Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Supermarket Bans Jedi Knight 169

Posted by samzenpus
from the allowed-in-this-store-you-are-not dept.
The employees at Tesco seem to be immune to mind tricks, and have kicked out the founder of the International Church of Jediism. Daniel Jones, 23, who founded the religion based on the Star Wars movies, was asked to leave because his robes were against store rules which forbid the wearing of 'hoodies' in their premises. "I told them it was a requirement of my religion but they just sniggered and ordered me to leave," he told The Daily Telegraph newspaper. "I walked past a Muslim lady in a veil. Surely the same rules should apply to everyone." It's exactly this kind of stuff that turns young Jedis to the dark side.

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Supermarket bans Jedi Knight

Comments Filter:
  • Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sixteenraisins (67316) <william@noSpAM.purpleandblack.com> on Friday September 18, 2009 @01:56PM (#29469001) Homepage

    They ban hoodies?

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by cronco (1435465)
      AFAIK, hoodies are a sign of aggressive youth in the UK (kind of a stereotype, really). They might be afraid to let the "riff raff" in.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The reason is young people use them to obscure there identity while causing trouble. Try going into a bank, post office or petrol station wearing a full face crash helmet. You get the same reaction for the same reason.

        • I guess this is a UK thing - I routinely walk into the bank wearing a cap and sunglasses without ever removing either. *shrug*

          I guess the store is within their rights, but it still sounds kinda dumb to assume that because someone is wearing a hood they're going to cause trouble.

          • "I routinely walk into the bank wearing a cap and sunglasses without ever removing either."

            That's so sissy. Now, if you said that you routinely walk into a bank wearing a sidearm, I'd be moderately impressed.

            Before you ask, no, it isn't exactly "routine" for me to do so, but, from time to time, I've done so. The receptionist is generally more attentive, as is the guard - but hey, I deserve the respect.

            • That's so sissy. Now, if you said that you routinely walk into a bank wearing a sidearm, I'd be moderately impressed.

              Before you ask, no, it isn't exactly "routine" for me to do so, but, from time to time, I've done so. The receptionist is generally more attentive, as is the guard - but hey, I deserve the respect.

              I don't do it to be "tough." I do it because that's what I was wearing outside (on a sunny day, natch) and I'm not going to be in the bank long enough to bother taking them off.

              If I were trying to be macho, I'd be upset that you aren't impressed. As it stands, I don't really give a shit.

        • by Abreu (173023)

          Banks here also try to ban hats, sunglasses and using cellphones in their premises... Yet they rarely kick you out if you don't comply (they still want your money, I guess)

          Their strategy is to try to annoy you into compliance

        • by SeaFox (739806)

          Try going into a bank, post office or petrol station wearing a full face crash helmet.

          Could you go in with your face bandaged beyond recognition, though? They wouldn't be able to ask you to take those off.

      • Definitely true. I'm sitting in my office right now wearing my hoodie that has my karate organization's logo clearly printed on the back. A definite sign of aggression.

        Science!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Korin43 (881732)
      A lot of stores have a policy of banning their potential customers. Look at malls trying to keep kids away. It's because they only think in the short term and don't consider that all the people they banned for being kids are never coming back. I'm guessing this is the same sort of thing. "I hate kids, they don't buy enough stuff" or "All kids who wear hoodies are thieves".
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by welshbyte (839992)
      Here in the UK, the media (in their infinite wisdom) have taken to calling aggressive-looking youths who wear hoods 'hoodies'. This tends to add ambiguity to sentences like 'hoodies are banned' because 'hoodies' is also the name of the item of clothing worn by people from many different walks of life (e.g. they're fairly popular with students and, um, boxers?).
    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)

      by theJML (911853) on Friday September 18, 2009 @02:34PM (#29469559) Homepage

      Actually most stores in this area (Virginia) ban the wearing of any hood/head concealing garment while in the premises. It goes along with them banning scarves/baklavas/3 hole head covering masks/cotton hats/ski-masks/etc that hide the face and or other discernible personal features. Especially places like 711 and gas stations.

