Muslim files lawsuit against Dearborn Heights for making her remove headscarf

[Yurt]

Police protocol was reasonable as well as compelling restraint on her religious freedom. Jails and prisons require LDS members to refrain from wearing temple garments while incarcerated.

Grow up, gang. It's just a thang.

you're wrong again

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I remember that case, but not the outcome.

She lost.

It makes sense - you have to have an ID photo that's...an ID. But there's nothing wrong with a woman requesting a female officer to take the photo. When certain things, like body searches are done - a female officer is usually selected to do it on women.

her only concern was that a male was taking the photo? if that is the case, then i was wrong, a female officer can take the photo like female officers can do a strip search.

I'm not sure - it's not clear in the article If it was about having an ID photo taken, then too bad. If it's taking off her scarf in front of men, then that's not to different than disrobing (from her point of view) and asking for a female officer is not unreasonable.

i read it again, and it was just a booking photo and she did ask for a female to take the photo. if that is all her lawsuit is about, then i believe she will win as the state has no compelling interest to deny her request to have her photo taken by a female.

Wny do you suppose they denied her request ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all. But we will see.

 

[Yurt]

She lost.

It makes sense - you have to have an ID photo that's...an ID. But there's nothing wrong with a woman requesting a female officer to take the photo. When certain things, like body searches are done - a female officer is usually selected to do it on women.

her only concern was that a male was taking the photo? if that is the case, then i was wrong, a female officer can take the photo like female officers can do a strip search.

I'm not sure - it's not clear in the article If it was about having an ID photo taken, then too bad. If it's taking off her scarf in front of men, then that's not to different than disrobing (from her point of view) and asking for a female officer is not unreasonable.

i read it again, and it was just a booking photo and she did ask for a female to take the photo. if that is all her lawsuit is about, then i believe she will win as the state has no compelling interest to deny her request to have her photo taken by a female.

Wny do you suppose they denied her request ?

i have no idea.

 

[Yurt]

Not at all. But we will see.

explain why you think you are right. what security concern is there to have a female take a booking photo?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Explain why you believe you are right and why there were no security concerns. You go first, Yurt, you challenged me. Play it straight for once, or I will make you like always look stupid. That will never change.

 

[Yurt]

Explain why you believe you are right and why there were no security concerns. You go first, Yurt, you challenged me. Play it straight for once, or I will make you like always look stupid. That will never change.

i already explained my reasons, but since you are going to be your typical petulant self....

with body searches, females can request and get a female to do the search. here, the head scarf is a matter of modesty, same as with a body search. the ultimate issue is getting a booking photo without any hats, scarfs or anything else that could alter ones appearance. getting a female to take the actual photo is a very minimal intrusion into ordinary police routine and given that in the ordinary police routine females do body searches, there is nothing out of the ordinary having a female take a photo. there is no security risk to the jail and her privacy interests far outweigh any concern the jail might have.

your turn.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

There's no "moving goalposts" on my part. I quoted the article.
I asked above, what if the police insisted on strip-searching her? By a male officer?

You on the other hand danced around the question without addressing it -- why didn't they have a female officer take the shot as requested? Don't they normally supply a female officer for a female search, for the same reason?

I know, I know what you're gonna say..... "but... but... Moooooooooooooslims!"

Now, you are simply lying. There was no strip search mentioned in the article at all.

You must be getting awfully desperate to go to such extreme lengths as to lie this brazenly about what happened in order to erode our much treasured separation of religion and state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yurt wrote, "with body searches, females can request and get a female to do the search. here, the head scarf is a matter of modesty, same as with a body search. the ultimate issue is getting a booking photo without any hats, scarfs or anything else that could alter ones appearance. getting a female to take the actual photo is a very minimal intrusion into ordinary police routine and given that in the ordinary police routine females do body searches, there is nothing out of the ordinary having a female take a photo. there is no security risk to the jail and her privacy interests far outweigh any concern the jail might have."

You make a good argument, Yurt.

The single error is comparing a body search with a request to remove a scarf. (1) Is her religious belief compelling enough to vacate the request? (2) Was a police woman readily available to take the photo?

 

[Yurt]

Yurt wrote, "with body searches, females can request and get a female to do the search. here, the head scarf is a matter of modesty, same as with a body search. the ultimate issue is getting a booking photo without any hats, scarfs or anything else that could alter ones appearance. getting a female to take the actual photo is a very minimal intrusion into ordinary police routine and given that in the ordinary police routine females do body searches, there is nothing out of the ordinary having a female take a photo. there is no security risk to the jail and her privacy interests far outweigh any concern the jail might have."

You make a good argument, Yurt.

The single error is comparing a body search with a request to remove a scarf. (1) Is her religious belief compelling enough to vacate the request? (2) Was a police woman readily available to take the photo?

1. there was no error on my part. her religious beliefs will be compared to the security concerns of the police, as i already stated.

