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.
I'm no expert on Islam.. but if their religious text requires certain garmets it would be a violation of the 1st Amendment to forcibly remove them.
You answered your own question - Muslim law. We have the freedom of religion in America. Did you forget?
Handling certain meats is in violation of their religious text, which is protected by the 1st Amendment.
You clearly don't give a rip about the constitution.
Has nothing to do with the US Constitution. The first amendment does not give someone the right to circumvent US laws.
One of the main purposes of a driver's license is for clear identification. It has nothing to do with religion. It's a law. You are now required to remove your glasses for your DL picture in Texas. So if she is allowed to wear her veil, that is unlawful special treatment.
This is not a Muslim country, and the United States does not have to observe Muslim law.
If they don't want to handle the meat, don't take the job. It goes with it.
Has nothing to do with the US Constitution. The first amendment does not give someone the right to circumvent US laws.
One of the main purposes of a driver's license is for clear identification. It has nothing to do with religion. It's a law. You are now required to remove your glasses for your DL picture in Texas. So if she is allowed to wear her veil, that is unlawful special treatment.
This is not a Muslim country, and the United States does not have to observe Muslim law.
If they don't want to handle the meat, don't take the job. It goes with it.
Um, it has everything to do with the U.S. constitution. The Constitution is supreme law in this country. It absolutely gives someone the right to circumvent US laws. Hence, why laws can be ruled "unconstitutional."
Wearing a viel is not unlawful special treatment. If her religious text strictly states she must wear the garmet, removing it would be complying with an unconstitutional law.
The United States is not a Muslim country, Christian country, or Jewish country. Our country has no established religion.
If they don't want to handle the meat and it can be cited in the religious text, their employer must respect their religion and assign them elsewhere.
The constitution is not debatable. Put your bigotry aside and get over it.
Um, it has everything to do with the U.S. constitution. The Constitution is supreme law in this country. It absolutely gives someone the right to circumvent US laws. Hence, why laws can be ruled "unconstitutional."
Wearing a viel is not unlawful special treatment. If her religious text strictly states she must wear the garmet, removing it would be complying with an unconstitutional law.
The United States is not a Muslim country, Christian country, or Jewish country. Our country has no established religion.
If they don't want to handle the meat and it can be cited in the religious text, their employer must respect their religion and assign them elsewhere.
The constitution is not debatable. Put your bigotry aside and get over it.
Um, it has everything to do with the U.S. constitution. The Constitution is supreme law in this country. It absolutely gives someone the right to circumvent US laws. Hence, why laws can be ruled "unconstitutional."
Wearing a viel is not unlawful special treatment. If her religious text strictly states she must wear the garmet, removing it would be complying with an unconstitutional law.
The United States is not a Muslim country, Christian country, or Jewish country. Our country has no established religion.
If they don't want to handle the meat and it can be cited in the religious text, their employer must respect their religion and assign them elsewhere.
The constitution is not debatable. Put your bigotry aside and get over it.
So you don't believe in restrictions on arms rights?
She is a first class nutburger just interested in profiting off hatred, her group was protesting the construction of a mosque near the world trade center unfortunately they didn't realize there was already a mosque.
This is just to stir more hatred and avoid a solution, I am sure she will profit from this but not well thought out. She might just get targeted by the radical fringe.
What part of in the religious text did you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Wearing a viel is not unlawful special treatment. If her religious text strictly states she must wear the garmet, removing it would be complying with an unconstitutional law.
If it is in there, she has a case. If not, she doesn't. Like I said, I'm not an expert on Islamic law.
Nope, just an analogy I would like you to explain. You said the constitution was not debatable when someone mentioned restrictions on "religion." So why are gun restrictions debatable but "religious" restrictions are not?
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.
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.
