Citadel considers uniform exception: allowing a Muslim hijab

[Reba]

I guess I have to concede that you are right Reba.
The US Government, and agencies thereof, ar allowed to commit acts of discrimination against a protected group.
It makes perfect sense that they can and will do it, and no one would bat an eyelash.

The Citadel is not a federal entity; it's a public college supported by the state of South Carolina.

There's nothing to bat an eyelash at. The college didn't commit an act of discrimination against a protected group. The same uniform rules apply to every cadet. She wasn't singled out.

 

[Robgmn]

The Citadel is not a federal entity; it's a public college supported by the state of South Carolina.

There's nothing to bat an eyelash at. The college didn't commit an act of discrimination against a protected group. The same uniform rules apply to every cadet. She wasn't singled out.

This is no longer about the hijab specifically. It is about discrimination.

Reba, discrimination based on one's religion is illegal.
Period.
IF (big if), wearing something is REQUIRED by one's religion, NO public access entity is allowed to tell someone that they cannot wear said item in that public access place.
Put a spin on this: Though it is not a religious requirement, let's assume you wear a crucifix. Now, imagine you go into a state office and are told you must hide your crucifix or you will not be "served" and must leave the building.
Take it a step further, and assume you are a Jewish man who is told the same thing based on his payot (which he has due to a the torah passage that requires it).
Are you OK with this type of action? Would you bat an eyelash then?

Let's not posit the "I'd never go to a place that would do such a thing or No one is forcing people to GO to that office.
Those statements really have nothing to do with the situation we're discussing. The situation is that IF someone has a religious requirement, a public access entity in this country is not allowed to discriminate based on it. It's law.

Now, applying the same rule to ALL students/cadets does NOT make it non-discriminatory, just as applying the rule of "no wheelchairs allowed" to ALL student/cadets would not absolve them of committing an act of discrimination against someone with a disability.
They wouldn't be applying the rule to "all" students/cadets, ONLY to the ones who are in a wheelchair.

Forcing someone to violate the rules of their religion is NOT allowed in this country by a public-access entity, whether it's a school, a store, a restaurant, a library, a state park, or anything else. Forcing someone to not do OPTIONAL things is quite another story.
It's pretty clear cut and there are plenty of court cases that affirm it.

 

[BluesStringer]

A muslim openly wearing gang colors is much more easily identified as an enemy combatant, as the time comes, than a muslim in the proper uniform easily blending in.

She has no "right" to wear it, but it may benefit identifying the enemy tactically-speaking. Beards only for muslim men, altered head-gear requirements only for muslim women. It seems like a sound counter-intelligence strategy to me.

Blues

 

[Reba]

This is no longer about the hijab specifically. It is about discrimination.

Reba, discrimination based on one's religion is illegal.
Period.

There is no discrimination based on anyone's religion in the uniform regulations. The uniform regulations require, well . . . uniformity. That means the same uniform regulations are for all cadets--no one is singled out by religion.

I seriously don't understand why you don't get it, other than you simply enjoy trolling for a dispute.

Cadets can't wear any non-uniform items that are prohibited by regulation, whether the item is religious based, culturally based, personal preference, political statement or whatever. It's not a "Muslim-only" rule or even a "religious person" rule--it's a uniform rule.

IF (big if), wearing something is REQUIRED by one's religion, NO public access entity is allowed to tell someone that they cannot wear said item in that public access place.

The Citadel Corps of Cadets is not a public access entity. One has to apply to become a cadet, must pass the criteria for acceptance, and must agree to follow all the regulations. If an applicant can't sign the form that says "I agree to comply with all the regulations" then they can't join.

Put a spin on this:

Spins and hypothetical scenarios aren't what's happening but I'll play your game, for a while.

Though it is not a religious requirement, let's assume you wear a crucifix. Now, imagine you go into a state office and are told you must hide your crucifix or you will not be "served" and must leave the building.

I don't wear a crucifix. Like you said, it's not a religious requirement, so hiding it wouldn't be interfering with the free exercise of religion. State officials aren't telling anyone not to wear a crucifix or hijab or colander, so it's not even a realistic scenario.

