Slashdot Mirror


Supermarket Bans Jedi Knight

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.

169 comments

  1. Why? by sixteenraisins · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They ban hoodies?

    --
    When you're not looking, this sig is in Latin.
    1. Re:Why? by cronco · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's my question. It's Tesco, which from what I understand is about as upscale as Wal-Mart (see: http://peopleofwalmart.com/). Why in the world would anyone ban hoodies, and how would they stay in business if they actively enforced such a ban? Seriously, that's like banning jeans in your store.

    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Why? by Korin43 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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".

    5. Re:Why? by sixteenraisins · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      When you're not looking, this sig is in Latin.
    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I told my bank to go fuck off when I was asked to remove my glasses/hat. Seeing as how I regularly keep $5,000+ in the bank(and was there to deposit another $1,000), they should learn to make some exceptions..like maybe looking for guns or other suspicious activity..

    7. Re:Why? by The+Evil+Couch · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why in the world would anyone ban hoodies, and how would they stay in business if they actively enforced such a ban? Seriously, that's like banning jeans in your store.

      Not quite the same. Most store security cameras are located at head height or higher, making the faces of people wearing hoodies nearly invisible. I don't know about the UK, but in the US, the courts are over-worked enough that the police are likely to drop any shoplifting case unless there is solid evidence that the person they have in custody actually tried to steal something. Anyone caught shoplifting in a store wearing a hoodie is unlikely to be prosecuted, unless they did it right in front of a security guard, so banning them is an understandable move.

    8. Re:Why? by Abreu · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    9. Re:Why? by welshbyte · · Score: 3, Informative

      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?).

    10. Re:Why? by theJML · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      -=JML=-
    11. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just so you know, to a bank, $5000 is nothing.

    12. Re:Why? by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      Which brings up a very good point... If the store owners weigh the loss of the customers versus the potential loss from theft they may have decided it was worthwhile. It makes me wonder though -- we have so many retailers and companies that are evil in some fashion, yet people still do business with them. If we really started voting with our euros or dollars then we could very swiftly change the behaviour of these companies.

    13. Re:Why? by fooslacker · · Score: 1

      To a bank $50,000 is nothing.

    14. Re:Why? by phoenixwade · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just so you know, to a bank, $5000 is nothing.

      Or if it isn't "nothing" then you have bigger problems to worry about than the dress code.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    15. Re:Why? by twistedsymphony · · Score: 1

      Do you really think it would change their behavior? or would they just wine and point fingers on their slow descent? (see: RIAA, General Motors, et al)

    16. Re:Why? by michaelhood · · Score: 4, Funny

      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

      What do they have against delicious pastries?

    17. Re:Why? by Dahamma · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why in the world would anyone ban hoodies, and how would they stay in business if they actively enforced such a ban? Seriously, that's like banning jeans in your store.

      Not quite the same. Most store security cameras are located at head height or higher, making the faces of people wearing hoodies nearly invisible. I don't know about the UK, but in the US, the courts are over-worked enough that the police are likely to drop any shoplifting case unless there is solid evidence that the person they have in custody actually tried to steal something. Anyone caught shoplifting in a store wearing a hoodie is unlikely to be prosecuted, unless they did it right in front of a security guard, so banning them is an understandable move.

      I'm going to have to completely disagree, considering they are a major RETAILER OF HOODIES!

      http://www.clothingattesco.com/mens/jackets.html

      More on Tesco's perfectly "understandable" position: "Tesco has defended itself against accusations of hypocrisy after a security guard told a six-year-old boy to remove his hooded top that had been bought in the supermarket."

    18. Re:Why? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "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.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    19. Re:Why? by kolicha · · Score: 1

      As far as i know you can wear hoodies but you are not allowed to have the hood up.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoodies#United_Kingdom

    20. Re:Why? by Anarchitektur · · Score: 4, Funny

      They are too close to balaclavas for comfort.

    21. Re:Why? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      There's at least once club in London that plays D&B music that doesn't allow hoodies. I think it's the place that puts out the Drum & Bass Arena podcast.

    22. Re:Why? by geekwithsoul · · Score: 1

      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.

