CDZ Burkini ban overturned

[GLASNOST]

So there's willing subservience?

Absolutely. Have you never told your wife that she is the expert in whatever and that you are an idiot when it comes to that whatever .... just because you know it will make your wife feel good?

I'm talking overall subservience.

I gave you an overall reply.

 

[GaryDog]

So there's willing subservience?

Absolutely. Have you never told your wife that she is the expert in whatever and that you are an idiot when it comes to that whatever .... just because you know it will make your wife feel good?

I'm talking overall subservience.

I gave you an overall reply.

I guess that answers the question about whether or not women in burkhas are doing it by choice then.

Apparently they are.

 

[GLASNOST]

I guess that answers the question about whether or not women in burkhas are doing it by choice then ........

Nothing presented by anyone here has answered that question, and dare I say that no one can. It is not an 'answerable' question in the first place. Are there women who are coerced into wearing it - YES. Are there women who wear it voluntarily - YES.

 

[320 Years of History]

Hmmm...honestly it doesn't really matter does it?

Only to people who want to wear garments they are prohibited from wearing.

 

[Pilate]

Hmmm...honestly it doesn't really matter does it?

Only to people who want to wear garments they are prohibited from wearing.

ONLY to them?

 

[320 Years of History]

Islam is a religion that dictates what women should wear.

Democracy and freedom supposed to do the opposite of that...
Which it did...

So hopefully some muslims living in western countries and still have islamist ideologies will learn this lesson and become more liberal,
rather than being a hypocrite selfish asshole and try to undermine the very basic fundamentals giving them the freedom to express their religion full fledged in a western society...

While it may fit your worldview to consign sumptuary proscriptions to a religious realm, the reality is that faith-based belief systems need have nothing to do with the existence of such requirements. Try walking into a variety of venues wearing the "wrong" garb and see what happens. For example, walk into certain courtrooms wearing shorts.

• City Court of Slidell: Dress Code for Court
  
• It’s in your court: Proper courtroom conduct

Courtrooms are just as public a space as a beach, yet there are rules about what one can and cannot wear there, even in our democracy.

Sumptuary laws in the U.S:

• sumptuary.html
  
• Arresting dress: A timeline of anti-cross-dressing laws in the United States -- quite a few examples beyond the three below and from the modern era can be found here:
  
  • Oakland, California -- Immoral Dress Code 9.08.080 from 1879 was amended on May 21, 2010 to exclude "in the attire of a person of the opposite sex."
    
  • Haddon Township, New Jersey -- 1964's Ordinance 175-10 for Indecent Dress or Exposure: "It shall be unlawful for any person to appear in any street or public place in a dress not belonging to his sex or in an indecent or lewd dress. In 2014, comedian Ben Kissel sought to overturn the law. He succeeded.
    
  • Houston, Texas -- In 1977, a total of 53 people were arrested under Houston's 1861 ordinance, which stated: "It shall be unlawful for any person to appear on any public street, sidewalk, alley, or other public thoroughfare dressed with the designed intent to disguise his or her true sex as that of the opposite sex." OVERTURNED: 1980
• The Puritan Experiment with Sumptuary Legislation | Gary North

P.S.
I'm told that one cannot to the U.S. Capitol, House and Senate Office buildings wear garb carrying certain symbology, the Nazi swastika being one, but I've not ever asked if that's so.

 

[320 Years of History]

Hmmm...honestly it doesn't really matter does it?

Only to people who want to wear garments they are prohibited from wearing.

ONLY to them?

You're right. There may be other folks who care.

 

[alpine]

Islam is a religion that dictates what women should wear.

Democracy and freedom supposed to do the opposite of that...
Which it did...

So hopefully some muslims living in western countries and still have islamist ideologies will learn this lesson and become more liberal,
rather than being a hypocrite selfish asshole and try to undermine the very basic fundamentals giving them the freedom to express their religion full fledged in a western society...

While it may fit your worldview to consign sumptuary proscriptions to a religious realm, the reality is that faith-based belief systems need have nothing to do with the existence of such requirements. Try walking into a variety of venues wearing the "wrong" garb and see what happens. For example, walk into certain courtrooms wearing shorts.