Take it a step further, and assume you are a Jewish man who is told the same thing based on his payot (which he has due to a the torah passage that requires it).

Are you OK with this type of action? Would you bat an eyelash then?

It's not the same situation because state offices have to provide services to everyone who qualifies for them. Colleges don't have to accept applicants who aren't willing to follow the rules of the school.

Let's not posit the "I'd never go to a place that would do such a thing or No one is forcing people to GO to that office.

Government offices are required to serve everyone. The Citadel is not. They turn away lots of applicants for all kinds of reasons. She was not turned down because she was a Muslim. The Citadel already has Muslim cadets. The school offers access to Muslim religious services. She was turned down for not wanting to obey the school's rules. The Cadet Code of Conduct requires obeying all the rules.

Those statements really have nothing to do with the situation we're discussing. The situation is that IF someone has a religious requirement, a public access entity in this country is not allowed to discriminate based on it. It's law.

The school didn't discriminate on the basis of religion. The applicant didn't want to follow the established rules. That was her choice.

Now, applying the same rule to ALL students/cadets does NOT make it non-discriminatory, just as applying the rule of "no wheelchairs allowed" to ALL student/cadets would not absolve them of committing an act of discrimination against someone with a disability.
They wouldn't be applying the rule to "all" students/cadets, ONLY to the ones who are in a wheelchair.

The Citadel doesn't say "no wheelchairs allowed" but:

"The Citadel Physical Effectiveness Program (CPEP) is administered by the Health, Exercise, and Sport Science Department, in conjunction with the Office of the Commandant. Based upon the idea that effective leaders take pride in their own level of physical fitness, the CPEP focuses on two crucial components: body composition and physical training (PT). Cadets are expected to meet and maintain prescribed height and weight requirements. In addition, the Corps of Cadets is required to take a PT test each semester. To be classified as physically proficient, cadets must perform satisfactorily in both these areas. They must also be physically proficient to be considered for rank in their sophomore, junior, and senior years."

So, yes, they do have physical requirements.

BTW, I'm not insensitive to people with physical disabilities. My son-in-law is a below-the-knee amputee from an industrial accident. For many years I was a professional sign language interpreter for the deaf. I have my own issues with Parkinson's Disease. That doesn't mean I'm unrealistic about physical requirements for occupations. I did 24 years in the Navy, so I know how the annual PT's can be a struggle.

Forcing someone to violate the rules of their religion is NOT allowed in this country by a public-access entity, whether it's a school, a store, a restaurant, a library, a state park, or anything else. Forcing someone to not do OPTIONAL things is quite another story.
It's pretty clear cut and there are plenty of court cases that affirm it.

She's not being forced to violate the rules of her religion.

She can still attend the Citadel as a night school student. She just can't join the Corps of Cadets if she doesn't want to follow the rules. She's not being forced to do anything.

 

[Robgmn]

If the rules require you to violate your religious beliefs, then it is discrimination.
IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE RULE IS APPLIED TO "EVERYONE".
IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE BASED ON RELIGION.
Don't you understand that?

It is also illegal to discriminate based on disability.
Would you find it OK if my restaurant had a sign that said "No one with Parkinsons may eat here. It makes the "normal" patrons uncomfortable"?
How about "You must have both legs to shop in our grocery store. We don't want to be responsible in case you fall."
Maybe "Only Mexicans may use the water fountain" in a county courthouse.

No matter how you want to spin it Reba, discrimination against protected classes is illegal.
Religion is a protected class.
Requiring that someone violate their religious beliefs by a public-access entity (store, school, library, flea market, bakery, military, etc.) is illegal.
There is no spin that you can put on it that will make it legal.

if you think I'm making the rule up, look up the Civil Rights Act.

I'll give you the long title, which outlines the really important stuff:
An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
Enacted by the 88th United States Congress
Effective July 2, 1964

I can understand that you may not believe it is a "good" or "correct" law, but that personal belief doesn't hold water in a court of law.
What does hold water is that the law exists and has to be followed until it is overturned or proven not to exist.

 

[Reba]

If the rules require you to violate your religious beliefs, then it is discrimination.