    23. Re:Why? by Gibbs-Duhem · · Score: 1

      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!

    24. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I routinely walk in with an openly carried sidearm and hat and sunglasses. So far no problems. It's not like the guy with the holstered, visible gun is robbing the place - it's the one with it hidden or already in hand that should be worried about.

    25. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I routinely walk around with a hidden firearm, and they certainly have nothing to fear from me. Maybe I'm just being pedantic and you weren't talking about CCW permit holders. :)

    26. Re:Why? by vega80 · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. if I ever plan to rob a bank, I'll have to remember to wear a hoodie, cap, sunglasses, and carry a firearm.

    27. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aqui en Mexico, todos los trabajadores tenemos acceso a servicios de salud publica.

      Y auenque tengan acceso a servicios de salud, tadavia llegan aqui a nuestro pais. Vemos que personas no usan estes tipos de servicios publicos como critaria para venir aqui.

    28. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF their entire customer base is hoodie chavs

    29. Re:Why? by shacky003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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..

    30. Re:Why? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      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.

    31. Re:Why? by sixteenraisins · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      When you're not looking, this sig is in Latin.
    32. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the fuck are they supposed to know who you are? Maybe you can walk in with them off and put them on when you get to the teller.

    33. Re:Why? by ImYourVirus · · Score: 1

      Are you in street clothes or in some sort of uniform?

      --
      Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
    34. Re:Why? by ImYourVirus · · Score: 1

      If in your hands then you get props for the day!

      --
      Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
    35. Re:Why? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I wear blue jeans, boots, and a T-shirt or polo shirt when it's hot, or a denim shirt when it cooler. No uniform. To answer your "unasked" question, I'm not a bank guard, a cop, or Brink's employee, or anything of the nature. ;^)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    36. Re:Why? by stanjam · · Score: 1

      Ummm, while a hoodie is generic, and may lend an air of anonymity to the criminal, a Jedi robe would not. You would have a VERY hard time in court saying that wasn't you. If you are shoplifting in Jedi robes and they nab you, they will have a very easy time convicting you based on the surveillance tapes, face or no. How many people wander around in Jedi robes?

      --
      Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
    37. Re:Why? by SeijakuShin · · Score: 1

      Sure, but they'd rather you keep your $5k within their vaults, they tend to waive mundane fees if you have that much and kick up a fuss over it. Greed breeds greed at al.

    38. Re:Why? by JohnBailey · · Score: 1

      I told my bank to go fuck off when I was asked to remove my glasses/hat. Seeing as how I regularly keep $5,000+ in the bank(and was there to deposit another $1,000), they should learn to make some exceptions..like maybe looking for guns or other suspicious activity..

      Like wearing sunglasses and a hat, while potentially casing the bank for a possible robbery?

      Why exactly were you trying to obscure your face from the cashier? And didn't your objection to a pretty rational request make you look even more suspicious.. What exactly were you trying to do? Or am I being too suspicious?

      --
      It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
    39. Re:Why? by ImYourVirus · · Score: 1

      It was asked that's what I mean by uniform, street clothes would be anything like shirt and pants or shorts, and uniform would be some sort of 'official' type job, like some sort of cop or guard type job, where it would be normal for you to be holstering a weapon of sorts.

      --
      Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
    40. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Muchos prefieren el dinero a la salud... Hola Troll!

    41. Re:Why? by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

      Actually most stores in this area (Virginia) ban the wearing of any hood/head concealing garment* while in the premises

      * - unless sporting the Confederate flag

    42. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes surely everyone is afraid that you will go crazy and start doing katas and punch and kick the air.

  2. We all know that if... by Mavrick3020 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:We all know that if... by Abreu · · Score: 1

      The Church of Maradona 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"?

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    2. Re:We all know that if... by sonciwind · · Score: 1, Interesting

      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?

    3. Re:We all know that if... by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.)

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
    4. Re:We all know that if... by agbinfo · · Score: 1

      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?

    5. Re:We all know that if... by Caesar+Tjalbo · · Score: 0

      Jesus was a carpenter, but Christianity is not based on carpentry. Or is it?

