Muslim files lawsuit against Dearborn Heights for making her remove headscarf

[Coyote]

She is being booked for a crime. She loses her religious rights until shes in her cell. Just like I couldn't demand a bible during booking.

American and other Western women have to conform to Muslim dress codes and sensibilities, they should have to here.

In this society, masking and covering women is not acceptable; I am offended every time I see a covered up Muslim woman going around like some sort of inferior subhuman.

We happen to have that pesky bit about freedom of religion in our Constitution and a country built around that protection. Other countries, particularly Muslim countries do not. It has nothing to do with being "offended" but about freedom of religion and reasonable accommodation allowed for people's religious needs as long as public welfare/safety aren't affected. What was requested - that a woman officer take the picture, was not unreasonable. If she had demanded that she keep the attire on for the photo that would have been unreasonable because an ID has to be an ID.

 

[Coyote]

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.

Don't women have the right to wear what they want in the US (within the very minimal standards of decency we enforce)?

 

[Coyote]

I think you are confused.

I think anyone who chooses to travel to France or Saudi Arabia is subject to the laws of those countries- and violates local customs at their own risk. None of those places are the United States- and none of them have our fantastic, amazing Bill of Rights.

When people come here from France or Saudi Arabia they have the same rights as all Americans have- that is one of the wonderful things about the United States- and they are subject to the same laws too. And no one in the United States is obligated to do something here just because it is a local custom.

We are better than other countries in that way.

I am hardly confused.

I would reserve that for those in this thread lobbying to have her NOT have to follow the same laws as everybody else by way of preparing herself for the photo because she believes her religion trumps that bill of rights.

You got it wrong.

The issue isn't what she takes off FOR THE PHOTO - it's who sees her without it and takes the photo.

So she needs to file a lawsuit prohibiting anyone other than a female to ever see the photos right?
If she cared about obeying her religious convictions why was she driving illegally? But the Koran says a 'true-believer' can do anything including murder to adhere to what the fucking pedophile in the sky tells them to.
So maybe she was on her way to blow up a bus full of schoolkids. That would have made what she was doing just fine.

Driving is not a "religious conviction".

 

[Coyote]

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.

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.

This woman is a "knuckle dragging Islamist" What do you base that claim on?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Can you act any more retarded? What crime has she committed that should put her in prison for several years?

 

[Coyote]

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?

Sounds like you have problems following a conversation, and it's Ms. Bitch to you.

Her complaint was that she was required to take off her scarf for the booking procedure in front of strange men and during the time she was confined. She had no issue with having the photo taken, she apparently underarstood that an ID photo is a legal necessity but she requested that a female officer take it and that request was refused. It's not rocket science, but I'll be happy to break it down into "Dick and Jane" bits if you require.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This woman is a "knuckle dragging Islamist" What do you base that claim on?

The fact she is trying to undermine our political system in order to make special exceptions within it towards the Islamist political ideology.

The notion that a person's ideology makes them above the law is ludicrous, and just because you and the rest of the fifth column happen to hate every principle upon which this country was built with the ferocity that you do,and wish to pave the way for making it an Islamist state, that does not mean we need to do so.

 

[dannyboys]

She is being booked for a crime. She loses her religious rights until shes in her cell. Just like I couldn't demand a bible during booking.

American and other Western women have to conform to Muslim dress codes and sensibilities, they should have to here.

In this society, masking and covering women is not acceptable; I am offended every time I see a covered up Muslim woman going around like some sort of inferior subhuman.

We happen to have that pesky bit about freedom of religion in our Constitution and a country built around that protection. Other countries, particularly Muslim countries do not. It has nothing to do with being "offended" but about freedom of religion and reasonable accommodation allowed for people's religious needs as long as public welfare/safety aren't affected. What was requested - that a woman officer take the picture, was not unreasonable. If she had demanded that she keep the attire on for the photo that would have been unreasonable because an ID has to be an ID.

And that is exactly what she demanded. NOT to have to remove her head scarf. When that didn't work she demanded a female officer take the mug shots. Like a few dozen males wouldn't see the mug shots later? She as sand monkey bitch. She can go to hell.
BTW what 'freedoms' does Islam extend to their stupid zombies who adhere to it b/c they don't have a life otherwise? Answer fuck all.

 

[Pogo]

This woman is a "knuckle dragging Islamist" What do you base that claim on?

