They can? The article says that Sikhs have sued before and won. I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than just saying that they're a private business and therefore can do whatever they want
i have been denied access to restraunts before for wearing hats.
as long as no-one can wear them, then no prob. ever see the signs that say we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. and in one case that this happened to me it was at h.d.hotspurs, ironicly my group of 14 were meeting there before going to the rodeo. all of us being cowboys and riding in the rodeo, we all had our gear all on.
now if a cowboy has to remove his stetson at a western bbq joint, then i see no reason a sikh doesn't have to take off his freaking rag. religion or not, if they have it posted that hats are not allowed, or for that matter enforce the rule to everyone, a hat is a hat, rag, yamika, stocking cap, or stetson, take it off or get the hell out of dodge.
as long as no-one can wear them, then no prob. ever see the signs that say we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. and in one case that this happened to me it was at h.d.hotspurs, ironicly my group of 14 were meeting there before going to the rodeo. all of us being cowboys and riding in the rodeo, we all had our gear all on.
now if a cowboy has to remove his stetson at a western bbq joint, then i see no reason a sikh doesn't have to take off his freaking rag. religion or not, if they have it posted that hats are not allowed, or for that matter enforce the rule to everyone, a hat is a hat, rag, yamika, stocking cap, or stetson, take it off or get the hell out of dodge.
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
They can? The article says that Sikhs have sued before and won. I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than just saying that they're a private business and therefore can do whatever they want
"Also Sikhs seeking to visit an inmate in a Washington state prison were denied access until officials were informed that the prison was violating federal civil rights laws, which guarantee equal access to places of public accommodation without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion or national origin."
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
They can? The article says that Sikhs have sued before and won. I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than just saying that they're a private business and therefore can do whatever they want
"Also Sikhs seeking to visit an inmate in a Washington state prison were denied access until officials were informed that the prison was violating federal civil rights laws, which guarantee equal access to places of public accommodation without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion or national origin."
"In 1997, he noted, a Princeton University computer science professor won a $10,000 settlement from a Mexican restaurant in New York City that had denied him entry when he refused to remove his turban."
I guess it was a settlement though
Mmm...ignorance. It seems here that a lot of people can't seem to understand the difference between removing a hat, and removing a turban. The first is something one does when they come home, and the other is defying their religion.
mmm Christians celebrate the birth of christ on Dec. 24/25th at midnight when the holiday was arbitrarily set by Macy's. Oh they also somehow came up with easter eggs for easter...they splash "holy water" on a baby to baptize them...etc. Jewish people chop off a part of the male's ****. Other religons burn incense. Plenty of stuff about religon that seems funny...but hey to each their own.
-Ed
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
Originally posted by: Millennium
Originally posted by: CanOWorms
They can? The article says that Sikhs have sued before and won. I'm pretty sure it's more complicated than just saying that they're a private business and therefore can do whatever they want
"Also Sikhs seeking to visit an inmate in a Washington state prison were denied access until officials were informed that the prison was violating federal civil rights laws, which guarantee equal access to places of public accommodation without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, religion or national origin."
"In 1997, he noted, a Princeton University computer science professor won a $10,000 settlement from a Mexican restaurant in New York City that had denied him entry when he refused to remove his turban."
I guess it was a settlement though
Exactly.
I agree...religion should be more about being a decent person and all that other fun stuff. All the same, I don't think it's right to ask someone to disregard their customs if it's not harming anybody.
The South is definitely worse than the north or west in racial intolerace from my own experiences. It's not that bad though.
I think of it as an extension of the person since the turban is basically required no matter what... it's not something that they remove unlike some other religious things. A handicapped person can have a helper dog, aren't they considered an extension of the person and therefore cannot be denied entry somewhere? You're not going to get a perfect comparison though What about those Jewish people that have beards and those sideburn dangling thingies? I wonder if a store/restaurant would deny someone because of that and what people would think.
What about those Jewish people that have beards and those sideburn dangling thingies? I wonder if a store/restaurant would deny someone because of that and what people would think.Umm... What's with all the "It's a private business" responses? Private businesses aren't allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, etc. Not admitting someone because he is wearing a religiously dictated turban is religious discrimination. There are these things called civil rights.. they are protected by the government. They are not civil liberties, which are to be protected from the government.
If I started a thread saying that a restaurant wasn't admitting people with skin darker than a certain shade, would you all be defending the restaurant saying it's a private business? The shade requirement applies to everyone doesn't it? Black people can remove their skin pigment just like a Sikh can remove his turban.
If I started a thread saying that a restaurant wasn't admitting people with skin darker than a certain shade, would you all be defending the restaurant saying it's a private business? The shade requirement applies to everyone doesn't it? Black people can remove their skin pigment just like a Sikh can remove his turban.
exactly. even a private business can be regulated through the interstate commerce clause and not premitted to discriminate. (The federal government has VAST powers :evil: )
while religion make not make the list for a strict-secrutiny level test I don't think this type religious bias would even pass a low-level test for constitutionality.
Even in this conservative area (Cincy) I remember a Sikh was arrested for wearing a knife (I believe they have to wear a turban, have a comb, and a knife) and later exonerated.
Koing
Elite Member <br> Super Moderator<br> Health and F
- Oct 11, 2000
- 16,843
- 2
- 0
Ditto.
If the place says no hats for EVERYONE then why should they let this guy in? He DOESN'T have to go their........he can go else where............
As for the turban on the plane thing thats just being fvcking stupid. If he had a bomb under the turban then what? Of course they are going to check it. Its as if someone wearing a stetson on the plane and not letting anyone check it out. It could have a dam bomb and blow up the plane.......
Koing
Can and should are two different things. The federal government oversteps its bounds when it tries to pull that BS and say interstate commerce. If you THINK about it, there are very few places that don't do interstate commerce. In fact, I can't think of any.
Q]
Can and should are two different things. The federal government oversteps its bounds when it tries to pull that BS and say interstate commerce. If you THINK about it, there are very few places that don't do interstate commerce. In fact, I can't think of any.[/quote]
Unfortunately the fed can govern a private business with the ICC even if it does not do ANY interstate business per se.
Being located near any major roadway will probably put a business under regulation of the ICC.
BTW I agree there are a lot of things that the fed should NOT do.
Can and should are two different things. The federal government oversteps its bounds when it tries to pull that BS and say interstate commerce. If you THINK about it, there are very few places that don't do interstate commerce. In fact, I can't think of any.[/quote]
Unfortunately the fed can govern a private business with the ICC even if it does not do ANY interstate business per se.
Being located near any major roadway will probably put a business under regulation of the ICC.
BTW I agree there are a lot of things that the fed should NOT do.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter