Now here’s a twist……
Actually, I believe shop owners, when no other shops are available, have the complete right to discriminate (no shirt, shoes no service).
Woman refused service in Somali shop – because she did not wear a veil
Published July 25, 2017 at 16.01
DOMESTIC. Soheila Fors went to a Somali shop to buy a dress, but she was not allowed to shop at the store because she was not veiled, she explains in an article on news24.se.
It was in a Somali shop in a central-Swedish city that Soheila Fors, who is of Iranian origin, was refused to buy a dress because she had no veil.
“The woman in the store showed me where they had them and I found one that I liked. While I stood with the dresses, a man came in who must have been the owner of the men’s department and said Somali:” We do not sell to her. She has no Hijab, “explains Soheila Fors.
Because the Somali language has some common words with Arabic, she understood the gist of what was said.
The female salesman in the store then repeated to Fors that she was not allowed to shop for any dress.
Soheila Fors felt as if she had returned to the “Iran of religious oppression”, pointing out that it caused such a strong memory that she felt bad.
“Imagine the social drive and the upset feelings that would be if a Swede discriminated against anyone because of clothing, religion, sex or sexual orientation. Or does religious freedom and democracy mean that some have the right to discriminate?” She wondered.
NOTE: Once again I restate the obvious, yes, shop owners should have the right to discriminate, and society has a right to determine the fate of the shop in question, i.e. no patronage. The irony being, Muslims would agree until it affected themselves.