If she was already enrolled as a cadet and the school created a new rule specifically against wearing hijabs only, and that was against the doctrines and practices of her religion, that could be a violation of her rights. But that's not what happened.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE RULE IS APPLIED TO "EVERYONE".
IT IS ILLEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE BASED ON RELIGION.
Don't you understand that?

No need to shout.

It's not discrimination because the rule is not just for Muslims--that would be discrimination against Muslims.

The Citadel's decision was not based on religion. It was based on the uniform regulations.

It is also illegal to discriminate based on disability.
Would you find it OK if my restaurant had a sign that said "No one with Parkinsons may eat here. It makes the "normal" patrons uncomfortable"?
How about "You must have both legs to shop in our grocery store. We don't want to be responsible in case you fall."
Maybe "Only Mexicans may use the water fountain" in a county courthouse.

None of those examples are relevant to the Citadel case. The Citadel's decision was based on long-standing uniform regulations. It had nothing to do with making other patrons uncomfortable, liability for falling, or nationality. No relevance at all.

No matter how you want to spin it Reba, discrimination against protected classes is illegal.
Religion is a protected class.

And again, the Citadel isn't discriminating against a religion. Show me anything documented in their decision that says the young woman was denied acceptance into the program because she is a Muslim.

Requiring that someone violate their religious beliefs by a public-access entity (store, school, library, flea market, bakery, military, etc.) is illegal.
There is no spin that you can put on it that will make it legal.

Show me a court decision against the Citadel's action. If it's illegal there must be a court action. Otherwise, it's just your opinion.

if you think I'm making the rule up, look up the Civil Rights Act.

The rule isn't made up; it's your application of it that's in error.

I'll give you the long title, which outlines the really important stuff:
An act to enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States of America to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for other purposes.
Enacted by the 88th United States Congress
Effective July 2, 1964

I can understand that you may not believe it is a "good" or "correct" law, but that personal belief doesn't hold water in a court of law.
What does hold water is that the law exists and has to be followed until it is overturned or proven not to exist.

I never said any law was not good or correct. I've been a full supporter and advocate of civil rights since the 1960's.

It's not up to my personal belief. Has there been a court action against the Citadel for their decision? No.

 

[BluesStringer]

Hijabs are not only not a required religious observance of muslim women, there is a movement afoot trying to educate the media and turn it away from promulgating the myth that it is a requirement. Actually, I should say there's a "retro-movement" to get back to the pre-1980's understanding of the word "hijab" in the Arabic language. If you read the little bit of the WaPo article below that I copied and pasted, you'll get a flavor for why the authors believe it's a retro-movement, but read the whole thing at the link and it's explained in great detail that "hijab" and "headscarf" are not synonyms, and that further, headscarfs are not required under traditional understandings of qu'ranic law.

​

Link Removed
​

​

By Asra Q. Nomani and Hala Arafa
December 21, 2015

.... The Salt Lake Tribune published a photo of fresh-faced teenage girls, who were not Muslim, in the audience at the mosque, their hair covered with long scarves. KSL TV later reported: “The hijab — or headscarf — is a symbol of modesty and dignity. When Muslim women wear headscarves, they are readily identified as followers of Islam.”

For us, as mainstream Muslim women, born in Egypt and India, the spectacle at the mosque was a painful reminder of the well-financed effort by conservative Muslims to dominate modern Muslim societies. This modern-day movement spreads an ideology of political Islam, called “Islamism,” enlisting well-intentioned interfaith do-gooders and the media into promoting the idea that “hijab” is a virtual “sixth pillar” of Islam, after the traditional “five pillars” of the shahada (or proclamation of faith), prayer, fasting, charity and pilgrimage.

We reject this interpretation that the “hijab” is merely a symbol of modesty and dignity adopted by faithful female followers of Islam.

This modern-day movement, codified by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Taliban Afghanistan and the Islamic State, has erroneously made the Arabic word hijab synonymous with “headscarf.” This conflation of hijab with the secular word headscarf is misleading. “Hijab” literally means “curtain” in Arabic. It also means “hiding,” ”obstructing” and “isolating” someone or something. It is never used in the Koran to mean headscarf.