      I think christianity is based on gardening but I've been kicked out of stores regardless of whether I was wearing my fig leaf.

      --
      "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
    6. Re:We all know that if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was a Tesco security guard until about a month ago, and this isn't company policy. Motorcyclists are required to remove helmets and that's all.

      This is either an individual store's policy, or a guard being a bit over eager. The story doesn't say if it was a Tesco employee (like I was) or a contractor who might just not know the rules.

      Hoodies are often used to hide faces when stealing, but the cameras are generally perfectly capable of finding an angle with clear facial evidence. Basically as a security guard you don't want to stop people like this entering as you want to catch shoplifters and get the credit. Entering a store with any facial covering will almost universally set some cameras on you just in case. Try it, I have ;-)

    7. Re:We all know that if... by Vu1turEMaN · · Score: 1

      Naturally, the SOS Brigade totally supports that policy.

    8. Re:We all know that if... by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    9. Re:We all know that if... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      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 the middle of my chest, and then sued the pants off anyone who tried to prevent me from entering the school. Not because I particularly want to carry a weapon around, but just on principle. Laws and rules are supposed to be impartial - you can't go exempting certain groups just because their imaginary friend has been telling them weird things.

    10. Re:We all know that if... by magarity · · Score: 1

      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.

    11. Re:We all know that if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, troll! We all know that all religious texts are not works of science fiction, but in fact works of fantasy. Get it right! How dare that troll defame science fiction.

    12. Re:We all know that if... by lastgoodnickname · · Score: 0

      Think the religion came before the book

    13. Re:We all know that if... by lastgoodnickname · · Score: 0

      why not?

  3. Jedi religion by obliv!on · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know you can answer Jedi on a census in some countries apparently the UK is one of them, 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.

    1. Re:Jedi religion by Dudeman_Jones · · Score: 1

      I know you can answer Jedi on a census in some countries apparently the UK is one of them, 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.

    2. Re:Jedi religion by dbet · · Score: 1

      Technically, Christianity was also derived from a science fiction book in which people had special powers.

    3. Re:Jedi religion by RazzleDazzle · · Score: 1

      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 terms, it is trying to breathe life into a lie by trying to outshine reality with the beauty of wishes. Faith is the refuge of fools, the ignorant, and the deluded, not of thinking, rational men. TG

      --
      ZERO ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ZERO ONE ONE! Just brushing up for my next big invention: Ethernet over Voice (EoV)
    4. Re:Jedi religion by thredder · · Score: 1

      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 church for real.

    5. Re:Jedi religion by runningman24 · · Score: 1

      Are you okay with a religion where the messiah was born to a woman who never had sex, could turn water into wine, walk on water, and came back from the dead? What about an all-powerful entity who created the world in a week, and stopped a river so his chosen ones could walk across the riverbed? I can't think of a religion that doesn't have elements of "magic", and the only reason why some are taken seriously, are the numbers of followers and how long the stories of magic have been around.

    6. Re:Jedi religion by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      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.

    7. Re:Jedi religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, I'm not a theologian but didn't Christ predict a future where the righteous would ascend to the heavens and take their place with God? Maybe not hard sci-fi but I've read worse.

    8. Re:Jedi religion by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      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"?

    9. Re:Jedi religion by Macrat · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:Jedi religion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, to be technically accurate the scientology scam is not based on l ron hubbards science fiction books as such, but on some other fantasy that he wrote specially for the purpose.

      With the older stories in the bible, it is quite probable that they circulated in oral form for some time before they were written down, and it would be difficult to determine if they were originally intended purely for entertainment or not. This presupposes of course that we don't have any predetermined ideas about divine authorship.

    11. Re:Jedi religion by Dudeman_Jones · · Score: 1

      I'm not really ok with 99% of religions. Most of them are hocus pocus that people still blindly cling to out of some misplaced faith that all life's answers can be derived from them. Of course nevermind that this magical answer divining power was really the result of bedtime stories created to explain what science couldn't at the time. You know, pay that no mind. Only religion I don't have much issue with is Buddhism, and that's for 3 reasons. 1.) Buddhists don't care if you are Buddhist or not. 2.) Buddhists expect you to interpret Buddhism in whatever fashion makes the most sense to you, even if you completely throw out parts of it. 3.) The most important concept to Buddhists is "Don't be a dick." Whereas in other religions it's "Our God is the best and everyone elses sucks and they are gonna burn in whatever version of hell we use to scare ourselves with."

