I don’t really see how that’s related. Even if it were motivated by racism, that’d be equally authoritarian to any other motive, since authoritarianism is about ceding rights from individuals to the government and it doesn’t matter what the motivation for that is.

live and let live. your discomfort is all your own.

Religion has been used time and time again to justify committing atrocities and still used as such today.

There is a legitimate debate to be had about the religion’s place in a society.

That’s my issue as well with the bill. Just look at the crucifix at the Assembly. They didn’t remove it, they just moved it outside the room. If the intent of the law was really to remove religion from the public space, it wouldn’t have been a debate about keeping the crucifix in the Assembly.

People are uncomfortable with it explicitly because religion made it so.

Monkeys will fuck right in front of us and not give a shit.

Fair enough: regardless of whether racism is involved or not, there is an authoritarian bent to this law. In my opinion.

So, you and I both know that public praying isn’t just people being in public standing around praying without anyone knowing they’re praying.

If a person went to a restaurant and started vocally praising Satan for this meal for an hour prior to eating it… yeah I bet they would make a lot of people uncomfortable. Not to mention the restaurant would refuse them service.

What you want to do is justify bothering people in public spaces with your beliefs. If you can stand around in public thinking about your god without letting anyone else know you’re doing it, then no one would be uncomfortable.

Do you feel that you should be able to hold hands with a same sex partner in plain view of everyone else when you make them uncomfortable?

Yes, you can hold hands and you can hold your bible. You can also be a believer in god while also walking in public. You can even wear a rainbow or a crucifix to identify your own kind. But, keep your void damned pants on and don’t scream out praising your god.

Do you feel that you should be able to be trans in plain view of everyone else when you make them uncomfortable?

Yes trans is a person being who they are. Religion is a choice.

Maybe people being uncomfortable is not a good yardstick for determining what people can do in public.

I don’t disagree that “uncomfortable” is a slippery slope word. And while I completely agree with banning prayer in public—I probably wouldn’t vote for it. Unlike religious people, I dislike forcing my views on people, even if their entire existence is doing that.

If you aren’t able to see how a comparison between two things does not create a combination of those two things, then you aren’t intelligent enough to converse in a polite manor. I’ve provided more details in my other comments, you can read those without interacting with me.

Then that’s not prayer, it’s being a public nuisance, a disturber of the peace. That’s a different crime / tort that I’m sure is already on the books.

The prayer part is irrelevant.

There’s a precedent like this in the US: enhancement laws

They ruin lives, and don’t stop crime.

Blocking traffic is an offense of its own. We don’t need this law.

It just so happens that it always boils down to policing what Muslims do. Just one big coincidence.

What a weirdo comparison to make.

So ban unsafe behaviour in the metro. Jeezus, why does everything need to be a fucking culture war.

Only we do know exactly the results of the CAQ’s “laïcité” laws:

New research shows Bill 21 having 'devastating' impact on religious minorities in Quebec | CBC News

A new survey shows the negative impact Bill 21 is having on Quebec’s religious minorities three years after the law was adopted.  But the research also reveals overall support for the law, while still strong, is full of contradictions.

CBC (www.cbc.ca)

Bury your head in the sand all you like but the systemic racism that is embedded in the social outcomes of these laws is undeniable and palpable.

So what is an example of something you think this topic is referring to? It’s not referring to a family doing a quick prayer before a public meal.

That’s very fair yes. But how can you tell those who are anti-religion for racist reasons from those who are for not?

There are two hazards in our discussion:

1. someone being called racist
2. someone suffering from systemic racism

I prioritize hazard 1 as having a lower consequence than hazard 2.

In other words, I care much more about eradicating systemic racism than the hurt feelings of someone whose motives are misunderstood.

OK that’s a good argument. It’s perhaps a flaw of the word “racist” that it can include systemic racism, when it connotes individual racism.

It sounds like a bunch of flimsy bullshit in order to legally oppress practicing religious freedoms.

You should always question why law enforcement gets extra work.