Lovelyish

Yes, it is totally a violation of the first amendment and that judge was way out of line. 

not that intelligent. but hey everyone has a right to express their religion. i think the suing part crossed the line a little though

@MissPixieGlitter@xanga - Agreed.

it is not a violation of religious freedom.

you can’t request a different judge because of your current judge’s gender and you can’t have your head covered in a courtroom (except in some states). those rules pre-existed the influx of many citizens who wear headcoverings and were not made in prejudice against them. the court doesn’t promote or discriminate against any particular religion.

wearing a hat/head covering in front of a judge is considered disrespectful to the court and judge. not shutting up when a judge tells you to can land you in jail, as can not obeying orders to remove your head covering. cancer patients are even asked to do this – are they being discriminated? no, they are only asked what is asked of everyone else.

@MissPixieGlitter@xanga -    agreed!

The whole suing thing is getting ridiculous.

I’m not sure… I think that this is something that Ginnah should have endeavoured to address before appearing in court. She should have known what the rules were before she walked in there and caused an incident.

@MissPixieGlitter@xanga - truuuuth

and i’m loving how that was the first comment. informs the rest of ‘em.

I’ve heard this story way too many times. And I think that this women should have understood the terms of the court before arriving in the niqab. Not to say that I don’t support her decision to wear one, but she could’ve requested a female judge beforehand. The suing is definitely ridiculous and unnecessary. 

violation.. you can not force someone to go against their religous “rules”. she was right to leave and right to sue

@MissPixieGlitter@xanga - Agree, agree!

Well, first off you have to get the story right… I’m from Michigan and this has been on all the news channels and there have been showings of the court video. She was not wearing a niqab, she was wearing a hijab. Also she willingly took it off when the judge asked her, NEVER stating she was wearing it as a religious practice.
Also, Michigan Supreme Court voted to give judges full discretion over courtroom
attire. This was passed one month before the court date, in June.
I don’t think it is a violation, it is the law and obviously, a safety measure. Like how you can’t wear hats in school, ANYONE can hide stuff in hats or scarfs, or anything they are wearing or carrying for that matter, but you can’t exactly go to court or go into public not wearing clothing. 
She is quoted saying, “This judge targeted a Muslim woman’s religious attire, but he could just as
easily have demanded the removal of a Sikh turban, Jewish yarmulke or a Catholic
nun’s habit.”   However, that doesn’t mean he hasn’t, she is just the one that has voiced her opinion publicly. 

@MissPixieGlitter@xanga - It is a violation of religious freedom when you are asked to remove a head covering that IS PART OF THE RELIGION. It is a violation of THE FIRST AMENDMENT … one that came WAY before any of the other rules and laws. This country was started to honor the rights of religious freedom. Don’t go saying something isn’t offensive when you aren’t part, or don’t understand the religion. 

I think she has every right to sue the judge, he was forcing her to go against her own religion. 
How do we know there wasn’t a female judge present? Just because he said so? I’m sorry when I had to go to court for a ticket there were plenty of other judges around, many being female.  
I highly doubt that judge would have asked a NUN to take of her head wear or a Jewish man to take off  his skull cap. 
I think people need to get their priorities straight when they put their own RIGHTS after some man’s honor. 
I’m muslim, and I would do exactly the same. God’s honor means more to me than any man’s no matter what his position is in this earth. 

i think that everybody in the recession is money hungry
cause i am sick of hearing about law suits

@ahmmeh1 - She never stated she was wearing it for religious reasons, so it could have just been a fashion statement in the judge’s eyes, at the time. And also, it is a yarmulke.

@MissPixieGlitter@xanga -  i completely disagree! the hijab/niqab is to a muslim as it is to a cross or another religious item. why was it necessary for the judge to see her face? as long as he could hear her all was well.

@imafloatingradish37@xanga - identity purposes.. if you can’t see the face how do you know they didn’t just get some random girl to go? I mean they don’t exactly have super human voice recognition devices.