• City Court of Slidell: Dress Code for Court
  
• It’s in your court: Proper courtroom conduct

Courtrooms are just as public a space as a beach, yet there are rules about what one can and cannot wear there, even in our democracy.

Sumptuary laws in the U.S:

• sumptuary.html
  
• Arresting dress: A timeline of anti-cross-dressing laws in the United States -- quite a few examples beyond the three below and from the modern era can be found here:
  • Oakland, California -- Immoral Dress Code 9.08.080 from 1879 was amended on May 21, 2010 to exclude "in the attire of a person of the opposite sex."
    
  • Haddon Township, New Jersey -- 1964's Ordinance 175-10 for Indecent Dress or Exposure: "It shall be unlawful for any person to appear in any street or public place in a dress not belonging to his sex or in an indecent or lewd dress. In 2014, comedian Ben Kissel sought to overturn the law. He succeeded.
    
  • Houston, Texas -- In 1977, a total of 53 people were arrested under Houston's 1861 ordinance, which stated: "It shall be unlawful for any person to appear on any public street, sidewalk, alley, or other public thoroughfare dressed with the designed intent to disguise his or her true sex as that of the opposite sex." OVERTURNED: 1980
• The Puritan Experiment with Sumptuary Legislation | Gary North

P.S.
I'm told that one cannot to the U.S. Capitol, House and Senate Office buildings wear garb carrying certain symbology, the Nazi swastika being one, but I've not ever asked if that's so.

There is a very good reason for the dress code in a courtroom.

Courtrooms are not beaches.
Courtrooms are places where the fate of some human being(s) is/are decided.
Innocent lives are saved, and sometimes destroyed, as a result of a very serious process.
Dress code represents the diligence and seriousness of this whole process.

Comparing this very highly sensible rule, to islamisms clothing dictum that is used to oppress "millions" of muslim women around the world in their daily lives, including some who would prefer western clothing in the first place...
I don't think this suits someone in your caliber.

I respect you, and your point of view as always.
But I hope I was able to get my point of view across properly.

 

[320 Years of History]

There is a very good reason for the dress code in a courtroom.

Courtrooms are not beaches.
Courtrooms are places where the fate of some human being(s) is/are decided.
Innocent lives are saved, and sometimes destroyed, as a result of a very serious process.
Dress code represents the diligence and seriousness of this whole process.

I see. So one's fate at the hands of justice rightly and in part rests on sartorial behavior? If that's what you are intending, it's quite an interesting take and standard for applying elements of equity and fairness under the law. I've never heard it put quite that way.

Your honor, we have reached a verdict. On the count of [insert charge], we find the defendant guilty because he lacked the seriousness attendant to wearing long pants to trial.
​

I respect you, and your point of view as always.
But I hope I was able to get my point of view across properly.

Thank you and ditto.

No, you didn't convey your point in a way that makes sense, or that seems equitable under U.S. jurisprudence, to me. Would you like to try again? I'm willing to read a revised presentation of your idea(s).

 

[Pilate]

There is a very good reason for the dress code in a courtroom.

Courtrooms are not beaches.
Courtrooms are places where the fate of some human being(s) is/are decided.
Innocent lives are saved, and sometimes destroyed, as a result of a very serious process.
Dress code represents the diligence and seriousness of this whole process.

I see. So one's fate at the hands of justice rightly and in part rests on sartorial behavior? If that's what you are intending, it's quite an interesting take and standard for applying elements of equity and fairness under the law. I've never heard it put quite that way.

Your honor, we have reached a verdict. On the count of [insert charge], we find the defendant guilty because he lacked the seriousness attendant to wearing long pants to trial.
​

I respect you, and your point of view as always.
But I hope I was able to get my point of view across properly.

Thank you and ditto.

No, you didn't convey your point in a way that makes sense, or that seems equitable under U.S. jurisprudence, to me. Would you like to try again? I'm willing to read a revised presentation of your idea(s).

Why should anyone wear clothes in a court of law at all? Also, your "verdict" was a flagrant exaggeration and nothing less than a strawman attack.

 

[320 Years of History]

There is a very good reason for the dress code in a courtroom.

