What not to do as a DZO.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

the tattoo is quite clearly a "fuck you" to Muslims

^This. As noted in the companion thread in SC, he was looking for a reaction, and he got one. He clearly was so moved by his time in-country that he will now spend his lifetime using his body to say fuck you to Muslims.

Which is his First Amendment right. Which doesn't make him any less an asshole. And private businesses in the US have the right to refuse service to people who are exercising their Constitutional right to act like assholes on their premises.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Money talks and gets higher consideration by most businesses or they don't stay in busines s long. When "Team Infidel" is spending thousands a week they will get primary consideration for their whims. It's called capitalism.

Indeed. And jumpers have the freedom to choose which companies they spend their money at.

The Six Flags comparison is a perfect illustration. How many of you would be upset if a hot 19 year old female packer wearing a bikini top and super short shorts was told by the DZO that she had to put on baggy pants and a t shirt because a tandumb had complained that they were offended by the display of her nice ass and tits?

Is the dz a place for skydivers to be skydivers or is it an amusement park for whuffos?

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Quote

This guy has a tattoo that is offensive to other jumpers, and the DZ is trying to run a business. "Cover it up" is a reasonable request and the right solution.

I find your tattoo offensive. You don't have enough years in sport to be wearing that. If I were a DZO and I asked you to cover it up at my dz, would you feel the same as you do about "this guy"?

Sure - if it really offended you, and I wanted to continue to jump at your DZ I wouldn't see that I had any choice.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Is the dz a place for skydivers to be skydivers or is it an amusement park for whuffos?

Like it or not, these whuffos pay for many DZs to stay open so the rest of us can play.

The real solution in my mind is that people start minding their own business and stop looking for things to be offended about - but I realize THAT isn't the American way.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Which is his First Amendment right. Which doesn't make him any less an asshole. And private businesses in the US have the right to refuse service to people who are exercising their Constitutional right to act like assholes on their premises.

I fail to see how this "kafir" tattoo would be the same as saying fuck you to muslims? I tried googleing it and found it to be transalated as "unbeliever," "disbeliever," or "infidel."

IMO it merely states that the person wearing the tattoo does not believe in the islamic doctrine.

I dont know about the US, but where Im from we have this thing called freedom of religion. The positive side of it means that everyone has the right to be a member of a religious group. The negative side of it means that everyone has the right to not be a part of a religious group. IMO this person wearing the tattoo, expressed his right to freedom of religion in its negative meaning.

Also, where Im from, private businesses have the right to choose their customers. However, it is considered illegal to discriminate customers based on their religion, ethnic backroung, age, sexuality etc...

In this case, the DZ pretty directly discriminated this person based on his religious beliefes.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Is the dz a place for skydivers to be skydivers or is it an amusement park for whuffos?

Most of the time any larger DZ is the LATTER, and you know this.

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

IMO it merely states...

See this post from an Arabic linguist on the other thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4466623#4466623

[DocPop 1]

Quote

I fail to see how this "kafir" tattoo would be the same as saying fuck you to muslims? I tried googleing it and found it to be transalated as "unbeliever," "disbeliever," or "infidel."

IMO it merely states that the person wearing the tattoo does not believe in the islamic doctrine.

And that, to devout Muslims, is offensive. Many muslims believe that Allah has decreed that Muslims declare war on infidels.

You have to step outside your cosy Western perspective to understand that others may be offended by things that do not offend you.

I personally am not offended by the words "nigger" or "cunt" but I fully accept that many people are and I temper my use of them to allow for this, regardless of my right to freedom of speech.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Quote

I fail to see how this "kafir" tattoo would be the same as saying fuck you to muslims? I tried googleing it and found it to be transalated as "unbeliever," "disbeliever," or "infidel."

IMO it merely states that the person wearing the tattoo does not believe in the islamic doctrine.

And that, to devout Muslims, is offensive. Many muslims believe that Allah has decreed that Muslims declare war on infidels.

You have to step outside your cosy Western perspective to understand that others may be offended by things that do not offend you.

I personally am not offended by the words "nigger" or "cunt" but I fully accept that many people are and I temper my use of them to allow for this, regardless of my right to freedom of speech.

If these muslims were to enter Finland they would have to respect the fact that the majority of us are these infidels and by our constitution we have the right to express our infidelity. (just as much as the muslims have their right to express their islamic beliefes)

Like I said, im not an expert on US law, but I would be suprised if you didnt respect this human right.

[GobbleGobble 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I fail to see how this "kafir" tattoo would be the same as saying fuck you to muslims? I tried googleing it and found it to be transalated as "unbeliever," "disbeliever," or "infidel."

IMO it merely states that the person wearing the tattoo does not believe in the islamic doctrine.

And that, to devout Muslims, is offensive. Many muslims believe that Allah has decreed that Muslims declare war on infidels.

You have to step outside your cosy Western perspective to understand that others may be offended by things that do not offend you.

I personally am not offended by the words "nigger" or "cunt" but I fully accept that many people are and I temper my use of them to allow for this, regardless of my right to freedom of speech.

If these muslims were to enter Finland they would have to respect the fact that the majority of us are these infidels and by our constitution we have the right to express our infidelity. (just as much as the muslims have their right to express their islamic beliefes)

Like I said, im not an expert on US law, but I would be suprised if you didnt respect this human right.

You are free to say whatever you'd like with a few, quite specific, well documented caveats. You are always free to deal with the repercussions of whatever you say. I wasn't there. I don't know what the real story is. I'll say that this guy comes off like a cunt. However it's entirely possibly that the DZ also mishandled the situation.

