Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
... LastLast
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Revi View Post
    Indeed. This is a stretch even by current standards of reporting.
    Frankly, I think he just went with, "we'll look into that," to shut the woman up. I hate trump, but this seems much ado about nothing. He's racist enough on his own, you don't need to construe some idiot's words as his.

  2. #62
    The Unstoppable Force Belize's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    21,922
    I guess you could say it gives him the.... heebie-jeebies.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Garnier Fructis View Post
    Trump says enough stupid shit, there's no need to make the thread title sound like Trump said 'hibi jabis'
    Sure there is! Since nothing Trump said here is actually particularly objectionable, the key is to write deceptively to make it seem as though he said something crazy or borderline illiterate. Since all he actually said is that it's worth considering whether people should be able to wear hijabs through security, that doesn't make much of a story.

  4. #64
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by hachidori View Post
    Seems like we have yet another thread trying to make Trump look like Satan.

    For a bunch of guys who hate Trump you sure do like talking about him all day.
    I admire the kind of willpower you need to passively use in order not to see Trump as evil. Like, I'm from Finland and I don't really care who stupid Americans vote for but seriously, that guy is literally too stupid and malicious for the job.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Sure there is! Since nothing Trump said here is actually particularly objectionable, the key is to write deceptively to make it seem as though he said something crazy or borderline illiterate. Since all he actually said is that it's worth considering whether people should be able to wear hijabs through security, that doesn't make much of a story.
    Wow! You do not even get the story. The woman was ranting about the TSA and getting rid of the people that work their due to their religion. You know firing someone based on your religious beliefs. Instead of telling that person about the law. He said "I will look into it". Which is pretty much his narrative about many issues where he seems to pay not credit to the U.S. Constitution and Civil Rights.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Sure there is! Since nothing Trump said here is actually particularly objectionable
    The objectionable part is that whenever his supporters say something bigoted/racist/whatever, he goes along with it by making half-assed promises to do something about it.

    Freedom of religious expression is legally protected in the US, it would have been easy enough for him to wax poetic about what a great country the United States is regarding religious freedom of expression and that all religions are protected equally, pointing out that any sort of law regarding hijabs would have to equally apply to Catholic nuns going through TSA wearing a habit, or Quakers wearing a head covering.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Shon237 View Post
    Wow! You do not even get the story. The woman was ranting about the TSA and getting rid of the people that work their due to their religion. You know firing someone based on your religious beliefs. Instead of telling that person about the law. He said "I will look into it". Which is pretty much his narrative about many issues where he seems to pay not credit to the U.S. Constitution and Civil Rights.
    So nothing really happened, but the important thing is that you know he's a racist. Got it.

  8. #68
    The hijabs that cover up the entire face and head should not be allowed as identification in places like TSA or general public gatherings is important. Besides how do I know you're not making a face at me under there?

    The virtue signalling on the left has forced us to do away with any moniker of assimilation.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    The objectionable part is that whenever his supporters say something bigoted/racist/whatever, he goes along with it by making half-assed promises to do something about it.

    Freedom of religious expression is legally protected in the US, it would have been easy enough for him to wax poetic about what a great country the United States is regarding religious freedom of expression and that all religions are protected equally, pointing out that any sort of law regarding hijabs would have to equally apply to Catholic nuns going through TSA wearing a habit, or Quakers wearing a head covering.
    Whether special privileges extend to religions or not has been a pretty contentious legal issue for a long time. I'm personally not enthusiastic and I don't think it's a great thing that government employees get to flout rules simply because of their religious beliefs. Down that road lies dumb-fucks like the woman in Kentucky contending that she doesn't have to marry gay couples because it's against her religion.

    If there's a rule of conduct for employees, those whose religious beliefs aren't consistent with it should leave rather than the other way around; I'm well aware that the very recent rulings have changed this obvious, plain-text reading of the First Amendment and I think it's a classic example of why modern justices are untrustworthy.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    So nothing really happened, but the important thing is that you know he's a racist. Got it.
    Yeah, you're right, we're idiots for actually valuing the first amendment and not wanting a President who will do his best to rip it to shreds the moment he takes office.

