Muslim Woman Asked to Remove Headscarf in NJ Mall

Click here for more information.

reply to post by smyleegrl


I can see the outlines of your face. Please fo the love of god keep that veil on!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Thunder heart woman

 

Although a few people have said they are offended by the Burqa, the point of this thread was specifically wearing it inside the mall. I don't think you'll find very many people that will say they should never be worn, but they should abide by the local rules and laws. Like I and others have said, we've all been asked to remove hats and sunglasses. It is fairly common these days. Banks and Courthouses are the most common places that require you to remove your hat and sunglasses.

You're throwing out a strawman and taking the words of a few extremists and applying those words to everyone that argues against you. That isn't fair, and it is exactly the same thing that people do when they demonize the whole Muslim religion based off just a few extremists.

By the way, I have specifically responded to you several times now, and you keep ignoring it and choosing to only argue with the most outlandish claims. Is it possible you just want to argue, and you have no intention of discussing anything civilly?

The problem I see with your argument is that, while a shopping mall is privately owned, it is considered a public venue. You are absolutely correct that, in some places (like a courthouse or bank), the removal of hats and sunglasses is a common rule. However, having lived in NY, PA, WI, and CO, I can tell you first-hand, that the removal of customary religious garments is never enforced, even burqas in a bank. Spend some time in Philly where there is a large Muslim population, and you'll see plenty of them in the banks and in the stores and in the malls, with no problems. In banks and in courthouses, the women will often remove the facial veil, but the headdress ALWAYS stays on. Similarly, Jews are not required to remove their yarmulkes in banks, malls or courts, nor are sikhs required to remove their turbans. Hats and sunglasses, which are not part of any religious practice, do not fall into the same category because of the fact that they are non-religious in nature. It sounds like splitting hairs, but religious customs must be tolerated unless doing so creates, or has reasonable probability of creating a hazard to the public. If that doesn't sit well with you, write your elected officials and push for change in the legislation, because as it is, the law (guided by the Constitution) are the only rules we have to follow.

reply to post by Thunder heart woman


Wearing a head covering and a burqa are not the same thing. If God commands you to cover you hair go for it. But it's not safe to have women walking around like ninjas. In the dc area we have had a rash of bank robberies where men dress up in burqas as a disguise, they nobody will say anything to them, unlike a ski mask.

reply to post by azulejo


I live and work in Dearborn Michigan. Look it up. D-E-A-R-B-O-R-N Mich-igan. The largest muslim population here.

I am looking out the window right now. A Hajib, Burka and a full body black clothing with only the eyes showing are out walking the sidewalk here in town.

So get your facts in order and then speak. Masks shouldnt be allowing "down the street" either.

reply to post by Liquesence


Hardly. I am a 1st responder here in DEARBORN MI...and respond, treat and transport muslims to the ER.

reply to post by azulejo


Yes. Again. I am EMT in heavily populated Muslim DEARBORN MI. I see them all day and night, every day and night. That doesnt bother me. At all. ANY covering of any-body that makes them identifyingly undescernable...is not good.

Originally posted by KnawLick
reply to post by Thunder heart woman

 

Wearing a head covering and a burqa are not the same thing. If God commands you to cover you hair go for it. But it's not safe to have women walking around like ninjas. In the dc area we have had a rash of bank robberies where men dress up in burqas as a disguise, they nobody will say anything to them, unlike a ski mask.

Faulty logic. The fact that a few people have used traditional religious garments as a disguise in order to commit crimes does not outweigh the Constitutionally protected right to freely and openly practice religion or conform with religious customs. This is the same type of thinking that has led to the erosion of our civil liberties. Benjamin Franklin said it best, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

reply to post by draco49


It is splitting hairs, and I believe it goes against the spirit of the religious tolerance laws. I could call my hat and sunglasses a religious rite. I could make my own religion, I could pay $25 on the internet to ordain myself, and I could even pay $350 to set up a 501(c)(3) corporation and be 100% legit, and my religion could be hats and sunglasses. That goes totally against the spirit of the law.

Personally, I don't think the rules to force uncovering of the face make any sense, because if I'm going to rob a bank or shoot up a courthouse, I'm not too worried about breaking their rules. So, I disagree with the effectiveness of the rule, BUT, if it is a rule, then there should not be any special consideration for religions.

In fact, I was raised, in a religious household, to be offended by anyone wearing a hat indoors. If a Jewish man wears his little beanie inside a building, it is offensive to many people not because he is a Jew, but because he is being rude in not removing his headdress in doors. So, whose religion wins? Do we cater to the one offended by not being allowed to wear it, or the one offended by allowing him to wear it? There is no easy answer, except to completely ignore the religious aspect and enforce the rules as they are written.

reply to post by mysterioustranger

So get your facts in order and then speak. Masks shouldnt be allowing "down the street" either.