@imafloatingradish37@xanga - The hijab is not like a cross at all, it is not religious symbol. It is a mandatory part of the religion that God has put in the Quran (our holy book) for us to follow. Maybe asking her to take off her niqab (which is covering the face not hijab, which is not considered mandatory by everyone) is justifiable. But asking her to take off her hijab as whole is going against the religion.

@chipshmunk@xanga - That does make a difference, I hadn’t read your post till after I wrote mine. If she didn’t state it from the beginning that she was wearing it for religious purposes then she is partly at fault too, its a slightly different scenario. Yes I couldn’t remember the name of the yarmulke, it slipped my mind as I was writing my comment. But my comment was more towards what was in the article and the response to it. I just found it frightening that people are becoming more and more laxed when it comes to fighting for their rights. Not just religious rights, but other things like the patriot act which took away privacy…

@ahmmeh1 - It is deffinetly good that someone is fighting for their rights but she is going on a sueing spree, which honestly is just a cop out. She is sueing the judge and Wayne county. I partially understand sueing the county for hiring him, but then again, that is all the did. They way everything is being shown and how she is doing numerous interviews makes her seem like an attention whore or trying to get sympathy. What she should have done, in my opinion is talk to CAIR, who is also sueing, and said something along the lines of “Hey, I don’t really agree with this new law passed is there a way you can help me put an ammendment to it by starting a petition or cosigning on a letter.” Not “Hey, I’m pissed lets sue the fuck out of them, and add wayne county so I can get more money.”

the judge shouldn’t have asked her to take off her headdress. this country allows freedom of religion, and since she was wearing the niqab to comply with her religious beliefs, not fashion, the judge had no right to ask her to remove it. however, i do think suing is an extreme and inappropriate way to deal with the situation.

i think having your head covered with just, like, a regular hat is one thing — but if it’s because of your religion, then that’s a valid reason. why not?

no it’s not cool

it’s part of her religion
it doesn’t matter what the rules were before, they won’t let her practice her religion so she had to sue to get the rights. I mean how else? its not the same as a hat or a cross or whatever

I really think people write before reading..

@chipshmunk@xanga - Judging from what you are saying. I completely agree with you. I don’t understand suing the the county… suing the judge was a little out of the line if she didn’t state her purpose for why she wore the scarf in the first place. If a person really did care about the law that was put in place, she would have taken action against the law itself, to get it amended. If she really is doing this for money and fame, I think its kinda lame and puts an even more sour name towards what already exists against muslims. 

@starsofplastic@xanga - i completely agree!!!!

@ahmmeh1 - totally. I don’t know if she wants the money, but the way she is going about things makes her seem selfish. I really hope she isn’t.

It’s like going into a bank with a ski mask on.

You can dress how you like, but there are limits on what is appropriate and what isn’t.

@MissPixieGlitter@xanga - You know what? You are one of the only girls that I bother to pay attention to on the sites. Firstly. You always are right on target. Secondly. You are polite and sincere with your words. Lastly. You aren’t a total bitch looking for a fight. You know. One of those extremist girls that blogs a lot and never shuts up. With that being said. I here by nominate this girl for miss blogger personality. The ideal and collected intellectual girl that can call herself a blogger. Who’s with me?!

Our country, our rules. 
If I went to another country with another set of rules, my religious and social inclinations would have to bend to them.

@chipshmunk@xanga - forgive me, i was doing a quick paraphrasing from the article i read here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/25/michigan.court.appearance.rule/index.html. 

I don’t pretend to know the technicalities of court, so I wonder if it is actually illegal to cover your face in court or if its only disrespectful. And if it is, I think its fair to have a religious exception, after all the upholding of the Amendments are more important than some petty respect issue.

@peccavi@datingish - meh. whatever. Sorry if it seemed bitchy. I just didn’t want people to comment and then realize they were wrong. ha. But that article is pretty good, for CNN. Especially when they say what the lady says after the video footage stops. If she says what she did that she doesn’t really have a case, in my eyes. “oh it is totally fine, but you know, after a couple people telling me it isn’t alright I’ll sue.”, is what it seems like.