.... Born in the 1960s into conservative but open-minded families (Hala in Egypt and Asra in India), we grew up without an edict that we had to cover our hair. But, starting in the 1980s, following the 1979 Iranian revolution of the minority Shiite sect and the rise of well-funded Saudi clerics from the majority Sunni sect, we have been bullied in an attempt to get us to cover our hair from men and boys....

But in interpretations from the 7th century to today, theologians, from the late Moroccan scholar Fatima Mernissi to UCLA’s Khaled Abou El Fadl, and Harvard’s Leila Ahmed, Egypt’s Zaki Badawi, Iraq’s Abdullah al Judai and Pakistan’s Javaid Ghamidi, have clearly established that Muslim women are not required to cover their hair.
​

Much more at the link.

As per usual, this is just a manufactured controversy by anti-traditionalists who manipulate language and law to marginalize, impugn and eventually destroy traditionalism wherever it's found, even in cultures and societies whose adherence to, or even deviations from, the dictates of same don't matter a wit to them. It isn't foreign society they're interested in manipulating, it's American society. They are home-grown anti-traditionalists, not foreign, they just align themselves with foreign multiculturist issues like the one fomented by this anonymous pot-stirrer trying to illegitimately pass off the hijab as a religious requirement so she can get her way. Anti-traditionalists latch onto it because anything that marginalizes traditional American mores and values serves their method of getting their way. The enemy of my enemy and all that happy stuff applies nicely here.

Everything above that I wrote (excluding the indented copied and pasted text) are my opinions. Anyone demanding "proof" of anything I say should refer to this disclaimer: "The proof that these opinions are indeed mine, is that I say they are." Consider that proof of me stating my own opinions. Thanks.

Blues





.

 

[Robgmn]

Everything above that I wrote (excluding the indented copied and pasted text) are my opinions. Anyone demanding "proof" of anything I say should refer to this disclaimer: "The proof that these opinions are indeed mine, is that I say they are." Consider that proof of me stating my own opinions. Thanks.

Blues
.

We're not soliciting opinions here.
We're talking about what is and is not law.
Opinion doesn't have anything to do with the law.

And I'm sorry Reba, but you are 100% wrong.
I know you'd never believe it coming from me; I suggest you mention it to an attorney if you know any personally or are able to bring it up in conversation when one is present.
They will confirm it.

 

[Reba]

We're not soliciting opinions here.
We're talking about what is and is not law.
Opinion doesn't have anything to do with the law.

And I'm sorry Reba, but you are 100% wrong.
I know you'd never believe it coming from me; I suggest you mention it to an attorney if you know any personally or are able to bring it up in conversation when one is present.
They will confirm it.

Have any courts overruled the hijab decision by the Citadel? Nope.

Any successful suits against the decision? Nope.

 

[BluesStringer]

We're not soliciting opinions here.
We're talking about what is and is not law.
Opinion doesn't have anything to do with the law.

Newsflash: You control absolutely nothing here, and you type/speak only for yourself, so drop the "we're" doing this or that nonsense, or continue as you have and prove the validity of the negative reputation you have earned in your short time here.

That said, the article I excerpted from applies to the law. The law only makes accommodations (under very limited circumstances) for religious observances that can be demonstrated to be required under the doctrines of the religion in question. Very clearly, when two muslim women publish an article in one of the nation's leading voices of liberalism pointing out the fallacy of the notion that muslim women are required to cover their hair/heads, that speaks to the law. Your reliance on "law" concerning this issue is wholly erroneous. No law exists that says an individual can claim adherence to, and receive exemptions for, doctrinal requirements that don't exist. You've been just making stuff up without researching the truth of the matter(s) for several weeks now across a wide spectrum of subjects and issues. Speaking only for myself, your "contributions" represent hostility towards, and deep-seated ignorance of, the laws of which you speak, especially when they are arguing on behalf of some latter-day assault on traditional views of societal norms and mores.

