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.
Your example doesn't negate the fact that a PUBLIC school CANNOT discriminate against students for not being a certain religion.
They didn't.
Quote:
Remember when there was a complaint that Muslim students were given a "prayer room" in a public school? That school had to open the use of that room to ALL students, not just Muslims, or face charges of religion-based discrimination.
Why is it any different? Both are physically assaulting a child for essentially no reason that could ever possibly be justified. Aside from where the clothing came from, I'm not seeing that dramatic of a difference either way.
Do you think that, had this teacher torn off this girl's skirt, he would simply lose his substitute teaching position?
Btw, a Catholic girl's skirt is a part of a uniform, there is no religious significance to it.
Do you think that, had this teacher torn off this girl's skirt, he would simply lose his substitute teaching position?
Btw, a Catholic girl's skirt is a part of a uniform, there is no religious significance to it.
Sure there is. It's a modest outfit. In the end it's just a little less of a statement than a head covering. The head covering is for modesty reasons. The religion believes the body should be covered. Catholics take it to this extreme with nuns.
4. Wearing of habits is modest - Unfortunately, some 'plain clothes nuns' have been seen wearing immodest clothing, even in public. It is especially scandalous for brides of Christ to dress in such a manner. In contrast, traditional habits are always modest.
It is discrimination when an exception is made for only a religious group. Either all can wear headwear, or none can. Period.
I already pointed out to you with an example that this is not how it works.
Native American tribes can legally partake of substances that others can not because they can prove it's long been a part of their religious ceremonies.
It is actually far worse. It is more like tearing the skirt off a Catholic girl or making a Jewish student completely disrobe and parade around class naked. The teacher should be facing criminal charges in addition to being fired.
WTF is going on in my country?
No it's not the same as those two things at all. Wildly inappropriate, but not the same as stripping a person. It's just a symbolic garment, like the yarmulke or priests collar. It doesn't cover genitalia.
It is discrimination when an exception is made for only a religious group. Either all can wear headwear, or none can. Period.
We've been over this enough times. I refuse to believe that a person of average intelligence could possibly believe as you do without ulterior motives. The motivation in this case is obvious enough, but I'll be nice and just assume you're a troll.
Bring on the pucking uniform.. Let the beard or burger cap come later.
But may never happen. Trump is already planning for his appeasement tour of the worlds "3 greatest religions."
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.