@ahmmeh1 - why no xanga identity affiliated with this comment? =/

let’s talk first amendment since you’re so keen on emphasizing it. the free exercise clause was first interpreted by the waite court to mean that while laws “cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may [interfere] with practices.” a law cannot be made with the intent of discrimination, and unless you think that judges got together in the 1700s and decided to screw over future religious immigrants who will enter their country by feats of engineering unfathomable for their time… restrictions on courtroom conduct and attire were not made with the intent of religious discrimination. centuries after the waite interpretation, the rehnquist court decided that a law was constitutional as long as it did not target a particular religion, and a religious practice may be restricted as long as there is a “compelling interest” in doing so. in a courtroom, it is important to see the identity of the plaintiff/defendent/witness. a niqab obscures this, and in the “compelling interest” of court proceedings, obscuring ones identity is not allowed – regardless of (not because of) religion.

when did i say that something was or wasn’t offensive? i’m not talking about your religion, i’m talking about our country. and it does not matter if there was another female judge available. since when does anyone get to pick his/her judge after already appearing in front of another one? i think justice roberts is too conservative. if i have a case that makes it to the supreme court, can i get bader ginsburg as chief justice instead? i like her.

you seem to relish the free exercise clause, but to allow religious coverings to hinder court proceedings leads to bigger problems. let’s say you can do whatever you want in court because your religion permits/requires it. what stops anyone from using religion as an excuse for otherwise unacceptable conduct? first of all, what is a religion and what constitutes religious practice? if l. ron hubbard can make a religion, so can i. if i make a religion and require that all its adherents do things currently illegal, can i then sue and say all those laws infringe my religious rights? no, because those laws weren’t made to hate on me. let’s say my religion demands that i wear disney princess hats everywhere. i would get laughed out of court, right? or thrown in jail for contempt. and my princess hat doesn’t even hide my identity. you can say it’s not a real religion, but what makes a real religion? how many adherents/religious structures/organized prayer sessions it has? the court can’t legally make that distinction. if you can wear your headcovering and i can’t wear mine, then the court has shown preference for your religion over mine – and that is a violation of your precious first amendment.

@imafloatingradish37@xanga - 

it doesn’t matter that it’s religious artifact. my point is that this decision is made regardless of one’s religion. why was it necessary for the judge to see her face? i surely hope you jest. a judge needs to see a person’s face for the same reason that person wouldn’t be allowed to phone in his/her court appearance.

@SerenaDante@xanga - @coffeeishappinessinacup@xanga - 
@xsPoNgEs_go_SQUISHx13@xanga - @GieGieHeart@xanga - 

thank you.

@Sadistic_Empathy@xanga -

that’s very kind of you to say. thank you. (although i just wrote a long-winded response, so i might be one of those girls who blogs a lot, haha. >_<)

@MissPixieGlitter@xanga - cancer patients wear head coverings simply because they don’t have hair. muslims wear them as part of their religion. are you saying that she should put what the judge says before what God says?

She cannot take off her head covering because it is mandatory to keep it on the Islamic religion if you choose to start wearing one.  It defeats the purpose of the niqab asking her to take it off. Unlike a Jewish cap wear it is a sign of religion and is not mandatory, Muslim women who wear head coverings can’t show their hair to any man besides family…

@kleptos_get_it_free@xanga - i wrote a response a few comments up about the problem with allowing a religious covering in court if it hinders court proceedings and the problem of people potentially using religion as an excuse.

you don’t have to do what a judge says, but should you refuse, the judge as the right to dismiss your case or hold you in contempt. if an american woman enters a country where women are required to cover their heads, can she sue that country’s government for infringing upon her rights?

@MissPixieGlitter@xanga - i don’t believe she should have been required to remove the head covering, though i understand the need to remove the face covering.

if an american woman enters a country where women are required to wear head coverings, it doesn’t mean she’ll wear one. she can out of respect for that country, just like the judge could allow the head covering out of respect for the woman’s religion. i wouldn’t think it would be a real problem for a judge have a level of respect for someone’s religion. and if a judge orders you to do something that you see as a violation of your rights, you are allowed to refuse and you have the right to sue the judge. the woman has a personal and religious right to wear her head covering, and the judge ordering her to take it off is like asking her to surrender those rights.

i understand what you’re saying, i just don’t agree with it.