  4. Discrimination by Evildonald · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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 outcry for a boycott, because of perceived insensitivity.

    1. Re:Discrimination by dragonsomnolent · · Score: 1

      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, especially in a non totalitarian place like the UK.

      --
      I got nuthin
    2. Re:Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa, I know this is a UK story and all, do you all have to register religions over there?

      First of all, it's ya'll.
      Second... either way, nice grammar. ;-)

    3. Re:Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Virginia you can't register as a priest/priestess unless you belong to a "recognized" religion. To be "recognized" the "church" has to have a fixed address (a building, not a Post Office box) and you have to have a "seminary" of at least a year for the training of your priestess/priest.

      Not as free as Jefferson envisioned, but not so burdensome as to keep serious adherents from following their path.

      The catch is that if the bureaucrat that handles the paperwork doesn't like your view of things, the it never gets processed.

    4. Re:Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know there is no need to "register". I think there is some confusion over a question in the Census. The question concerning religion is left open - you can write whatever your religion is, including Jedi (as some did in 2001), or leave it blank. Totally up to you.

      Wikipedia has more information

      ps. I live in the UK

    5. Re:Discrimination by Homr+Zodyssey · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Discrimination by Evildonald · · Score: 1

      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

    7. Re:Discrimination by Chelloveck · · Score: 0, Redundant

      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 ever say Jesus wore a shirt?) I expect I'd still be kicked out of restaurants and other places with "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" signs. And I'd expect to be locked up for public indecency if I practiced the viewpoint that if God hadn't intended for us to be seen naked, He darned well would have given us clothes at birth.

      All appearances to the contrary aside, you can't just make up any old shit and claim religious protection. Or rather, you can but don't expect the rest of the world to play along. At the very least you need a substantial number of other whack-jobs with the same belief system to back you up on it.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    8. Re:Discrimination by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      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 suing him, simply putting the tower elsewhere, or figuring out some other means of delivering network access (microwave towers aren't the only way to get the Internet, dude), the first responses from /.ers suggested polluting his crops with radioactive material or simply burning them down. If you can't get what you want by asking, do it by force.

      I think this really depends on whether Jediism is actually a registered religion.

      Well, the simple answer is to include someone's midichlorian level on their id. You have a zero, you ain't a Jedi, and you can't wear the hoodie, bro.

    9. Re:Discrimination by agbinfo · · Score: 1

      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.

    10. Re:Discrimination by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      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 collar. Abram didn't wear a Tallit. But people have dress to show their devotion. If you're going to allow one faith to wear their costume but not another, then you're discriminating, plain and simple. It really doesn't matter how ridiculous you think that faith is.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    11. Re:Discrimination by agbinfo · · Score: 1

      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 your religion requires, they shouldn't have to accept you. If the store decides to make an exception for the roller bladers of heaven then the exception should be for everyone. IMHO.

    12. Re:Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if it's ya'll, what does the apostrophe stand for?

      Y'all are both dumb.

    13. Re:Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you even had to duck for that joke to go flying over your head.

    14. Re:Discrimination by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      I KNEW it! ^^

      Gentlemen, you've just helped me prove your own failure. Thank you very much. :D

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    15. Re:Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tax exemptions for not-for-profits in the US do not exempt anyone from payroll taxes. Sales tax, business taxes, property tax - yes. Payroll tax - no.

    16. Re:Discrimination by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Ok. Now read the two paragraphs after the joke. If they're part of some larger joke, then I'm very confused, indeed.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    17. Re:Discrimination by Chelloveck · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, the last two paragraphs weren't jokes, and I stand by them. You can't just make shit up then bitch about "religious discrimination" when no one else takes you seriously. If you can, I'm going to found the First Church of Chelloveck and start with the basic tenet that God wants us to only work 1 day and have 6 days of rest. Maybe for fun I'll throw in that He also doesn't want us to wear pants, but on special holy days you can cover up your unmentionables with a smiley face cut from the hubcap of a 1966 Ford Mustang.

      I don't care if one nutcase claims to be a follower of jedism and says that he has to wear his hooded robe when he's in a grocery store. I don't expect the store to honor that kind of nonsense. And yeah, most (if not all) mainstream religions have equally arbitrary rules. The difference is that of scale. One person claiming special treatment is a nutjob. It's not a religion (in the sense that it can be discriminated against) until that nutjob is backed up by lots of his nutty friends who all believe the same crap.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    18. Re:Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    19. Re:Discrimination by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      "I don't care if one nutcase claims to be a follower of jedism and says that he has to wear his hooded robe when he's in a grocery store. I don't expect the store to honor that kind of nonsense. "

      Who decides who's religion is nonsense? Hey I'm with you I'd love to run around destroying all the religions I don't agree with but then isn't that what the Nazi's did?

      If he's registered as a religion he has just as much as a right to sue as the muslim teen that sued Abercrombie for not letting her wear her scarf at work.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    20. Re:Discrimination by camazotz · · Score: 1

      So does this mean that if one belongs to the Latter-Day-Jedi religion, in which you wear all black (no hoodie) and consort with small fuzzy animals while displaying angst about your lineage, then shopping in the store would be unimpeded? Cool!

    21. Re:Discrimination by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ya'll is the singular. The plural, of course, is all ya'll.

  5. Hmmmm..... by bobmarleypeople · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He may be a Jedi, but he has a point. Equality my arse.

  6. Money... by TheUni · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Money... by interval1066 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If he asked ME for money I'd pay him in Imperial Credits and tell him to buggar off.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:Money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quatloos. (what's that... The sound of a million fans crying "That's Trek! You insensitive clod!")

    3. Re:Money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if i wear big ears, will you give me gold pressed latnum. I don't mind using that unit of currency.

  7. Rules for all by A+Pancake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Rules for all by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Informative

      Screw you! The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, and I'll sue you for implying that he might not be!

    2. Re:Rules for all by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      You try that, considering there are no laws against not believing in something (and openly stating it, at least here in the US, I hear there are laws against denying the holocaust in some parts of Europe) there's no grounds for a suit, so Pancake's point still stands.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    3. Re:Rules for all by KTheorem · · Score: 1

      His Noodliness would really rather you didn't.

    4. Re:Rules for all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy is not wise, nor is he very intelligent. I do agree that the rules should apply for anyone, meaning if a store says no "hoodies", it should apply to everyone. Now, if there are exceptions for specific articles of clothing, then there are exceptions, but if the store tells you to get out because you are violating their terms of use, then get out. Your rights do not take precedent over the rights of the business owner in matters of service in most countries. For instance in the US, stores have the right to refuse service to anyone, for any reason and if ordered to leave and you fail to comply, you are now trespassing.

      My store would have a huge plaque that reads "No service if you look like an idiot". Those deemed such would be totally at my discretion.

    5. Re:Rules for all by shnermal · · Score: 0

      I find their lack of faith disturbing.

    6. Re:Rules for all by True+Vox · · Score: 1

      A Pancake vs. PitaBred? Foodfight - GO!

      --
      "Gratuitous complexity is akin to chaos" - True Vox
  8. Force by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems his force is not strong enough.

  9. racism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just call the racism card and they will be all too happy to let you in

  10. What first came to mind was.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not the store you want to shop at... Let's move along.

  11. praise luke! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just when I thought I was a huge geek, I find out that people worship star wars. god,finally, I feel better about my own level of geekiness.

    1. Re:praise luke! by dstech · · Score: 1

      To be fair, they don't worship Star Wars, they follow the principles embodied in the Jedi code. Which is a stew of ideas stemming from a variety of real religions/moral codes, including Animism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Chivalry.

  12. Mind tricks by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1, Funny

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

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

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  13. Whew... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought they were talking about the game. For a minute, I was worried.