Courtrooms are not beaches.
Courtrooms are places where the fate of some human being(s) is/are decided.
Innocent lives are saved, and sometimes destroyed, as a result of a very serious process.
Dress code represents the diligence and seriousness of this whole process.

I see. So one's fate at the hands of justice rightly and in part rests on sartorial behavior? If that's what you are intending, it's quite an interesting take and standard for applying elements of equity and fairness under the law. I've never heard it put quite that way.

Your honor, we have reached a verdict. On the count of [insert charge], we find the defendant guilty because he lacked the seriousness attendant to wearing long pants to trial.
​

I respect you, and your point of view as always.
But I hope I was able to get my point of view across properly.

Thank you and ditto.

No, you didn't convey your point in a way that makes sense, or that seems equitable under U.S. jurisprudence, to me. Would you like to try again? I'm willing to read a revised presentation of your idea(s).

Why should anyone wear clothes in a court of law at all? Also, your "verdict" was a flagrant exaggeration and nothing less than a strawman attack.

Red:
Frankly, as far as that being germane to whether one gets a fair trial and just verdict, I don't care if they do or don't wear clothes, much less what clothes they wear.

I suppose in the absolutist sense, the only reasons one should wear clothes in court or anywhere else are:

• to keep warm -- this reason I'm fine with,
• not to violate indecency laws -- this I take some exception with, but given the obesity rate in the U.S., I'm not going to complain too stridently, and
• to satisfy one's vanity -- I could make a "thing" of this, but I won't.

 

[Pilate]

There is a very good reason for the dress code in a courtroom.

Courtrooms are not beaches.
Courtrooms are places where the fate of some human being(s) is/are decided.
Innocent lives are saved, and sometimes destroyed, as a result of a very serious process.
Dress code represents the diligence and seriousness of this whole process.

I see. So one's fate at the hands of justice rightly and in part rests on sartorial behavior? If that's what you are intending, it's quite an interesting take and standard for applying elements of equity and fairness under the law. I've never heard it put quite that way.

Your honor, we have reached a verdict. On the count of [insert charge], we find the defendant guilty because he lacked the seriousness attendant to wearing long pants to trial.
​

I respect you, and your point of view as always.
But I hope I was able to get my point of view across properly.

Thank you and ditto.

No, you didn't convey your point in a way that makes sense, or that seems equitable under U.S. jurisprudence, to me. Would you like to try again? I'm willing to read a revised presentation of your idea(s).

Why should anyone wear clothes in a court of law at all? Also, your "verdict" was a flagrant exaggeration and nothing less than a strawman attack.

Red:
Frankly, as far as that being germane to whether one gets a fair trial and just verdict, I don't care if they do or don't wear clothes, much less what clothes they wear.

I suppose in the absolutist sense, the only reasons one should wear clothes in court or anywhere else are:

• to keep warm -- this reason I'm fine with,
• not to violate indecency laws -- this I take some exception with, but given the obesity rate in the U.S., I'm not going to complain too stridently, and
• to satisfy one's vanity -- I could make a "thing" of this, but I won't.

Don't forget that a courtroom full of naked people in the 21st century is distracting and difficult to take seriously for most.

 

[320 Years of History]

There is a very good reason for the dress code in a courtroom.

Courtrooms are not beaches.
Courtrooms are places where the fate of some human being(s) is/are decided.
Innocent lives are saved, and sometimes destroyed, as a result of a very serious process.
Dress code represents the diligence and seriousness of this whole process.

I see. So one's fate at the hands of justice rightly and in part rests on sartorial behavior? If that's what you are intending, it's quite an interesting take and standard for applying elements of equity and fairness under the law. I've never heard it put quite that way.

Your honor, we have reached a verdict. On the count of [insert charge], we find the defendant guilty because he lacked the seriousness attendant to wearing long pants to trial.
​

I respect you, and your point of view as always.
But I hope I was able to get my point of view across properly.

Thank you and ditto.

No, you didn't convey your point in a way that makes sense, or that seems equitable under U.S. jurisprudence, to me. Would you like to try again? I'm willing to read a revised presentation of your idea(s).

Why should anyone wear clothes in a court of law at all? Also, your "verdict" was a flagrant exaggeration and nothing less than a strawman attack.

