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.
My daughter traveled to Saudi and was forced to wear some of these "garments". When she showed me pictures, I must tell you how deeply uncomfortable I felt. These veils subjugate women and their free expression. It is wrong. Thanks to France for setting the example.
But one is asked for identification all the time. That would be too hard to enforce.
Not at all. "Show me your face or you don't go in." Easy.
Quote:
Nowadays, whenever you use your credit card to make a purchase you get asked for your ID. Should you only have to take remove it if you intend to make a purchase? Sure, maybe it's for different security reasons but I believe it is the same underlying policy.
Ah, but in that instance, you are most likely dealing with a private vendor. They are not subject to the Free Exercise clause, though they would have to be careful not to make their policies specific to any specific group. Also easy, "show me your face or no sale."
The Establishment clause keeps religion out of government, more or less. You evidently know something about this, so to summarize I think that the US doesn't need "cultural protection" laws against Islam, Sharia or any other religion-based "threats." We're already covered, so to speak (unless the Chrstian Right eventually gets its way).
Free Exercise keeps government out of religion, including government not being able to tell people how to practice their religion. This plus the general right of free expression are sacrosanct in our legal system - the only way the state can place restrictions on the exercise of these First Amendment rights is to show a compelling state interest, and it better be good. It had better be public safety or national security or something on that level to support even a time and place ban.
Our system strongly disfavors what the courts call "prior restraint" that is, censoring some expression before it even occurs - as would be the case with a general ban on a certain kind of clothing. If a law is "narrowly tailored" to meet the compelling state interest it might pass constitutional muster. If it is not "narrowly tailored" to meet that compelling state interest then it violates, in this case, the Free Exercise and general First Amendment rights of anyone that wants to wear such a thing - and would probably be unconstitutionally overbroad and vague anyway.
There have been cases in the US about this - mainly involving the KKK appearing masked in public. I'd have to go back and look them up, but as I recall general bans were disfavored by the courts in favor of fairly narrow time and place restrictions, etc.
But I fear that France will not get the reaction they hope for, but something messier instead.
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.