    Sorry.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Northy View Post
    The hijabs that cover up the entire face and head should not be allowed as identification in places like TSA or general public gatherings is important. Besides how do I know you're not making a face at me under there?

    The virtue signalling on the left has forced us to do away with any moniker of assimilation.
    Another person who does not get the story. It was a rant from the women about FIRING or replacing people who work at the airport based on their religion.

    Trump as time and time again, supported in many different ways of blatantly discriminating against a certain religion.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Northy View Post
    The hijabs that cover up the entire face and head should not be allowed as identification in places like TSA or general public gatherings is important. Besides how do I know you're not making a face at me under there?

    The virtue signalling on the left has forced us to do away with any moniker of assimilation.


    Those are called niqabs. Not trying to be a smartass or anything.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by darkwarrior42 View Post
    Yeah, you're right, we're idiots for actually valuing the first amendment and not wanting a President who will do his best to rip it to shreds the moment he takes office.

    Sorry.
    Right, because as we all know, if you can't wear a headscarf to a place that other people can't wear hats, that's religious persecution or something. My bad.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    If there's a rule of conduct for employees, those whose religious beliefs aren't consistent with it should leave rather than the other way around; I'm well aware that the very recent rulings have changed this obvious, plain-text reading of the First Amendment and I think it's a classic example of why modern justices are untrustworthy.
    I think it very much depends on the rule in question. There are many cases where an exception can be made without compromising the job at all, and there's little reason not to do so.

    *shrug* I have no problem with the concept here, except for the fact that I have no doubt if Trump actually did look into this, he wouldn't look to eliminate religious exceptions. He'd look to eliminate Islamic exceptions, or possibly non-Christian exceptions.

    I can see arguments in favor of and against exceptions, and personally would probably go case-by-case, but Trumps supporters are not talking about ending Religious exceptions, they're talking about targeting a specific religion. Again. And he's happy to go along with it because it's what his supporters like.
    Last edited by darkwarrior42; 2016-07-01 at 10:03 PM.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Whether special privileges extend to religions or not has been a pretty contentious legal issue for a long time.
    Unless you're advocating for changes to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, freedom of religious expression isn't going anywhere.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Right, because as we all know, if you can't wear a headscarf to a place that other people can't wear hats, that's religious persecution or something. My bad.
    And as soon as Trump starts pushing for everyone to be forced to remove their headgear, including Christian garments, I'll gladly retract my statement.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    Unless you're advocating for changes to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, freedom of religious expression isn't going anywhere.
    No, I'm advocating for a reversion to the plain reading of the text that was obvious to pretty much everyone until some brilliant scholar found new meaning in a pretty short piece of text. I don't think there's actually a legitimate Constitutional right to violate the conditions of employment and gain special privileges based on religious beliefs.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    No, I'm advocating for a reversion to the plain reading of the text that was obvious to pretty much everyone until some brilliant scholar found new meaning in a pretty short piece of text. I don't think there's actually a legitimate Constitutional right to violate the conditions of employment and gain special privileges based on religious beliefs.
    It is called the Civil Rights Act of 1964

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in many more aspects of the employment relationship. It applies to most employers engaged in interstate commerce with more than 15 employees, labor organizations, and employment agencies. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin
    Yes. SCOTUS once ruled on someone wearing a hijab against Abercrombie and Fitch of all business.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by IIamaKing View Post
    How many threads you rabid Trump haters need? Cant you keep the circle jerk to one official "I hate Trump" Megathread?

    Like every one gets it, the guys is a joke and you all hate him, noted.
    Or how about the trump idiot stops making insane comments? really we know the far right is so scared that the actual truth might leak out about how racist and dangerous he is so they want to bury all the facts somewhere where folks will nto see it.

    Really we know the right wing drill nowadays always lie and always make sure the facts never gets out to the public

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Shon237 View Post
    It is called the Civil Rights Act of 1964



    Yes. SCOTUS once ruled on someone wearing a hijab against Abercrombie and Fitch of all business.
    Employment law applies to employees, labor organizations etc. Was the OP referring to TSA agents wearing religious headpieces, or people going through TSA for flight purposes?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •