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.
There are regulations in the US banning certain clothing in places like schools. In some schools only a particular uniform is approved. Various public servants are restricted in what they can wear.
And I see little reason why various slaughter techniques cannot be regulated.
People can't properly practise their religion if these things are banned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manderly6
Personally I'm not a fan of ski masks in banks. Or speedos in the office.
Maybe not, but it shouldn't be the government enforcing those rules.
Religious tolerance does not create an unlimited right to do whatever is desired under the excuse it is religious. There are basic human rights and protections that the state is supposed to protect . . . especially involving the more dependent and helpless among us.Children fit that category. Genital mutilation in the name of religion is NOT acceptable, period. Wearing masks or coverings that prevent identification is not acceptable. Wanting to have your face covered for an identification picture for a driver's license is not acceptable. Wherever there is a compelling societal interest that is violated by a supposed religious practice . . . it is not acceptable, period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw
Everyone should be allowed to wear whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. That's human rights.
That is License NOT freedom. Freedoms are limited to reasonable practices within a society . . . as determined by the society.
Quote:
Female genital mutilation is not circumcision. Circumcision is not mutilation.
Any cutting of a baby's genitals is mutilation, period. Whether or not it should be done depends entirely on the medical necessity for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manderly6
Personally I'm not a fan of ski masks in banks. Or speedos in the office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdw
People can't properly practise their religion if these things are banned.
Maybe not, but it shouldn't be the government enforcing those rules.
Whether or not it should be banned by the government depends on whether or not there is a compelling societal interest. With banks and ski-mask there is . . . with speedos in the office there isn't.
A Cologne court banned male circumcision, France has laws banning religious clothing and Poland banned kosher slaughter. These are the bans I'm talking about. I don't like using the word "circumcision" for female genital mutilation, as it's not an even remotely comparable thing.
Yes it is. If advanced cultures with advance tools and oversight did female circumcision it would be a very comparable thing. The cultures have their reasons, mainly being that they are too poor/religious to afford contraception and can't afford new babies.
kosher wine is racist.
the good is kosher is fine.
halal/kosher slaughter doesn't stun the animal but cuts its jugular while alive (fine for ancient days when stunning was hard, but not today's standards).
hijab or masks aren't good because citizens and police need the face to be seen and plus unencumbered heads are necessary for vehicle operations.
Yes it is. If advanced cultures with advance tools and oversight did female circumcision it would be a very comparable thing. The cultures have their reasons, mainly being that they are too poor/religious to afford contraception and can't afford new babies.
kosher wine is racist.
the good is kosher is fine.
halal/kosher slaughter doesn't stun the animal but cuts its jugular while alive (fine for ancient days when stunning was hard, but not today's standards).
hijab or masks aren't good because citizens and police need the face to be seen and plus unencumbered heads are necessary for vehicle operations.
No, citizens and police do not need to see someone's face, it is really no one's business to see someone's face. The person is not doing anything wrong, so why the presumption of guilt? Given many states do not have laws against covering the face, and the ones that do seem to be for reasons other than what this thread is about, I doubt there is much of a need to see someone's face.
As for operating a car, BS, the line of site is not blocked, have you ever worn a ski mask? How is it blocking your line of sight? Same with a hijab, sunglasses block the field of view more.
Goodness, I wonder about some of these people walking around with the presumption that everyone is guilty, up to no good, thus should fully identify them self. Perhaps we should all be force to wear ID cards.
I can think of a number of situations where wearing a mask or veil could be a problem. Teachers for instance get major feedback from facial expressions. Masked or veiled faces would prevent that. There are also places where a mask would be inappropriate. Anywhere you are identifying yourself for instance. Driving a car if stopped would certainly be one. And any item that interferes or might interfere with vision while driving would be another.
Do we claim some Constitutional right to cover our face? An illegal search? I don't think so. The Constitution is generally read pragmatically. So a major deviation from the norm to prevent normal surveilance by the authority and others probably is not protected.
So, we are to restrict rights and tell people what they can wear and not wear because teachers need feedback from facial expressions? Are you even being serious? or just coming up with random stuff for the sake of argument? I could think a thousand better reasons than that.
As for the police pulling over someone, real simple, remove the face covering, cop makes ID, put face covering back on, it is not rocket science.
Ski masks, hijabs, etc do not interfere with sight, at least no more than sun glasses do.
Do you claim a constituion right to breath, drink water, have kids, get married, wear clothes at all? No, it is not in the constitution, so quit being ridiculous. But there is the 1st, 4th, and the 9th Amendments. Basically, you think the gov can force everyone to wear a suit and tie when walking in public? Only wear yellow underwear? Eat fish on on Monday?
So, we are to restrict rights and tell people what they can wear and not wear because teachers need feedback from facial expressions? Are you even being serious? or just coming up with random stuff for the sake of argument? I could think a thousand better reasons than that.
As for the police pulling over someone, real simple, remove the face covering, cop makes ID, put face covering back on, it is not rocket science.
Ski masks, hijabs, etc do not interfere with sight, at least no more than sun glasses do.
Do you claim a constituion right to breath, drink water, have kids, get married, wear clothes at all? No, it is not in the constitution, so quit being ridiculous. But there is the 1st, 4th, and the 9th Amendments. Basically, you think the gov can force everyone to wear a suit and tie when walking in public? Only wear yellow underwear? Eat fish on on Monday?
A little absurd today are we not. It is in fact well established that schools may regulate dress. Nothing the least unconstitutional about it. Fact.
Sun glasses may interfere with driving and window tint is regulated virtually everywhere. various veiling certainly can interfere with vision.
Where to draw the line? There appears no consistent place. So let 1000 flowers bloom I suppose.
School administrations may regulate dress, but they must provide exemptions for students who are unable to comply with the dress code on religious grounds.
School administrations may regulate dress, but they must provide exemptions for students who are unable to comply with the dress code on religious grounds.
Reasonable accommodations may be available for health or religious reasons. Note The reasonable.
Freedoms are limited to reasonable practices within a society . . . as determined by the society.
In a true democracy, certain people of our society don't have their rights ignored simply because of their minority status.
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.