  14. His problem is that he is white by VisiX · · Score: 1

    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 supermarket. Personally, I think if they don't allow hoodies and that is what you wear you ought to go to a different supermarket because they don't deserve your money, the article indicates that the jedi in question plans to do just that. Also, raising a stink about it and getting on the news is another way to force them to change by affecting their bottom line. Kudos to this guy, I may not agree with the teachings of the Jedi church but at least they seem to know how to handle adversity.

    I'm not in the KKK or anything so please just take this for the observation that it is. I am for equal treatment of everyone.

    1. Re:His problem is that he is white by The+Damned+Yankee · · Score: 1

      The Dark Side has already claimed this one. He has given in to his anger.

      --
      "Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand." - Mark Twain
    2. Re:His problem is that he is white by toadlife · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    3. Re:His problem is that he is white by runningman24 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:His problem is that he is white by VisiX · · Score: 1

      RTFA. Your comment makes no sense, there was a "minority" individual wearing a veil for religious/cultural beliefs who was not given the same treatment.

  15. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    his heart must not be *truly* Klingon.

  16. IT'S CHAD VADER!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fired again??? LOL

  17. Jedi as a religion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I am a Star Wars Fan (starting with Episode 4 mostly), own THE TALL Skywalker, Lea, and Chewbacca dolls, and a Gen X-er, My big concern is how few in these posts seem to think this is crazy. Why don't we all start by saying that Jedi's came from the imagination of George Lucas! Then we can talk abut religion. Besides, isn't there some kind of waiting period for new religions, like 400 years or something?

    1. Re:Jedi as a religion? by BobReturns · · Score: 1

      Scientology and Mormonism beg to differ.


      Unfortunately.

  18. Paper? Plastic? by The+Damned+Yankee · · Score: 2, Funny

    A Jedi craves not these things...

    --
    "Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand." - Mark Twain
  19. From the article... by SmlFreshwaterBuffalo · · Score: 1

    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>

  20. Not just UK, not just Jediism, not just customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090918_11_A11_Apopul517991

  21. That's got to be a first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Muslim getting preferential treatment over a non-Muslim in the UK? I'm sure that's never, ever happened before.

  22. Should Enlist Mace Windu by billlava · · Score: 1

    Maybe he can help the Jedis get some air time.

  23. Tis a shame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the hoodie was a requirement of another religion based on pop-culture, I don't think he would have had a problem.

  24. The store clerk is an idiot! by rgviza · · Score: 1

    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!

    --
    Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
  25. Here goes nothing by fluxrad · · Score: 1

    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 buying what the guy in the article was selling. Here's a pro tip for those Jedi that read slashdot: If you want to be taken seriously vis a vis your belief in a life force that permeates the universe, don't hitch your wagon to a pop science fiction movie.

    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. 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.

    Call me in a couple of hundred years if the Church of Jedi is still around. Otherwise, this is a non-story.

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
    1. Re:Here goes nothing by mooncrow · · Score: 1

      "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.

    2. Re:Here goes nothing by BobReturns · · Score: 1

      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 religion. We generally consider scientology a cult because of its questionable practices (both legally and morally). Whereas Jediism (or whatever it's generally called) is basically an unprovable belief system which makes untestable claims about spirituality - how is that any different from any other religion?

    3. Re:Here goes nothing by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      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.

    4. Re:Here goes nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better be a Jedi than a Scientologist.

      Jedis know that all the Star Wars universe is fictional and, try to do good deeds. Scientologists believe Xenu is real and sue the shit out of people.

    5. Re:Here goes nothing by BobReturns · · Score: 1

      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.

    6. Re:Here goes nothing by BobReturns · · Score: 1

      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.

    7. Re:Here goes nothing by nokiator · · Score: 1
      "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 "Scientology" with "Catholic Church"...

    8. Re:Here goes nothing by Obfuscant · · Score: 1
      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 religious belivers cannot prove the existance of God, then they, too, cannot disprove the existance of God.

      If you are now applying the term "real" instead of the previous "truth", then you should know that "real" and "truth" are two different concepts. There are those who deny the holocaust. They are real (they exist), the ideas are real (they exist), but they simply aren't true.

      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.