I disagree. Probably doesn't matter one way or another, but criminals are criminals. Making a rule against wearing masks is not going to stop a criminal from wearing a mask. Why not just make a rule that all criminals must wear signs identifying themselves as criminals? They won't follow the rules.

Making a rule, that will only affect law-abiding citizens is just an abuse of power. It does nothing to make anyone safer, but it does a lot to limit the liberty of everyone in the country.

Originally posted by MegaMind
The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude?

The Right to Refuse Service: Can a Business Refuse Service to Someone Because of Appearance, Odor or Attitude?

Leanne Phillips - Oct 2007

Is it a violation of your civil rights for a business to refuse to serve you because of the way you look, the way you smell, or the way you act? The answer is...it depends.

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

The right of public accommodation is also guaranteed to disabled citizens under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which precludes discrimination by businesses on the basis of disability.

In addition to the protections against discrimination provided under federal law, many states have passed their own Civil Rights Acts that provide broader protections than the Federal Civil Rights Act. For example, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against individuals based on unconventional dress or sexual preference.

In the 1960s, the Unruh Civil Rights Act was interpreted to provide broad protection from arbitrary discrimination by business owners. Cases decided during that era held that business owners could not discriminate, for example, against hippies, police officers, homosexuals, or Republicans, solely because of who they were.

So just because a business is privately owned doesn't mean the owners can discriminate against their customers willy nilly. "place of public accommodation"

edit on 25-5-2012 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)

That isn't really discrimination though. That is a genuine concern for security. I know that she probably wasn't going to rob the place but would you feel comfortable if I wore ski masks to banks? I doubt the bank would like that very much either.

Lets try this: After reaing all these pages it comes down to just the ISSUE..not the PERSON.

No one should hide their identities for any reason. Thats why you cant go into a bank that way without the cops coming.

It just makes sense. Not predudicial, not discrimatory, not judgemental against ANYONE ok?

Just an issue of SAFETY. ONLY. SAFETY For those around the person in question.

Overly so? Perhaps. But in this day and age...necessary. And as other countries and states and places of business are adopting this attitude...then I am not alone in my opinion.

reply to post by getreadyalready

Hello GRAlready! How are ya? I agree with you. You are correct. Thanks

reply to post by KryptKeeper

That isn't really discrimination though. That is a genuine concern for security. I know that she probably wasn't going to rob the place but would you feel comfortable if I wore ski masks to banks? I doubt the bank would like that very much either.

It wouldn't bother me one bit.

Would it bother you if, seeing your ski mask, I reached in and clicked the safety off my .380 and manuevered myself so I would always be facing you and nobody would be behind me? Both well within our legal rights, and both with the best of intentions. If you do your bank business and move on down the way, then I do my bank business and move on down the way. A free and armed society where everyone respects everyone and nobody gets hurt.

reply to post by KnawLick


The issue here is that the burqa is being singled out. This is just a single instance of a criminal using a disguise. Should we outlaw sunglasses or bandanas? Or should we bring the TSA out of the airports and into our lives fully?

Really, if you allow the fear of what could be hiding behind a burqa control how you feel others should behave, then we have lost as a free society.

Why would anyone say that burqas must be removed other than fear, well fear or control. If it is fear then terrorists have accomplished their goal. If it is control the I go by this saying "The only true evil is imposing your will onto others". In other words, if you are trying to make others act according to your beliefs despite what they believe, then evil has won.

So are we an accepting and understanding society or are we fearful, controlling society. That is a decision we must each make for ourselves.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by draco49

 

It is splitting hairs, and I believe it goes against the spirit of the religious tolerance laws. I could call my hat and sunglasses a religious rite. I could make my own religion, I could pay $25 on the internet to ordain myself, and I could even pay $350 to set up a 501(c)(3) corporation and be 100% legit, and my religion could be hats and sunglasses. That goes totally against the spirit of the law.

Personally, I don't think the rules to force uncovering of the face make any sense, because if I'm going to rob a bank or shoot up a courthouse, I'm not too worried about breaking their rules. So, I disagree with the effectiveness of the rule, BUT, if it is a rule, then there should not be any special consideration for religions.

