Muslim files lawsuit against Dearborn Heights for making her remove headscarf

[Dogmaphobe]

The tolerance Islam demands will never be reciprocated.

Yep.

It's all about forcing people to submit, and this lawsuit is part of the aggressive process.

 

[Pogo]

The meccaist bitch should lose her driver's license-----don't you guys remember? "driving is a privilege NOT A RIGHT"
if the bitch cannot comply with the rules----she should walk

If she were in her own country she would be walking. Behind her husband, brothers, father. Not beside them. Now she lives in America. Where's the gratitude?

Where do you get that idea Jeri?
What country is that exactly?

 

[Pogo]

The tolerance Islam demands will never be reciprocated.

Yep.

It's all about forcing people to submit, and this lawsuit is part of the aggressive process.

Is it....

From the article:

Kazan objected, saying her Islamic faith required her to cover her hair and neck in the presence of men who are not part of her immediate family, the lawsuit said.
For Kazan, "wearing a head scarf is a reminder of her faith, the importance of modesty in her religion ... as well as a symbol of her own control over who may see the more intimate parts of her body," the lawsuit said. "To have her hair and neck uncovered in public ... is ... deeply humiliating, violating, and defiling experience."
Kazan said she asked to have a female officer take her photo, which he refused to do, said the lawsuit. The officer talked to a supervisor, who told him to proceed as usual.​

?

From this at least it looks like it's about modesty and gender.

Modesty is so aggressive.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Is it.

From the article:

Kazan objected, saying her Islamic faith required her to cover her hair and neck in the presence of men who are not part of her immediate family, the lawsuit said.
For Kazan, "wearing a head scarf is a reminder of her faith, the importance of modesty in her religion ... as well as a symbol of her own control over who may see the more intimate parts of her body," the lawsuit said. "To have her hair and neck uncovered in public ... is ... deeply humiliating, violating, and defiling experience."
Kazan said she asked to have a female officer take her photo, which he refused to do, said the lawsuit. The officer talked to a supervisor, who told him to proceed as usual.​

?

You are an awfully confused young man. You seem to be suffering under the delusion that there is actually no separation of church (or mosque) and state and that adhering to a religion provides one the ability to dictate to the secular state how it can or cannot operate. If an Santeriast demanded that they be allowed to sacrifice a chicken in court because otherwise it would "violate" their religion, they would have no more right to do so that this woman seeking to mask her identity.

A person would have to be awfully stupid to think the notion of freedom of religion means that all a person has to do is claim their religion justifies some sort of unique right and it's a done deal. Freedom of religion guarantees that the state cannot impose or mandate religion, or dictate the set of beliefs promoted by the religion. it DOESN'T mean that religion gets to dictate to the state simply because it is religion.

 

[airplanemechanic]

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.

 

[irosie91]

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.

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.

If this lady is granted the right to refuse to remove her head covering-------consider the ramifications. Any person could
refuse. I have been instructed to remove my hat simply to
get into the local courthouse (I is a girl----bad hair day)----
they wanted to check for bombs and handguns. If this lady wins her case--------the world will come to an end

 

[Katzndogz]

Once arrested she is under the jurisdiction of the penal system and doesn't have her rights in the same way as a free person.

 

[blastoff]

Sorry Muslim women. It's part of the process when you break the law that they take a mug shot, for identification purposes, and a pic of a covered face IDs no one. Got nothing to do with your religion, so if you don't like it you can always go back where you came from or some other country.

 

[Pogo]

Is it.

From the article:

Kazan objected, saying her Islamic faith required her to cover her hair and neck in the presence of men who are not part of her immediate family, the lawsuit said.
For Kazan, "wearing a head scarf is a reminder of her faith, the importance of modesty in her religion ... as well as a symbol of her own control over who may see the more intimate parts of her body," the lawsuit said. "To have her hair and neck uncovered in public ... is ... deeply humiliating, violating, and defiling experience."
Kazan said she asked to have a female officer take her photo, which he refused to do, said the lawsuit. The officer talked to a supervisor, who told him to proceed as usual.​

?

You are an awfully confused young man. You seem to be suffering under the delusion that there is actually no separation of church (or mosque) and state and that adhering to a religion provides one the ability to dictate to the secular state how it can or cannot operate. If an Santeriast demanded that they be allowed to sacrifice a chicken in court because otherwise it would "violate" their religion, they would have no more right to do so that this woman seeking to mask her identity.

A person would have to be awfully stupid to think the notion of freedom of religion means that all a person has to do is claim their religion justifies some sort of unique right and it's a done deal. Freedom of religion guarantees that the state cannot impose or mandate religion, or dictate the set of beliefs promoted by the religion. it DOESN'T mean that religion gets to dictate to the state simply because it is religion.

I was confused -- until I read the article (just as I was once young). But as I'm not the one supposing chicken sacrifice has anything in the world to do with court, I don't think it's me.

Read the exerpt -- she requests a female officer on the basis of modesty. She's refused. Refresh my memory since it's been a long time -- well, never -- since I've been frisked as a female .... don't they provide a female officer for that?

What's the difference?

 

[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.

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.

If this lady is granted the right to refuse to remove her head covering-------consider the ramifications. Any person could
refuse. I have been instructed to remove my hat simply to
get into the local courthouse (I is a girl----bad hair day)----
they wanted to check for bombs and handguns. If this lady wins her case--------the world will come to an end

Why would you be carrying "bombs and handguns" when you got pulled for a suspended driver's license?

 

[dannyboys]

No one's stopping them from practicing their crazyass faith, but they should not expect special treatment when it comes to a situation like this.

Hey! Take that yarmulke off! And you over there -- that crucifix necklace has gotta go!
And you back there with the dot on your forehead, wipe it off! And don't let me see you Catholics out here on Ash Wednesday!

Any questions?

Ya. I have one. How did you get to be such an idiot?
Police procedure when booking anyone is to make sure the person being booked has nothing on them which could harm themselves or anyone else.
The stupid fucking head-dress the zombie was wearing could have concealed a weapon. Anything worn such as jewelry could be used as a weapon. That's why the fucking negro gang-bangers have to take off their phony fucking gold (coated) 'bling'. Nothing can be used cosmetically, such as a 'dot' on a forehead which in anyway distracts from the actual facial appearance when the mug shots are taken. If the police allowed a 'dot' then legally they would have to allow someone to rub black shoe polish under their eyes and claim they are wearing it b/c they are a football player. Why not rub black shoe polish all over one's face right?
You really ought to get your head out of your ass hole.

 

[irosie91]

Once arrested she is under the jurisdiction of the penal system and doesn't have her rights in the same way as a free person.

it seems to me that "free person" is not the only issue. The right a "free person" has is the right to walk away. Not the
right to refuse to comply with the rules of the game. A free
person still has to stop at a red light. There have been other cases of special treatment demands. -----like "same sex doctor" demands in busy hospital facilities. The "free person" has the right to walk (or be carried) out of the emergency room---or----wait a few hours

 

[Pogo]

Once arrested she is under the jurisdiction of the penal system and doesn't have her rights in the same way as a free person.

I'm pretty sure she's still a woman though.
If that were not the case Tranny Steve would be all over this.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry Muslim women. It's part of the process when you break the law that they take a mug shot, for identification purposes, and a pic of a covered face IDs no one. Got nothing to do with your religion, so if you don't like it you can always go back where you came from or some other country.

A head scarf doesn't cover a face. That's why it's called a "head" scarf. It's a clue. Plus you couldn't drive a car that way.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Once arrested she is under the jurisdiction of the penal system and doesn't have her rights in the same way as a free person.

I'm pretty sure she's still a woman though.
If that were not the case Tranny Steve would be all over this.

The asked her to remove her headscarf not her panties.

 

[irosie91]

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.

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.

If this lady is granted the right to refuse to remove her head covering-------consider the ramifications. Any person could
refuse. I have been instructed to remove my hat simply to
get into the local courthouse (I is a girl----bad hair day)----
they wanted to check for bombs and handguns. If this lady wins her case--------the world will come to an end

Why would you be carrying "bombs and handguns" when you got pulled for a suspended driver's license?

why would I be hiding a bomb under my hat when entering
a municipal building? You actually changed the subject. Mug shots have requirements-----I am no expert----
but I seem to recall that there are various parts of the anatomy that must be "in the picture"

 

[Anathema]

Hey! Take that yarmulke off! And you over there -- that crucifix necklace has gotta go!
And you back there with the dot on your forehead, wipe it off! And don't let me see you Catholics out here on Ash Wednesday!

Any questions?

I have a question. How many of those items you mentioned obscure the identity of the individual or make visually identifying them more difficult?

The concept of a mug shot is as an identifying document. Therefore anything that obscures the face is not allowed. If they're really that concerned stay at home where they belong and they won't have to deal with the police.

 

[Pogo]

Once arrested she is under the jurisdiction of the penal system and doesn't have her rights in the same way as a free person.

I'm pretty sure she's still a woman though.
If that were not the case Tranny Steve would be all over this.

The asked her to remove her headscarf not her panties.

Distinction without much difference.
What if they did? Would the Borg OP still insist "you will be assimilated, resistance is futile"?

 

[Pogo]

Hey! Take that yarmulke off! And you over there -- that crucifix necklace has gotta go!
And you back there with the dot on your forehead, wipe it off! And don't let me see you Catholics out here on Ash Wednesday!

Any questions?

I have a question. How many of those items you mentioned obscure the identity of the individual or make visually identifying them more difficult?

The concept of a mug shot is as an identifying document. Therefore anything that obscures the face is not allowed. If they're really that concerned stay at home where they belong and they won't have to deal with the police.

I wasn't addressing "mug shots". I hadn't even read that far at that point. I was addressing the OP's "you will be assimilated" (c)rap.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Hey! Take that yarmulke off! And you over there -- that crucifix necklace has gotta go!
And you back there with the dot on your forehead, wipe it off! And don't let me see you Catholics out here on Ash Wednesday!

Any questions?

I have a question. How many of those items you mentioned obscure the identity of the individual or make visually identifying them more difficult?

The concept of a mug shot is as an identifying document. Therefore anything that obscures the face is not allowed. If they're really that concerned stay at home where they belong and they won't have to deal with the police.

All Pogo knows is that the prime directive demands that there is one special group of people who absolutely MUST be protected, and so any rationalizations that result stem from this notion. Instead of developing arguments from the ground up, they are retrofitted from the end result on back. When one argument is defeated, simply shift to another.

There is a large portion of the left that has long since abandoned anything approaching liberal ideology, and now simply plays the game of identity politics. What matters to them ISN'T a principle or ideal, but merely the identity of the person involved. If that identity is Muslim, it gets moved right to the front of the line.

If this were a case of a militant Christian instead of Militant Muslim, the very people who are defending would be on it like shit on stink. You know it. They know it. Everybody knows it, but it's all so very wink wink because they cannot possibly acknowledge it. Like Pavlov's pooch,the process is just too ingrained.