The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis basically says that people will only call something as they know it to be called. — Anthony Kennedy

That's not Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, that's an obvious fact.

Depending on where people come from, there are many practices that are practiced there, but not allowed elsewhere. But should they be? Say it were illegal in place A to eat a strawberry before they have done their chores. In place B, strawberries can be eaten at any time. Say that person B from place B visits place A and eats a strawberry. Should person B be held to the same law as person A even though they both have a different idea as what is right? — Anthony Kennedy

Your example is too ambiguous. You need to decide whether you want to talk about legal practice, or moral relativism, or multiculturalism - all different questions with different answers.

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is that languages influences (weak) or determines (strong) how we understand and perceive the world.

An example would be with colour. The hypothesis is that a speaker of a language that has different colour terms for blue and green can see that a blue object and a green object (each of a hue close to the boundary of the other) have a different colour but that a speaker of a language that has a single term for blue and green will see them to be the same colour.

See here for more information.

If language does influence cognition and worldview, The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis according to wikipedia, then it becomes a question of looking for radically different ways of thinking and outlooks correlated with major differences between some languages.

As far as I can tell, languages differ in vocalization, script and perhaps syntax but there doesn't seem much room for semantic incongruity for we share the same world. How vocalization (the sounds associated with a particular meaning), script (the shape of the letters in an alphabet), and the rules governing word usage (syntax) have an effect on the way we think and worldview is simply beyond me.

I've heard of certain words in some languages lacking a matching counterpart in another language and by that I mean to emphasize some linguistically distinct cultures maybe missing the corresponding concepts. If these concepts are part of cognitive vocabulary and are essential ingredients of specific worldviews then, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has some merit. Perhaps we can find good examples that such is the case by studying languages that accommodate science (and its concepts) and those that aren't.

Understanding language as performance clears up the issues. Each individual performs based on prior experience with the words currently being performed. The observer replies with an expectation of a certain reaction based on his prior experience. Added to the reply is the emotional drive of the moment. Keep in mind that the behavior is considered to be the use of words and language only after the behavior has taken place. When performed 'language' is within the entirety of the moment.

Words and language are useful fictions. They are performances sometimes pretending to depict or describe that which is not words and language, so of course they fail when used for that task.