And hey genius, "opinion" has everything to do with the law. Why do you think the Supreme Court issues Opinions? Obergfell v. Hodges is a Supreme Court Opinion which you and others have tried ad nauseum to misrepresent as including claimed "identity" as a civil right. Your opinions certainly don't matter to the law, but citing the opinions of two muslim women who provide scholarship proving that head-covering is not a requirement within muslim doctrine is an opinion that does have to do with the law, and whether it's that particular writing or some other writing that expresses that opinion in court at some point regarding the Citadel issue we're discussing, it's an opinion based in qu'ranic scholarship that will help to inform the judges/justices who might hear the case and subsequently give their opinion on which side wins under the law.

That is literally among the dumbest things I've ever read on this forum, that opinions have nothing to do with the law. Get a freakin' clue fer cryin' out loud.

Blues

 

[Robgmn]

More jibberish.

If you knew how to read and comprehend, you would know that many posts ago, I made it very clear that IF something is required by religion, then someone cannot be forced to violate that religious rule.
I even followed it up with IF the hijab were required, they would not be legally allowed to deny her the wearing of it, regardless of what their rules are.

I then provided examples of some things that ARE required by some religions, and explained the legalities of trying to force the person to violate the rules of their religion.

As for my "bad reputation": If I have a bad reputation for telling the truth, and being able to post facts, references, documented evidence, etc. to support my statements, then it speaks volumes about the people who dislike me, doesn't it?...

 

[BluesStringer]

More jibberish.

If you knew how to read and comprehend, you would know that many posts ago, I made it very clear that IF something is required by religion, then someone cannot be forced to violate that religious rule.
I even followed it up with IF the hijab were required, they would not be legally allowed to deny her the wearing of it, regardless of what their rules are.

Yeah, I saw that. In your first "IF" post you said:

If it's not required by the religion, I'd be surprised that anyone would try to fight the rule....

So now you know that hijabs are "not" required by the religion, and that some muslim chick is trying to fight the rule, so why not just drop it the second you were shown that truth? I don't think I was the first to show it to you, but I indeed did just a few posts back, and your response was to totally ignore the truth while jumping at the chance to dismiss my opinions that had a lot to do with the article I used to provide the truth to you.

But you're still arguing the same point as though the "IF" you posited early on hasn't been decimated with the fact that the hijab "issue" as it applies to both the Citadel and all branches of the military unequivocally ain't a violation of anybody's civil rights if the wearing of them is prohibited by the branch or institution under current law.

I then provided examples of some things that ARE required by some religions, and explained the legalities of trying to force the person to violate the rules of their religion.

Yeah, I saw where you fell right back into the obfuscatory rant that you started your "career" here at USA Carry with, about how gun owners are hypocrites and all they do is whine and moan about their rights being violated yada yada yada, but you didn't provide a single link to an example of anyone doing that whining and moaning. And now here you are defending your position still about the hijab issue by saying, "I... explained the legalities of trying to force the person to violate the rules of their religion." Another newsflash: Your "explanations" are meaningless in a thread about a Citadel decision to not make special accommodations for a hijab-wearing, attention-seeking, overly-litigious sharia-Nazi who hasn't had the rules of her religion violated in the least, no matter whether you look at it from the Citadel's perspective (which Reba has been quite well up to the task of providing for you) or if you look at it from the muslim doctrinal perspective that I provided for you and you completely ignored. If you want to distract from the real issue of this thread with Crucifixes, football players, Walmart shoppers, Catholic eaters and whatever seemingly endless non-issues you can conjure up to distract away from the actual topic with, then expect to be called on it, but don't expect that everyone's going to give you credit for saying "IF" when after saying it, you incessantly continue down the same rabbit-hole.

As for my "bad reputation": If I have a bad reputation for telling the truth...

Wow. You can't even be honest about telling the truth. I've lost count of how many degrees of separation you have from the truth at this point.

....and being able to post facts, references, documented evidence, etc. to support my statements, then it speaks volumes about the people who dislike me, doesn't it?...

I don't know. Your posts are typically devoid of links to documented evidence, which leaves your claim of being able to post facts and references just exactly that - an empty claim. But actually yeah, now that I think about it, since you rarely supply links, cites and documented evidence beyond just your claims, it does say something about those who don't like you. It says they're very perceptive about who they should or should not trust based entirely on the words you author staking claim to your positions on this board.

