Muslim Woman Jailed For Refusing to Remove Head Scarf in Court (and then cussing at the court)

[Amused]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs
I'm surprised that Amused, who claims to be a libertarian, is siding with the court. I didn't think pointless rules fit with libertarianism.

LOL!!!

Wow, libertarianism is not anarchy. It believes in a structured government.

A court cannot work without order. It does so by attempting to remove ANYthing it finds disruptive to the process. Obviously, if one thinks about it hard enough, many types of hats can be and ARE disruptive. Hats with brims that hide eyes, hats with gang affiliation, hats that block views from people behind them, etc. So rather than be forced to split hairs on every hat in the room, the court just banned all hats in an effort to stop the disruptions.

The rule applies equally to all.

As a libertarian, I have no problem with it at all.

so one can rise to level of judge without being able to discern, a bandanna, doorage, ball cap from a religious headgear? Pretty high standards we have to become judge :roll: I'm sure a middle school can discern whats appropriate and whats not.

So now the court is to waste time and money having hearings over hats??? In our society you don't think every-other hat ruling would be contested??? Come on.

Specific measurments must be done, exceptions made etc. Don't you see that it was just easier to ban hats altogether?

And a gang can choose ANYTHING it wants to be code for itself. Another reason why many courts have just banned hats altogether.

The main purpose of these rules are to maintain order and limit time wasted. Not to appease people's fashion sense.

What are you talking about thier is no debate required. A fucking burkha is not a fucking hat. you'd have to be damn near retarded to need to debate that in a court hearing.

And you have no idea what a Burqa is...

Anyhow, headgear is headgear. That's why they said "headgear" and not hats. *I* said hats because it was easier.

"No headgear" is the court's rule. And that applies equally to all. MUCH easier than quibbling over every hat that enters the court.

And if you don't think that if hat specific rules were applied that there would be a LOT of quibbling, you're deluded and have no idea what people are really like.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Sawyer
I just want some consistency from the supporters of the Muslim woman, should all other religions hats/head dress be allowed in court as well?

absolutely.

What if I start a religion that requires I wear a hat shaped like a giant penis? Should I be allowed to wear it?

Religious exceptions lead to anarchy because they lead to people getting around rules by claiming religious rights. Dozens of new religions were started in our prison system in an effort to break rules after a court found prisons must make religious exceptions.

Either a rule applies equally to all, or it does not. Equality under the law is what this nation was founded on.

It's arguments like this that make the slippery slope argument a freaking joke.

She wasn't wearing a hat shaped like a penis. It was a simple scarf that another couple million women around the globe wear.

I wager dollars to donuts that if this was a Nun in a habit as a plaintiff it would have been a non-issue.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: sdifox


It is entirely possible the bailiff is power tripping. Best way to avoid being bitten by a dog leashed to a post is to not walk up to the dog, kick it and stay there.

This is clearly the case. Either he was an asshole on a power trip or a totally rookie noob. Lets face it Bailiffs are not smart or they would have a better place in the court room. They are arguably the least skilled person in the courthouse at any given time. The judge did not make this call the Bailiff did. The Bailiff OBVIOUSLY has poor judgment and discretion as is shown in this article. Which is also why the judge did not hold the woman because IN HIS DISCRETION AND JUDGMENT he didn't find her guilty of anything and probably told the bailiff off the record to not be such a fucking dumbass.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox


It is entirely possible the bailiff is power tripping. Best way to avoid being bitten by a dog leashed to a post is to not walk up to the dog, kick it and stay there.

This is clearly the case. Either he was an asshole on a power trip or a totally rookie noob. Lets face it Bailiffs are not smart or they would have a better place in the court room. They are arguably the least skilled person in the courthouse at any given time. The judge did not make this call the Bailiff did. The Bailiff OBVIOUSLY has poor judgment and discretion as is shown in this article. Which is also why the judge did not hold the woman because IN HIS DISCRETION AND JUDGMENT he didn't find her guilty of anything and probably told the bailiff off the record to not be such a fucking dumbass.

So what are you arguing about?

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Sawyer
I just want some consistency from the supporters of the Muslim woman, should all other religions hats/head dress be allowed in court as well?

absolutely.

What if I start a religion that requires I wear a hat shaped like a giant penis? Should I be allowed to wear it?

Religious exceptions lead to anarchy because they lead to people getting around rules by claiming religious rights. Dozens of new religions were started in our prison system in an effort to break rules after a court found prisons must make religious exceptions.

Either a rule applies equally to all, or it does not. Equality under the law is what this nation was founded on.

It's arguments like this that make the slippery slope argument a freaking joke.

She wasn't wearing a hat shaped like a penis. It was a simple scarf that another couple million women around the globe wear.

I wager dollars to donuts that if this was a Nun in a habit as a plaintiff it would have been a non-issue.

She was not plaintiff. She was refused entry. Cuzzing at the bailiff is what got her into trouble.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Sawyer
I just want some consistency from the supporters of the Muslim woman, should all other religions hats/head dress be allowed in court as well?

absolutely.

