Crime NY City o pay $17.5M for forcing Muslim women to remove hijabs...

[jk7707]

Any depiction of humans in islam is prohibited. It started with prohibition of drawing a human, and eventually transitioned to prohibition of photographing a human.

Ask Imamito, if you don't believe me.
He'll confirm. @Islam Imamate, where you at?

You saying "Islam" and acting like the billions of people that believe in some form of the religion, all agree on this particular point, is part of the reason why you sound like a complete idiot here.

 

[Poon Goon]

I don't "hate hate". Too strong a feeling.
Let's put it this way. I don't like them. I don't dislike them, but I do not like them, fosho.

Your feelings about them have you concocting asinine arguments and shitting your pants with rage in here so I think it actually could be hate, bub.

 

[jk7707]

Those on the right are as lost and as wrong as those on the left.

So when everyone is woke, what does woke mean?

 

[fungi]

Who are the citizens here? Because it doesn't look like you're including myself and other Muslims in that when you say this

So who is really a threat to my freedom here?

A citizen is a person enjoying the rights/privileges of a society while obeying the rules of that society.

If you want your "special" rules, then go live in a "special" society.

Your indoctrination is a threat to your freedom.

 

[Islam Imamate]

A citizen is a person enjoying the rights/privileges of a society while obeying the rules of that society.

If you want your "special" rules, then go live in a "special" society.

Your indoctrination is a threat to your freedom.

In other words you don't think the 1st amendment applies to us and don't consider us part of the citizenry and you want the police to be able to carve out special exemptions to the 1st amendment purely to make life harder for us.

 

[fungi]

So when everyone is woke, what does woke mean?

Woke policies of the elite are rather simple, bring down society, make it fall, depopulate.

Whatever policy it takes, defund or fund the police, criminalize or decriminalize the drugs, pro-choice or pro-life, don't matter.

Get the population under 500 mil...

/End of hysterical shrieking.

 

[Madmick]

Ah yes, suddenly conservatives are not pro-1A because it's not Christianity.

What the hell does removing a piece of clothing obscuring criminal record-keeping have to do with the First Amendment?

Are you an idiot? One sacrifices rights when he has committed a crime, and certain rights are suspended subject to arrest or investigation with probable cause, because otherwise, someone could make a tenet of a made-up religion, 'It's a heresy against God for one man to infringe on the corporeal freedom of another man in any way,' and then sue the state if any cop ever laid a finger on him for any reason. He'd argue it's a infringement of his First Amendment rights to put him in handcuffs or a police car.

And no, you can't root a counterargument in saying this is invalid because it dictates what the police do, not what the practitioner is observing. The point is the religion could simply say the police are preventing the person from observing his religious practice that requires some absurd ritual which couldn't possibly be accommodated in a jail or prison setting. Just as it isn't the state's burden to supply female officers. The male officers haven't committed a transgression by performing their duty. The perpetrator's religion is irrelevant to these duties they bear as agents of the State.

Remember the clerk who wouldn't sign certificates certifying gay marriage? That woman is owed a huge state payout, now. Uggh. Do you not see what a terrible precedent this sets?

Stop being an ass just because those conservatives you don't like are justifiably outraged. This is an outrageous development.

 

[fungi]

In other words you don't think the 1st amendment applies to us and don't consider us part of the citizenry and you want the police to be able to carve out special exemptions to the 1st amendment purely to make life harder for us.

Is that how you understood my post?

And who is "us" in your case?

Follow any religion, I don't care, but keep it to yourself, do not inconvenience others with it.

For ex, when Amy Schumer's uncle refuses to work on Saturdays, he abuses his rights. Forces the whole bloody Senate to schedule its work around his lazy ass. Wastes taxpayers' money.

P.s. You see, "reasonable" accomodations should be exactly that, reasonable.
I am willing to extend you a REASONABLE amount of courtesy for your PERSONAL religious beliefs. I am willing to be courteous and reasonable.

$17 mil in damages is NOT reasonable.

 

[jk7707]

Woke policies of the elite are rather simple, bring down society, make it fall, depopulate.

Whatever policy it takes, defund or fund the police, criminalize or decriminalize the drugs, pro-choice or pro-life, don't matter.

Get the population under 500 mil...

/End of hysterical shrieking.

 

[avenue94]

There should not be a class action suit in the first place.

This kind of stuff is literally why class action suits exist.

If they want to follow sharia, let them live in a sharia ruled society.

I see no indication of that in the case, just some Americans who want to live in a Constitutionally guided society.

Do you know that taking photos of humans is prohibited in islam? So if tomorrow some muslim criminal invokes his/her "religious rights" not to be photographed/mugshotted, will the cops comply?

Taking photos of people is not prohibited in most Islamic sects. Like...do you think Muslim countries don't have TV or some shit? lol

As for the second question, this has been repeatedly answered but you are too dense or too partisan to acknowledge it. There is a significant compelling state interest in photographing a criminal during processing, more so then photographing their hair at that moment in time. A court would weigh that state interest vs the individual interests and side with the former.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Is that how you understood my post?

And who is "us" in your case?

Follow any religion, I don't care, but keep it to yourself, do not inconvenience others with it.

For ex, when Amy Schumer's uncle refuses to work on Saturdays, he abuses his rights. Forces the whole bloody Senate to schedule its work around his lazy ass. Wastes taxpayers' money.

