first woman to be jailed for wearing banned Islamic veil

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

I strongly and completely disagree that there should be any "meeting in the middle". There should be no special rules for or against anybody due to their religion. Religion should be their own private affair. We should not force our way into it and it should not force its way onto us. We should not put up special bans on muslim dress, nor should we put up special allowances.

Why must we pretend that religion doesn't exist? Don't people have the right to be able to practice what they believe in or don't believe in? I'm not saying that it should be at the cost of risking the lives of others, or even at the cost of causing great inconvenience to others but there should at least be some understanding involved.

To say that wearing a niqab and wearing a ski mask is the same thing is a clear sign of blinding oneself from a person's intention. One has the intention of practicing her faith while the other has the intention of robbing. Intentions may be invisible but we can still evaluate actions. If a woman in niqab chooses to enter a bank then she should also be willing to understand if the staff wishes to see her identity and she should be cooperative as well as long as it is with a female member of the staff.

If a man enters a bank in a ski mask what do you think his intention is? Practicing his faith? Fashion statement? Robbing the bank?

I understand you're talking about "equal" treatment but "equal" doesn't always equate to "fair".

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

I strongly and completely disagree that there should be any "meeting in the middle".

You remind me of most people. They promote equality but keep equity out of the discussion. Sometimes, they confuse the two.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

I strongly and completely disagree that there should be any "meeting in the middle". There should be no special rules for or against anybody due to their religion. Religion should be their own private affair. We should not force our way into it and it should not force its way onto us. We should not put up special bans on muslim dress, nor should we put up special allowances.

What if there is no female member of the staff readily available? Just now much should we inconvenience the bank to accommodate the muslima? Perhaps muslims could open a bank that takes the security risk of people walking around in them covering their faces. If there are legitimate reasons to require her to show her face, then she should have to show her face, or not bank there. No special rules. She can wear her niqab where I can wear a ski mask.

And I completely and strongly disagree too with your narrow-minded and racist views.

Religion cannot be one's private affair if it includes every aspect of one's life. If religion was a private affair for a Muslim then Muslim men won't grow beards and Muslim women won't wear the veil as an act of religious duty; a duty that isn't confined to an action of the heart. When you see a Muslim you not only see the image as something different from your culture but each and every action a Muslim does is different according to what your own perception of conduct has taught you. The actions of a Muslim is based upon the Quran and Sunnah, actions which teach us how to deal with our lives spiritually and otherwise and actions that encompass each and every affair in life.

In case you haven't realised, for a Muslim woman to be forced to take off her veil in front of a man is forcing her way into her religion; whereas requesting for a female member of staff is a request that will not burden anyone in any way. With all the feminists today making so much noise about equality, I fail to believe not having a female member of staff is an acceptable excuse.

The niqab is recognised around the world as an act of adhering to one's religious teachings, something that some Muslim women deem obligatory. The ski mask is made for the purpose of protecting one's skin from cold or to maintain warmth during sports. This mask is otherwise worn by murders and thugs that are usually men. No one in the world identifies the balaclava as a religious clothing and it, therefore, has no basis to be compared as a form of clothing that should be acceptable to wear without reason and purpose (compared to the niqab).

You're argument therefore holds no weight.

I advise you watch your tone. If you can't accept the niqab as a religious practise then you know where the door is. If you can't find it then I'll gladly show you.

format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abd-al Latif

And I completely and strongly disagree too with your narrow-minded and racist views.

There is nothing racist about anything I have posted above. I have spoken in regard to principles of fairness and I have not even focussed it exclusively on muslims, never mind a race. Your allegation of racism is hyperbole with no foundation, and I think you know that.