The fact she is trying to undermine our political system in order to make special exceptions within it towards the Islamist political ideology.

The notion that a person's ideology makes them above the law is ludicrous, and just because you and the rest of the fifth column happen to hate every principle upon which this country was built with the ferocity that you do,and wish to pave the way for making it an Islamist state, that does not mean we need to do so.

Feminine modesty has nothing to do with "Islamistism", "knuckledragging" or even "politics". I'm sure Alex Jones is proud of you but damn -- get a grip.

 

[Coyote]

This woman is a "knuckle dragging Islamist" What do you base that claim on?

The fact she is trying to undermine our political system in order to make special exceptions within it towards the Islamist political ideology.

How is a simple request that a female be the one to see her without her headscarf and take the photo "undermining our political system"?

There was a case in New York, 1999 where a woman sued that she be allowed to keep her scarf on while being photographed at the jail, and she lost because the second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that it was reasonable for officials to require that prisoners be photographed without head coverings so that they could be easily identified. That makes sense. However in this case, she is not asking for the headcovering in the photograph, only that a woman be the one to see her without it and take the picture. That is a reasonable religious accommodation.

The notion that a person's ideology makes them above the law is ludicrous, and just because you and the rest of the fifth column happen to hate every principle upon which this country was built with the ferocity that you do,and wish to pave the way for making it an Islamist state, that does not mean we need to do so.

It doesn't make her "above the law" - we have constitutional protections for religion that allow for reasonable accommodations as long as there is no compelling state interest against it. It applies to all religions.

 

[Coyote]

She is being booked for a crime. She loses her religious rights until shes in her cell. Just like I couldn't demand a bible during booking.

American and other Western women have to conform to Muslim dress codes and sensibilities, they should have to here.

In this society, masking and covering women is not acceptable; I am offended every time I see a covered up Muslim woman going around like some sort of inferior subhuman.

We happen to have that pesky bit about freedom of religion in our Constitution and a country built around that protection. Other countries, particularly Muslim countries do not. It has nothing to do with being "offended" but about freedom of religion and reasonable accommodation allowed for people's religious needs as long as public welfare/safety aren't affected. What was requested - that a woman officer take the picture, was not unreasonable. If she had demanded that she keep the attire on for the photo that would have been unreasonable because an ID has to be an ID.

And that is exactly what she demanded. NOT to have to remove her head scarf. When that didn't work she demanded a female officer take the mug shots. Like a few dozen males wouldn't see the mug shots later? She as sand monkey bitch. She can go to hell.
BTW what 'freedoms' does Islam extend to their stupid zombies who adhere to it b/c they don't have a life otherwise? Answer fuck all.

Not removing the scarf at all would not be reasonable.
Asking for a woman officer is reasonable.
After all - when women are searched - it is not done by a male officer but a female.

Who cares what freedoms Islamic nations extend? This is the US.

 

[Pogo]

She is being booked for a crime. She loses her religious rights until shes in her cell. Just like I couldn't demand a bible during booking.

American and other Western women have to conform to Muslim dress codes and sensibilities, they should have to here.

In this society, masking and covering women is not acceptable; I am offended every time I see a covered up Muslim woman going around like some sort of inferior subhuman.

We happen to have that pesky bit about freedom of religion in our Constitution and a country built around that protection. Other countries, particularly Muslim countries do not. It has nothing to do with being "offended" but about freedom of religion and reasonable accommodation allowed for people's religious needs as long as public welfare/safety aren't affected. What was requested - that a woman officer take the picture, was not unreasonable. If she had demanded that she keep the attire on for the photo that would have been unreasonable because an ID has to be an ID.

And that is exactly what she demanded. NOT to have to remove her head scarf. When that didn't work she demanded a female officer take the mug shots. Like a few dozen males wouldn't see the mug shots later? She as sand monkey bitch. She can go to hell.
BTW what 'freedoms' does Islam extend to their stupid zombies who adhere to it b/c they don't have a life otherwise? Answer fuck all.

Not removing the scarf at all would not be reasonable.
Asking for a woman officer is reasonable.
After all - when women are searched - it is not done by a male officer but a female.

Who cares what freedoms Islamic nations extend? This is the US.

Eggs Ackley. Tu Quoque fallacy.

 

[Esmeralda]

This woman is a "knuckle dragging Islamist" What do you base that claim on?

The fact she is trying to undermine our political system in order to make special exceptions within it towards the Islamist political ideology.

The notion that a person's ideology makes them above the law is ludicrous, and just because you and the rest of the fifth column happen to hate every principle upon which this country was built with the ferocity that you do,and wish to pave the way for making it an Islamist state, that does not mean we need to do so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

She is being booked for a crime. She loses her religious rights until shes in her cell. Just like I couldn't demand a bible during booking.

Nonsense.

No one 'forfeits' his religious rights at any point when arrested and detained. And even when convicted of a crime one still retains his religious liberty.

Religious rights are no different than any other right – although inalienable they are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government. There was nothing 'reasonable' about what this woman was subjected to.

The wise course of action, to avoid the unnecessary conflict and the lawsuit, would have been to simply book the woman while wearing her hijab, and consulting with the district attorney's office for guidance with regard to any First Amendment concerns.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This woman is a "knuckle dragging Islamist" What do you base that claim on?

The fact she is trying to undermine our political system in order to make special exceptions within it towards the Islamist political ideology.

The notion that a person's ideology makes them above the law is ludicrous, and just because you and the rest of the fifth column happen to hate every principle upon which this country was built with the ferocity that you do,and wish to pave the way for making it an Islamist state, that does not mean we need to do so.

The fact is that this is unmitigated idiocy and hate.

No one is seeking to be 'above the law.'

And just because someone is Muslim does not mean they wish to establish an 'Islamic state,' the notion is utterly moronic.

Clearly you're so blinded by your unwarranted hatred for Muslims and Islam that you're unaware of how ridiculous you are.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The fact is that this is unmitigated idiocy and hate.

No one is seeking to be 'above the law.'

And just because someone is Muslim does not mean they wish to establish an 'Islamic state,' the notion is utterly moronic.

Clearly you're so blinded by your unwarranted hatred for Muslims and Islam that you're unaware of how ridiculous you are.

The fact that you are entirely ignorant of the sorts of methods Islamists have employed in Western Europe to advance their cause is obvious.

That you believe Muslims do not need to comply with laws just like any of the rest of us makes you an idiot. You are a useful idiot, of course, but an idiot nonetheless.

Any time a Muslim does anything, there is a ready-made audience in this country supporting them. It's the prime directive for those who know absolutely nothing, but have convinced themselves that when the word "Islam" enters into the conversation, they need to salivate and wag their tail in approval.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Says an apologist who thinks the desire to kill people who abandon one's religion is moderate.

 

[Pogo]

The fact is that this is unmitigated idiocy and hate.

No one is seeking to be 'above the law.'

And just because someone is Muslim does not mean they wish to establish an 'Islamic state,' the notion is utterly moronic.

Clearly you're so blinded by your unwarranted hatred for Muslims and Islam that you're unaware of how ridiculous you are.

The fact that you are entirely ignorant of the sorts of methods Islamists have employed in Western Europe to advance their cause is obvious.

That you believe Muslims do not need to comply with laws just like any of the rest of us makes you an idiot. You are a useful idiot, of course, but an idiot nonetheless.

Any time a Muslim does anything, there is a ready-made audience in this country supporting them. It's the prime directive for those who know absolutely nothing, but have convinced themselves that when the word "Islam" enters into the conversation, they need to salivate and wag their tail in approval.

Circular reasoning too.

This gem reminds me of "'Satan''s most evil trick is to get people to not believe in him and that proves he exists".

 

[Dogmaphobe]

[
Circular reasoning too.

This gem reminds me of "'Satan''s most evil trick is to get people to not believe in him and that proves he exists".

I have indulged in no circular reasoning.

You, however, have proven beyond any doubt that you are entirely ignorant of the meaning of religious freedom. It doesn't mean that when you break the law, you get to dictate the terms simply because you claim a certain belief.

 

[Coyote]

[
Circular reasoning too.

This gem reminds me of "'Satan''s most evil trick is to get people to not believe in him and that proves he exists".

I have indulged in no circular reasoning.

You, however, have proven beyond any doubt that you are entirely ignorant of the meaning of religious freedom. It doesn't mean that when you break the law, you get to dictate the terms simply because you claim a certain belief.

It does not mean either, that the state gets to violate your religious rights if it has no compelling reason to do so - for example, identification or security purposes, neither of which are an issue here. You do not forfeit all your rights when you are arrested.