      I can see both sides of the argument, but why not just allow them in if they drop the hood? that's usually the way it works. stores don't have a problem with a hooded jacket, as long as the hood is not in use while in the store (you can carry a ski-mask with you too if you want, as long as you don't put it on, no one can say anything, just put it back up/on when you leave.

      Really I think stories like this do a lot more harm than good for their cause. Sure they think they've been caused an injustice, but most of the time it's better for both parties if you just go along with it. Not that I don't think oppression is wrong, but trying to make a ruckus by going against a policy like this is just stupid. It's not like anything is going to happen by taking the hood down for a few minutes while you shop. And if you don't like it, just go somewhere else, no harm no foul. I tell people to take their shoes off when they come in my house, if they don't want to, they can sit on the deck, thems the rules.

    • A number of stores do this if they've been robbed often enough. I don't agree with it, but the thinking is if they don't have a hood, it makes it easier to identify them if they decide to rob you.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by shacky003 (1595307)
      This would be similar to the "No baseball caps" policy with some bars/clubs in the US - in some localities it's considered a symbol of gang activity, etc.. (Also some clubs in urban areas ban sweatshirts, etc, with certain gang-related colors..
  • by Mavrick3020 (1174511) on Friday September 18, 2009 @01:57PM (#29469023)
    If Scientology, another "religion" based on a science fiction book, was in a similar position, they would sue the pants off of everyone and win. I'm not saying I believe Jediism, Haruhism, or the Church of Oprah; I agree with his sentiment that smaller religions should have fair treatment.
    • by Abreu (173023)

      The Church of Maradona [wikipedia.org] would probably just taunt them with a reminder of Argentina's victory over England in Mexico 1986

      You know, the game with the "Hand of God"?

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by sonciwind (970454)
      all "religions" are based on fiction books. Scientology is based on Scientology books, by an author who also wrote science fiction books. Jesus was a carpenter, but Christianity is not based on carpentry. Or is it?
      • by agbinfo (186523)
        Troll?
        The OP says that Scientology is based on a book of fiction and gets modded Insightful but when someone points out that this is the case for all religions he gets modded troll?
        Maybe it's the claim that Jesus was a carpenter! What's wrong with being a carpenter?
      • by magarity (164372)

        Christianity is not based on carpentry. Or is it?
         
        I don't know for sure but a lot of those wooden crosses are quite intricately carved.

    • by AdmiralXyz (1378985) on Friday September 18, 2009 @02:49PM (#29469775)
      Yes, so rather than get into a complicated debate about how large and accepted religious practice has to be before a supermarket chain grants it exceptions to its rules, why don't we sidestep the issue and say that banning people from a supermarket for wearing hoods is dumb?

      (BTW, the correct spelling is 'Haruhiism'. Blaspheme like that again and we'll have you killed.)
    • You forgot the Klingon religion from Star Trek or Shatnerism or even Vulcanism/Spockism.

      Why do the Star Wars religions get all of the press but not the Star Trek religions?

    • by c6gunner (950153)

      He should sue anyway. I certainly would, were I in his position. There's absolutely no excuse for allowing adherents of an arbitrary ideology to wear a mask, while forbidding everyone else from doing the same thing.

      We had a similar kerfuffle here a while back, when exceptions to the no-weapons-in-schools rules were made so that Sikh students could bring their "ceremonial daggers" to school. If I had still been a student at the time, I would have bought the biggest damn knife I could find, strapped it to

  • Jedi religion (Score:2, Interesting)

    by obliv!on (1160633)
    I know you can answer Jedi on a census in some countries apparently the UK is one of them [wikipedia.org], but I don't know if it is given all of the recognition of other religions. It could I suppose if the wikipedia numbers are accurate than that would count in many countries. Otherwise if it has such protections than this company has probably just ran afoul of the law and this young Jedi will be getting some cash out of it.
    • I know you can answer Jedi on a census in some countries apparently the UK is one of them [wikipedia.org], but I don't know if it is given all of the recognition of other religions. It could I suppose if the wikipedia numbers are accurate than that would count in many countries. Otherwise if it has such protections than this company has probably just ran afoul of the law and this young Jedi will be getting some cash out of it.