      Being deliberately insulting to a majority of the people on the planet may buy you karma points in /., but it doesn't make you look like less of a jerk or more intelligent. You can show deference to, e.g., the Pope, not because you think he believes in a purple dinosaur but because of his status as a human being, without being a jerk about it and comparing his beliefs to some purple dinosaur you fictionalized.

    9. Re:Here goes nothing by BobReturns · · Score: 1

      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 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 homophobia and promotion of actions that cause harm (non-use of barrier contraception).

      Summary: We can't criticise someones beliefs rationally directly, but we can certainly criticise immoral actions made because of them. 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.


      And as for the whole slashdotter science fiction angle that you're worked up about, sure they can't disprove the existence of god. But remember, they can't disprove the claims of Great Auntie McCrazy that somewhere out there are invisible alien beings watching over the universe.

    10. Re:Here goes nothing by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      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 ...

    11. Re:Here goes nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's a fake religion. All religions are fake. Except of course the one that *you* (whoever) happen to believe in. And of course they can't all be true, so what gives people the arrogance to assume that theirs is the real one?

      The point is that if some groups can label a particular set of beliefs and practices as a "religion" and have it recognized by a secular government and gain certain rights from it (for example, oh, I don't know, the Christians, Muslims, Jews etc), then the same rights should be available for anyone, independent of what any majority might think about their beliefs. When you take it to its logical conclusion, it's absurd. And that's pretty much what I think about religion, as it happens.

      How about we just agree a set of rights that all people share, and don't make it conditional on being a member of some recognized "religion"?

    12. Re:Here goes nothing by fluxrad · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
    13. Re:Here goes nothing by fluxrad · · Score: 1

      Of course it's a fake religion. All religions are fake.c

      Not fake in that context. Do you really think that all christians believe Jesus was the son of God? I think they do. In fact, I know they do based on a lifetime of observation. The same theme (sans the Jesus) goes for jews, muslims, later day saints, and hindus. That said, my guess is that most "Jedi" are just keen on the genre. They're using George Lucas' second-hand plot to give them a sense of belonging, not meaning. That's what I meant by "fake." It's like the Church of the Subgenius. Apologies if that wasn't obvious.

      How about we just agree a set of rights that all people share, and don't make it conditional on being a member of some recognized "religion"?

      I was really struggling with how to talk about this in determining a response to the first guy's questions, and it comes down to this: We all have a right to life, liberty, and property. Inherent in those rights is the right to exclusion. If I own a house, and I don't want you to come into my house, then you can't come in. Similarly, if I own a store, and I don't want you shopping in my store, then you can't shop there. It's my right as a property owner.

      But then we get into the sticky bit. Society has deemed (and rightly so) that several forms of discrimination are wrong. You can't not hire a guy just because he's black. Similarly, in many countries, you can't not sell to a guy, just because he's black. Law has also extended this protection to religious affiliation. You can't discriminate against someone based on their religion because, after all, no one chooses what they believe about God - at least so goes the theory. And, as an atheist who finds himself one rung below homosexuals on the American "trust" scale, I'd like to believe that's true.

      Of course that's where we get into the discussion we're having now. Some asshole comes along and says he's a Jedi. How do you know he's telling the truth? How do you know he's not just gaming the system because he likes to dress up in robes and LARP in the woods? If that's the case, then what gives the state the right to remove my right to exclusion? Do we just believe him? Do we just believe anyone who says they have a special religion?

      --
      "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
    14. Re:Here goes nothing by MLease · · Score: 1

      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/. 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 inflict on people who dare to think about the religion.

      -Mike

      --
      I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
    15. Re:Here goes nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fake religion? Isn't that redundant?

  26. Yes I'm sure this person hasn't spent a dime by jaypaulw · · Score: 1

    ...on star wars stuff in his life

  27. Mitocloridian count by lupinstel · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
  28. Please correct the article title. by Ortega-Starfire · · Score: 1

    The leader of the Jedi is no mere Knight.

    --
    ---- Liquid was a patriot ----
  29. TESCO Questions their Jedi Powers by CodeBuster · · Score: 1

    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.

  30. Jediism, a.k.a. $CIENTOLOGY..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:Jediism, a.k.a. $CIENTOLOGY..... by BobReturns · · Score: 1

      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 that's alright in my book.

