Trump will look into getting rid of all "hibi-jabis" @TSA

[Spectral]

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.

Yes, I'm well aware that after 200 years, we suddenly realized that we'd been horrible oppressors by not forcing businesses to tolerate whatever bizarre religious practices their employees have. I think this realization is patently absurd and places an undue burden on those who don't hold to those religious practices.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

Chevalier's exact words were:

Why aren’t we putting our military retirees on that border or in TSA? Get rid of all these hibi-jabis they wear at TSA?

Who the fuck knows what she meant. She doesn't strike me as someone with a lot of coherent ideas on the matter. If she's referring to people passing through TSA, I think she's obviously correct that religion is not a great reason to hold people to less than standard scrutiny.

If she's referring to employees, I care even less about the matter (about which I already don't care very much), but think she's still basically in the right, but fighting a much steeper legal battle. As you and others correctly point out, around 50 years ago, we noticed that the First Amendment actually means that employee's religious practices are more important than employers freedom of association. I think this is obviously wrong, but I recognize that it's the current year and this battle is basically not worth fighting.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Well, I don't necessarily agree with the woman, I mean if someone is an American citizen with no ties to a terrorist group, they should be able to get a job with the TSA like anyone else.

However, I do like the idea of veteran preference in hiring for jobs such as the TSA.

Already exists:

https://hraccess.tsa.dhs.gov/hracces...p/Veterans.htm

[PACOX]

Lady is going to be pissed when she finds out about the regulartory head scarfs in the miliarty. Not a hijab but I bet this picture would make her spit.

[Spectral]

Lady is going to be pissed when she finds out about the regulartory head scarfs in the miliarty. Not a hijab but I bet this picture would make her spit.

<snip>

Sikh's have a hell of a warrior history. I'm not turning those guys down if they're volunteering.

[Deleted]

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.

Well actually no - See I (figure of speech) pay the salary of the TSA agents - I have a right to decide how the TSA are to act towards me.
In short, it is well within the rights of the TSA to issue whatever standards they like for Uniform, and if people are not complying, well there is a solution -

[Cthulhu 2020]

The delicious irony of people constantly posting Hillary hate going "omg you guys keep posting Trump hate we get it".

[nonameelf]

Well actually no - See I (figure of speech) pay the salary of the TSA agents - I have a right to decide how the TSA are to act towards me.
In short, it is well within the rights of the TSA to issue whatever standards they like for Uniform, and if people are not complying, well there is a solution -

Except that's illegal.

[Mehrunes]

Trump needs to stop kowtowing to blatant racists if he wants to appeal to moderate voters in a general election.

Does he, though? Oo I mean, it would logical, but Trump is not firmly rooted in that.

[Celista]

Does ho, though? Oo I mean, it would logical, but Trump is not firmly rooted in that.

I don't know, but if he doesn't swing moderate soon then he's definitely going to lose the general election. He should have begun the process of trying to re-position himself at least six weeks ago.

[Mehrunes]

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?

Well, the old lady first mentioned getting more veterans into TSA or on border (gotta man that wall) and only then mentioned getting rid of hibi-jabis they wear at the TSA. So I think she was referring to the TSA agents.

I don't know, but if he doesn't swing moderate soon then he's definitely going to lose the general election. He should have begun the process of trying to re-position himself at least six weeks ago.

I'd go more with six months, but I guess even six weeks is better than his current nothing in this regard.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Sikh's have a hell of a warrior history. I'm not turning those guys down if they're volunteering.

So, what's your rationale for allowing Turbans over Hijabs?

[Spectral]

So, what's your rationale for allowing Turbans over Hijabs?

I don't care about either one. If rules are clear and consistently enforced, I'm not particularly invested in the specifics of the rules.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I don't care about either one. If rules are clear and consistently enforced, I'm not particularly invested in the specifics of the rules.

Actually, you said earlier:

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.

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.

[Post]

The delicious irony of people constantly posting Hillary hate going "omg you guys keep posting Trump hate we get it".

The delicious irony of people constantly posting Trump hate going "omg you guys keep posting Hillary hate we get it".



Also I don't support either of them.

[Deleted]

Except that's illegal.

except its not - Only if it is an unreasonable infringement - A uniform could certainly qualify.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

except its not - Only if it is an unreasonable infringement - A uniform could certainly qualify.

Not according to the Supreme Court.

[Deleted]

So, what's your rationale for allowing Turbans over Hijabs?

because the Uniform demands a head wear - a Niqab or a Burka is not headwear.

[nonameelf]

except its not - Only if it is an unreasonable infringement - A uniform could certainly qualify.

Supreme Court said it's illegal. Having a hijab does not in anyway impair their ability to perform their job.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

because the Uniform demands a head wear - a Niqab or a Burka is not headwear.

A Niqab or a Burka are also not Hijabs.

[Deleted]

Not according to the Supreme Court.

You sure?
http://www.sikhcoalition.org/advisor...lowing-turbans
Because that did not go to Scotus (indeed from the breif read, it appears the state realised they were being stupid and dropped it)

- - - Updated - - -

A Niqab or a Burka are also not Hijabs.

yes because the woman saying Hibijibis was clearly aware of the distinctions in naming.