And for the last time. CITE THE LAW.
Put up your shut up. I grow tired of your baseless claims.
What in the blue **** are you talking about? What "law" do you want me to cite for the proposition that religious practices are religious? This isn't something that is covered by a law.
How many times do I have to explain that nuns do not cover their entire body with that garb? How many times must this be explained to you?
And how many more times am I going to keep responding to your frantic dodges if you can't actually respond to my ****ing points rather than pretending we're only talking about the one thing that you (erroneously) think is your best argument? Answer: zero.
Because we already have instances where the burka in full form is challenging the very security situations I mentioned and I even cited them for you and you still refuse to see it.
And in those challenging security situations, should there be a compelling government interest, it can be limited. I've explained this four times so far. If you haven't gotten it yet, you're not going to get it.
Its some amazing arrogance of yours to assume you are right and the majority of 5 European nations are all wrong.
So if you disagree with the majority of those 5 nations on anything, does that make you arrogant? I'm sure there are some things that you don't share with them.
Unlike you I do read the law. There are requirements against countless things in the private sector. You somehow think anarchy is the way to go and refuse to see how a democracy actually works.
Try pinching a woman's ass in the workplace or refusing to hire based on race and then come back to the big people table.
And that wins the award for the worst argument in this entire thread. Are you really having a hard time understanding the difference between
sexual harassment and rules allowing an individual to wear religious garb?
EXACTLY THE POINT. We don't accommodate every single sect of Christianity in the workplace or in public nor do we for any other relgion. We have limitations on behavior. How you continue to miss this basic point is beyond rational thought.
And if a workplace wants to ban the burqa because it interferes with work, it can do so. See, here in America, private employers are not considered the same as the state. That's kind of an important distinction in the law that you fail to grasp.
You don't have a clue how the first amendment works so I have to keep teaching you. Its sad but necessary.
The first amendment is not without limits. For God's sake please open up a law book once in a while before trying to debate that the first amendment is without limitations.
Oh yes, you're the person I need to be learning about the first amendment from. Not my law professors, who have argued some of the most important first amendment cases of the past century, but you.
Believe it or not, you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
So you still can't back up your claim with even one source. Sad but not unexpected.
...except for the link that directly proved my claim.
That doesn't prove the claim you made that the garment being any female is the majoirty argument used against the burka.
Did you even read the article? That was only the president's opinion, not the opinion of the majority. You haven't proven a thing except you have no idea how to back up your claims.
You're so goddamn disingenuous. HE'S THE GUY WHO PROPOSED THE ****ING BILL. HOW HARD IS THIS TO UNDERSTAND?
Once again you prove in spades the limitations of your thinking.
If you had bothered with something other than wiki, you would have found this:
The core failure of the ordinances were that they applied exclusively to the church. The ordinances singled out the activities of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated ends. Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. The ordinances targeted religious behavior, therefore they failed to survive the rigors of strict scrutiny.
So the law was poorly written not that it would never be acceptable if written properly. But then again, that would have required you to read more than google.
This would be hilarious if it weren't so embarrassing. I studied that case under one of the amici. I think I know a little bit more about it than you do.
The reason why the law failed was because it was drafted to apply directly to the practitioners of this particular religion rather than as a neutral law of general applicability. Guess which one a burqa ban falls under?
Supreme Court Decisions - Trans World Airlines v. Hardison
With Justice White writing the majority opinion, the Court decided 7-2 that TWA adequate efforts to accommodate Hardison's religious beliefs and that the company was justified in firing him when he refused to comply with his work assignments.
Think real hard about a possible difference between a case where a private employer is trying to limit dress and where the state is trying to do so. I know you can come up with one.
Supreme Court Decisions - Larkin v. Grendel's Den
The Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Warren Burger writing the majority opinion, ruled 8-1 that the Massachusetts law was indeed unconstitutional because it substituted religious fiat for public legislative authority.
The Court has acknowledged the need for local communities to offering zoning protection to schools and churches, but this case was different because a religious organization can be given power to determine whether a permit may be issued. While the statute had a permissible secular purpose of protecting churches and schools from the disruptions often associated with liquor establishments, the Court concluded that these purposes could be accomplished by other means, e.g. an outright ban on liquor outlets within a prescribed distance, or the vesting of discretionary authority in a governmental agent required to consider the views of affected parties.
Supreme Court Decisions - Larkin v. Grendel's Den
With the majority opinion writen by Chief Justice Burger, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Connecticut's law was unconstitutional because it advanced a particular religious practice.
And that's an establishment clause case, not a free exercise case like we're discussing here. That's like citing to a 4th amendment case to prove that the 2nd amendment protects your right to have a gun. Did you miss that day in law school?
And another establishment clause case. Just give up.