In case you haven't realised, for a Muslim woman to be forced to take off her veil in front of a man is forcing her way into her religion

Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote? I did not say that she should be forced to take off her veil. I believe very strongly that she should NOT be. She should be allowed to wear her veil. She should be allowed to wear whatever she wants. But she should not be allowed to do so at the expense of others. Your rights stop where they impose themselves on me, unless there is a MUCH better justification than them simply being your personal or religious beliefs. If there is a legitimate security reason for requiring people to have their faces visible, and if she can not accept that, then she should not be there. I gave a number of alternatives she could try which would inconvenience herself instead of the rest of us who do not share her views.

No one in the world identifies the balaclava as a religious clothing

Which is exactly why it is used in this example. The face covering being done for religious reasons, like anything else done for religious reasons (such as walking around armed with a Sikh Kirpan), should not allow people special rights that others do not have. There should be no discrimination against OR for people based on religion. I will stand with religious people who are persecuted for their religion, and I will stand against them if they seek special rights based on their religion. This is simple fairness to all.

I advise you watch your tone. If you can't accept the niqab as a religious practise then you know where the door is. If you can't find it then I'll gladly show you.

This is pure projection. I have been completely polite. Your threat is noted.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

You don't know that. The man in the ski mask could be cold. He could have a disfigured face. The woman in the islamic dress could be a security risk. She may not be muslim (if it gets out that this is a way you can enter a bank unidentified). She may even be a man. I don't think we should get int he business of implying intentions. Simple fair rules, such as the requirement to show your face where security is an issue, should apply to all. As I said before, no special rules for or against anyone based on religion.

A man walks into a bank in a ski mask and the first thing that runs through your minds is that maybe he has a cold? If it so happens that he has a disfigured face and chooses to wear that ski mask then what is wrong with him letting the staff know and go through the same procedure as a woman in Niqab? A lot of your statements involve "we shouldn't do this" or "we shouldn't do that" but you never mention why except for implying that it is unfair. Really? So if a person in a wheelchair were to be allowed in front of a long queue would say thats unfair? I'm not saying we should assume someone's intention but we can calculate probability can't we? Why pretend to be a fool? A man in a ski mask walks into a bank and you think maybe he has a cold?

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

She should be cooperative period.

I agree with this, but not with your idea that it doesn't matter whether it is a man or woman who verifies her identity. Is this what humans have come to? No compassion or emotion? And its a bank, you really think there won't be any female member of the staff? Really? If that were the really the case then I can understand, and the muslim woman can choose a different bank but what are the odds of that?

In my country Sikhs in the military are excused from wearing berets, as well as wearing helmet when riding a motorbike. These things are otherwise illegal yet we don't see people going "If he can wear a turban instead of a beret I can wear a baseball cap."

Is this logical to you?

Also.. I don't think what you said was meant to be racist but rather a very flawed logic in my point of view but if you insist on pretending religions don't exist, that people don't have the ability to differentiate whether someone has a cold or about to rob a bank, you are free to have your perspective.

format_quote Originally Posted by 'Abd-al Latif

And I completely and strongly disagree too with your narrow-minded and racist views.

Salaam,

There is nothing racist about his post.

I advise you watch your tone. If you can't accept the niqab as a religious practise then you know where the door is. If you can't find it then I'll gladly show you.

There is nothing wrong with his post. He has remained polite and has not resorted to personal attacks. You may disagree with him on certain issues, but I'm certain it is not against the forum rules to disagree respectfully. I advise you to watch your tone and not to make baseless accusations.

format_quote Originally Posted by Tragic Typos

You remind me of most people. They promote equality but keep equity out of the discussion. Sometimes, they confuse the two.

Reading your post and Hulk's post I see that there can be some civil discussion on this, so let's examine things a bit further and see how far we can go in such discussion before the super moderator "shows me the door" for not sharing his views.

