Muslim files lawsuit against Dearborn Heights for making her remove headscarf

[dannyboys]

I believe we should not have to subsidize any delinquents of Religion, with our secular and temporal tax dollars. Why can we not simply ask religious authorities to administer an appropriate religious punishment, if they don't want recourse to our secular and temporal, Ten Amendments.

I wonder what the Imams in the Dearborn mosques would suggest as punishment for a fucking sand monkey woman driving without a valid driving license?
Would she have to allow all her brothers and uncles to fuck her? No that wouldn't work. She's already had that happen to her when she was twelve.

I look at it this way, if the Romans didn't really have to care what the natives were doing as long as the domestic Tranquility and security of their free State was not at issue, why should we.

If they can lay any claim to some form of "holiness" through morality, then it is all good.

If the sand monkeys are looking for 'holiness' given the barbaric way they treat their woman and the endemic centuries long violence within their religion they are going about it the wrong way.
I can see a Roman commander in charge of a jail: "You are here because you have broken the law by driving a chariot without a license. We are going to have someone make a drawing of your face. What? You refuse to remove your headgear with a man in the room? No problem. Just step over here my dear. Someone will be along shortly to remove YOUR FUCKING HEAD!"

 

[Pogo]

 

[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.

For the justice system to be able to identify someone who has broken the law is a "compelling" reason to take their fucking picture. God you're an idiot!
First the bitch refused to remove her head gear. When that didn't work she insisted on having a female officer take her photo.
Why didn't she file suit to prevent any male from seeing the mugshots in perpetuity?

You seem to be unusually DENSE. No one is arguing that she must keep her headgear on while being photographed. That won't fly and in fact, a case in 1999, where a an orthodox Jewish woman sued for that, went against the plaintiff. What she wants is to have a female police officer do the photography - no different than having a female officer do a search. It's not unreasonable and it does not interefere with what is required for identification. As far as the last question - such a lawsuit would be deemed frivolous and unenforceable and would cause an undue burdon to the state.

 

[Coyote]

No one is asking for separate treatment. Just to have their religious rights respected within the bounds of the law. Do you think Orthodox Jewish women (who have also been involved in lawsuits regarding covering their hair) should "go back home"? And what if America is their home?

you have a citation for some jewish woman bringing a law suit for being asked to remove a head covering for a security check or mug shot?

Court No right to leave on head scarf - Newsday

 

[Coyote]

Ah, back to that "abide by our customs" malarkey you never answered last night.

mug shots LAW not custom

Ugh. Mug shots law. Not refer to that -- refer to heap big question poster avoid last night. Question say "abide by our customs". Pogo ask for explanation. Hear crickets.

oh sorry------what question did you ask last nite and to your intense frustration ------you never received an answer?

don't cry for me Rosentina -- I just have a contempt for intellectual sloth.

The question, on its second round, was in Post 271. I had questioned it the first time around and got nothing then either, on the same point. For that matter I never heard an answer to 269 either but that's a different poster.

I really don't expect my targets to man up to answer these. It would make for interesting discussion if they did, but realistically I'm just calling their bluff and watching as they run away.

Hee hee.

I actually checked 271 and 269 the only question you seem to ask is "why should immigrants follow our customs"?
the question is silly. who said they must? the issue was
the removal of a head scarf for a mug shot. Coyote decided
that all she demanded was females do the booking and all
the men in the area disappear. --------good idea and when
the chick ends up on an emergency room she can demand
female doctors and all the male patients be shot----the guy who lifts her 400 pound carcass should be a girl too''

cops are busy people-----some precints are small------setting things up special for no reason is STOOOOPID

No you are being silly again. I didn't "decide" anything - I'm going by what is in the articles and that is what she demanded. It's not unreasonable.

Cops aren't too busy to find female officers to do body searches.

 

[irosie91]

No one is asking for separate treatment. Just to have their religious rights respected within the bounds of the law. Do you think Orthodox Jewish women (who have also been involved in lawsuits regarding covering their hair) should "go back home"? And what if America is their home?

you have a citation for some jewish woman bringing a law suit for being asked to remove a head covering for a security check or mug shot?