      Possibly because it's directly derived from a science fiction movie who's practitioners have telekinetic powers? I'm not saying it's right, but I have just as hard a time taking Scientology seriously too so I guess it comes with the territory. Still though, I don't understand the UK link I guess, but where I grew up (Ohio. Yay... /montypython) hoodies are just comfortable and warm.

      • by dbet (1607261)
        Technically, Christianity was also derived from a science fiction book in which people had special powers.
        • by Obfuscant (592200)
          Technically, Christianity was also derived from a science fiction book

          Technically, you are wrong.

          L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction books, and the Star Wars universe, were written and marketed as science fiction from day one. Neither the Bible nor the Q'uran were marketed or written as science fiction, much less "fiction" of any kind. Deliberately misrepresenting the facts doesn't make your arguments against religion any stronger, they only make you look like a jerk.

          • by c6gunner (950153)

            the Star Wars universe, were written and marketed as science fiction from day one.

            Screw you, asshole! How dare you insult my religion? Every Jedi knows that the Star Wars movies were a re-telling of our ancient code. The Prophet Lucas simply popularized a belief system which has existed for eons! You know that part about a "long long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away"? WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU NEED???

            What's next: are you going to try and tell me that Christianity is a false religion just because Mel Gibson created "The Passion of the Christ"?

          • by Macrat (638047)

            Deliberately misrepresenting the facts doesn't make your arguments against religion any stronger, they only make you look like a jerk.

            Hear that wooshing sound? It's the joke flying over your head.

    • Why should any one religion be treated in such a way? They are all made up and devoid of absolute truth so how could one have more or less "authority" than another on principle? Faith is not truth nor is it a means to discover the truth. So if you dump on one religion you should dump on all of them.

      Faith is a device of self-delusion, a sleight of hand done with words and emotions founded on any irrational notion that can be dreamed up. Faith is the attempt to coerce truth to surrender to whim. In simple ter

    • by thredder (1211746)
      AFAIK - before the national census in several countries (UK and possibly Australia), people (usually students) are encouraged to give 'Jedi' as their religion. If enough people follow a certain religion, then the government has to recognise it as an official religion and provide funding. I always thought of it as a large-scale prank, getting government funding for Jedis. I don't know if it ever actually happened or received the required amount of followers, but it looks like this guy decided to start up a
  • Discrimination (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Evildonald (983517)
    I think this really depends on whether Jediism is actually a registered religion. If it is or it ever becomes so, there is going to be a lot of hoodie wearing kids ready to sue. As much as this seems like a joke, if the following quote:

    "Obi-Wan Kenobi, Yoda and Luke Skywalker all appeared hoodless without ever going over to the Dark Side and we are only aware of the Emperor as one who never removed his hood.

    was said instead as "Many muslim women have appeared Burqa-less, so why can't she?" they would get the pants sued off them.

    "If Jedi walk around our stores with their hoods on, they'll miss lots of special offers."

    What is more if they said: "If women walk around our store with their burqas on, they'll miss lots of special offers", i'm pretty sure there would be out

    • Whoa, I know this is a UK story and all, do you all have to register religions over there? What criteria are there? In the states, I know that individual priests have to register with the state for certain perks (such as the right to perform marriage ceremonies, and if you want that lovely tax break), but I don't think that the religion itself has to be "registered". I may be wrong on that point, but it seems pretty wierd to me as a USian, that a religion has to register to be considered legit, especiall

