×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Supermarket Bans Jedi Knight

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the allowed-in-this-store-you-are-not dept.

Star Wars Prequels 169

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.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

169 comments

Why? (4, Interesting)

sixteenraisins (67316) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469001)

They ban hoodies?

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

cronco (1435465) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469043)

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:Why? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469179)

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.

Re:Why? (1)

sixteenraisins (67316) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469271)

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.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469355)

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..

Re:Why? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470751)

"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.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471521)

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.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471769)

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. :)

Re:Why? (1)

Abreu (173023) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469475)

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

Re:Why? (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470921)

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.

Re:Why? (1)

Gibbs-Duhem (1058152) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471425)

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:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469131)

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.

Re:Why? (4, Informative)

The Evil Couch (621105) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469383)

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.

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470363)

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 [clothingattesco.com]

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."

Re:Why? (1)

digitalhermit (113459) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469613)

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.

Re:Why? (1)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469877)

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)

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469265)

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:Why? (3, Informative)

welshbyte (839992) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469511)

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? (3, Informative)

theJML (911853) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469559)

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.

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

michaelhood (667393) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469899)

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?

Re:Why? (1)

geekwithsoul (860466) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471027)

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.

We all know that if... (5, Insightful)

Mavrick3020 (1174511) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:We all know that if... (1, Interesting)

sonciwind (970454) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469651)

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?

Re:We all know that if... (1)

agbinfo (186523) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470455)

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?

Re:We all know that if... (1)

Caesar Tjalbo (1010523) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470607)

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.

Re:We all know that if... (5, Insightful)

AdmiralXyz (1378985) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.)

Re:We all know that if... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29470785)

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 ;-)

Re:We all know that if... (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471497)

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?

Jedi religion (2, Interesting)

obliv!on (1160633) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469027)

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.

Re:Jedi religion (1)

Dudeman_Jones (1589225) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469445)

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.

Re:Jedi religion (1)

dbet (1607261) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470451)

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

Re:Jedi religion (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471297)

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.

Re:Jedi religion (1)

runningman24 (1172197) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471021)

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.

Re:Jedi religion (1)

RazzleDazzle (442937) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470565)

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

Re:Jedi religion (1)

thredder (1211746) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470589)

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.

Discrimination (2, Insightful)

Evildonald (983517) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469033)

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.

Re:Discrimination (1)

dragonsomnolent (978815) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469405)

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.

Re:Discrimination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469473)

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. ;-)

Re:Discrimination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29470973)

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

Y'all are both dumb.

Re:Discrimination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469563)

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.

Re:Discrimination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469711)

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 [wikipedia.org]

ps. I live in the UK

Re:Discrimination (3, Informative)

Homr Zodyssey (905161) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470017)

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.

Re:Discrimination (1)

agbinfo (186523) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470721)

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.

Re:Discrimination (1)

Evildonald (983517) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470045)

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

Re:Discrimination (1)

agbinfo (186523) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470809)

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.

Re:Discrimination (-1, Flamebait)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469471)

Problem is: You act as if anything religion-based would actually have to make sense or follow any standards of logic.
Religion is by definition a lack of those things. Trying to use logic on it, is like writing complaint letters to fight a dragon.

And what does it being registered have to do with anything? Is a disease just a disease, when it's registered?
Cult = religion = a kind of reality distortion = schizophrenia = disease. It's that simple. (Of course the defense mechanism of repression would never allow the affected people to accept that truth, and they will now try to mod me to "hell" in a defensive rage of irrational hatred. That's just a normal symptom, that protects their mind from dying because of the resulting invalidation of their whole religion-based reality.)

I hope humanity will find a cure as soon as possible.

Re:Discrimination (0, Redundant)

Chelloveck (14643) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470319)

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.

Re:Discrimination (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470771)

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.

Re:Discrimination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471825)

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

Re:Discrimination (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470499)

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.

Money... (3, Insightful)

TheUni (1007895) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469037)

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

Re:Money... (3, Funny)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469267)

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

Re:Money... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469625)

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

Rules for all (4, Insightful)

A Pancake (1147663) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Rules for all (3, Informative)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469261)

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

Re:Rules for all (1)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469843)

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.

Re:Rules for all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29470433)

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.

Force (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469215)

It seems his force is not strong enough.

racism (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469299)

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

What first came to mind was.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469303)

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

praise luke! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469319)

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.

Re:praise luke! (1)

dstech (807139) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470129)

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.

Whew... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469381)

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

His problem is that he is white (1)

VisiX (765225) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469421)

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.

Re:His problem is that he is white (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469837)

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.

Re:His problem is that he is white (2, Insightful)

runningman24 (1172197) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471463)

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.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469447)

his heart must not be *truly* Klingon.

IT'S CHAD VADER!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469521)

fired again??? LOL

Jedi as a religion? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469611)

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?

From the article... (1)

SmlFreshwaterBuffalo (608664) | more than 4 years ago | (#29469747)

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>

Not just UK, not just Jediism, not just customers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469789)

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

That's got to be a first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29469849)

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

Tis a shame... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29470293)

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

The store clerk is an idiot! (1)

rgviza (1303161) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470657)

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!

Here goes nothing (1)

fluxrad (125130) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470659)

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.

Re:Here goes nothing (1)

mooncrow (205627) | more than 4 years ago | (#29470905)

"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.

Re:Here goes nothing (1)

BobReturns (1424847) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471137)

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?

Re:Here goes nothing (1)

Obfuscant (592200) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471369)

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.

Re:Here goes nothing (1)

BobReturns (1424847) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471493)

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.

Re:Here goes nothing (1)

BobReturns (1424847) | more than 4 years ago | (#29471539)

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.

Re:Here goes nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29471429)

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.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...