How Far Will the SCOTUS Go On Behalf of Muslims ?

[protectionist]

Darn that pesky Constitution.

Shure does get in the way, doesn't it.

It's not the Constitution though. It's a group of nine men and women wiping their ass with the Constitution just like they've done for scores of years now.

Sure , but let's keep the thread clean, shall we ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have some simples like P and RV trying to explain Islamic and Christian religious symbolism and culture. Reason stares!

The student disparaging his teacher.

Keep chasing the lazer dot, kitten.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Christianity has historically subordinated the female to the male. That is why Marriage Equality so threatens the far right Christians (or Muslims for that matter): it is the demise of the male as traditional Head and Master of the wife. RV, you are blabbering. Step up.

Here is just one documented example (of many) where Islam has historically subordinated the female to the male. >>>

Koran 4:34 -

Shakir: "Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

Now let's see your evidence of where Christianity has historically subordinated the female to the male.

Why? You just admitted it. However, Married Women s Property Acts in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia explains before mid 19th century wives had to give their wages to their husband.

Women were burned alive for committing "petty treason" in England for committing adultery or killing their husbands. Death by burning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You are bad at this you now. Let us teach you, and you may make a decent human yet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Darn that pesky Constitution.

Shure does get in the way, doesn't it.

It's not the Constitution though. It's a group of nine men and women wiping their ass with the Constitution just like they've done for scores of years now.

You are having a bad day, aren't you? It will be a worse one when the ruling comes out in a couple of weeks.

 

[protectionist]

Why? You just admitted it. However, Married Women s Property Acts in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia explains before mid 19th century wives had to give their wages to their husband.

Women were burned alive for committing "petty treason" in England for committing adultery or killing their husbands. Death by burning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You are bad at this you now. Let us teach you, and you may make a decent human yet.

I challenged you to produce evidence of where Christianity has historically subordinated the female to the male. YOU FAILED to do that.

First, instead of just presenting an answer (as I did with Koran 4:34), you cowardly hid behind two links, which you thought I wouldn't bother to read. I did read them.

Second, neither of the links talk about Christianity, and the second link doesn't even mention women, it just talks about people being killed by fire.
HA HA. You're an embarrassment. is should teach you a lesson not to try to run a ruse past me. You got caught - red-handed.

 

[protectionist]

Keep chasing the lazer dot, kitten.

You are a ZERO on my Islamization Quiz. I am the teacher. You are the FLUNK.

1. Who is Barbara Cook ?

2. Who is Nijab al-Ghosh ?

3. What is Al-Amal ?

4. What is tad-ru-bu-hu-nna ?

5. Who's David Harris ?

 

[jon_berzerk]

actually the case was remanded back to the tenth circuit

 

[protectionist]

actually the case was remanded back to the tenth circuit

Clarification please.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

PROTECTIONIST SAID:

“I am the teacher.”

No, you're a ridiculous, delusional rightwing loon.

 

[pinqy]

Keep chasing the lazer dot, kitten.

You are a ZERO on my Islamization Quiz. I am the teacher. You are the FLUNK.

1. Who is Barbara Cook ?

2. Who is Nijab al-Ghosh ?

3. What is Al-Amal ?

4. What is tad-ru-bu-hu-nna ?

5. Who's David Harris ?

Off topic

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why? You just admitted it. However, Married Women s Property Acts in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia explains before mid 19th century wives had to give their wages to their husband.

Women were burned alive for committing "petty treason" in England for committing adultery or killing their husbands. Death by burning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You are bad at this you now. Let us teach you, and you may make a decent human yet.

I challenged you to produce evidence of where Christianity has historically subordinated the female to the male. YOU FAILED to do that.

First, instead of just presenting an answer (as I did with Koran 4:34), you cowardly hid behind two links, which you thought I wouldn't bother to read. I did read them.

Second, neither of the links talk about Christianity, and the second link doesn't even mention women, it just talks about people being killed by fire.
HA HA. You're an embarrassment. is should teach you a lesson not to try to run a ruse past me. You got caught - red-handed.

You have failed from the first page. Those examples are from Christian communities, which was supported by the Church. You simply keep failing, believing foolsihly (like Sun Devil 92 and Where_r_my_Keys) that your opinions are evidence and authority.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keep chasing the lazer dot, kitten.

You are a ZERO on my Islamization Quiz. I am the teacher. You are the FLUNK.

1. Who is Barbara Cook ?

2. Who is Nijab al-Ghosh ?

3. What is Al-Amal ?

4. What is tad-ru-bu-hu-nna ?

5. Who's David Harris ?

Off topic

Kitten is simply chasing the laser point.

 

[Coyote]

,,

Most fundamentalist sects either require or strongly encourage dresses or skirts. Long dresses or skirts.

Thank you for bring up this excellent point, Jakey. One will notice that all the males are dressed in a white shirt buttoned completely, all wearing black pants from what I can see. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. That is not so in islam.

Muslim men are also required to dress modestly.

Yes, it is all equal, everyone is treated fairly, nothing to see here. This is getting ridiculous.

No one is saying there is full equality but there are defined standards of modest dress for men and women and in conservative societies they are upheld. The same thing applies in more liberal societies like ours. Men can go topless. Women can not.

Dress code for Iran
Dress Code in Iran - Trip To Persia

Dress code for Saudi Arabia
Is there any dress code for men in Saudi Arabia - Quora
Dress code

 

[Coyote]

This means any person wearing anything can sue the employer of their choice for wearing whatever they want even if it is not conforming to that employers rules. Sorry that's not gonna fly. People get sent home from school and asked to turn their shirts inside out at schools and other events. So why can this woman wear her headdress or other? So will A&F hire nuns next. I think not... just wait for the business to go under when that store is not having the foot traffic it once had. Where is this store Dubai?

No it does not.

It only - ONLY - means that the employer must make an allowance for "reasonable accommodation" for religion. Period. Religion and reasonable being the key terms. For example, this case:

Tattoos Facial Piercings and Employment Discrimination Law Office of Matthew Stoloff

In early 2001, Costco implemented a “no facial jewelry” policy to improve its professional image.


When Costco began enforcing its policy in mid-2001, Ms. Cloutier explained for the first time that she was a member of the Church of Body Modification and that her religion prohibited her from removing her eyebrow piercing.


Ms. Cloutier subsequently filed a complaint, alleging that she was discriminated against on the basis of her religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state law. For whatever reason, Ms. Cloutier made a decision not to return to work until the complaint was resolved. Approximately two weeks after the complaint was filed, however, Costco terminated Ms. Cloutier for unexcused absences and for failing to follow the dress code.


At a mediation session, Costco offered Ms. Cloutier her job back, provided that Ms. Cloutier agreed to do one of two things: replace the eyebrow piercing with a clear plastic retainer (to prevent the hole from closing) or cover the eyebrow piercing with a bandage. (pp. 6-7) Ms. Cloutier refused either accommodation because she believed that removing or covering the eyebrow piercing violated the tenets of the Church of Body Modification.


The case went to federal court and Costco won.


On appeal in 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit noted that there was nothing in the tenets of the Church of Body Modification that required that “body modifications had to be visible at all times or that removing body modifications would violate a religious tenet.” (p. 5) As such, the accommodations Costco proposed would not “violate any of the established tenets” of the Church of Body Modification. (p. 9)


Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower court’s opinion, holding that Costco offered a reasonable accommodation, and that creating an exception in the no facial jewelry policy would create an undue hardship for Costco. In other words, Costco must maintain a neat, clean and professional appearance to attract and retain customers; and creating an exception for Ms. Coultier would adversely affect that image. (p. 22)
​

I would guess that if a Muslim women insisted on a full burka, that would be regarded as an undue hardship for A&F, but a scarf is a reasonable accommodation.

 

[Coyote]

If she had been a Jew wearing a yamulka, and had been denied based on that - she would have had a case and the Scotus would have ruled the same.

She would NOT have had a case, because either way, she would not be conforming to their "look policy" for sales people (no headwear).

Then you have the wrong argument - you need to argue to change existing law. Again, nothing to do with Islam.

 

[Coyote]

,,

Muslim men are also required to dress modestly.

I wouldn't call their big, stupid, bacteria-catching beards exactly "modest"

Beards are common to conservative sects of all 3 Abrahamic faiths.

 

[Coyote]

Why? You just admitted it. However, Married Women s Property Acts in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia explains before mid 19th century wives had to give their wages to their husband.

Women were burned alive for committing "petty treason" in England for committing adultery or killing their husbands. Death by burning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You are bad at this you now. Let us teach you, and you may make a decent human yet.

I challenged you to produce evidence of where Christianity has historically subordinated the female to the male. YOU FAILED to do that.

First, instead of just presenting an answer (as I did with Koran 4:34), you cowardly hid behind two links, which you thought I wouldn't bother to read. I did read them.

Second, neither of the links talk about Christianity, and the second link doesn't even mention women, it just talks about people being killed by fire.
HA HA. You're an embarrassment. is should teach you a lesson not to try to run a ruse past me. You got caught - red-handed.

Seriously dude? Did you miss out on history in school?

 

[RandomVariable]

Coyote, are you Muslim? Because you are working really, really hard to make this not about islam.

From your post #393, "The same thing applies in more liberal societies like ours. Men can go topless. Women can not." WTF kind of stupid shit is that??? Are you really that desperate for rationales? Why do you feel the need to deflect from islam to the point of absurdity?

 

[JakeStarkey]

]Nope, only by the grace of the board mods. Now what did SCOTUS say about it.

You were asked first. Your time to answer.

Nope. Your question was set up as a fallacy.

scotusblog can answer it for you.

You clearly do not know Islam or Christianity, certainly not their histories or their various cultures.

SCOTUS is neutral about Islam, as it should be.

 

[RandomVariable]

]Nope, only by the grace of the board mods. Now what did SCOTUS say about it.

You were asked first. Your time to answer.

Nope. Your question was set up as a fallacy.

scotusblog can answer it for you.

You clearly do not know Islam or Christianity, certainly not their histories or their various cultures.

SCOTUS is neutral about Islam, as it should be.

SCOTUS is trying to support the victim and islam always plays the victim card. SCOTUS is not neutral. They are trying to shape the world to their image of right and wrong, even if they do not have all the facts.