Blues

 

[Robgmn]

Yet your posts contain nothing but regurgitation of nonsense from right-wing websites, while mine contain links to statute, Federal Regulations and Acts, the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights, the Civil Rights Act, etc.
You must be suggesting that all those things are lies and untruths.

Not surprising, coming from you.

Then again, you post statements like this as if you had a shred of knowledge (or verifiable evidence) about them:
"What a load of unmitigated crap. Was Bruce Jenner a "woman trapped in a man's body" when he won one of the most demanding events in all of Olympiad sports, the decathlon? He could've never won Gold if not for the testosterone coursing through his veins, and a woman trapped in a man's body could've never produced that much testosterone to begin with."
Your doctorate in internal medicine give you that info, or did you read it in a meme?

Feel free to take the challenge and show that any proofs or verifications that I have posted are lies.
You can't do it (and don't hand me the crap line that you are "too busy", or I'm "not worth your time". If you have the time to accuse me of something, you better be able to back it up, or it's just more BS jabbering).

Take the challenge, or quite simply "shut up".

 

[Reba]

. . .

Then again, you post statements like this as if you had a shred of knowledge (or verifiable evidence) about them:

"What a load of unmitigated crap. Was Bruce Jenner a "woman trapped in a man's body" when he won one of the most demanding events in all of Olympiad sports, the decathlon? He could've never won Gold if not for the testosterone coursing through his veins, and a woman trapped in a man's body could've never produced that much testosterone to begin with."
....

That has nothing to do with this thread topic.

 

[BluesStringer]

Yet your posts contain nothing but regurgitation of nonsense from right-wing websites...

WaPo is a right-wing website?

Next.

.... while mine contain links to statute, Federal Regulations and Acts, the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights, the Civil Rights Act, etc.

Where are all these links you speak of? Your first post in this thread = no links. Your second post = no links. Your third post = no links. Your 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, all the way to the 12th and last one as of this writing that I'm responding to here are 100% devoid of links. You've made a couple of allusions to fed-regs and acts, but garbage in (hijabs are required of muslim women) equals garbage out (that any law, act, founding document would apply when no such requirement exists within muslim doctrine).

Next.

You must be suggesting that all those things are lies and untruths.

I "suggest" nothing. I came right out and said that most of those posts are nothing but obfuscatory rants and intentional distractions from the topic.

Next.

Not surprising, coming from you.

Nor should it be. I'm a truth-teller.

Next.

Then again, you post statements like this as if you had a shred of knowledge (or verifiable evidence) about them:
"What a load of unmitigated crap. Was Bruce Jenner a "woman trapped in a man's body" when he won one of the most demanding events in all of Olympiad sports, the decathlon? He could've never won Gold if not for the testosterone coursing through his veins, and a woman trapped in a man's body could've never produced that much testosterone to begin with."
Your doctorate in internal medicine give you that info, or did you read it in a meme?

Even when you quote another poster you can't be counted upon to include a link so others can see if you've quoted them in context to whatever point they were attempting to make, which of course, the above partial quote is wholly inadequate to provide. Otherwise, the above states (parts) of my opinions, which I am perfectly entitled to. I would post up the whole answer again in reply to the same nonsensical prattle that it was in response to the first time, except that it's just another in a long line in this thread of distractions that I'm not going to help you indulge in.

Next.

Feel free to take the challenge and show that any proofs or verifications that I have posted are lies.

Just the second I see any proof or verification (via links to actual proof/verification) from you that the Citadel and/or any branch of the military (that you brought up even though the UCMJ and Citadel admission regs shouldn't be being scrutinized under the law parallel to each other) has violated the rights of the sharia-Nazi trying to force the Citadel to submit to her claims of rights violations is indeed a valid claim, I will give your claimed proofs and verifications an honest once-over and tell you whether I accept them as such or not. So far I have seen nothing approaching proof or verification from you in this thread though, and I also haven't accused you of willfully lying about anything (though I must admit, I do have my suspicions), I have simply pointed out that you obfuscate and distract away from the actual topic whenever someone posts something that you can't/won't/don't know how to refute.

Next.