    2. Re:Jediism, a.k.a. $CIENTOLOGY..... by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

      Nut #1
      Nut #2
      Nut #3
      Nut #4

      Need I keep going?

    3. Re:Jediism, a.k.a. $CIENTOLOGY..... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Jediism, a.k.a. $CIENTOLOGY..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      What kind of cigar did I win?

      I can pay postage and shipping.

      Prefer Cuban. Dominican or Jamacian will also do.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    5. Re:Jediism, a.k.a. $CIENTOLOGY..... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      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 ...

    6. Re:Jediism, a.k.a. $CIENTOLOGY..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      "And now you've got me craving one ..."

      -My work here is done.....

      Sorry..... :)

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    7. Re:Jediism, a.k.a. $CIENTOLOGY..... by Andrei+D · · Score: 0, Troll

      You only prove that you are completely clueless. No matter what you think about Christianity, comparing Jesus to this Jedi clown or Joseph Smith is just plain stupid. Try to spend less time on Slashdot and read some books. Maybe something written by C.S. Lewis or G.K. Chesterton. Like you, they were also firm atheists, but they managed to use their brains and understand their errors. Get smart, will you?

      --
      We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the tone of voice in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us
    8. Re:Jediism, a.k.a. $CIENTOLOGY..... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make fun of your boyfriend. You're right - there was nothing crazy about him telling people to eat his body and drink his blood. That's a perfectly normal thing to do. Of course, you probably prefer guzzling his other bodily fluids, and that's fine too. To each their own, live and let live I always say.

  31. sniggered by hoooocheymomma · · Score: 0

    they just sniggered and ordered me to leave

    He's not going to win any friends with racist comments like that...

  32. intolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, shiks can have their knives, but jedis can't have a hood?

  33. Slashdot Poll anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Between the following:
    Jedi
    Hindu
    Buddhist
    Muslim
    Jew
    Christian/NonDenominational
    Catholic
    CowboyNealophite?

  34. Re:Why? YOUR kind not allowed, they aren't. by vortexau · · Score: 1

    But robbing the store . . you weren't!

    Best getting about your business . . you should be!

    --
    (David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
  35. Re:Why? If THAT'S all by vortexau · · Score: 1

    I wonder if you were a Naturist, and you asked,"If I take off my Hood and cloak, may I enter?"

    --
    (David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"
  36. Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their lack of faith is disturbing

  37. Re:Why? YOUR kind not allowed, they aren't. by stanjam · · Score: 1

    I can see it now, a big Jedi crime wave! We must take action against the Jedi who have no respect for the rule of the senate and continue to cause problems in the outer rim!

    --
    Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
  38. I am almost a Knight by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

    I have an O.B.E and earned it honestly. I might get a K.C.B eventually, but it is not high up on my agenda. Prince Charles gave it to me and I was really pleased to meet Philip Mountbatten as well at Buckingham Palace. Becoming a Knight is like a Jedi. You have to understand wisdom and excel where others cannot. You have to stand up and be counted, you need to keep integrity alive, you need to love people, but most of all you need to believe in yourself and the fact you can have a positive impact on other people's lives. Being unselfish is how I earned my O.B.E.

    --
    All cows eat grass!
  39. Missing option by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Baha'i

  40. It wasn't about the damned hood by Miseph · · Score: 1

    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 they were just creeped out by this guy and couldn't handle it. Turns out that a lot of norms just can't handle people who dress or look or act differently from themselves, and rather than keep this to themselves or simply ignore it they feel the need to lash out. I'd also point out that many abnorms have an equally shitty reaction to the habits or opinions of norms, and willfully refuse to respect the people around them who aren't interested in their quirk by forcing it upon everyone they encounter.

    Anyway, I don't know how this guy was actually behaving in the store, but if he was annoying people this was to be expected, and even if he was being completely reasonable I am unsurprised that retail managers would kick a guy out simply for wearing a robe in their store and weirding them out.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  41. Re:Why? YOUR kind not allowed, they aren't. by lastgoodnickname · · Score: 0

    These aren't the criminals you're looking for.