Court No right to leave on head scarf - Newsday

good ----correct judgement-----she should not have sued and
no special treatment was due her or the muslim woman---the judge was probably jewish. For those of use who have seen lots of both jewish and muslim dress----the muslim thing is every more concealing than the jewish thing-----only rarely do muslim women confine their head covering to just hair----
----still ----both have no right to wear it for a mug shot

 

[irosie91]

mug shots LAW not custom

Ugh. Mug shots law. Not refer to that -- refer to heap big question poster avoid last night. Question say "abide by our customs". Pogo ask for explanation. Hear crickets.

oh sorry------what question did you ask last nite and to your intense frustration ------you never received an answer?

don't cry for me Rosentina -- I just have a contempt for intellectual sloth.

The question, on its second round, was in Post 271. I had questioned it the first time around and got nothing then either, on the same point. For that matter I never heard an answer to 269 either but that's a different poster.

I really don't expect my targets to man up to answer these. It would make for interesting discussion if they did, but realistically I'm just calling their bluff and watching as they run away.

Hee hee.

I actually checked 271 and 269 the only question you seem to ask is "why should immigrants follow our customs"?
the question is silly. who said they must? the issue was
the removal of a head scarf for a mug shot. Coyote decided
that all she demanded was females do the booking and all
the men in the area disappear. --------good idea and when
the chick ends up on an emergency room she can demand
female doctors and all the male patients be shot----the guy who lifts her 400 pound carcass should be a girl too''

cops are busy people-----some precints are small------setting things up special for no reason is STOOOOPID

No you are being silly again. I didn't "decide" anything - I'm going by what is in the articles and that is what she demanded. It's not unreasonable.

Cops aren't too busy to find female officers to do body searches.

I see a problem because I have experienced problems with muslim patients in hospitals. As far as I know a BODY SEARCH is done in jail------not in the precinct where there is limited personnel and limited space. You are an idiot

 

[Coyote]

No one is asking for separate treatment. Just to have their religious rights respected within the bounds of the law. Do you think Orthodox Jewish women (who have also been involved in lawsuits regarding covering their hair) should "go back home"? And what if America is their home?

you have a citation for some jewish woman bringing a law suit for being asked to remove a head covering for a security check or mug shot?

Court No right to leave on head scarf - Newsday

good ----correct judgement-----she should not have sued and
no special treatment was due her or the muslim woman---the judge was probably jewish. For those of use who have seen lots of both jewish and muslim dress----the muslim thing is every more concealing than the jewish thing-----only rarely do muslim women confine their head covering to just hair----
----still ----both have no right to wear it for a mug shot

In that particular case - I agree. The requirements for a proper id require no headgear and the state has a compelling interest in enforcing it. However, if that woman were only requesting that a female take the id - then the state's case is not so compelling and reasonable accommodations can be made - like with a body search.


You say: For those of use who have seen lots of both jewish and muslim dress----the muslim thing is every more concealing than the jewish thing-----only rarely do muslim women confine their head covering to just hair...

Do you mean here, in the US? The most common form of covering I've seen is one that covers the hair or hair and neck leaving the face exposed. I don't see what difference it makes as it seems you are trying to make a rather arbritrary distinction on what religious garb is appropriate and what is not. No head covering of any kind is appropriate for an ID photo, beyond that you would need to have a pretty compelling reason to demand it be removed - a reason that over rides religious freedom.

 

[Coyote]

Ugh. Mug shots law. Not refer to that -- refer to heap big question poster avoid last night. Question say "abide by our customs". Pogo ask for explanation. Hear crickets.

oh sorry------what question did you ask last nite and to your intense frustration ------you never received an answer?

don't cry for me Rosentina -- I just have a contempt for intellectual sloth.

The question, on its second round, was in Post 271. I had questioned it the first time around and got nothing then either, on the same point. For that matter I never heard an answer to 269 either but that's a different poster.

