U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:21 PM
 
43 posts, read 13,399 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
Oh no, you're not getting away with that with me, junior.

You asserted that inmates lose ALL rights, and even said it was because of the 14th amendment (which giveth rights, it doth not taketh them away).

Doubly wrong.
Clam down, junior.

They do, up to and sometimes including life.

Quadruple wrong you be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:24 PM
 
7,901 posts, read 8,642,295 times
Reputation: 3185
Quote:
Originally Posted by alialejandro View Post
Clam down, junior.

They do, up to and sometimes including life.

Quadruple wrong you be.
The record of this thread speaks for itself.

Unless you think that case and that statute provided to you are entirely imaginary.

Your assertion was, and is, that inmates lose ALL rights, including ALL free exercise rights.

Clearly you are wrong, since there is at least one case (I can get more, if you like), and a statute providing for the protection of free exercise rights of inmates.

Is English your second language or what?

If you don't want to get busted, stop posting things that are blatantly untrue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:24 PM
 
43 posts, read 13,399 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
You've already been proven wrong on this.
I missed the proven part.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:25 PM
 
7,901 posts, read 8,642,295 times
Reputation: 3185
Quote:
Originally Posted by alialejandro View Post
I missed the proven part.
I know you did.

But the rest of the posters didn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,093 posts, read 70,086,609 times
Reputation: 27524
I guess there may not be any ME precedence on this because a woman committing a crime over there would be dead in the street nevermind hauled off to jail and a mugshot taken.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:29 PM
 
43 posts, read 13,399 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel View Post
The record of this thread speaks for itself.

Unless you think that case and that statute provided to you are entirely imaginary.

Your assertion was, and is, that inmates lose ALL rights, including ALL free exercise rights.

Clearly you are wrong, since there is at least one case (I can get more, if you like), and a statute providing for the protection of free exercise rights of inmates.

Is English your second language or what?

If you don't want to get busted, stop posting things that are blatantly untrue.
No case was stated that said a person that has broken the law can keep a covering on their heads at all time.

They lose all rights, although those rights are not taken automatically. You seem to have a problem understanding can and will. I can shoot a person in the face if they break into my house, but I don't have to in the slightest. can =/= will, savvy?

Only if your arguments are based upon the ignorance of facts, sure.

Busted? Speak High English please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,153,278 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by alialejandro View Post
I missed the proven part.
I didn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:31 PM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,159,691 times
Reputation: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by alialejandro View Post
They didn't check it? Source on that at all? Sounds vague to me.

I quoted from the opinion in my very first post. If you missed it, let me post it for you again.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...5/08-56423.pdf

Quote:
Two days before the deadline for completing their community service, Khatib and her husband appeared in Orange County Superior Court to seek an extension. The court revoked Khatib’s probation and ordered her taken into custody. Khatib was handcuffed and taken to the Santa Ana Courthouse’s holding facility.

At the booking counter, a male officer ordered Khatib to hand over her belongings and remove her headscarf. Having her head uncovered in public, especially in front of men outside of her immediate family, is a “serious breach of [Khatib’s] faith and a deeply humiliating and defiling experience.” Weeping, Khatib explained that her religious beliefs forbade her from taking off her headscarf and pleaded with the officers to allow her to keep it on. Khatib was warned that the male officers would remove the headscarf for her if she did not voluntarily do so. Wanting to avoid being touched by the male officers—another violation of her religious beliefs—Khatib reluctantly complied.

Khatib spent the majority of the day in a holding cell in view of male officers and inmates. Experiencing “severe discomfort,” “distress,” and “humiliat[ion],” Khatib attempted to cover herself by pulling her knees into her chest and covering her head with a vest she was wearing. At a hearing that afternoon, the court reinstated Khatib’s probation and provided an extension of time to complete community service.
As I've said, this is not the least restrictive means of achieving prisoner safety. When imposing on a person's religious beliefs, the government has the obligation to use the least restrictive means possible to achieve their purpose.

Quote:
The free exercise is given up the second you refuse to obey the laws, as per the 14th.
First of all, that's not true at all. Secondly, there's a congressional statute exactly on point. As I posted before:

Quote:
[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden
on the religious exercise of a person residing in or
confined to an institution, as defined in [42 U.S.C.
1997], even if the burden results from a rule of
general applicability, unless the government demonstrates
that imposition of the burden on that person
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental
interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering
that compelling governmental interest.
42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1(a)

The government shall not impose a substantial burden on the religious persons of people in an institution. That means that prisoners generally have a right to free exercise of their religion unless the government imposing the burden proves that they are doing so in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest, using the least restrictive means possible. This level of review is known as strict scrutiny, and it's hard for the government to meet that level of burden. It doesn't seem like they met that burden here at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:31 PM
 
43 posts, read 13,399 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
I didn't.
Proof?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2011, 02:33 PM
 
7,901 posts, read 8,642,295 times
Reputation: 3185
Quote:
Originally Posted by alialejandro View Post
Clam down, junior.

They do, up to and sometimes including life.

Quadruple wrong you be.
Aliawhatever: Inmates have no rights.

Posters: here is a statute and a case involving inmate free exercise rights.

Aliawhatyerface: ......


QED
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top