      • Re:Discrimination (Score:4, Informative)

        by Homr Zodyssey (905161) on Friday September 18, 2009 @03:05PM (#29470017) Journal
        Lovely tax break? I'm no accountant, but I wasn't aware that individual clergy-members received a tax-break. My father is an ordained preacher. He currently is employed as a college professor, but when he was the minister of a church he had to file as "Self-Employed". This was ridiculous, because he was hired by the church, remained employed by the church and could be fired by the church. However, he was legally required to file as "Self Employed" and pay taxes at a higher rate than an "employee" would.
        • by agbinfo (186523)
          Since churches are exempt from paying taxes and since employers usually pay a portion of the tax burden, my understanding is that your father was not paying taxes at a higher rate than an employee; It just means that the state where you lived didn't think it was fair that a normally employed person would have his salary reduced by his employer (who has to pay taxes) but that a self employed person (or one whose 'employer' doesn't pay these taxes) wouldn't have to.
      • I am pretty sure you need a certain number of followers to be a "religion" otherwise you are just a cult. Cults have significantly fewer rights than religions and are not recognised legally. This is why the number of Jedis is significant.. if they've made it to being a census category, they may be a recognised religion... like the Flying Spaghetti Monster
        Remember:
        Cult = Tens or hundreds "crazy" people who believe in some god
        Religion = Thousands of "upstanding" people who believe in some god
        • by agbinfo (186523)
          But why should it matter if they are a cult or a religion?
          If another religion already has the right to wear hoods in their store everybody regardless of their religious views should have the same rights.
          Discrimination against a religion means that you are making special rules against a religion. Once you've established that you are OK with people wearing hoods you shouldn't need to be in a religion to have that right.
          If a store doesn't allow people to wear roller skates in their store, then no matter what y
    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by Chelloveck (14643)

      This must be some fundamentalist Jedi Orthodox sect. I see nothing in the Holy Films that says Jedi must follow a dress code. The robes appear to be a fashion statement, or perhaps a uniform in the same manner as a priest's collar. Hoods are quite obviously optional, as even the most devout Jedi frequently appear without them.

      So no, it's not religious discrimination, even if you grant that "Jedi" is a religion. If I were to run around shirtless for religious reasons (and just where in the Bible does it ev

      • Sigh. He's not claiming to be an actual jedi. He's claiming to be the creator of jediism. A religion based on a popular sci fi movie franchise. Not a religion actually depicted within that franchise. Who's to say it's any more ridiculous than, say, a religion based on a prophet who read the sacred text off of secret gold tablets from inside a hat?

        You're talking about faith here. It only matters that someone believes it and that their belief carries with it a costume of devotion. Christ didn't wear a

    • by Obfuscant (592200)
      was said instead as "Many muslim women have appeared Burqa-less, so why can't she?" they would get the pants sued off them.

      No lawsuit. Why bother suing when the store has already been burned to the ground and the manager and assistant manager killed? The latter is a much more effective deterrent than the former, and much more likely. Just ask the Dutch(?) newspapers.

      Sortof like the response yesterday to the farmer in Backwater, Nowhere, who was holding up the construction of a microwave tower. Instead of

  • Hmmmm..... (Score:2, Insightful)

    He may be a Jedi, but he has a point. Equality my arse.
  • Money... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheUni (1007895) on Friday September 18, 2009 @01:59PM (#29469037) Homepage

    You should try asking them for money, otherwise you'll never be recognized as a legitimate religion.

  • Rules for all (Score:4, Insightful)

    by A Pancake (1147663) on Friday September 18, 2009 @02:06PM (#29469167)

    Dude seems wise beyond his years. The same rules should apply to everyone regardless of religion. Chances are no matter what you believe, there is someone out there that views it as a ridiculous fairytale.

  • Mind tricks (Score:2, Funny)

    by Hurricane78 (562437)

    The employees at Tesco seem to be immune to mind tricks,

    Well, duh. No mind, no tricks. ^^

  • Discrimination laws only seem to be applicable to "minorities" (in quotes because they aren't always really in the minority). If you are a white guy of European ancestry with your own church then you are pretty much on your own because you don't have lobbyist groups and mouthpieces on CNN fighting for your cause. Noone is looking out for you. Equality is only for groups who can get on the news. Now, given that this is news, this guy might actually effect some change in the policies of this particular su

    • The Dark Side has already claimed this one. He has given in to his anger.
    • by toadlife (301863)

      Discrimination laws only seem to be applicable to "minorities" (in quotes because they aren't always really in the minority). If you are a white guy of European ancestry with your own church then you are pretty much on your own because you don't have lobbyist groups and mouthpieces on CNN fighting for your cause.....I am for equal treatment of everyone.