I agree that equal treatment doesn't always mean fair treatment. Some people face an unfair disadvantage, such as Hulk's example of a person in a wheelchair, and need special help in order to be treated fairly. It is important to consider the nature and source of the special need to determine if special treatment should be allowed. Physical disability and self chosen belief system or world view are not the same thing. It is important to consider to what degree they themselves can do the accommodating. How much effort will it take them to avoid imposing it on the rest of us? And it is important to consider the extent that the special treatment affects others. Tolerance, Accommodation, and Imposition are not all one and the same.

The specific question here in this thread is: To what extent should we allow people to impose on others due to their beliefs.

My answer is far less than your answer I would presume from what has been written above (correct me if I make a false presumption). I would group "beliefs" together and zero in exclusively on religious beliefs, and we may differ there as well.

Give me your thoughts on some cases:

1. The women walking down the street in Burkas: Yes. I am completely with those women on this issue. The source of the action is mere personal belief (and not a physical handicap) but the request is not asking for any sort of real imposition on the rest of us. There are some issues especially in French society, as I outlined earlier in the thread, but I think they are easily outweighed here. And there is really nothing they could do, short of staying home all the time, to avoid the rest of us facing the issue. This is a mere case of tolerance and should be ok.

2. The woman wanting to wear burka in a bank: No. Again her request comes from a freely chosen belief system, and not a physical disability, but this time there is a serious imposition (security concern) to address and there are ways she can accommodate herself without forcing this imposition on the rest of us, as I noted in a previous post above (ie, electronic banking). The security concern noted should be a genuine one, and should not be invented and claimed just to ban a particular group from doing a particular thing. That is why I made the comparison to the ski mask. If the ski mask guy would not be allowed in, that is based on a genuine security concern. If the ski mask guy WOULD be allowed in then you can't claim security concern and keep the burka lady out.

3. The Sikh man with Kirpan: Here is a case that falls in between the women with burkas on the street and the woman in the bank with the burka. Highly religious Sikhs demand to carry ceremonial daggers with them at all times. Laws are in place banning the rest of us from carrying knives. Should a special allowance be made? I say no. The reason for the request is again a personally chosen belief system. The ability to accommodate oneself is restricted (like the burkas on the street). The imposition is a major security risk (like the burka in the bank). I fall on the side of saying they shouldn't be allowed. You may disagree?

4. The man in the wheelchair: Here is Hank's case, an easy one. I say yes and I presume you do too. I am completely with the handicapped when they need special parking spaces and wheelchair ramps, etc. Their request is made from an actual physical need and not from a freely chosen belief or worldview. This means some real imposition makes sense and is fair. I *DO* believe they should have to justify their disability, and that people shouldn't be allowed to get handicap parking stickers without truly being disabled, as happens too often though. Like the case of the women in burkas on the street, short of always staying home, there is really nothing the man in the wheelchair can do to avoid the rest of us facing the issue.

5. The blind man with seeing eye dog: Here the imposition is even stronger. Now we are allowing somebody to bring a dog into our stores, restaurants, and other places. This could make other customers uncomfortable. This could be a sanitary issue in a restaurant, etc. But again I would be for it, because the need stems from a physical disability and not just a freely chosen belief system. Some thought should be given to electronic devices or other replacements for the guide dogs to reduce the imposition on the rest of us. In time once these are highly efficient and availalbe, I would change my mind on the right of the blind man to bring the dog in the store.

6. Homosexual Marriage: This is an easy yes from me. For you it may be a no. I would like to know if there is any reason for that on my criteria above, or if is just a no because your religion says so, or if I am mistaken and it is a yes for you. Here they are making the request based on what some may call physical condition (like the handicap people above) and others may call a freely chosen belief (like the religious examples above). The ability for them to self accommodate isn't really there. It is debatable how important being married is (perhaps it is not as dire a need as banking). The key here though is the imposition is pretty much zero. They are asking for tolerance and nothing more. Jim marrying James doesn't affect me in any way, nor does it affect my heterosexual marriage. Or maybe it does? I would like to hear how it does if you think it does.

7. Alternative medicine for kids: Here is another easy one for me. Some new age parents in the west believe in many different kinds of folk medicine, all of which they swear by, and none of which have been scientifically proved to be effective. Some parents (religious and not) will forgo life saving vaccines, blood transfusions, and other procedures, denying these to their kids, potentially harming their health, and sometimes even costing the kids their lives. Here the source is a personal belief and the imposition is dire.

8. Affirmative Action: This is a tricky one and I'm not sure where I fall on it. Racism is very real in the west (and I presume also in the east). Statistics show that black people are over represented in prison and under represented in high paying jobs. The question is why. Many argue that there continue to be strong barriers of racism and that this is enough to justify special consideration and special treatment for black applicants, taking them over white ones. Others argue that race is connected to poverty due to historical factors and that disadvantage flows from poverty and that special treatment based on race is racist against poor whites. The need for special treatment for blacks is not entirely clear (but seems to me to be genuine at least to some extent). There is no ability to self accommodate. The imposition is dire. I don't know where I sit on this.

well the next time anybody says islam infringes on womens rights.. just let em know.

i think it is an abuse of rights, simply because the punishment outweighs the risk.

i cant think of any burka attacks at first thought.

and shoplifters should be prosecuted... 2 years seems a bit heavy handed though.


recently saw a video of some blogger being questioned by police for open carrying in america, he was video blogging while carrying and had three clips on his belt.

he just could not see what the problem was.

..or why he would be considered suspicious.

he also refused to show id.



i dont get the point im making.


maybe personal freedoms should be enforced and some laws do require changing for the good of the people.

but im not the one to do it.. as long as they let you vote.

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Reading your post and Hulk's post I see that there can be some civil discussion on this, so let's examine things a bit further and see how far we can go in such discussion before the super moderator "shows me the door" for not sharing his views.


I agree that equal treatment doesn't always mean fair treatment. Some people face an unfair disadvantage, such as Hulk's example of a person in a wheelchair, and need special help in order to be treated fairly. It is important to consider the nature and source of the special need to determine if special treatment should be allowed. Physical disability and self chosen belief system or world view are not the same thing. It is important to consider to what degree they themselves can do the accommodating. How much effort will it take them to avoid imposing it on the rest of us? And it is important to consider the extent that the special treatment affects others. Tolerance, Accommodation, and Imposition are not all one and the same.

The specific question here in this thread is: To what extent should we allow people to impose on others due to their beliefs.

My answer is far less than your answer I would presume from what has been written above (correct me if I make a false presumption). I would group "beliefs" together and zero in exclusively on religious beliefs, and we may differ there as well.

I personally advocate policies that are equitable and practicable.

Give me your thoughts on some cases:

1. The women walking down the street in Burkas: Yes. I am completely with those women on this issue. The source of the action is mere personal belief (and not a physical handicap) but the request is not asking for any sort of real imposition on the rest of us. There are some issues especially in French society, as I outlined earlier in the thread, but I think they are easily outweighed here. And there is really nothing they could do, short of staying home all the time, to avoid the rest of us facing the issue. This is a mere case of tolerance and should be ok.

This is an issue of dress code. If a person is wearing a particular dress code with no intention of frightening or harming another person, then that's fine. However, if a person or a group of people are wearing clothes with the intention of frightening other people, then this is not acceptable.

Your case raises another issue. There are some people that would like to walk around naked in public. My only concern is these people will could attract the wrong sort of attention, such as violence being inflicted upon them.

2. The woman wanting to wear burka in a bank: No. Again her request comes from a freely chosen belief system, and not a physical disability, but this time there is a serious imposition (security concern) to address and there are ways she can accommodate herself without forcing this imposition on the rest of us, as I noted in a previous post above (ie, electronic banking). The security concern noted should be a genuine one, and should not be invented and claimed just to ban a particular group from doing a particular thing. That is why I made the comparison to the ski mask. If the ski mask guy would not be allowed in, that is based on a genuine security concern. If the ski mask guy WOULD be allowed in then you can't claim security concern and keep the burka lady out.

Intention is important. Why would you wear a ski mask in a bank? A Muslim women wears a niqaab in order to please Allah. This distinction must be considered. Where there is an issue of personal identification and security, I agree, a Muslim women should remove her face veil and checks should be made.

3. The Sikh man with Kirpan: Here is a case that falls in between the women with burkas on the street and the woman in the bank with the burka. Highly religious Sikhs demand to carry ceremonial daggers with them at all times. Laws are in place banning the rest of us from carrying knives. Should a special allowance be made? I say no. The reason for the request is again a personally chosen belief system. The ability to accommodate oneself is restricted (like the burkas on the street). The imposition is a major security risk (like the burka in the bank). I fall on the side of saying they shouldn't be allowed. You may disagree?

I do not have a problem with people carrying ceremonial daggers. You may find this hard to believe. If a country permits people to carry guns, then I have no problem with people carrying ceremonial daggers. Of course, I think there should be a system to govern this process of carrying daggers. Licence must be required. This sounds equitable and practicable. There would be certain places where they cannot carry a dagger such as in a nursery, bank or courts.

I say yes and I presume you do too.

Your completely right.

5. The blind man with seeing eye dog: Here the imposition is even stronger. Now we are allowing somebody to bring a dog into our stores, restaurants, and other places. This could make other customers uncomfortable. This could be a sanitary issue in a restaurant, etc. But again I would be for it, because the need stems from a physical disability and not just a freely chosen belief system. Some thought should be given to electronic devices or other replacements for the guide dogs to reduce the imposition on the rest of us. In time once these are highly efficient and availalbe, I would change my mind on the right of the blind man to bring the dog in the store.

Again, I have no problem with a blind man with a seeing eye dog coming into hotels or restaurants. If other customers have a problem, then they'll will have to deal with it.

6. Homosexual Marriage: This is an easy yes from me. For you it may be a no. I would like to know if there is any reason for that on my criteria above, or if is just a no because your religion says so, or if I am mistaken and it is a yes for you. Here they are making the request based on what some may call physical condition (like the handicap people above) and others may call a freely chosen belief (like the religious examples above). The ability for them to self accommodate isn't really there. It is debatable how important being married is (perhaps it is not as dire a need as banking). The key here though is the imposition is pretty much zero. They are asking for tolerance and nothing more. Jim marrying James doesn't affect me in any way, nor does it affect my heterosexual marriage. Or maybe it does? I would like to hear how it does if you think it does.

I'll be honest. The main reason why I disagree with homosexual marriages because it is against Islam and I do not approve of anal sex. Not that all homosexuals engage in anal sex, but in the case of men, it could lead to it. I disagree with it, but I'm willing to tolerate it. I admit, I'm interested to see the social implications of allowing homosexuals to get married.

7. Alternative medicine for kids: Here is another easy one for me. Some new age parents in the west believe in many different kinds of folk medicine, all of which they swear by, and none of which have been scientifically proved to be effective. Some parents (religious and not) will forgo life saving vaccines, blood transfusions, and other procedures, denying these to their kids, potentially harming their health, and sometimes even costing the kids their lives. Here the source is a personal belief and the imposition is dire.

Not sure...

8. Affirmative Action: This is a tricky one and I'm not sure where I fall on it. Racism is very real in the west (and I presume also in the east). Statistics show that black people are over represented in prison and under represented in high paying jobs. The question is why. Many argue that there continue to be strong barriers of racism and that this is enough to justify special consideration and special treatment for black applicants, taking them over white ones. Others argue that race is connected to poverty due to historical factors and that disadvantage flows from poverty and that special treatment based on race is racist against poor whites. The need for special treatment for blacks is not entirely clear (but seems to me to be genuine at least to some extent). There is no ability to self accommodate. The imposition is dire. I don't know where I sit on this.

All I can say is that I'm against positive discrimination.

format_quote Originally Posted by Tragic Typos

Your case raises another issue. There are some people that would like to walk around naked in public. My only concern is these people will could attract the wrong sort of attention, such as violence being inflicted upon them.

That seems to me like blaming the victim. You could use the same line of thought to say that women shouldn't wear miniskirts because it may incite men to rape them, or that women shouldn't wear burkas because there are bigoted islamophobes who may attack them.

My only problem with people going nude in public is the sanitation issue. I don't want to sit in a chair that was just sat in my a sweaty naked person. At a public beach or a public pool I don't have this issue and would be perfectly fine with people being nude there. I think many here would be surprised at just how fast the nudity taboo can dissipate. I have been to a nudist resort and it is not the den of sexual depravity that I'm sure some here would imagine. It takes a bit of getting used to but it becomes natural. We were born that way after all. I would actually enjoy watching a discussion between a nudist woman and a burka clad muslim woman, as they'd both have so many misconceptions about the other.

Intention is important. Why would you wear a ski mask in a bank? A Muslim women wears a niqaab in order to please Allah. This distinction must be considered.

I don't think the distinction is all that important actually. I think the principle of equality trumps it. If we make it acceptable for people to wear burkas into security sensitive areas then that also opens up a Trojan horse, in that people knowing this who do mean to do wrong and are not even muslim or perhaps not even female may exploit it and dress up like muslim women in burkas to go unseen. As for the ski mask guy, there could be reasons. He could be disfigured, it could be very cold out, etc.

Where there is an issue of personal identification and security, I agree, a Muslim women should remove her face veil and checks should be made.

The question then is who is paying for these checks and who is being inconvenienced by them. And you'd also have the issue of the discomfort in people being around masked people and them wondering how good the checks are and if they are actually being done, etc.

I do not have a problem with people carrying ceremonial daggers. You may find this hard to believe. If a country permits people to carry guns, then I have no problem with people carrying ceremonial daggers. Of course, I think there should be a system to govern this process of carrying daggers. Licence must be required. This sounds equitable and practicable. There would be certain places where they cannot carry a dagger such as in a nursery, bank or courts.

Well sure, if people can carry guns they should be allowed to carry knives. That isn't why I fit this example in here. I put in this example because in Ontario Sikhs can carry these knives on the street and the rest of us can NOT carry around guns or knives of that size. A special exception is being made based on the Sikh having Sikh beliefs, putting the public at risk, and I oppose that.

Again, I have no problem with a blind man with a seeing eye dog coming into hotels or restaurants. If other customers have a problem, then they'll will have to deal with it.

We need to consider why they are doing it and if there are easy alternatives to it, and what risks or imposition it puts on the rest of us. If there are freely available and equally efficient electronic devices that can accomplish the same thing, then I'd say no to the blind having dogs where the rest of us are not allowed dogs.

I'll be honest. The main reason why I disagree with homosexual marriages because it is against Islam and I do not approve of anal sex. Not that all homosexuals engage in anal sex, but in the case of men, it could lead to it. I disagree with it, but I'm willing to tolerate it. I admit, I'm interested to see the social implications of allowing homosexuals to get married.

So you personally find homosexuality repugnant I gather, but would you have voted for North Carolina's recent law that officially defines marriage as only "between men and women"? That law actually says "one man and one woman" but I changed it here because I realize Islam allows for poligamy. Laws like that are explicitly aimed at denying homosexuals the same rights the rest of us have. I fully expect our grand children to look back in dismay on this and wonder how we could have thought such a way, the same way we look back on bans of inter racial marriage (or black slavery for that matter) today. I have been to a few weddings of homosexual friends of mine and I'll admit I initially found it a bit awkward seeing two men up there. But in the end the ceremony was beautiful and the love could be felt all around. A tear came to my eye when the vows had been exchanged and they kissed and led us all to start dancing.

