You remind me of most people. They promote equality but keep equity out of the discussion. Sometimes, they confuse the two.
Reading your post and Hulk's post I see that there can be some civil discussion on this, so let's examine things a bit further and see how far we can go in such discussion before the super moderator "shows me the door" for not sharing his views.
I agree that equal treatment doesn't always mean fair treatment. Some people face an unfair disadvantage, such as Hulk's example of a person in a wheelchair, and need special help in order to be treated fairly. It is important to consider the nature and source of the special need to determine if special treatment should be allowed. Physical disability and self chosen belief system or world view are not the same thing. It is important to consider to what degree they themselves can do the accommodating. How much effort will it take them to avoid imposing it on the rest of us? And it is important to consider the extent that the special treatment affects others. Tolerance, Accommodation, and Imposition are not all one and the same.
The specific question here in this thread is:
To what extent should we allow people to impose on others due to their beliefs.
My answer is far less than your answer I would presume from what has been written above (correct me if I make a false presumption). I would group "beliefs" together and zero in exclusively on religious beliefs, and we may differ there as well.
Give me your thoughts on some cases:
1. The women walking down the street in Burkas: Yes. I am completely with those women on this issue. The source of the action is mere personal belief (and not a physical handicap) but the request is not asking for any sort of real imposition on the rest of us. There are some issues especially in French society, as I outlined earlier in the thread, but I think they are easily outweighed here. And there is really nothing they could do, short of staying home all the time, to avoid the rest of us facing the issue. This is a mere case of tolerance and should be ok.
2. The woman wanting to wear burka in a bank: No. Again her request comes from a freely chosen belief system, and not a physical disability, but this time there is a serious imposition (security concern) to address and there are ways she can accommodate herself without forcing this imposition on the rest of us, as I noted in a previous post above (ie, electronic banking). The security concern noted should be a genuine one, and should not be invented and claimed just to ban a particular group from doing a particular thing. That is why I made the comparison to the ski mask. If the ski mask guy would not be allowed in, that is based on a genuine security concern. If the ski mask guy WOULD be allowed in then you can't claim security concern and keep the burka lady out.
3. The Sikh man with Kirpan: Here is a case that falls in between the women with burkas on the street and the woman in the bank with the burka. Highly religious Sikhs demand to carry ceremonial daggers with them at all times. Laws are in place banning the rest of us from carrying knives. Should a special allowance be made? I say no. The reason for the request is again a personally chosen belief system. The ability to accommodate oneself is restricted (like the burkas on the street). The imposition is a major security risk (like the burka in the bank). I fall on the side of saying they shouldn't be allowed. You may disagree?
4. The man in the wheelchair: Here is Hank's case, an easy one. I say yes and I presume you do too. I am completely with the handicapped when they need special parking spaces and wheelchair ramps, etc. Their request is made from an actual physical need and not from a freely chosen belief or worldview. This means some real imposition makes sense and is fair. I *DO* believe they should have to justify their disability, and that people shouldn't be allowed to get handicap parking stickers without truly being disabled, as happens too often though. Like the case of the women in burkas on the street, short of always staying home, there is really nothing the man in the wheelchair can do to avoid the rest of us facing the issue.
5. The blind man with seeing eye dog: Here the imposition is even stronger. Now we are allowing somebody to bring a dog into our stores, restaurants, and other places. This could make other customers uncomfortable. This could be a sanitary issue in a restaurant, etc. But again I would be for it, because the need stems from a physical disability and not just a freely chosen belief system. Some thought should be given to electronic devices or other replacements for the guide dogs to reduce the imposition on the rest of us. In time once these are highly efficient and availalbe, I would change my mind on the right of the blind man to bring the dog in the store.
6. Homosexual Marriage: This is an easy yes from me. For you it may be a no. I would like to know if there is any reason for that on my criteria above, or if is just a no because your religion says so, or if I am mistaken and it is a yes for you. Here they are making the request based on what some may call physical condition (like the handicap people above) and others may call a freely chosen belief (like the religious examples above). The ability for them to self accommodate isn't really there. It is debatable how important being married is (perhaps it is not as dire a need as banking). The key here though is the imposition is pretty much zero. They are asking for tolerance and nothing more. Jim marrying James doesn't affect me in any way, nor does it affect my heterosexual marriage. Or maybe it does? I would like to hear how it does if you think it does.
7. Alternative medicine for kids: Here is another easy one for me. Some new age parents in the west believe in many different kinds of folk medicine, all of which they swear by, and none of which have been scientifically proved to be effective. Some parents (religious and not) will forgo life saving vaccines, blood transfusions, and other procedures, denying these to their kids, potentially harming their health, and sometimes even costing the kids their lives. Here the source is a personal belief and the imposition is dire.
8. Affirmative Action: This is a tricky one and I'm not sure where I fall on it. Racism is very real in the west (and I presume also in the east). Statistics show that black people are over represented in prison and under represented in high paying jobs. The question is why. Many argue that there continue to be strong barriers of racism and that this is enough to justify special consideration and special treatment for black applicants, taking them over white ones. Others argue that race is connected to poverty due to historical factors and that disadvantage flows from poverty and that special treatment based on race is racist against poor whites. The need for special treatment for blacks is not entirely clear (but seems to me to be genuine at least to some extent). There is no ability to self accommodate. The imposition is dire. I don't know where I sit on this.
