Muslim files lawsuit against Dearborn Heights for making her remove headscarf

[dannyboys]

dannyboys, blah blah blah.

I have an idea so I won't have to read your stupid childish posts. They never add anything intelligent to the subject. Welcome to the Permanent Ignore Club.

 

[dannyboys]

i said apparently there was no female officer there...

...you want to assume there was a female officer there who refused her, based on what?

I am not sure what your point is with the quote. There is nothing that says there was no female officer around, only that the male refused to get one.

I think if there was courtesy and respect, they could have agreed to her request, but there is not respect for Islam by probably the majority of people in the West due to terrorism. I am not against Muslims: many, many times I have posted supporting the general population of Muslims. I don't blame them for terrorism. But, the fact is that covering varies from country to country, culture to culture, family to family, woman to woman. It is based on a suggesting in the Koran and how that suggestion is interpreted.

Agree, but it is still a part of a person's religion and religious identity and as such should be constitutionally protected within reasonable limits.

I agree that it may be how individuals interpret things, but it is not required by Islam, it is a personal choice and therefore is not a religious requirement. I believe that socially, and in most circumstance, there is no reason to require any woman to remove a scarf from her head. But when it comes to ID or a booking photo, I can see where it is necessary. And I don't believe it goes against a requirement in Islam: I know it doesn't. It would be like if a Christian wanted to wear a cross or a nun her habit. It is a choice not required in the Bible.

I agree, for a photo it has to be removed but it doesn't seem she was arguing against that, only requesting it be a female officer to take the photo. That's why I don't see it as unreasonable

So is the sand monkey going to file a lawsuit that no male ever sees the mug shots? Makes as much sense.
So a female takes the mug shots and by the time they are in the system a few dozen males have seen them.
I hope the justice system puts her in a Federal prison for a couple of years. See how she likes 'getting married' to a few 300 pounds bull dykes.

 

[dannyboys]

More to the story... in increments...

After Kazan was forced to remove her hijab for her mug shot, she was allegedly told she couldn't put it back on while she remained in custody. ​

Ooopsie. If true there goes that rationale.
Continuing, same article:

"I honestly don't want other women to be put in my position, where they are forced to take off their scarf in front of men they don't know," Kazan said. "I was so upset. It was such an uncomfortable feeling. I've worn my scarf for 12 years and my religion says that I can't take it off. It's not just a religious issue; this is a part of me. It's my culture, my life and my identity."​

Is part of her culture, life, identity to knowingly break the law?
If these sand monkeys don't want to obey the law fuckem!
Then if any male is arrested for breaking the law that must mean they all have the legal 'right' to only go through the booking process with male police officers in attendance. This IS the argument the police lawyers will make.

 

[dannyboys]

this woman had no respect for the law as she drove around on a suspended license.

why is she acting as if gender matters, then trying to change the policy entirely...?

in any case, does her 'freedom' of religion supersede agency requirements to ID law breakers..?


The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court here, asks for the Dearborn Heights, Mich., Police Department to modify its present policy so a Muslim woman can wear her hijab during booking procedures.

So what?

Just because someone breaks the law doesn't mean their religious rights are null. In this case it's not a big deal. She's not asking to have an hajib for her photo.

she relinquished any supposed 'right' to cover her head and face during booking procedures when she broke the law...

She's not covering her face, she's wearing a scarf and she's not asking to wear it for the photo. What's the big deal here?

the side of her face, her forehead..her profile...the policy is to remove all headgear, no exceptions.

on what grounds does she insist on an exception?

Again (and again and again) she is not insisting on this for her photograph. She is only asking that a female officer be the one to do it.

Again and again the bitch has no 'legal right' to demand only a female cop take her mug shots.
Would you like me to repeat this?

 

[dannyboys]

you are quoting the recounting of the events that day, not what she seeks as an end result of the suit...

What she seeks in the end is to wear the headscarf during booking procedures and under confinement. Not to have to remove it in the presence of male strangers.

Typical sand monkey stupidity. First she bitched about not having a female officer present. Then she bitched about not wanting take off the head scarf.
WHICH IS IT BITCH?

 

[Pogo]

dannyboys, blah blah blah.

I have an idea so I won't have to read your stupid childish posts. They never add anything intelligent to the subject. Welcome to the Permanent Ignore Club.

"Childish" was followed by "sand monkeys". Which in turn followed "tree dwelling simian" in another thread.

That about says it all.

 

[Pogo]

Why does the right hate the Constitution?