Red:
Frankly, as far as that being germane to whether one gets a fair trial and just verdict, I don't care if they do or don't wear clothes, much less what clothes they wear.

I suppose in the absolutist sense, the only reasons one should wear clothes in court or anywhere else are:

• to keep warm -- this reason I'm fine with,
• not to violate indecency laws -- this I take some exception with, but given the obesity rate in the U.S., I'm not going to complain too stridently, and
• to satisfy one's vanity -- I could make a "thing" of this, but I won't.

Don't forget that a courtroom full of naked people in the 21st century is distracting and difficult to take seriously for most.

Over time, folks would get used to it. Surely you don't think that tribal peoples who wear nothing of note don't have tribunals to settle disputes; they are human, so they definitely do. They manage not to be too distracted I'm sure.

 

[Pilate]

There is a very good reason for the dress code in a courtroom.

Courtrooms are not beaches.
Courtrooms are places where the fate of some human being(s) is/are decided.
Innocent lives are saved, and sometimes destroyed, as a result of a very serious process.
Dress code represents the diligence and seriousness of this whole process.

I see. So one's fate at the hands of justice rightly and in part rests on sartorial behavior? If that's what you are intending, it's quite an interesting take and standard for applying elements of equity and fairness under the law. I've never heard it put quite that way.

Your honor, we have reached a verdict. On the count of [insert charge], we find the defendant guilty because he lacked the seriousness attendant to wearing long pants to trial.
​

I respect you, and your point of view as always.
But I hope I was able to get my point of view across properly.

Thank you and ditto.

No, you didn't convey your point in a way that makes sense, or that seems equitable under U.S. jurisprudence, to me. Would you like to try again? I'm willing to read a revised presentation of your idea(s).

Why should anyone wear clothes in a court of law at all? Also, your "verdict" was a flagrant exaggeration and nothing less than a strawman attack.

Red:
Frankly, as far as that being germane to whether one gets a fair trial and just verdict, I don't care if they do or don't wear clothes, much less what clothes they wear.

I suppose in the absolutist sense, the only reasons one should wear clothes in court or anywhere else are:

• to keep warm -- this reason I'm fine with,
• not to violate indecency laws -- this I take some exception with, but given the obesity rate in the U.S., I'm not going to complain too stridently, and
• to satisfy one's vanity -- I could make a "thing" of this, but I won't.

Don't forget that a courtroom full of naked people in the 21st century is distracting and difficult to take seriously for most.

Over time, folks would get used to it.

And in the meantime we'd have to deal with a whole load of potentially faulty verdicts. There's a reason police officers don't wear clown suits. They're there to promote and maintain an orderly environment and that uniform would not help.

 

[alpine]

There is a very good reason for the dress code in a courtroom.

Courtrooms are not beaches.
Courtrooms are places where the fate of some human being(s) is/are decided.
Innocent lives are saved, and sometimes destroyed, as a result of a very serious process.
Dress code represents the diligence and seriousness of this whole process.

I see. So one's fate at the hands of justice rightly and in part rests on sartorial behavior? If that's what you are intending, it's quite an interesting take and standard for applying elements of equity and fairness under the law. I've never heard it put quite that way.

Your honor, we have reached a verdict. On the count of [insert charge], we find the defendant guilty because he lacked the seriousness attendant to wearing long pants to trial.
​

I respect you, and your point of view as always.
But I hope I was able to get my point of view across properly.

Thank you and ditto.

No, you didn't convey your point in a way that makes sense, or that seems equitable under U.S. jurisprudence, to me. Would you like to try again? I'm willing to read a revised presentation of your idea(s).

Its called "cognitive bias".
Studied under psychology and human behavioral biology.
So the inconvenient conclusion is; humans are biased... at different levels maybe, but we all are...

And the law makers tried their best to get around this fact by introducing dress code,
so we add another anchor to get to the ideal outcome which is pretty essential for a democracy to survive; equality under the law.

If you were to wear shorts in a courtroom, that would be most likely detrimental to you.
Regardless you are aware of the fact that the jury, as human beings with the same set of (less or more) tuned equipment loaded in their brain just like any of us, will most likely be biased to you... maybe a little bit, maybe more... maybe for, maybe against... but will be biased...