2. i'm sure there was. if not, they could find a female to take the picture.

now, when are you going to explain why you think you are right? i of course did, but as usual, you didn't do what you demand of others.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

At least the fifth column in this country is consistent after a fashion.

When Americans travel to extremely backwards Islamic countries, they lecture us so very sanctimoniously about how we absolutely need to abide by their every custom, and when people from extremely backwards Islamic countries move here, the same people lecture us so very sanctimoniously about how we absolutely need to abide by their every custom.

 

[BullKurtz]

Amusing to watch Conservative wingnuts bring up strawman of abortions in every thread......

Murdering viable living children is a "strawman" to you, freak? You remind us once again your mind belongs in a compost pit.

 

[Lipush]

Yes, how dare they follow their faith! Silly Muslims, don't you know America is for Christians?

Yes, they should have freedom, you say, but never Charlie Hebdo to criticize them, you say...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yurt wrote, "with body searches, females can request and get a female to do the search. here, the head scarf is a matter of modesty, same as with a body search. the ultimate issue is getting a booking photo without any hats, scarfs or anything else that could alter ones appearance. getting a female to take the actual photo is a very minimal intrusion into ordinary police routine and given that in the ordinary police routine females do body searches, there is nothing out of the ordinary having a female take a photo. there is no security risk to the jail and her privacy interests far outweigh any concern the jail might have."

You make a good argument, Yurt.

The single error is comparing a body search with a request to remove a scarf. (1) Is her religious belief compelling enough to vacate the request? (2) Was a police woman readily available to take the photo?

1. there was no error on my part. her religious beliefs will be compared to the security concerns of the police, as i already stated.

2. i'm sure there was. if not, they could find a female to take the picture.

now, when are you going to explain why you think you are right? i of course did, but as usual, you didn't do what you demand of others.

Yurt you finally offered some evidence, for a nice change, and I will be glad to follow now that you have fulfilled your affirmation.

I think the police have a procedure and a protocol that they follow.

As of right now, that policy is not considered a violation of her religious liberties. If a lawsuit ensures, that may change.

The removal of her scarf within in the confines of the incident maintains law and order, something which she had not followed before, and hopefully will encourage her to follow in the future.

 

[Synthaholic]

Because, you know, Muslims have every intention of assimilating into America, it's laws culture and traditions.

This one woman represents Muslims?

Does Fred Phelps represent Christians?

I hope she loses decisively.

 

[Sunni Man]

I hope she wins decisively!! .....

 

[Syriusly]

Amusing to watch Conservative wingnuts bring up strawman of abortions in every thread......

Murdering viable living children is a "strawman" to you, freak? You remind us once again your mind belongs in a compost pit.

You remind us once again that you are totally delusional and a troll to boot.

 

[Syriusly]

At least the fifth column in this country is consistent after a fashion.

When Americans travel to extremely backwards Islamic countries, they lecture us so very sanctimoniously about how we absolutely need to abide by their every custom, and when people from extremely backwards Islamic countries move here, the same people lecture us so very sanctimoniously about how we absolutely need to abide by their every custom.

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.

 

[Yurt]

Yurt wrote, "with body searches, females can request and get a female to do the search. here, the head scarf is a matter of modesty, same as with a body search. the ultimate issue is getting a booking photo without any hats, scarfs or anything else that could alter ones appearance. getting a female to take the actual photo is a very minimal intrusion into ordinary police routine and given that in the ordinary police routine females do body searches, there is nothing out of the ordinary having a female take a photo. there is no security risk to the jail and her privacy interests far outweigh any concern the jail might have."

You make a good argument, Yurt.

The single error is comparing a body search with a request to remove a scarf. (1) Is her religious belief compelling enough to vacate the request? (2) Was a police woman readily available to take the photo?

1. there was no error on my part. her religious beliefs will be compared to the security concerns of the police, as i already stated.

2. i'm sure there was. if not, they could find a female to take the picture.

now, when are you going to explain why you think you are right? i of course did, but as usual, you didn't do what you demand of others.

Yurt you finally offered some evidence, for a nice change, and I will be glad to follow now that you have fulfilled your affirmation.

I think the police have a procedure and a protocol that they follow.

As of right now, that policy is not considered a violation of her religious liberties. If a lawsuit ensures, that may change.

The removal of her scarf within in the confines of the incident maintains law and order, something which she had not followed before, and hopefully will encourage her to follow in the future.

jake, i always offer evidence. you on the other hand....

everything you stated has zero to do with the heart of the argument, that is, why can't a female take the photo? all you did was regurgitate the facts as they stand. there really is no argument that you made. removal of the scarf does not maintain law and order, it is solely for identification purposes. removing her scarf isn't going to make her follow the law in the future. your comments are patently absurd and show your lack of knowledge in this area.

jake, the issue is quite simple: females can request and get a female to conduct a strip search. this is for modesty and is the law. for her, the scarf is a modesty issue. can you explain to me WHY her request for a female to take the photo is unreasonable.

thanks.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

They could have gotten a woman to take the picture and the problem would have been solved. I don't see what the issue was.