What if I start a religion that requires I wear a hat shaped like a giant penis? Should I be allowed to wear it?

Religious exceptions lead to anarchy because they lead to people getting around rules by claiming religious rights. Dozens of new religions were started in our prison system in an effort to break rules after a court found prisons must make religious exceptions.

Either a rule applies equally to all, or it does not. Equality under the law is what this nation was founded on.

It's arguments like this that make the slippery slope argument a freaking joke.

She wasn't wearing a hat shaped like a penis. It was a simple scarf that another couple million women around the globe wear.

I wager dollars to donuts that if this was a Nun in a habit as a plaintiff it would have been a non-issue.

Read the rest of my arguments. The no headgear rule makes sense. The penis thing was just a joke. There are many valid reasons why many types of headgear would be disruptive in a courtroom. Rather than play the hat game every day, they found it easier to just ban all headgear. I don't blame them.

And to have a rule and not have trouble, you apply that rule EQUALLY to all.

My main opposition is to the thought that we make religious exceptions to rules.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
yes its owned by the public meaning me and you and everyone else.

Per your line of thought, so are the prison systems...but you don't make up your own rules there, either.

no they aren't for the most part they are privatized its a billion dollar industry. Prisoners don't have rights. The lost their rights when they did something to be removed from society. Anyways this isn't about jail vs. the real world as we'd have more luck comparing our govt. to china.

Basically, you're saying that we pay for the prison system and jails, but have no control because they're controlled by someone else? Ok - we pay for the courtroom, which is ran by the judge.

if you want to talk about jail start another thread.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

This is at the judge's discretion...nothing to do with law.

Would you be in favor of every ludicrous rule or law decided upon or just this one?

again. the RULE is up to the judge's discretion. You understand it's his court right?

Answer the question

Pretty sure I answered your question. I'll spell it out again.

The judge can make this kind of rules in his courthouse.

Laws are different.

Would you be in favor of every ludicrous rule or law decided upon or just this one?

wtf apparently I am not speaking English.

Your question is flawed, thus my answer split your question in 2.





my ealier reply to your quetion


This is at the judge's discretion...nothing to do with law. And there are plenty of stupid laws still in effect that should be scrapped, but while they are still there, they are still the law. They just might not get enforced much.

its a yes or no questions. I'm waiting for a yes or a no.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
Would you be in favor of every ludicrous rule or law decided upon or just this one?

its a yes or no questions. I'm waiting for a yes or a no.

Okay, genius.

No.

Figure that one out- then tell me how it is a yes or no question. Also, by answering without explanation, one has to acknowledge your flawed assumption that this is a "ludicrous" rule.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

This is at the judge's discretion...nothing to do with law.

Would you be in favor of every ludicrous rule or law decided upon or just this one?

again. the RULE is up to the judge's discretion. You understand it's his court right?

Answer the question

Pretty sure I answered your question. I'll spell it out again.

The judge can make this kind of rules in his courthouse.

Laws are different.

Would you be in favor of every ludicrous rule or law decided upon or just this one?

wtf apparently I am not speaking English.

Your question is flawed, thus my answer split your question in 2.





my ealier reply to your quetion


This is at the judge's discretion...nothing to do with law. And there are plenty of stupid laws still in effect that should be scrapped, but while they are still there, they are still the law. They just might not get enforced much.

its a yes or no questions. I'm waiting for a yes or a no.

The way the question is framed, it is not a yes or no question.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Sawyer

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Do you support all relious headwear allowed in courts?

The fact that people are ignoring your stupid question should be a clue to you.

What is stupid about it? Either they do and are not hypocrites or they only think Islam should get the special treatment.

"if this woman was allowed should sport hats?"

You are comparing apples to oranges. That's stupid.

When you say shit like this:

"And wtf, does she sleep in it? Bathe in it? Take the stupid thing off for a short amount of time and be done with it"

It is full of clue that you should stay out of this kind of discussion or at least, try to be less transparent.

 

[darkxshade]

Did she cuss in the courtroom(not the courthouse/building) or did she cuss outside of it? I didn't read the article fully the first time around but now that I have it said she was stopped at the checkpoint which to me sounds like outside the courtroom where she is *not* standing before a judge. So she cussed at a bailiff, he brought her into the courtroom before the judge where contempt of court was handed to her?

edit: Can you really be held in contempt of court if you're not even in the room yet? I'm not justifying her cussing and although she is in a state building, I don't think it's fair to put someone in jail for 10 days for that. She was angry and for good reason.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Sawyer

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Sawyer
Do you support all relious headwear allowed in courts?

The fact that people are ignoring your stupid question should be a clue to you.

What is stupid about it? Either they do and are not hypocrites or they only think Islam should get the special treatment.

"if this woman was allowed should sport hats?"

You are comparing apples to oranges. That's stupid.

When you say shit like this:

"And wtf, does she sleep in it? Bathe in it? Take the stupid thing off for a short amount of time and be done with it"

It is full of clue that you should stay out of this kind of discussion or at least, try to be less transparent.

By allowing her to wear her headgear into the courtroom, in violation of existing policy, how would that not be catering to her religion?