If indeed this violates the Constitution, then I've got no problem with her lawsuit.
The main problem I have is that it's just more evidence that immigrating Muslims do not intend to abide by the laws, customs, regulations, etc., of America.
They want us to bend our rules to their liking.

EXACTLY.

"Exactly" huh?
OK I asked the OP before and I got crickets, maybe you can answer -- how exactly are immigrants (of any flavor) supposed to "abide by our customs"??

If there actually were such a concept we would never have had pierogies, pizza, hammantaschen, sushi, hummous, wienerschnitzel, borscht, cornbread, yam, curries, enchiladas, moussaka or moo goo gai pan -- just to name foods. Our language would be way skimpier than it is, and we'd have no jazz, blues or soul music (and therefore no rock music either). Cultural collision is the very spark of humanity.

Monoculturalists. You guys kill me.

Which laws do any of those things break? That's where the line is.

None. Zero.
That's why I keep asking what "abide by our customs" is supposed to mean.

And that's why I keep getting crickets in answer. Which I just got again.

 

[Katzndogz]

It means that if she wants to wear a headscarf no one stops her. If it is a law that she cannot wear one during booking she has to abide by that.

 

[Pogo]

i don't even accept that she was harmed by having her headgear removed without the female officer.

she was not frisked... the law enforcement policy isn't discriminatory... what is the big deal?

show me the harm...

It is offensive to her. I don't think it is illegal to ask her to remove it, but it is offensive to her way of seeing things. I think the problem would have been avoided if they simply used females to work with her when her head was uncovered. A little consideration and respect goes a long way and doesn't hurt anyone.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do!

Works BOTH ways.

Denigrating garb that assigns women a sub-human role should be illegal in the GOUSA.

Not sure wtf the "GOUSA" is but apparently you want to legislate dress now? Uniforms für alles?

Well possibly you can get away with that since the First Amendment doesn't specify garb. Until it gets to SCOTUS anyway. Rotsa ruck wit dat. I'm personally offended by men who walk around in shoes with no socks but I wouldn't want them prevented from self-identifying by law. Fortunately I do have the right to be offended.

I'm continually amazed by people who live willingly under a Constitution of which they can't even understand Point Number One.

 

[JakeStarkey]

dannyboys, blah blah blah.

I have an idea so I won't have to read your stupid childish posts. They never add anything intelligent to the subject. Welcome to the Permanent Ignore Club.

You just described yourself, slag.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It means that if she wants to wear a headscarf no one stops her. If it is a law that she cannot wear one during booking she has to abide by that.

Just so.

 

[dannyboys]

dannyboys, blah blah blah.

I have an idea so I won't have to read your stupid childish posts. They never add anything intelligent to the subject. Welcome to the Permanent Ignore Club.

"Childish" was followed by "sand monkeys". Which in turn followed "tree dwelling simian" in another thread.

That about says it all.

I'm sorry. You can also say this about me: I'm another member here who has added you to my permanent ignore club.
"You can't fix stupid". That's what you are, as well as childish and boring......and a waste of bandwidth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

i don't even accept that she was harmed by having her headgear removed without the female officer.

she was not frisked... the law enforcement policy isn't discriminatory... what is the big deal?

show me the harm...

It is offensive to her. I don't think it is illegal to ask her to remove it, but it is offensive to her way of seeing things. I think the problem would have been avoided if they simply used females to work with her when her head was uncovered. A little consideration and respect goes a long way and doesn't hurt anyone.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do!

Works BOTH ways.

Denigrating garb that assigns women a sub-human role should be illegal in the GOUSA.

Not sure wtf the "GOUSA" is but apparently you want to legislate dress now? Uniforms für alles?

Well possibly you can get away with that since the First Amendment doesn't specify garb. Until it gets to SCOTUS anyway. Rotsa ruck wit dat. I'm personally offended by men who walk around in shoes with no socks but I wouldn't want them prevented from self-identifying by law. Fortunately I do have the right to be offended.

I'm continually amazed by people who live willingly under a Constitution of which they can't even understand Point Number One.

“Good ol' USA”

Otherwise, yes – this is yet another example of the authoritarianism common to most on the right, motivated by fear of change, diversity, and those perceived to be 'different,' and the desire of many conservatives to compel conformity.

 

[Katzndogz]

I see these teen muslim girls all the time in their headscarves with a halter top and hip rise jeans. They ride their skateboards down Wilshire showing a mile of bare midriff. What's the point?

 

[Pogo]

I think the problem would have been avoided if they simply used females to work with her when her head was uncovered. A little consideration and respect goes a long way and doesn't hurt anyone.

