A Merry Can Muslim. I don't have a GA state ruling specific to this, but I will introduce a couple that are similar. Before I introduce them, I'd like to say: I have a basic understanding of the Free Exercise Clause and it's relation to religion, which is a private practice. Private being the operative word.
Goldman v. Weinberger, 1986
Basically a Jewish servicemember wanted to wear his religious headpiece and the Air Force denied him because it did not conform to military standards. The judgement ruled in the AF's favor. Yes. Yes. This is completely different, in that the ruling sided with the AF because the court felt that military uniformity took precedence over religious clothing. Different, but a nice look at how this all works. Also nice to see that you are not guaranteed the right to wear what you want...but the military's role was significant in this case, I admit.
I'm not a lawyer. I haven't ever really studied law. But I remember the Free Excercise Clause. I tried to find something that was close and this was about as good as I could get.
I found something else, that many will find interesting on the DOJ website:
Basically, a student was found in violation of a school dress code- she wore a hijab. The court found in favor of the student because (basically) "Nashala's practice of wearing a hijab is akin to pure speech and therefore is entitled to the highest protection." Note this is a debate about speech and it's relationship with religion...not a perfect match but...
Is this different than a women entering into a courtroom. Possibly. Not that I can see, necessarily, but I would like to know the circumstances. I'm not sure if she denied the guard the opportunity to search her hijab. If so, the guard may have felt that presented a possible threat to public safety...
I stand by everything I have said: This woman my have her day in court and she may win. The court has EVERY right to disallow her to enter if she does not conform to a rule because of her religion.
On A Merry Can Muslim. You are an excellent writer and clearly have a lot of knowledge. I had to do some research to find some of this, but you may know much of this by heart. But your power with words and your skill with debate shouldn't steer you from the purpose of your post, which wasn't to inflame fellow Americans, but merely to show why you are frustrated with our alleged intolerance. Attack the debate, not the debater.
Hopefully I have helped you with your goal. Many Americans reading this thread may not know about the two cases I mentioned...some may not know about the Free Exercise Clause and it's importance- I'm not sure I completely understand it all, yet. With your knowledge, you could have coached many of us through it, but instead you created deep divisions.
I look forward to more of your posts and your ideas. Thanks for your patience!
A Merry Can Muslim. I don't have a GA state ruling specific to this, but I will introduce a couple that are similar. Before I introduce them, I'd like to say: I have a basic understanding of the Free Exercise Clause and it's relation to religion, which is a private practice. Private being the operative word.
Goldman v. Weinberger, 1986
Basically a Jewish servicemember wanted to wear his religious headpiece and the Air Force denied him because it did not conform to military standards. The judgement ruled in the AF's favor. Yes. Yes. This is completely different, in that the ruling sided with the AF because the court felt that military uniformity took precedence over religious clothing. Different, but a nice look at how this all works. Also nice to see that you are not guaranteed the right to wear what you want...but the military's role was significant in this case, I admit.
I'm not a lawyer. I haven't ever really studied law. But I remember the Free Excercise Clause. I tried to find something that was close and this was about as good as I could get.
I found something else, that many will find interesting on the DOJ website:
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/religdisc/musk_memo.php
Basically, a student was found in violation of a school dress code- she wore a hijab. The court found in favor of the student because (basically) "Nashala's practice of wearing a hijab is akin to pure speech and therefore is entitled to the highest protection." Note this is a debate about speech and it's relationship with religion...not a perfect match but...
Is this different than a women entering into a courtroom. Possibly. Not that I can see, necessarily, but I would like to know the circumstances. I'm not sure if she denied the guard the opportunity to search her hijab. If so, the guard may have felt that presented a possible threat to public safety...
I stand by everything I have said: This woman my have her day in court and she may win. The court has EVERY right to disallow her to enter if she does not conform to a rule because of her religion.
On A Merry Can Muslim. You are an excellent writer and clearly have a lot of knowledge. I had to do some research to find some of this, but you may know much of this by heart. But your power with words and your skill with debate shouldn't steer you from the purpose of your post, which wasn't to inflame fellow Americans, but merely to show why you are frustrated with our alleged intolerance. Attack the debate, not the debater.
Hopefully I have helped you with your goal. Many Americans reading this thread may not know about the two cases I mentioned...some may not know about the Free Exercise Clause and it's importance- I'm not sure I completely understand it all, yet. With your knowledge, you could have coached many of us through it, but instead you created deep divisions.
I look forward to more of your posts and your ideas. Thanks for your patience!