 

[SAWYER]

No either you think all religious hats should be allowed or not. You are trying to side step the question, it is really a yes or no question

 

[Mucho]

Do orthodox Jews have to take their yarmulke off in court?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

This is at the judge's discretion...nothing to do with law.

Would you be in favor of every ludicrous rule or law decided upon or just this one?

again. the RULE is up to the judge's discretion. You understand it's his court right?

Answer the question

Pretty sure I answered your question. I'll spell it out again.

The judge can make this kind of rules in his courthouse.

Laws are different.

Would you be in favor of every ludicrous rule or law decided upon or just this one?

wtf apparently I am not speaking English.

Your question is flawed, thus my answer split your question in 2.





my ealier reply to your quetion


This is at the judge's discretion...nothing to do with law. And there are plenty of stupid laws still in effect that should be scrapped, but while they are still there, they are still the law. They just might not get enforced much.

its a yes or no questions. I'm waiting for a yes or a no.

The way the question is framed, it is not a yes or no question.

your right its yes, no, or just this one. Those are the appropriate options.

 

[Onita]

Originally posted by: Sawyer

Originally posted by: FuryofFive

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
everyones forgotten that america was formed so they could practice their religion without the interferences of government.

Yeah, in your house, or walking down the street. You enter a courtroom with rules and regulations, you stfu and abide. Too bad your stupid traditions aren't allowed there, deal with it.

not sure if someone already posted this?

what happened to seperation fo church and state? isnt a courthouse a state building?

Good point, remember the big uproar over the 10 Commandments being displayed in a court?

I'll leave it up to you to figure out why that point is not good at all

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Amused
Freedom does not mean special treatment. If the court has a rule that says no hats, and she gets to wear a hat, that is INEQUALITY, not equality. She has MORE freedom than others.

I'm okay with that.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: sdifox

This is at the judge's discretion...nothing to do with law.

Would you be in favor of every ludicrous rule or law decided upon or just this one?

again. the RULE is up to the judge's discretion. You understand it's his court right?

Answer the question

Pretty sure I answered your question. I'll spell it out again.

The judge can make this kind of rules in his courthouse.

Laws are different.

Would you be in favor of every ludicrous rule or law decided upon or just this one?

wtf apparently I am not speaking English.

Your question is flawed, thus my answer split your question in 2.





my ealier reply to your quetion


This is at the judge's discretion...nothing to do with law. And there are plenty of stupid laws still in effect that should be scrapped, but while they are still there, they are still the law. They just might not get enforced much.

its a yes or no questions. I'm waiting for a yes or a no.

The way the question is framed, it is not a yes or no question.

your right its yes, no, or just this one. Those are the appropriate options.

Rewrite the question. As it stand, I can't think of any honest answer that works.

 

[darkxshade]

Originally posted by: sdifox
Rewrite the question. As it stand, I can't think of any honest answer that works.

The judge didn't make the rule, the rule is already established before this. You're arguing it's up to the judges discretion to enforce it and you're right, it is, but he's not asking you that. He's asking you if you would wholeheartly agree with every established rule regardless of how ridiculous it may be. When they were established, the person or body who decided it probably did not think about the ramifications because they didn't think it would conflict with someones religion.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: darkxshade

Originally posted by: sdifox
Rewrite the question. As it stand, I can't think of any honest answer that works.

The judge didn't make the rule, the rule is already established before this. You're arguing it's up to the judges discretion to enforce it and you're right, it is, but he's not asking you that. He's asking you if you would wholeheartly agree with every established rule regardless of how ridiculous it may be. When they were established, the person or body who decided it probably did not think about the ramifications because they didn't think it would conflict with someones religion.

Actually the problem I have with his question is his lumping courtroom rules together with laws. That is why I answered in 2 parts.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
No either you think all religious hats should be allowed or not. You are trying to side step the question, it is really a yes or no question

The next time you are placed in a situation where you do not have a choice whether to wear a Jesus baseball cap or not, come back and ask again. If you can find some passage in the Bible that demands modesty which manifested over the years into ballcap wearing by all women, come back then, too. Until then stay at the Islamaphobic kids table.

Originally posted by: Mucho
Do orthodox Jews have to take their yarmulke off in court?

Good question. At least we would be comparing oranges to tangerines. Not exactly the same situation but close.

 

[SAWYER]

So you are saying only Muslims should be allowed to wear their head dress?

 

[Insomniator]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
So you are saying only Muslims should be allowed to wear their head dress?

Thats what some people here seem to think, based on some idiotic freedom based exception to rules idea.

This has nothing to do with freedom, I am against plenty of laws and bullshit government intervention.

The court however can have whatever rules it wants to have and people should have to abide by them.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: Sawyer
So you are saying only Muslims should be allowed to wear their head dress?

Thats what some people here seem to think, based on some idiotic freedom based exception to rules idea.

This has nothing to do with freedom, I am against plenty of laws and bullshit government intervention.

The court however can have whatever rules it wants to have and people should have to abide by them.

No matter how stupid and intolerant it makes them look.