      There are political minorities and there are numerical minorities. You are putting too much emphasis on the latter.

    • Maybe he can help the Jedis get some air time.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by runningman24 (1172197)
      So are you saying that if this guy was black and walked into the store with a jedi robe, he would have been allowed to wear it around the store? If you are, I think you're crazy and that the owner would be even more convinced he was going to get robbed. If you aren't saying that, what is your point about bringing up minorities, since they would in fact have been treated the same.
  • A Jedi craves not these things...
  • A Tesco spokesman said: "Jedi are very welcome to shop in our stores although we would ask them to remove their hoods. If Jedi walk around our stores with their hoods on, they'll miss lots of special offers."

    See? The employees were simply trying to help him save money. This was all blown way out of proportion. </sarcasm>

  • He should realize that scofflaws believe that hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for good blaster at your side.

    If he were a trouble causing hoodie wearer, he'd have a gun, not a light saber!

  • I know I'm going to get modded into oblivion for this but here goes anyway...

    This is a fake religion. It's like members of the Church of the Subgenius, or the Church of the Matrix (god forbid) crying foul for discrimination. Do these "Jedi" believe in God, a supernatural entity, or some other higher power? Sounds like it, but believing in a god does not a religion make. The accoutrements of their "religion" are straight out of the Star Wars franchise, and it's not too difficult to see why this store isn't b

    • by mooncrow (205627)

      "This is a fake religion."

      Uh-huh. Where does one start. Perhaps when you began your statement with the words "fake" and "religion". I'm not going to go further, because it would be cruel. As in shooting fish in a barrel sort of cruel.

    • What defines a religion then? Obviously you can't judge based on beliefs, since these can't be rationally compared or assessed in terms of truth.

      You say to call you in a couple of hundred years; why do you in particular get to pick an arbitrary date? As for what is and isn't a cult, this is a word with a broad, varied definition. Generally people define cults as a small religion which violates the moral or legal strictures of the society within which it resides, but historically all it means is small rel
      • by Obfuscant (592200)
        Obviously you can't judge based on beliefs, since these can't be rationally compared or assessed in terms of truth.

        So you admit that those /.ers who are calling all religions "science fiction" are not being rational. Thanks.

        • Believe me, I didn't say they were real.
          They're no more amenable to rational discussion than my great uncles drunken visions of a big purple dinosaur. No-one can disprove this dinosaur that appears only to him, but it doesn't mean that we show him any particular deference because of it.
          • That all said however, we can rationally discuss the actions of a religion. If, for example, the big purple dinosaur instructed great uncle McCrazy to go out and start killing people who disagreed with him...
            At that point we consider it immoral and illegal, and his new-found religion rapidly gains cult status (unless he has access to vast quantities of oil, but again, let's not go there). Or, even if he simply started making claims that are provably false, we can rationally demolish those.
          • by Obfuscant (592200)
            Believe me, I didn't say they were real.

            I don't know how to read this statement. We weren't talking about "real". You made a comment about the impossibility of rationally determining the truth of religion, and I pointed out that there were a significant number of posts/posters here making the outright claim that all religions are science fiction.

            I think those people are real, I just think they are demonstrating the same kind of irrational behaviour they accuse religious believers of. If they think religi

            • But fundamentally his beliefs are no different! There is not a shred of evidence in favour of his beliefs over Great Uncle McCrazy (GUmC henceforth). You're correct that we should judge him purely based on his actions as a human being. However, these actions are based on his beliefs, and we can criticize these actions [wikipedia.org] as being immoral (homophobia, being an example that greatly annoys me). Yet he gets accorded respect because of his position as a head believer of [the purple dinosaur] regardless of his homop
              • by c6gunner (950153)

                And you can't give someone respect for believing strongly in something that's unprovable, because if we did then lunatics (actual lunatics, I mean crazy people here) would be in charge of society - due to their unshakeable belief in concepts not provable in reality.

