For the last time:
Something does not have to be explicitly mandated by a primary religious text for it to be considered a protected religious activity.
And for the last time. CITE THE LAW.
Put up your shut up. I grow tired of your baseless claims.
There is nothing in the Bible that requires nuns to wear that garb, nothing that requires priests to wear their collars in church, nothing that requires people to wear crosses around their necks, nothing that requires orthodox women to dress that way, etc. However, despite that, all of the activities I mentioned are religious in nature. It would be unconstitutional to ban any of them, much like it would be unconstitutional to ban the wearing of the niqab here in the US.
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?
You really don't seem to understand the concept of a compelling government interest. For the last time, the government is well within its authority to infringe on constitutional rights should it make a showing that it is warranted. In the case of licenses, etc., that proof is fairly obvious. In the case of someone sitting on their porch or walking in a park, it's not. How is this confusing?
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.
Its some amazing arrogance of yours to assume you are right and the majority of 5 European nations are all wrong.
Oh, so you think the government should be able to trample on individual rights in private workplaces? Funny how cases like this tend to winnow the real supporters of conservatism and individual rights from those who just support it when it meshes with their opinions.
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.
It's not hard. Where we're having the problem is that you don't realize that something doesn't have to be universal to be religious. Use your head - every ****ing sect of Christianity is a different interpretation of the Bible - does that mean that only the practices of one particular sect are protected?p
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.
I'm telling you that you don't understand how the first amendment works here in this country. If you think that such a ban would not be immediately overturned here, you very clearly don't. I don't really give a **** if you disagree, because I'm not looking for legal advice from you.
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.
You obviously haven't done even the most basic research on this. Where do you think I could have gotten the idea that the justification for the French ban is that the burqa supposedly violates the woman's freedom and dignity?
So you still can't back up your claim with even one source. Sad but not unexpected.
France moves toward partial burqa ban - CNN.com
Yea, guess I just pulled that one out of my backside.
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.
I'm really just perplexed at your absolute refusal to engage in any critical thought on this topic.
I engage you when you actually argue. When you throw out what if theories and claim those are arguments its worth perhaps a chuckle but nothing serious enough to debate because there is no substance.
Funny you should mention that...
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But hey, what do I know - you're the expert on religion and law.
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.
Try reading some of these:
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.
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.
Supreme Court Decisions - Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.
And that is just 3 decisions. There are many more limiting religious practice and cultural observances.
So, we see that there are limitations put on religous practice and tradition depsite your claims of the opposite.
Next time before making these ridiculous anarchy for all and everyone can do what they want, read some case law.