I really don't expect my targets to man up to answer these. It would make for interesting discussion if they did, but realistically I'm just calling their bluff and watching as they run away.

Hee hee.

I actually checked 271 and 269 the only question you seem to ask is "why should immigrants follow our customs"?
the question is silly. who said they must? the issue was
the removal of a head scarf for a mug shot. Coyote decided
that all she demanded was females do the booking and all
the men in the area disappear. --------good idea and when
the chick ends up on an emergency room she can demand
female doctors and all the male patients be shot----the guy who lifts her 400 pound carcass should be a girl too''

cops are busy people-----some precints are small------setting things up special for no reason is STOOOOPID

No you are being silly again. I didn't "decide" anything - I'm going by what is in the articles and that is what she demanded. It's not unreasonable.

Cops aren't too busy to find female officers to do body searches.

I see a problem because I have experienced problems with muslim patients in hospitals. As far as I know a BODY SEARCH is done in jail------not in the precinct where there is limited personnel and limited space. You are an idiot

Strip searches can be done as part of the intake/booking process, and a female does it when the person being booked is female: Body cavity search - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

A body cavity search is either a visual search or a manual internal inspection of body cavities such as for prohibited material (contraband), such as illegal drugs, money, jewelry, or weapons. It is far more invasive than the standard strip search that is typically performed on individuals taken into custody, either upon police arrest or incarceration at a jail, prison, or psychiatric hospital. Often the procedure is repeated when the person leaves the institution. Body cavity searches may also be conducted by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection when they suspect international travelers of hiding contraband—such as drugs—in their alimentary canal (digestional tract).[1]​

 

[Dogmaphobe]

For the justice system to be able to identify someone who has broken the law is a "compelling" reason to take their fucking picture. God you're an idiot!
First the bitch refused to remove her head gear. When that didn't work she insisted on having a female officer take her photo.
Why didn't she file suit to prevent any male from seeing the mugshots in perpetuity?

I have to disagree about Coyote being an idiot. Coyote has average to somewhat above average intelligence, but is so firmly committed to the Islamist objective that she has learned every trick in their book in order to achieve it. She even defends Islamists calling for genocide of Jews, so I would say hers is more a matter of a revolting agenda than it is idiocy as she knows exactly what she is doing.

Needless to say, however, if it was a moderate to slightly conservative Christian wanting to pray before a football game instead of an Islamic Extremist making demands that our entire police procedure submit to their extremist dictates, I'm sure she, along with the rest of the fifth column here would be singing a different tune. If it were a moderate Christian instead of an extremist Muslim, the hatred would come pouting out of them like water out of a broken dam.

 

[featherlite]

Where does she say that?[/QUOTE]

I tried to find it and couldn't...all I can find now is about her lawyer.. I looked up a couple things about the incident before I replied the other night and that just stood out to me.

In no way do I think she should have been disrespected or shamed by the cops and cbviously the police have a poor history of treating people fairly. If she had ( just for example) walked into a department store and security decided she should remove her head covering...that would be a no brainer in her favor.
I just thought everyone, for identification purposes and safety had to remove all head covering. The fact that she was arrested for breaking the law and is now trying to change the law( according to her lawyer) Id think that would at least raise an eyebrow with people.

I really don't know specifics about the law, plus story's like this helps me check my own biases.
I'm a total believer in everyone having a right to defend themselves.

 

[dannyboys]

[
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.

For the justice system to be able to identify someone who has broken the law is a "compelling" reason to take their fucking picture. God you're an idiot!
First the bitch refused to remove her head gear. When that didn't work she insisted on having a female officer take her photo.
Why didn't she file suit to prevent any male from seeing the mugshots in perpetuity?

You seem to be unusually DENSE. No one is arguing that she must keep her headgear on while being photographed. That won't fly and in fact, a case in 1999, where a an orthodox Jewish woman sued for that, went against the plaintiff. What she wants is to have a female police officer do the photography - no different than having a female officer do a search. It's not unreasonable and it does not interefere with what is required for identification. As far as the last question - such a lawsuit would be deemed frivolous and unenforceable and would cause an undue burdon to the state.