This is hilariously being blown out of proportion.

[Abuaeden 0]

Nobody is saying that the jumper doesn't have the right to wear the tattoo. Its not like anyone called the police or threatened to have him locked up. THAT is what freedom of expression/religion means. The DZO offered a compromise that would have presumably resolved the issue. The jumper didn't feel like he should have to or was unwilling to compromise. The DZO made a business decision.. time will tell whether or not it was a good one.

[topdocker 0]

Quote

Nobody is saying that the jumper doesn't have the right to wear the tattoo. Its not like anyone called the police or threatened to have him locked up. THAT is what freedom of expression/religion means. The DZO offered a compromise that would have presumably resolved the issue. The jumper didn't feel like he should have to or was unwilling to compromise. The DZO made a business decision.. time will tell whether or not it was a good one.

The DZO could have offered duct tape to the offended jumpers and they could have covered their eyes. Problems usually have more than one solution.

top

Jump more, post less!

[craigbey 0]

Not a repy to anyone in particular, but some observant members of a few religions will consider any tattoo inappropriate.

That could force a lot of cool kids off the DZ.

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Nobody is saying that the jumper doesn't have the right to wear the tattoo. Its not like anyone called the police or threatened to have him locked up. THAT is what freedom of expression/religion means. The DZO offered a compromise that would have presumably resolved the issue. The jumper didn't feel like he should have to or was unwilling to compromise. The DZO made a business decision.. time will tell whether or not it was a good one.

Yes. This..

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Nobody is saying that the jumper doesn't have the right to wear the tattoo. Its not like anyone called the police or threatened to have him locked up. THAT is what freedom of expression/religion means. The DZO offered a compromise that would have presumably resolved the issue. The jumper didn't feel like he should have to or was unwilling to compromise. The DZO made a business decision.. time will tell whether or not it was a good one.

Yes, and what Im saying is that the business decision was discriminating.

[diablopilot 2]

Would you have a different reaction if his tattoo had been a swastika? How about the N-word?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Nobody is saying that the jumper doesn't have the right to wear the tattoo. Its not like anyone called the police or threatened to have him locked up. THAT is what freedom of expression/religion means. The DZO offered a compromise that would have presumably resolved the issue The jumper didn't feel like he should have to or was unwilling to compromise. The DZO made a business decision.. time will tell whether or not it was a good one.

Yes, and what Im saying is that the business decision was discriminating.

Discrimination is not illegal unless it is done based on a protected class. Tattooed is not a protected class.

More to the topic "spending less" than others is not a protected class, big spenders always get better consideration and service under capitalism.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Quote

Nobody is saying that the jumper doesn't have the right to wear the tattoo. Its not like anyone called the police or threatened to have him locked up. THAT is what freedom of expression/religion means. The DZO offered a compromise that would have presumably resolved the issue. The jumper didn't feel like he should have to or was unwilling to compromise. The DZO made a business decision.. time will tell whether or not it was a good one.

Yes, and what Im saying is that the business decision was discriminating.

Discriminating against someone who intentionally refused to do something about the fact that he was offending other customers even when offered a solution?

Good discrimination, I say.

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Discrimination is not illegal unless it is done based on a protected class. Tattooed is not a protected class.

Freedom of religion is an internatinally recognized human right. Like I said it contains the right to belong to a religious group, and it contains the right to NOT belong to a religious group. This person expressed his human right for the latter.

IMO it is very much a protected class.

[DocPop 1]

Quote

Quote

Discrimination is not illegal unless it is done based on a protected class. Tattooed is not a protected class.

Freedom of religion is an internatinally recognized human right. Like I said it contains the right to belong to a religious group, and it contains the right to NOT belong to a religious group. This person expressed his human right for the latter.

IMO it is very much a protected class.

Does it include the right to intentionally offend another religious group as in this case?

"The ground does not care who you are. It will always be tougher than the human behind the controls."

~ CanuckInUSA

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Would you have a different reaction if his tattoo had been a swastika? How about the N-word?

Swastika in indian religion means "good" or "to be good"

If you ever see a swastika tattood on a person, please consider it may have many meanings and some of them by no means are offensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

Nigger most likely is an offensive word. However, it could hold another meaning if the person wearing the tattoo was an african american himself.

[excaza 1]

Quote

Freedom of religion is an internatinally recognized human right.

Yeah, no it's not.

[BMFin 0]

Quote

Does it include the right to intentionally offend another religious group as in this case?

I consider my self as an atheist. If I were to tattoo it on my skin, I would consider it to be discriminating, if a christian came and told me it is offensive.

Perhaps this christian had declared a war on atheists? Would you consider my tattoo offensive?

[Abuaeden 0]

The jumper was not being discriminated against any more than barefoot people are by "No shoes, no shirt, no service" policies. A private business has the right to deny service to anyone, for any reason. Now, if he WORKED at the DZ and was fired because of his religious preference, then there is a case for discrimination.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The jumper was not being discriminated against any more than barefoot people are by "No shoes, no shirt, no service" policies. A private business has the right to deny service to anyone, for any reason. Now, if he WORKED at the DZ and was fired because of his religious preference, then there is a case for discrimination.

Actually, in this instance, if he worked at the DZ, along-side another employee who was a Muslim, and the DZ did not require him to cover-up his tattoo, the Muslim employee could bring a discrimination claim against the DZ for creating and/or tolerating a hostile work environment.

OK, pay me.