either to do an additional show that they otherwise wouldn't have, OR you're excluding the male audience from a recital which they otherwise could have attended.

Which might be okay, I'm not calling that. Absolutely I'd have no problem with a girls' only dance CLASS to accommodate this kid. Actually, they could have done only that, if they wanted - "sure, you can dance and we have a girls' only class, but the recital is open audience, if you can't participate then that is your problem." Not sure what would happen in that case about dads watching lessons though.

But you're affecting the dance kids' families when it comes to holding a recital. Women only gym hours and pool hours is just about the class itself.

All that aside though I suspect this kid won't be dancing very long, anyway, if it goes like any of the other endless discussions about "my daughter wants to participate in [some sport]" over on the religious boards. Either it's out because of competitions on Saturday, practices on Saturday, or inappropriate costumes (including pants) after early elementary for a lot of people, so often the answer given is "why bother starting at all, only to tell her she has to give it up?"

I also was curious how this family was okay with doing a Xmas recital!

[Bella99]

Where I think this differs from the women-only gym classes is in the fact that it's a recital, and you can't have a recital without at least most of the performers present. So you're asking people either to do an additional show that they otherwise wouldn't have, OR you're excluding the male audience from a recital which they otherwise could have attended.

Which might be okay, I'm not calling that. Absolutely I'd have no problem with a girls' only dance CLASS to accommodate this kid. Actually, they could have done only that, if they wanted - "sure, you can dance and we have a girls' only class, but the recital is open audience, if you can't participate then that is your problem." Not sure what would happen in that case about dads watching lessons though.

But you're affecting the dance kids' families when it comes to holding a recital. Women only gym hours and pool hours is just about the class itself.

All that aside though I suspect this kid won't be dancing very long, anyway, if it goes like any of the other endless discussions about "my daughter wants to participate in [some sport]" over on the religious boards. Either it's out because of competitions on Saturday, practices on Saturday, or inappropriate costumes (including pants) after early elementary for a lot of people, so often the answer given is "why bother starting at all, only to tell her she has to give it up?"

I also was curious how this family was okay with doing a Xmas recital!

Everybody else is summing this up better than I can. :) Your point about segregated class vs. recital was spot on. There is the fact that this child's parents don't seem to have a problem inconveniencing many others, the knowledge that even if it made my life more difficult (the holiday show falls during my own final exams) I would not opt out of the second recital out of concern that this child might feel shunned and excluded, not wanting to take happiness and opportunities from a child, and wishing people would quit obsessing over modesty for a bunch of 8-10 year olds.

And the idea that even this opportunity may soon be denied this little girl makes me sad. I'm glad the school was able to accommodate her and ticked off that it was necessary.