It is YOU who is being 'dense' and dishonest. You continually refuse to admit that the lawsuit she filed SPECIFICALLY stated that it was being filed BECAUSE SHE WAS MADE TO REMOVE HER ISLAMIC HEAD GEAR!!!!!!! You ignore this fact conveniently and focus instead on the fact that she asked but was denied having a female cop take her mug shots.
You are being intellectually dishonest. I would have thought you'd be better than that.
The bitch is just doing what her Imam told her to do. "Cause as much trouble as you can for the cops". Tie up the legal process as much as you can. If the cops won't let you keep your scarf on bitch about wanting a female cop to take your mug shots".
Why didn't her Imam tell her not to break the fucking law in the first place? B/c the Imam's only goal is to spread radical Islam in order to establish a Caliphate/Sharia law in the US. They already basically have one within Dearborn. That's the bottom line.
Another time and place and the bitch sand monkey would have had her fucking head blown off.

 

[danielpalos]

I still believe secular and temporal, social justice should have been cost shifted to the appropriate religious authorities, for appropriate religious "justice".

 

[dannyboys]

I still believe secular and temporal, social justice should have been cost shifted to the appropriate religious authorities, for appropriate religious "justice".

That's right. Have her Imam 'meet out justice'. He'll give her a gift of a thousand dollars and tell her to get back in the car again. Then when she's charged again she'll sue to have an all women/Muslim judge and jury. It never ends with these sand monkeys.
All she is is a fucking pawn doing what she's told to do in the name of 'what's his name in the sky'.
If they told her to strap dynamite on her kids and send them to school to murder the entire school population she'd do it no questions.

 

[danielpalos]

I still believe secular and temporal, social justice should have been cost shifted to the appropriate religious authorities, for appropriate religious "justice".

Would any law enforcement complain if they could just "give up" delinquents of Religion to the appropriate religious authorities, instead of having to administer secular and temporal social justice if that is not the recourse religionists are seeking.

 

[Pogo]

I still believe secular and temporal, social justice should have been cost shifted to the appropriate religious authorities, for appropriate religious "justice".

That's right. Have her Imam 'meet out justice'. He'll give her a gift of a thousand dollars and tell her to get back in the car again. Then when she's charged again she'll sue to have an all women/Muslim judge and jury. It never ends with these sand monkeys.
All she is is a fucking pawn doing what she's told to do in the name of 'what's his name in the sky'.
If they told her to strap dynamite on her kids and send them to school to murder the entire school population she'd do it no questions.

In a world of imbeciles you're a true sub-imbecile.

Nothing in this story is about "dynamite" at all. It's not really even at base a religious issue; it's a cultural one. Of course you're too dense to see the distinction but it's about simple modesty. That cultural value may derive from religion -- as many do -- but it's cultural nonetheless. Just as a "western" woman would expect that if she's body searched it's done by a female officer. Again, a cultural value and it's got zippo to do with whether that woman's a practicing Christian or not -- or, for that matter, whether anyone in that police department's a practicing Christian or not.

And btw the verb is mete, not "meet". Learn the English language.

 

[bendog]

I still believe secular and temporal, social justice should have been cost shifted to the appropriate religious authorities, for appropriate religious "justice".

That's right. Have her Imam 'meet out justice'. He'll give her a gift of a thousand dollars and tell her to get back in the car again. Then when she's charged again she'll sue to have an all women/Muslim judge and jury. It never ends with these sand monkeys.
All she is is a fucking pawn doing what she's told to do in the name of 'what's his name in the sky'.
If they told her to strap dynamite on her kids and send them to school to murder the entire school population she'd do it no questions.

In a world of imbeciles you're a true sub-imbecile.

