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

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

You sure?
.

I am sure

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us...case.html?_r=0

[Spectral]

Actually, you said earlier:

None of that conflicts with what I replied to you with. I'm not sure how you think it does. Uniform rules should apply to all people evenly. I do not think religious exemptions are great policy. I don't personally care much about hajibs or turbans - as stated, I wouldn't be inclined to turn down Sikhs that are volunteering for the military. Likewise, I would not be particularly inclined to turn down hijab-wearing women for TSA positions. If uniform policies exist, I don't think saying that a hat is OK because it's a religious hat is good policy.

My solution would be eliminating hat rules if the hat rules don't actually matter. If the hat rules do matter for a reason I'm missing, they should apply to everyone.

[Deleted]

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

When?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_v._Weinberger

Because Goldman alleged that this was a Free Exercise violation, he indicated that the defense had to pass the Sherbert test: by demonstrating a "compelling interest" for the violation. He then submitted evidence that there was not a compelling interest for preventing the display of religious apparel, because it presented no danger to military discipline. However, the Court decided against him on a 5-4 decision. The majority opinion, written by Rehnquist, held that this was of no consequence- it contended that the Sherbert test did not apply because the Free Exercise Clause and even the First Amendment in general did not apply to the military in the same way that it did to civilian society.

In the Court's ruling it was only decided that the Constitution failed to protect the freedom to wear religious apparel in uniform - it did not outright bar it. This distinction gave Congress the power to enact legislation that would reverse the policy. Allowing "neat and conservative" religious apparel accommodations had been in consideration since 1985, following the case's ruling in the Court of Appeals.[2] Proposals to do so failed during the case's trial period, but finally succeeded in 1988 through a provision to the annual National Defense Authorization Act. It provides for a general rule that "a member of the armed forces may wear an item of religious apparel while wearing the uniform of the member's armed force."

So it would seem that the court said no, and then, because the state was not stupid, it amended the UCJ to permit people do that.

- - - Updated - - -

I am sure

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/02/us...case.html?_r=0

Not the same thing as the TSA - They have an actual uniform.

The company said the scarf clashed with its dress code, which called for a “classic East Coast collegiate style.”

Is not a uniform.

[Northy]

I have two requests only from Muslims...let me see your face and don't try to kill anyone. Those are standards that have proven to be surprisingly hard to achieve.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

When?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_v._Weinberger


So it would seem that the court said no, and then, because the state was not stupid, it amended the UCJ to permit people do that.

The court did not say "no" they said the constitution does not specifically protect the right to wear religious garb....but they also stated that there are no grounds to bar it either. Afterwards Congress reversed the policy anyway so, end result, religious wear accommodations are now the law.

- - - Updated - - -

I have two requests only from Muslims...let me see your face and don't try to kill anyone. Those are standards that have proven to be surprisingly hard to achieve.

Hijabs don't cover your face and the vast majority of muslims, like the vast majority of all humans, are not murderers.

[Skandulous]

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.

The TSA already gives Veterans preference.

[dextersmith]

He's all lip service.

[Theinquisition]

The TSA already gives Veterans preference.

Cool, I believe that's a good thing.

[Northy]

Hijabs don't cover your face and the vast majority of muslims, like the vast majority of all humans, are not murderers.

Agreed. But still, statistically, Muslims are far more likely to take you out than any other, meaning that if you're in a room with a Muslim and a non-Muslim you would be justified in being more worried about the Muslim, even if that individual is, as you said, very unlikely to be a murderer. I have no interest in devolving anything into the endless parade of "not all" drivel.

[Justpassing]

Did you really expect anything better from him?

[Deleted]

The court did not say "no" they said the constitution does not specifically protect the right to wear religious garb....but they also stated that there are no grounds to bar it either. Afterwards Congress reversed the policy anyway so, end result, religious wear accommodations are now the law.

Yes, but if they hadn't it would not be the law - So no, its not unconstitutional.

[nonameelf]

Agreed. But still, statistically, Muslims are far more likely to take you out than any other, meaning that if you're in a room with a Muslim and a non-Muslim you would be justified in being more worried about the Muslim, even if that individual is, as you said, very unlikely to be a murderer. I have no interest in devolving anything into the endless parade of "not all" drivel.

I'm pretty sure Americans are the most likely to kill civilians.

[Gestopft]

Isn't "we're looking into it" just one of his default answers for shit he doesn't know much about?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Agreed. But still, statistically, Muslims are far more likely to take you out than any other, meaning that if you're in a room with a Muslim and a non-Muslim you would be justified in being more worried about the Muslim, even if that individual is, as you said, very unlikely to be a murderer. I have no interest in devolving anything into the endless parade of "not all" drivel.

Oh, you have Statistics, well please...share them.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, but if they hadn't it would not be the law - So no, its not unconstitutional.

But still Illegal.

[Theinquisition]

None of that conflicts with what I replied to you with. I'm not sure how you think it does. Uniform rules should apply to all people evenly. I do not think religious exemptions are great policy. I don't personally care much about hajibs or turbans - as stated, I wouldn't be inclined to turn down Sikhs that are volunteering for the military. Likewise, I would not be particularly inclined to turn down hijab-wearing women for TSA positions. If uniform policies exist, I don't think saying that a hat is OK because it's a religious hat is good policy.

My solution would be eliminating hat rules if the hat rules don't actually matter. If the hat rules do matter for a reason I'm missing, they should apply to everyone.

I think for folks such as the TSA and other gov't security apparatus are concerned, uniforms provide a sense of ..well...uniformity. They are supposed to be representing a organization, anything that takes away from that is in fact unprofessional.

[kail]

Few things suprise me anymore with this guy. November couldn't come soon enough and we can be done with this election race.

[Garnier Fructis]

I have two requests only from Muslims...let me see your face and don't try to kill anyone. Those are standards that have proven to be surprisingly hard to achieve.

Hijabs don't cover the face, and I've yet to see anyone actually wearing a niqab or a burka. If seeing their face is a problem, consider moving out of Afghanistan.

[Lady Mormont]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Freedom of Religion pertains to making laws of forcing or prohibiting religions. Has nothing to do with what one wears or does not wear in a work environment.

[Felya]

You go through the X-ray anyway... I thought we wanted to get rid of TSA, not give them more power...

[Spectral]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Freedom of Religion pertains to making laws of forcing or prohibiting religions. Has nothing to do with what one wears or does not wear in a work environment.

Well, there you go, just reading from the document what the plain meaning of the language is. In this fine year, more than two centuries after writing of that document, it's not what's written in the document that matters - it's what Anthony Kennedy says it really means that matters. Oh Constitution, look how you've grown!