Not sure...

I think allowances should be made for people to raise their kids as they see fit, until it crosses such a line where the child is put in real and present danger. If a child is put at risk due to beliefs of the parent I most definitely believe the state should step in. We are guardians of our children, not owners. This is where child abuse laws, etc, come from. I'd also note that refusing your child (or even yourself) a vaccination can increase the spread of what is being vaccinated against and potentially put the rest of society at greater risk.

Greetings of peace,

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

Well sure, if people can carry guns they should be allowed to carry knives. That isn't why I fit this example in here. I put in this example because in Ontario Sikhs can carry these knives on the street and the rest of us can NOT carry around guns or knives of that size. A special exception is being made based on the Sikh having Sikh beliefs, putting the public at risk, and I oppose that.

How about students in class, a muslim student get's up to ask permission to pray, is that wrong or giving one their religious rights?

How about schools, colleges, uni's and also work places which allow one to offer their prayer, is that a wrong doing or providing one their religious rights?

A guy carrying a kirpan, as far I know is for the reason of self-defence, he isn't suppose to use it other reasons beside that, if you want to carry a kirpan, you should perhaps convert to the sikh faith (not saying you should but trying to make my point),for example if you'd want to visit makkah you'd have to firstly become a muslim wholeheartedly or perhaps the simple alternative, learn karate, boxing and all that which serves for self-defence.

And regardless of women wearing a face veil or some dude wearing a ski mask, it is completely understandable for one to show their face due to security reasons, there is no doubt in that and women are willing to be cooperative, but you've to serve your customer right by not infringing ones rights..the security people should also be willing to cooperate, that way the security are pleased and so is the women in niqaab or the guy in a ski mask, because both rights have been given. And there is no lacking in women workers at such place as far as i'm aware..

And also I've been to a bank where a women was serving a women in face veil, the bank had no issue's with her at all nor did they ask her to remove her face veil and i'd assume this isnt the first time either..Everyone survived in the bank and all were in perfect shape, you cannot judge the whole as one. But say if she was excused to show her face, she'd be adviced to so, but in front of a women.

This does not mean I do not understand the issue of security, if she must then she would be prepared to so do, that saying the security people should also be..

Hoping you do not take offense by some of what i've said, if so apologies.

Greetings,

format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis

2. The woman wanting to wear burka in a bank: No. Again her request comes from a freely chosen belief system, and not a physical disability, but this time there is a serious imposition (security concern) to address and there are ways she can accommodate herself without forcing this imposition on the rest of us, as I noted in a previous post above (ie, electronic banking). The security concern noted should be a genuine one, and should not be invented and claimed just to ban a particular group from doing a particular thing. That is why I made the comparison to the ski mask. If the ski mask guy would not be allowed in, that is based on a genuine security concern. If the ski mask guy WOULD be allowed in then you can't claim security concern and keep the burka lady out.

Should laws be based upon likely occurrences or exceptions? People who wish to rob banks usually wear ski masks/balaclavas. How many times have bank robbers worn Burqas (which, it should be noted, would be a very inconvenient disguise to choose)?

4. The man in the wheelchair: Here is Hank's case, an easy one. I say yes and I presume you do too. I am completely with the handicapped when they need special parking spaces and wheelchair ramps, etc. Their request is made from an actual physical need and not from a freely chosen belief or worldview. This means some real imposition makes sense and is fair. I *DO* believe they should have to justify their disability, and that people shouldn't be allowed to get handicap parking stickers without truly being disabled, as happens too often though. Like the case of the women in burkas on the street, short of always staying home, there is really nothing the man in the wheelchair can do to avoid the rest of us facing the issue.

Beliefs are freely chosen but they are not a card that you can change any time you want. People cannot change their beliefs just to go to the bank. Who is to say that a spiritual need is any less important than a physical need?