@Sadistic_Empathy@xanga - I’m with you!

um c’mon. she’s in court… people conceal weapons… try and alter their state of mind, possibly identity…how can she expect w/o first checking w/ that court beforehand, to not be asked to show her face?
should have been addressed before court.
suing … really? is our country not in enough debt?

 Blah. lame.

@kleptos_get_it_free@xanga - i should have been clearer. i meant a (nonmuslim) american woman who immigrated to another country and was in the same situation as this woman. if she had to be covered when appearing in court, is that an infringement of her rights? what if this woman were an atheist and religiously-motivated attire went against her beliefs?

yes, a judge can choose to not mind the covering, but legally that is the prerogative of the judge. and she can sue; anyone can sue. but as long as it can be proven that there is “compelling interest” for restricting her religious practice, such restriction is not a violation of the first amendment.

@ahmmeh1 - her reason for wearing the scarf was religon (as stated in the post “” Ginnah Muhammad refused and said that she was a practicing Muslim “” so she did state that it was for religon so it was deff. a violation of freedom of belief ….and maybe (and i really mean maybe) shes not trying to get publicity but like rally for support? i don’t know but this is an interesting post =)

@MissPixieGlitter@xanga - 

(don’t mind the numbering, it’s merely for me to keep my facts straight)

1) I can’t remember my xanga password, it’s been a couple months since I last used it, and I can’t remember which email its associated with. =/
2) I don’t think you were being offensive at all. I never said you were. I said that you can’t say it’s not offensive, if you don’t understand or follow a religion, or idea. 
3) If you read my posts later on, you can see that I said removing the niqab was justifiable, which is only the face covering. The hijab which is only the head covering is a different matter. 
4) This country I’m pretty sure has regulations on what is considered a religion. I also think if you have a billion people all over the world following a religion, just like christianity, hinduism, buddhism etc, it can be considered a religion. 
5) If you read posts later on that clarified the article/story further. The law for removal of head coverings wasn’t put in till recently. Clearly, after the influx of people who do wear head coverings. 
6) I never said you can use religion as an excuse for bad behavior. I don’t see how a head covering promotes bad behavior. If your (and I’m generalizing here) going to use it as an excuse for hidings bombs, weapons, I think thats what the metal detectors are for and the all of cops when you enter a court. You can always pull someone aside and check them, I have no qualms for things like that. Nor do I think you can use it for harming others, or putting people in danger, or using it to get of things that are common sense laws (which I don’t think the above is.)
Furthermore, if you can justify that wearing a princess hat is part of your religion I think you have every right to take action against the court for throwing you in jail/ forcing you to take it off. 
7) Lastly, you can’t compare American government to other countries, especially of which aren’t secular states. If it was a secular state and it was in that countries constitution that you have religious freedom, than yah you can sue/fight that court for forcing you to wear/ not wear a head covering.  But when you have a non-secular state which doesn’t give you the religious freedom like the American government, and they ask you to remove/put on a head covering I don’t think you have a choice but to do as they say. But American government does, and it was one of the first rights that a person was given in this country, and if you can justify that it isn’t in anyway harming anyone, or putting anyone in danger, you have every right to fight a court for infringing on your rights. 
Wow that was way to long. But as I said that, you can hold your opinions and I can hold mine, and that I never took offense, or said you were being offensive either. 

If they live in our countries, they should live by our laws. If the judge told me to take off my hat, I would have to do it. She should get over it and be happy that she was not charged with contempt.

It’s really a question of Religion vs Law.

To be frank, Law should come first. If the Judge asks you to show your face, you do it, religious reasons or not. You break the rule for one person, you break it for all. It’s about fairness and equality, some people should not be more equal than others. I have nothing against hijabs or niqabs or any of the like, but you can’t allow some people into court with their face covered, and others not.

And to respond to a post up above, a nun can take off her habit, however it does not obstruct her face, either does a crucifix, turban or yarmulke. You cannot compare these with a niqab. Maybe she should fight to have these rules changed, and not use this as a grab for money. It really lessens her argument.