So the law is in there to present people; equality under the law,
which is one basic and primary building block of this society as it is today.
At least, thats the mindset behind it.

And when you compare this mindset, to the islamist mindset that makes life miserable for millions of women, on the ground that women arouse men, therefore should be covered... well... doesn't make sense to me...

You are comparing a middle ages mindset that aims for the comfort of a dominant oppressive part of the society (men) in the expense of the rest (women) ...
to a progressive mindset that aims for equality for all...

Therefore, I respectfully disagree with your point of view...

 

[alpine]

There is a very good reason for the dress code in a courtroom.

Courtrooms are not beaches.
Courtrooms are places where the fate of some human being(s) is/are decided.
Innocent lives are saved, and sometimes destroyed, as a result of a very serious process.
Dress code represents the diligence and seriousness of this whole process.

I see. So one's fate at the hands of justice rightly and in part rests on sartorial behavior? If that's what you are intending, it's quite an interesting take and standard for applying elements of equity and fairness under the law. I've never heard it put quite that way.

Your honor, we have reached a verdict. On the count of [insert charge], we find the defendant guilty because he lacked the seriousness attendant to wearing long pants to trial.
​

I respect you, and your point of view as always.
But I hope I was able to get my point of view across properly.

Thank you and ditto.

No, you didn't convey your point in a way that makes sense, or that seems equitable under U.S. jurisprudence, to me. Would you like to try again? I'm willing to read a revised presentation of your idea(s).

Why should anyone wear clothes in a court of law at all? Also, your "verdict" was a flagrant exaggeration and nothing less than a strawman attack.

Red:
Frankly, as far as that being germane to whether one gets a fair trial and just verdict, I don't care if they do or don't wear clothes, much less what clothes they wear.

I suppose in the absolutist sense, the only reasons one should wear clothes in court or anywhere else are:

• to keep warm -- this reason I'm fine with,
• not to violate indecency laws -- this I take some exception with, but given the obesity rate in the U.S., I'm not going to complain too stridently, and
• to satisfy one's vanity -- I could make a "thing" of this, but I won't.

Don't forget that a courtroom full of naked people in the 21st century is distracting and difficult to take seriously for most.

Over time, folks would get used to it. Surely you don't think that tribal peoples who wear nothing of note don't have tribunals to settle disputes; they are human, so they definitely do. They manage not to be too distracted I'm sure.

Exactly!

The middle
The norm
The normal

The tribal people should show up naked in their courtrooms, if being naked is the norm.
If they showed up in a suit, that would create the same situation as you would expect in a western court when you show up in shorts.

Thats what legal system is aiming for.
You create an environment, that nothing sticks out, expect the evidence and the law.
So you get as close as possible to an unbiased verdict at the end...

And this is a life or death matter, which should be taken seriously, therefore, dress code is imposed.

Anyways, this is off the subject, but should explain the philosophical differences between a courtroom dress code, and the islamist dictate of covering a human being, half the time against their will...

 

[320 Years of History]

I see. So one's fate at the hands of justice rightly and in part rests on sartorial behavior? If that's what you are intending, it's quite an interesting take and standard for applying elements of equity and fairness under the law. I've never heard it put quite that way.

Your honor, we have reached a verdict. On the count of [insert charge], we find the defendant guilty because he lacked the seriousness attendant to wearing long pants to trial.
​

Thank you and ditto.

No, you didn't convey your point in a way that makes sense, or that seems equitable under U.S. jurisprudence, to me. Would you like to try again? I'm willing to read a revised presentation of your idea(s).

Why should anyone wear clothes in a court of law at all? Also, your "verdict" was a flagrant exaggeration and nothing less than a strawman attack.

Red:
Frankly, as far as that being germane to whether one gets a fair trial and just verdict, I don't care if they do or don't wear clothes, much less what clothes they wear.

I suppose in the absolutist sense, the only reasons one should wear clothes in court or anywhere else are:

• to keep warm -- this reason I'm fine with,
• not to violate indecency laws -- this I take some exception with, but given the obesity rate in the U.S., I'm not going to complain too stridently, and
• to satisfy one's vanity -- I could make a "thing" of this, but I won't.