P.s. You see, "reasonable" accomodations should be exactly that, reasonable.
I am willing to extend you a REASONABLE amount of courtesy for your PERSONAL religious believes. I am willing to be courteous and reasonable.

$17 mil in damages is NOT reasonable.

1st amendment jurisprudence has established that reasonable accommodations be made for practitioners of religion. The $17 million is not the reasonable accommodation, its the judgment made against the NYPD for denying these women their reasonable accommodation. You don't seem to understand the first thing about the relevant law here and yet you have the gall to talk down to others.

EDIT: And for the record Chuck Schumer is Amy's 2nd cousin, not uncle.

 

[Poon Goon]

P.s. You see, "reasonable" accomodations should be exactly that, reasonable.
I am willing to extend you a REASONABLE amount of courtesy for your PERSONAL religious beliefs. I am willing to be courteous and reasonable.

But letting someone keep their hair covered for a picture is completely unreasonable to you even though their face is fully exposed and you have already admitted that cosmetic changes can be made to the head/face to change how someone looks anyway.

 

[fungi]

1st amendment jurisprudence has established that reasonable accommodations be made for practitioners of religion. The $17 million is not the reasonable accommodation, its the judgment made against the NYPD for denying these women their reasonable accommodation. You don't seem to understand the first thing about the relevant law here and yet you have the gall to talk down to others.

LMAO. Way to divert the subject.
The issue is not the relevance of the law.
The issue is the reasonability of the judgement.

P.s. Again, photographing humans is haram in islam. When a muslim criminal demands not to be photographed, should he/she be accomodated as well???

Come on, Imamito, answer this.

 

[avenue94]

One sacrifices rights when he has committed a crime, and certain rights are suspended subject to arrest or investigation with probable cause, because otherwise, someone could make a tenet of a made-up religion, 'It's a heresy against God for one man to infringe on the corporeal freedom of another man in any way,' and then sue the state if any cop ever laid a finger on him for any reason. He'd argue it's a infringement of his First Amendment rights to put him in handcuffs or a police car.

Really? I know you're a contrarian but you usually have some mooring in reality.

The scenario is not how American society works. First, the government would have to recognize that religion, most likely before the dispute (ie you can't retroactively claim a religion). Second, the courts would weigh the state's interest vs individual rights here. And it would come down on the side of the state for matters like the one you are hysterically painting.

The point is the religion could simply say the police are preventing the person from observing his religious practice that requires some absurd ritual which couldn't possibly be accommodated in a jail or prison setting.

No the religion cannot. Let me point out how fucking ridiculous your argument is. If your pipe dream was how religion intersected with the American legal system, everyone who committed murder would have already used a First Amendment defense and claimed their religion demands human sacrifice. Do you see any murderers using that defense, let alone using it successfully?

Remember the clerk who wouldn't sign certificates certifying gay marriage? That woman is owed a huge state payout, now. Uggh. Do you not see what a terrible precedent this sets?

Stop being an ass just because those conservatives you don't like are justifiably outraged. This is an outrageous development.

Again. Weigh the state's interest vs the individual's right. Kim Davis didn't get in legal hot water because she wouldn't sign marriage certificates, it was because she wouldn't allow anyone in her office to do that, nor did she resign. Not to mention you're comparing apples and oranges, civilian 1A protections vs those of a government actor.

 

[avenue94]

$17 mil in damages is NOT reasonable.

What's a reasonable settlement then in monetary terms?

P.s. Again, photographing humans is haram in islam. When a muslim criminal demands not to be photographed, should he/she be accomodated as well???

It is not in the vast majority of the faith, you dunce.

 

[fungi]

But letting someone keep their hair covered for a picture is completely unreasonable to you even though their face is fully exposed and you have already admitted that cosmetic changes can be made to the head/face to change how someone looks anyway.

No, it's not completely unreasonable, in a social situation.

But, if you commit a crime, you forfeit certain rights. And FOR CLEAR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES, criminals should be photographed with uncovered face/head.

Later cosmetic changes are irrelevant atm, as the info on those changes should be UPDATED, in case of another crime by the criminal, or whatever parole terms are.

 

[fungi]

What's a reasonable settlement then in monetary terms?

It is not in the vast majority of the faith, you dunce.

The dunce is you. It's in all of islam.

Prohibitive majority of muslims choose to use photography for IDs, memories, entertainment, etc.

 

[fungi]

Your feelings about them have you concocting asinine arguments and shitting your pants with rage in here so I think it actually could be hate, bub.

Sure...

 

[fungi]

Oh, I have my tinfoil hat on.

 

[Islam Imamate]

LMAO. Way to divert the subject.
The issue is not the relevance of the law.
The issue is the reasonability of the judgement.

P.s. Again, photographing humans is haram in islam. When a muslim criminal demands not to be photographed, should he/she be accomodated as well???

Come on, Imamito, answer this.

The one who is diverting here is you by dodging the core issue here which is the 1st amendment protections that require reasonable accommodations. This isn't some new idea here, its a straightforward application of preexisting jurisprudence.

Asking not to be photographed at all for identification purposes would not be a reasonable accommodation and therefore would not be granted. Again you don't seem to understand the first thing about the 1st amendment and you seem upset that a Muslim was able to invoke its protection.