                I'm picturing Gene Ray as the president of the united states ... and I really can't decide whether anyone would notice the difference ...

    • by nokiator (781573)
      "By the by - the reason this is different from Scientology is because Scientology is a cult. They don't tend to gain membership just from selling people a line of B.S. but rather through indoctrination."

      Show me a "real" religion that does not start indoctrinating at a young age?

      "They've gained religious status as an organized religion through intimidation and litigation, but having a shit load of money doesn't make them any less of a cult."

      Just wind the clock back about 500-600 years and replace "Scie

      • by fluxrad (125130)

        Show me a "real" religion that does not start indoctrinating at a young age?

        LDS. Do they teach their kids the ways of the church? Yes. Have I ever encountered a group of religious adherents that do it so openly and without coercion? No.

        Just wind the clock back about 500-600 years and replace "Scientology" with "Catholic Church"...

        Here Here. Although I'd argue that 500 years ago the catholic church was less a cult than a form of government.

        • by MLease (652529)

          LDS. Do they teach their kids the ways of the church? Yes. Have I ever encountered a group of religious adherents that do it so openly and without coercion? No.

          Just because coercion is subtle doesn't mean it's not coercion. For the other side of the story, check out http://www.exmormon.org/ [exmormon.org]. Of course, active LDS folks will take one look at it, call it "anti-Mormon" and decide they don't have to pay any attention to it. But there are lots of stories there about the pain that the LDS church can and does i

  • Why doesn't he just present proof of his mitocloridian count?

  • The leader of the Jedi is no mere Knight.

  • According to a TESCO spokesman from TFA: "If Jedi walk around our stores with their hoods on, they'll miss lots of special offers." Now obviously if they are really Jedi then they can "sense" all of their surroundings using the force (hood or no hood). In fact, they should know about the discounts before they are even put on the shelves by looking into the future.
  • Jediism is no more a religion than $cientology.

    It's a religion based around marekting, money, publicity, money, movies, and money.

    This asshat is a nut. Plain and simple. If Jediism is a religion, then any clown can start a 'religion'. Someone who just likes to make other peoples' lives harder can start a 'religion' and just use it so they can invoke 'religious discrimination' whenever they encounter someone who isn't stupid enough to fall for the ploy.

    • Ahem... And this is different from every other religion... how?

      And you may claim that it's all commercial nonsense, but some of them are actually fairly committed to living by a clear ethics code [thejediismway.org] that's alright in my book.
    • by c6gunner (950153) on Friday September 18, 2009 @07:53PM (#29472901)

      If Jediism is a religion, then any clown can start a 'religion'.

      BINGO! DING DING DING! Give the man a cigar!

      Nut #1 [wikipedia.org]
      Nut #2 [wikipedia.org]
      Nut #3 [wikipedia.org]
      Nut #4 [wikipedia.org]

      Need I keep going?

      • by c6gunner (950153)

        Shit, that should have been "Clown" number 1 through 4. My bad. You just had me so excited with your insightful comment that I failed to proofread properly.

      • What kind of cigar did I win?

        I can pay postage and shipping.

        Prefer Cuban. Dominican or Jamacian will also do.

        • by c6gunner (950153)

          I said give the man a cigar, not "I'll give the man a cigar". Nice try though :) If I had any on hand, I might even send you one, but I haven't even had a good cigar myself for ages. And now you've got me craving one ...

  • Perhaps none of you have ever had the, um, "joy" of working in mass retail, but there's an entire class of rule that covers this: "shit we kmake up on the spot to kick people out who we find creepy, annoying, stupid, or otherwise undesirable." It's a shitty, asinine thing to do, and that's why management loves it. You basically find some halfway plausible reason to say "get out" and then stick to it no matter what anybody says or does.

    My guess is that they couldn't have cared less about the hood, and that t

"Consistency requires you to be as ignorant today as you were a year ago." -- Bernard Berenson

Working...