Was she a party that was utilizing a lawyer or the lawyer itself? I agree with MissPixieGlitter. These laws have been in effect long before the introduction of practicing muslims in this country. These laws need to be respected. I understand it’s her religion, but if she wants to harness the power of our court system, then she has to play by the long traditional rules of it. Head coverings can help hide deceit. Especially when you cover your face, emotions, expressions and the like are easily hidden. This impeads the judge’s ability to witness honesty and truth.

I believe this is the same as speaking a foreign language in this country. If you want to wear it (or speak it) in a non professional manner, go for it. I respect your culture and your religion. But if you want to interact with others, utilize stores, facilities and the law, you need to heed the regulations that are put forth to make sure the law and society is equal. Please remove your head covering so that justice can really, truly be served without bias. Please speak english so we can all get along and understand one another. I should not be forced to adapt my ways in my own country.

I want a nun to go into the court, and I would like to see them ask HER to take off her head attire.

And even if this started out as a rule from way back when, times have changed. There is no denying it. We say this about everything. If they’re going to keep the rule, they need to make adjustments. This is America. If we were in the middle of some other country that did not BOAST about its freedom, then maybe we could shrug this off and be like, “Oh it’s a rule.” But do NOT boast about freedom and then try to force shit upon people.

I hardly expect anyone to understand.

Religion means nothing to anyone around here, anymore.

Law before religion. HA.
“In God we Trust.” Has anyone studied the constitution AT ALL? Uhh, where did Thomas Jefferson get a lot of his ideals? Check his library. Oh right. The Bible and the Quran.

@garlicface@xanga - Amendments are the ’adjustments’ you’re talking about. Anyway, she should have taken off her niqab at the very least. A person’s facial features are vital to uncovering truth.

Thomas Jefferson also owned slaves. And was for the French with their destructive, decadent liberalism back when it was France vs. Britian. (This was back when he was Secretary of State under George Washington. Thankfully, Washington chose not to listen to Jefferson, nor to Hamilton who was rooting for the British, and instead sent a letter of neutrality to both countries.) And also, he wasn’t the only one to help create the Constitution. He wasn’t even the one who wrote the drafts. That honor would go to James Madison of Virginia and a man named Morris from Pennsylvania. He wasn’t even the guy who influenced the Constitution the most; that would go to him, John Adams and Thomas Paine, collectively.

‘Forcing shit’ on people, or making rules that should not be broken, keeps us from becoming France. Think about it. Then go check out French history and the French in the news recently and think about it–again.

@ahmmeh1 - Just saying…they did only ask her to take off the niqab specifically. ‘Headgarb’ was used incorrectly in the article above. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t the hijab and the niqab two different pieces?

@xsPoNgEs_go_SQUISHx13@xanga - She didn’t have a niqab on… I could understand if it was a niqab. But a hijab. Just a plain hijab? If they so wanted, could they not have searched her prior? If they so wanted, could they not have had police officers next to her if she had tried to pull something crazy? There’s just no need to make someone compromise their beliefs. God > any petty human.
Dude, even Saudi Arabia lets women walk around without hijabs on if they so want. Yeah, I know that, I’ve been there – my aunt lives there.

And I do admit I might have insinuated that Thomas Jefferson was the sole creator of the constitution. My bad, my bad. From all that I’ve read of Jefferson and his slave owning, I wouldn’t expect him -not- to have slaves. It was the norm. Bla bla bla… he was trying to make an influence. Yeah, whatever. Not about his slaves. Could go into that. It just seems like he had slaves for a purpose other than pure hatred of people’s rights and racism.

Right now, the shit we’re forcing on people IS making us into France. The French in the news recentyl. Not longer than a week ago, France banned Muslim women from wearing a head-covering in the swimming pool. Fine. You don’t want the threads in the filters, etc etc. Whatever… even though there are special Islamic swimsuits made of the same shit any swimsuit is made of and would not expel the threads. But, ok, whatever.
And then they AGAIN reinstated that Muslim girls weren’t allowed to wear hijabs to school. Bla bla bla, safety hazard… my ass. Go through metal detectors. Have female teachers require them to take it off before they go to class. Whatever. Why should they have to walk around, in front of men, basically bare? You might not agree that it is bare. I might not agree that it is bare.  But, what the fuck ever. I’m not ehtnocentric. I sure as hell hope American, “the tossed salad” of the world, can avoid beign ethnocentric.