Don't forget that a courtroom full of naked people in the 21st century is distracting and difficult to take seriously for most.

Over time, folks would get used to it.

And in the meantime we'd have to deal with a whole load of potentially faulty verdicts. There's a reason police officers don't wear clown suits. They're there to promote and maintain an orderly environment and that uniform would not help.

Blue:
That doesn't strike me as any more problematic than are the definitely wrong verdicts we've had in trials with everyone present fully dressed.

Green:
There are several reasons, actually. I understand the symbolic relevance of public officials wearing various uniforms. I don't see there being a case for that same symbolism pertaining to the nature of a defendant's or plaintiff's getting treated fairly at trial.

 

[Pilate]

Why should anyone wear clothes in a court of law at all? Also, your "verdict" was a flagrant exaggeration and nothing less than a strawman attack.

Red:
Frankly, as far as that being germane to whether one gets a fair trial and just verdict, I don't care if they do or don't wear clothes, much less what clothes they wear.

I suppose in the absolutist sense, the only reasons one should wear clothes in court or anywhere else are:

• to keep warm -- this reason I'm fine with,
• not to violate indecency laws -- this I take some exception with, but given the obesity rate in the U.S., I'm not going to complain too stridently, and
• to satisfy one's vanity -- I could make a "thing" of this, but I won't.

Don't forget that a courtroom full of naked people in the 21st century is distracting and difficult to take seriously for most.

Over time, folks would get used to it.

And in the meantime we'd have to deal with a whole load of potentially faulty verdicts. There's a reason police officers don't wear clown suits. They're there to promote and maintain an orderly environment and that uniform would not help.

Blue:
That doesn't strike me as any more problematic than are the definitely wrong verdicts we've had in trials with everyone present fully dressed.

Green:
There are several reasons, actually. I understand the symbolic relevance of public officials wearing various uniforms. I don't see there being a case for that same symbolism pertaining to the nature of a defendant's or plaintiff's getting treated fairly at trial.

Symbolism? That's unnecessary. So why not dress them in clown suits? And that rebuttal of my concern regarding increased likelylihood of poor verdicts seems to read as "well it's already a problem so who cares if it gets worse."

 

[Treeshepherd]

Those birkinis look pretty sleek, like they're made of Lycra or something. I'm not usually a fan of Lycra but somehow it works in this case.

Anyway, it's the height of Bloombergism to dictate what type of swimwear a citizen is allowed to wear. The thong is much more offensive, not because of ass cheeks showing but the string thru the crack just isn't attractive imo.
Thankfully the whale tail undies sticking up above the jeans and below the tramp stamp went out of style.

 

[320 Years of History]

Red:
Frankly, as far as that being germane to whether one gets a fair trial and just verdict, I don't care if they do or don't wear clothes, much less what clothes they wear.

I suppose in the absolutist sense, the only reasons one should wear clothes in court or anywhere else are:

• to keep warm -- this reason I'm fine with,
• not to violate indecency laws -- this I take some exception with, but given the obesity rate in the U.S., I'm not going to complain too stridently, and
• to satisfy one's vanity -- I could make a "thing" of this, but I won't.

Don't forget that a courtroom full of naked people in the 21st century is distracting and difficult to take seriously for most.

Over time, folks would get used to it.

And in the meantime we'd have to deal with a whole load of potentially faulty verdicts. There's a reason police officers don't wear clown suits. They're there to promote and maintain an orderly environment and that uniform would not help.

Blue:
That doesn't strike me as any more problematic than are the definitely wrong verdicts we've had in trials with everyone present fully dressed.

Green:
There are several reasons, actually. I understand the symbolic relevance of public officials wearing various uniforms. I don't see there being a case for that same symbolism pertaining to the nature of a defendant's or plaintiff's getting treated fairly at trial.

Symbolism? That's unnecessary. So why not dress them in clown suits? And that rebuttal of my concern regarding increased likelylihood of poor verdicts seems to read as "well it's already a problem so who cares if it gets worse."

Red:
Really? You didn't click on the link and read the content there did you? You couldn't have and then legitimately ask those questions and state symbolism is unnecessary. I thought we were having an honest discussion, but clearly that's not the case, so let's just stop here. You have a good day.