The fact that this ^^

-- was immediately followed by this:

So the fucking sand monkey bitch has very serious convictions about how she must present herself in public b/c it comes down to following her religion. If the bitch is so fucking 'religious' what was she doing driving a car BREAKING THE FUCKING LAW?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or maybe she thought it was OK b/c she was on her way to murder some innocent 'non-believers'. THAT would have made it OK according to the Koran.

and then this:

Respect?

You mean like respecting the country in which a person lives instead of making extremely aggressive demands that it change its nature to accommodate your every Neanderthal way and attacking the legal system in order to subvert it -- that kind of respect??

Yeah, it is sadly lacking by this knuckle dragging Islamist.

Kinda sums up the arguments in this thread. Rational meets irrational. Thoughtful consideration meets hyperemotional hair-on-fire ballyhoo.

 

[Pogo]

I see these teen muslim girls all the time in their headscarves with a halter top and hip rise jeans. They ride their skateboards down Wilshire showing a mile of bare midriff. What's the point?

Fair point. Skateboarding has always struck me as kind of mindless.

 

[Pogo]

i don't even accept that she was harmed by having her headgear removed without the female officer.

she was not frisked... the law enforcement policy isn't discriminatory... what is the big deal?

show me the harm...

It is offensive to her. I don't think it is illegal to ask her to remove it, but it is offensive to her way of seeing things. I think the problem would have been avoided if they simply used females to work with her when her head was uncovered. A little consideration and respect goes a long way and doesn't hurt anyone.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do!

Works BOTH ways.

Denigrating garb that assigns women a sub-human role should be illegal in the GOUSA.

Not sure wtf the "GOUSA" is but apparently you want to legislate dress now? Uniforms für alles?

Well possibly you can get away with that since the First Amendment doesn't specify garb. Until it gets to SCOTUS anyway. Rotsa ruck wit dat. I'm personally offended by men who walk around in shoes with no socks but I wouldn't want them prevented from self-identifying by law. Fortunately I do have the right to be offended.

I'm continually amazed by people who live willingly under a Constitution of which they can't even understand Point Number One.

“Good ol' USA”

Otherwise, yes – this is yet another example of the authoritarianism common to most on the right, motivated by fear of change, diversity, and those perceived to be 'different,' and the desire of many conservatives to compel conformity.

Aye, there's the rub. Which I suspect is also the answer they can't bring themselves to articulate on the question of what "abide by our customs" means.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I see these teen muslim girls all the time in their headscarves with a halter top and hip rise jeans. They ride their skateboards down Wilshire showing a mile of bare midriff. What's the point?

This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy.

And it reflects well the ignorance and stupidity common to many on the right with regard to their unwarranted hostility toward Islam and Muslims, where they falsely condemn an entire religion and its adherents for the acts of a tiny, non-representative minority.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

i don't even accept that she was harmed by having her headgear removed without the female officer.

she was not frisked... the law enforcement policy isn't discriminatory... what is the big deal?

show me the harm...

It is offensive to her. I don't think it is illegal to ask her to remove it, but it is offensive to her way of seeing things. I think the problem would have been avoided if they simply used females to work with her when her head was uncovered. A little consideration and respect goes a long way and doesn't hurt anyone.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do!

Works BOTH ways.

Denigrating garb that assigns women a sub-human role should be illegal in the GOUSA.

Not sure wtf the "GOUSA" is but apparently you want to legislate dress now? Uniforms für alles?

Well possibly you can get away with that since the First Amendment doesn't specify garb. Until it gets to SCOTUS anyway. Rotsa ruck wit dat. I'm personally offended by men who walk around in shoes with no socks but I wouldn't want them prevented from self-identifying by law. Fortunately I do have the right to be offended.

I'm continually amazed by people who live willingly under a Constitution of which they can't even understand Point Number One.

“Good ol' USA”

Otherwise, yes – this is yet another example of the authoritarianism common to most on the right, motivated by fear of change, diversity, and those perceived to be 'different,' and the desire of many conservatives to compel conformity.

Aye, there's the rub. Which I suspect is also the answer they can't bring themselves to articulate on the question of what "abide by our customs" means.

Yes, it's the same sad, ancient manifestation of reactionaryism, the bane of civilizations for millennia.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It means that if she wants to wear a headscarf no one stops her. If it is a law that she cannot wear one during booking she has to abide by that.

Not if that law is determined to violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as was the ruling in the case from Arkansas.