I’m not an internatinal affairs buff, nor a poli sci hipster. All I know is, I want the freedom to wear a hijab wherever I want, whenever I want. And she doesn’t want guys looking at her if she doesn’t want them to look at her. And if a woman wants to search her, go right ahead. I would have nothing to hide, in that sense. There are other forms of modesty; this isn’t what this is about.

Again, we whine about how we’re so free and people are so oppressed everywhere else because they can’t do what they want. How Chinese schools won’t allow girls to dye their hair until they’re in college or some shit. Whine whine whine.
I came to America because I heard it was “free”. That I could wear what I wanted when I wanted and say what I wanted when I wanted.

@garlicface@xanga - Wait. But it wasn’t a hijab; it was a niqab wasn’t it? >.< Ionno. And there were many important men in Thomas Jefferson’s time who didn’t own slaves. Of course, they didn’t come from Virginia.

And I meant ‘no to France’ in a kind of vice-versa way. They changed their laws to keep Muslims from covering up (they never really liked Muslims anyway from what I’ve heard). The Michigan county’s courts ruled in favor of the woman, but this could open up a realm of danger where people with skill in debate could argue their way out of showing themselves in court. An NYU student once convinced a panel of administrators to let him major in Evil. Anything can happen if we don’t try to make it seem impossible first. (Lesson I learned from The Phantom Tollbooth).

‘Freedom’ must always be taken with a grain of salt. There will always be protocols and I’m sorry you’re disappointed, but this isn’t even a protocol used in all situations. Just in court. The judge could have ignored the coverings, but then he could have been sued by the defendent/plaintiff for not taking the action to ensure that the witness was telling the truth. It’s ridiculous to ask for a witness, of all people, to ask for another judge because she doesn’t want to reveal her face. Within reason, I’m sure a defendant or a plaintiff could request another judge, but witnesses don’t have that kind of power in someone else’s case.

I think not wearing a head covering mostly is meant to apply to hats ext. The judge took that rule way to literally and went a little power hungry. He must have known that was her religion. That whole thing just seems a little crazy

@xsPoNgEs_go_SQUISHx13@xanga - In the blog it said head garb and in clarifications by other posters I think it said hijab only.  But I do agree with you about niqab, It makes sense to ask someone to remove their niqab. I mean if I wore it, which I don’t, I would have taken off the niqab for identity and such reasons. Niqab is actually a debated topic in islam, It’s not something that everyone believes in, although a majority I think do, there’s arguments that sways both ways. I personally don’t think its something I would do in America, but if I lived in another country were it is the norm to wear it, I wouldn’t have a problem doing it. I think people are mis-reading my comments, not you in particular, but just in general…they are kind of long winded. 

@ahmmeh1 - Okay

Ok , I do not know all the merits of the case, but on the one hand this is like Gyne examination for these women to remove the the head gear, its bred into them. On the other hand the Judge needs to follow the investigative procedures of the courts and for security purposes in an open court the people involved need to be properly identified . I do not know if this is a criminal matter or a Civil matter. The Judge was not clearly thinking ;  while I agree  one cannot find a female judge at the 11th hour, the Judge should have remanded the case to when a female Judge would be available .
Conclusion: I could believe this woman may have felt violated, especially given the social climate in the u.s. Muslum countries, but the Judge was HEAVY HANDED with this woman and just wantted to excert his authority ; he is the Judge after all and it is his court room and they have the right to be flexable and leaniant. He may have been afraid of setting a precedent or just being a bully, rgardless he was not being understanding with someone from a culture that makes women believe they must do whatever the culture dictates. So she should sue the judge, because now he really should be worried about setting a precedent due to being pety & was not thinking and being a bully.