In fact, I was raised, in a religious household, to be offended by anyone wearing a hat indoors. If a Jewish man wears his little beanie inside a building, it is offensive to many people not because he is a Jew, but because he is being rude in not removing his headdress in doors. So, whose religion wins? Do we cater to the one offended by not being allowed to wear it, or the one offended by allowing him to wear it? There is no easy answer, except to completely ignore the religious aspect and enforce the rules as they are written.

I hear what you're saying, and don't necessarily disagree. What I can tell you is that the custom of removing your hat when in someone's home is a cultural practice, and not a religious one. Conversely, the wearing of traditional religious headwear, be it a burqa, yarmulke, or turban, is specifically tied to the religion and in most cases represents respect for God (don't ask me why, because I still don't understand that part). So in the scenario you describe, it's not a matter of whose religion wins because removing a hat indoors is a cultural custom whereas the wearing of a yarmulke or burqa is a religious sacrament. I could personally not care less about whether or not someone wears a hat or headdress indoors or in public. And I can definitely understand the point of view that making a distinction between religious and non-religious headwear appears to be splitting hairs, on the surface. However, if you agree that, as Americans, we have the right to practice and follow religious faith and customs regardless of how other people interpret it, then I think that it's only logical to accept that certain faiths require their followers to wear particular garments or perform particular rituals. It is in this context that there is a true contrast between a religious headdress and a hat worn for fashion.

reply to post by smyleegrl


For those acting like this is a god darn crime to ask this woman to remove the mask that has hidden her true beauty her entire life... you are completely LOST.

First off.. no human being (especially the WOMAN) should hide their faces and indentity, they should be free to express themselves and thier inner beauty like the rest of the World. The religions that deny woman to expose their selves.. is F'n ridiculous! I dont care why, its sick.

This is a compliment if anything to ask this young woman to take off her mask... she has been innerly destroyed (As all these females who are forced too hide themselves) her whole life!

Asking her to reveal herself is a good thing in my eyes, it hsould be un-acceptable to force any female to hide their true beauty... if anything its the males who should hide themselves

~ Love is an art

Originally posted by LoveisanArt
reply to post by smyleegrl

 

For those acting like this is a god darn crime to ask this woman to remove the mask that has hidden her true beauty her entire life... you are completely LOST.

First off.. no human being (especially the WOMAN) should hide their faces and indentity, they should be free to express themselves and thier inner beauty like the rest of the World. The religions that deny woman to expose their selves.. is F'n ridiculous! I dont care why, its sick.

This is a compliment if anything to ask this young woman to take off her mask... she has been innerly destroyed (As all these females who are forced too hide themselves) her whole life!

Asking her to reveal herself is a good thing in my eyes, it hsould be un-acceptable to force any female to hide their true beauty... if anything its the males who should hide themselves

~ Love is an art

While I truly understand your sentiment, this topic is more about who is more 'right'. Because I see the would one way am I more 'right' than you? I do not like to wear ties, does this make those who do 'wrong'? The Amish have a strict dress code, what does that make them? It is easy to see the world through our own eyes, but can we stand the glare of seeing the world through the eyes of others?

Remember, the woman wearing the burqa may see that you are in the wrong for not wearing one. So who would be in the right? Please do not answer this from your point of view only or the answer will be skewed.

You're wrong.
In some of the Middle Eastern countries (especially those with Sharia Law as their guidelines) all women need to wear the veil - not only because of the local (religious based) laws but also because unveiled women are considered fair game by every horny sexually repressed male (of which there is an endless supply).
Believe me - I've spent years working out there.

Originally posted by mysterioustranger
Lets try this: After reaing all these pages it comes down to just the ISSUE..not the PERSON.

No one should hide their identities for any reason. Thats why you cant go into a bank that way without the cops coming.

It just makes sense. Not predudicial, not discrimatory, not judgemental against ANYONE ok?

Just an issue of SAFETY. ONLY. SAFETY For those around the person in question.

Overly so? Perhaps. But in this day and age...necessary. And as other countries and states and places of business are adopting this attitude...then I am not alone in my opinion.

All these restrictions and regulations just to provide a little peace of mind? No sir. That is not the American way. Civil liberties must be protected at all costs, especially considering that the liberties you are willing to sacrifice are for the mere perception of safety. Everybody is so frightened and afraid these days, like sheep looking to their shepherd for protection. I got news for you, there's always going to be something to be afraid of, and there's always going to be a risk of danger. It is not the job of the government to protect you from fear or your perceptions of danger. And the idea that "if it saves one life it's well worth it", is a load of sh|t. The 2nd Amendment gives you the right to bear arms. If life scares you so much, go buy a gun and a carry permit. This whole line of thinking that we're somehow entitled to a life free of fear or danger is in direct conflict with the Constitution.