CLARIFICATION TIME!
To start, if you're going to argue my post, please argue what I actually post, not what you think may be trying to say but not actually saying.
1. The article mentioned only a complete ban on head coverings in shops. This isn't about giving shopkeepers an option, there is nothing about giving shopkeepers the option, so it's not about choice at all, it's taking the right of choice from the shoppers and the shopkeepers.
I disagree with this myself I think business should be done only on terms agreeable to both parties (race,sex,and ability are the exceptions as they are the only things nobody can choose to change). Put in simple terms: The seller sets his price, and the buyer can take it, haggle, or leave. Also about the argument "What if it ends up that no shops allow it?" then someone else will open a shop that does and make a fortune off all the unsatisfied customers!
2. There seems to be pretty big misunderstanding about this:
Security purposes: The issue at hand is not so much about hiding weapons, as hiding people. This isn't only personal security, but business security also. You can't run a shop when all your goods are walking out or you're paying for an army of guards. First off, remember, there is not only one person wearing these outfits at a time, if there are two or three people wearing the same color, how can you tell the difference? Use a shoplifting example, with the previous suggestion of having someone ID themselves at the door. Sure, you can prove that person was IN the store, but can anybody positively identify this person when they see them on camera shoplifting twenty minutes later? What about when reviewing the tapes, after the person is long gone? The only way to do that is to follow every single one, or have a camera over every square foot of store (including bathrooms). What good are fingerprints going to do in a shop, where hundreds or thousands of people are present every day? Robbery? Sure, you say it's hard to run in garb, but who says you can't use it as a covering for something you can run in? You only need to wear something that looks like the full kit till you get a gun out, to disguise your intentions. If it's a professional job, who's to say there isn't a getaway car anyway?
Besides, look at the kind of pricks you get here on the internet. Instant asshole, just add anonymity!
3. The battle here at this forum, at it's core, seems to be Equality vs. Religion. Apologies for the any bias. I'm trying to keep it pretty neutral for this, but this seems to be the argument.
E: If have to I take my concealment off, so should you.
R: But I think mine is sacred!
E: Ok, then for the sake of hypothesis, I'll make believe mine sacred too, to be equal.
R: Rather than arguing with a valid point, I say your religion is just stupid, then I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears "LALALALALALA", and you can't say my beliefs are stupid because alot more people believe it (Just because a lot of Americans that believed invading Iraq would defeat Al Quaida, didn't mean the rest of us were wrong to think them idiots.).
Seems to me like we're being told that one person's liberties are more important than another's just because they think of them differently. And yes, if I were to visit some bizarre place that told me to remove my pants to shop there, I would only have a fit if everyone else were still wearing pants, but I'd probably just go to another place. As they say, everything has it's place.
For the record, I was quite religious for many years, until I really thought about it logically. I am now a disinterested agnostic, and while I think religion is a silly pursuit, I know a lot of smart people that follow it; so I'm not really for or against religion in public, I'm only against special treatment based solely on someone's opinion. I do think religion is destructive but hey, it's your choice to believe and I'm very big on personal freedom, but only when distributed equally, and it would be only equal to give sellers as much choice as buyers, all of the buyers.