Agreed with ahmmeh1 & imafloatingradish37@xanga

She’s a fraud. She claimed that she has to cover her face in public and that she has been wearing the niqab since she was ten. They found a recent picture of her simply wearing a head-scarf online. oops.

*Maybe* it was a violation… but her turning around and suing him was completely idiotic, IMO. Totally crossed the line, and makes her look like the dope. 

@ahmmeh1 - I totally agree with you!

@chipshmunk@xanga - from everything you said, it sounds like it was not a violation, rather a precaution.  it makes sense.  

I hope she does sue him and wins.

that is very surprising something like that would even happen in America. Somewhere where diversity is so common and the country was based on freedom of rights and equality. this is soo disappointing. The court of law was made for the people and i totally disagree with what has been done with the girl in this case. im still so astonished. its hard to believe.

@MissPixieGlitter@xanga - totally agree!

She shouldn’t get special consideration just because of her religion – especially when she’s in court defending herself against criminal charges! Every state has it’s rules and you have to follow them when you’re there. Just like in Saudi Arabia women – even non-muslims – have to cover their entire body before stepping out of the house, in American courts you have to show your face and not cover your head for security purposes. I am so sick of people wanting special treatment because of their religion! You decided to live in a country with different rules than those in an islamic state, so you better follow them! Her suing him was comepletely ridiculous!

@loving_emerald@xanga - thank you!

@ahmmeh1 - i don’t mind the numbers, i think it makes it easier for me as well.

1. oh, i see.
2. i think you misunderstood. i know you were saying i can’t say it’s not offensive to muslim women, but i never said that it was or wasn’t offensive. i said i thought it was not a violation of the first amendment, and in my later comments i explained why.
3. you are asking the court to make an exception, and in my opinion, no exception should be made for anyone. personally, i don’t really care if that woman wants to cover her head in court. i believe she was honestly following religious conviction, but the problem with making an exception is that it sets precedence for other exceptions for potentially less scrupulous individuals. where does one draw the line if one makes exceptions? my princess hat example was a joke to show that people can abuse the system once exceptions are granted.
4. the country doesn’t regulate religion, consistently at least. hence, there are so many historical supreme court cases involving religious practice and the first amendment (ritual sacrifice/hallucinogens/allowable working days, etc.). you can’t really count the number of adherents to justify something as a religion. what you listed were the major world religions, but there are many more obscure ones that you and i probably never heard about (with far less followers). my point is that there is no way for a court to rank religions as real/not real without violating the first amendment, and this is what allows for abuse. the government id going to have a tough time proving something isn’t really a religion without stepping on a lot of toes.
5. the precedent for courtroom conduct and the “no hats” rule existed for a long time before religious headcoverings weren’t allowed. this is because in the (long distant) past there was no need to incorporate religious headcoverings. they were either not that common, or jewish men/christians who covered their heads removed the coverings when asked. this is an extension of precedence, not something new.
6. no one should use religion as an excuse, but it remains that people do. terrorists/crusaders will use religion as an excuse all the time, but most people know that religion (usually) doesn’t advocate violence. i’m just looking at it from a broader perspective. you think the judge was insensitive to the woman, and perhaps he was, but there are reasons why exceptions are not made, and i understand them. also, i’m tired to people expected to be treated specially. in our culture and legal system, it is rude to have ones head covered in front of a judge. it’s really that simple. if a person can’t respect that, how can he/she expect the judge to accommodate what he/she deems appropriate? because of religion? see point 7.
7. i explained in my previous comment why i don’t think this was a first amendment violation.

browsing through the comments….i’m surprised that muslims are spoken of as foreigners and so insensitively.  this country is very much their country as it is ours.  i also find it very disrespecful to downplay their religious attire.

back to the topic, i believe there was a middle ground that both parties could have agreed on without having to resolve to this. since this is a unique case, i am interested to find out the outcome.  it can go either way.

I’d have to say its a violation and I’d sue the judge too!

yeah, i would totally say so

http://www.humanrights.com

Definitely a violation! And extremely offensive. 

She made her call – obey the law or obey her principles. As the law currently stands, she violated it and violated it knowingly. I don’t think she has legal grounds for a lawsuit.