Nothing in this story is about "dynamite" at all. It's not really even at base a religious issue; it's a cultural one. Of course you're too dense to see the distinction but it's about simple modesty. That cultural value may derive from religion -- as many do -- but it's cultural nonetheless. Just as a "western" woman would expect that if she's body searched it's done by a female officer. Again, a cultural value and it's got zippo to do with whether that woman's a practicing Christian or not -- or, for that matter, whether anyone in that police department's a practicing Christian or not.

And btw the verb is mete, not "meet". Learn the English language.

It seems more an issue of bigotry towards muslims than anything, though perhaps it is a total ignorance the notion of due process and equal protection. Requiring removing a jigab is generally justified on "safety" for the cops and other inmates. And that rationale has been discarded by other police depts. It's seems odd to me that his is in Dearborn where there's the highest concentration of muslims per capita in the country. It's a no brainer. LOL

 

[Coyote]

For the justice system to be able to identify someone who has broken the law is a "compelling" reason to take their fucking picture. God you're an idiot!
First the bitch refused to remove her head gear. When that didn't work she insisted on having a female officer take her photo.
Why didn't she file suit to prevent any male from seeing the mugshots in perpetuity?

I have to disagree about Coyote being an idiot. Coyote has average to somewhat above average intelligence, but is so firmly committed to the Islamist objective that she has learned every trick in their book in order to achieve it. She even defends Islamists calling for genocide of Jews, so I would say hers is more a matter of a revolting agenda than it is idiocy as she knows exactly what she is doing.

Needless to say, however, if it was a moderate to slightly conservative Christian wanting to pray before a football game instead of an Islamic Extremist making demands that our entire police procedure submit to their extremist dictates, I'm sure she, along with the rest of the fifth column here would be singing a different tune. If it were a moderate Christian instead of an extremist Muslim, the hatred would come pouting out of them like water out of a broken dam.

I missed have missed your reply to the question when it was first asked, so I'll repeat it. What evidence is there that this woman is an "Islamic Extremist"?

 

[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.

For the justice system to be able to identify someone who has broken the law is a "compelling" reason to take their fucking picture. God you're an idiot!
First the bitch refused to remove her head gear. When that didn't work she insisted on having a female officer take her photo.
Why didn't she file suit to prevent any male from seeing the mugshots in perpetuity?

You seem to be unusually DENSE. No one is arguing that she must keep her headgear on while being photographed. That won't fly and in fact, a case in 1999, where a an orthodox Jewish woman sued for that, went against the plaintiff. What she wants is to have a female police officer do the photography - no different than having a female officer do a search. It's not unreasonable and it does not interefere with what is required for identification. As far as the last question - such a lawsuit would be deemed frivolous and unenforceable and would cause an undue burdon to the state.

It is YOU who is being 'dense' and dishonest. You continually refuse to admit that the lawsuit she filed SPECIFICALLY stated that it was being filed BECAUSE SHE WAS MADE TO REMOVE HER ISLAMIC HEAD GEAR!!!!!!! You ignore this fact conveniently and focus instead on the fact that she asked but was denied having a female cop take her mug shots.
You are being intellectually dishonest. I would have thought you'd be better than that.
The bitch is just doing what her Imam told her to do. "Cause as much trouble as you can for the cops". Tie up the legal process as much as you can. If the cops won't let you keep your scarf on bitch about wanting a female cop to take your mug shots".
Why didn't her Imam tell her not to break the fucking law in the first place? B/c the Imam's only goal is to spread radical Islam in order to establish a Caliphate/Sharia law in the US. They already basically have one within Dearborn. That's the bottom line.
Another time and place and the bitch sand monkey would have had her fucking head blown off.

You have a link for that shit?

Just as an fyi - the so-called Sharia law in Dearborn is a hoax.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I missed have missed your reply to the question when it was first asked, so I'll repeat it. What evidence is there that this woman is an "Islamic Extremist"?

I already replied to that.

I realize you use harassment as one of the tools you have learned to further The Islamist agenda, but moderate Muslim women who live in the west look like this:

and they do not use the court system to try to destroy western ways.



Fundamentalist Islamists who have no desire to assimilate look like this:

and they do.