You can't do it (and don't hand me the crap line that you are "too busy", or I'm "not worth your time". If you have the time to accuse me of something, you better be able to back it up, or it's just more BS jabbering).

Well, I don't think I've ever intimated in any way that I am too busy to or don't have time to respond to you. That would be a lie, and like I said, I'm a truth-teller.

I have made the decision a time or three that you're not worth my time and refused to respond to you. That, too, is a function of me being a truth-teller.

In this case you make a false allegation (that I accused you of lying) and then proceed to demand that I "better be able to back up" the false allegation that you projected on me. It just doesn't work that way, and reeks of the bovine excrement jabbering you imply I engage in.

Next.

Take the challenge, or quite simply "shut up".

No.

Blues

 

[Robgmn]

I don't answer trick questions, nor do I answer questioners who I already know ask trick questions.

Blues

Of course, a trick question is one in which you'd have to answer with truth that can be verified.
Not your forte`.

 

[BluesStringer]

Of course, a trick question is one in which you'd have to answer with truth that can be verified.
Not your forte`.

Translation: "Duh, I got nuthin'."

 

[Robgmn]

Translation: "Duh, I got nuthin'."

No need for translation.
Your posts are obvious representation that you've got nuthin'.

 

[BluesStringer]

No need for translation.
Your posts are obvious representation that you've got nuthin'.

Try to keep up here, Rob.

In Post #35 this is what I got:

1) Proved that you're full of crap about me only citing/linking to right-wing sites. You got nothin' to prove otherwise, because it's a lie.

2) Proved that you're full of crap about your posts containing links to anything in this thread, much less all the documents and citations you claimed are linked in your posts. You got nothin' to counter that, because it's the verifiable truth.

3) Proved that you project accusations on me that you yourself are guilty of. I did a search after making that post, and only one person in this thread has used the word "lies," and that's you Rob. I also searched on variations like "dishonest" or "untrue" and guess what I found, Rob? You're the only one who's brought it up, as well as the only one who's dishonestly engaged in accusing me of it. You got nothing to counter that either, because it's also the verifiable truth.

4) I proved that you obfuscate from the topic with regularity, and that you did it by cross-posting a partial quote from another thread that has nothing to do with this one, and intentionally left out the context of the quote to boot. I wasn't even the only one, or even the first one, to call you out for that horrendous form, but you got nothin' to counter with because it's also true.

5) I responded honestly to your false accusation that I've ever said anything about not having time or being too busy to reply to you. You even put those accusations in quotation marks as though I really said it. You've got nothin' to counter with because, as per usual, your chest-poking posts trying to get me pissed off enough to break the rules are full of crap, and it's right here for everyone to see, so even trying to counter is pointless.

I got plenty, Rob, and you still got nothin'.

Blues

 

[Robgmn]

Try to keep up here, Rob.

In Post #35 this is what I got:

1) Proved that you're full of crap about me only citing/linking to right-wing sites. You got nothin' to prove otherwise, because it's a lie.

2) Proved that you're full of crap about your posts containing links to anything in this thread, much less all the documents and citations you claimed are linked in your posts. You got nothin' to counter that, because it's the verifiable truth.

3) Proved that you project accusations on me that you yourself are guilty of. I did a search after making that post, and only one person in this thread has used the word "lies," and that's you Rob. I also searched on variations like "dishonest" or "untrue" and guess what I found, Rob? You're the only one who's brought it up, as well as the only one who's dishonestly engaged in accusing me of it. You got nothing to counter that either, because it's also the verifiable truth.

4) I proved that you obfuscate from the topic with regularity, and that you did it by cross-posting a partial quote from another thread that has nothing to do with this one, and intentionally left out the context of the quote to boot. I wasn't even the only one, or even the first one, to call you out for that horrendous form, but you got nothin' to counter with because it's also true.

5) I responded honestly to your false accusation that I've ever said anything about not having time or being too busy to reply to you. You even put those accusations in quotation marks as though I really said it. You've got nothin' to counter with because, as per usual, your chest-poking posts trying to get me pissed off enough to break the rules are full of crap, and it's right here for everyone to see, so even trying to counter is pointless.

I got plenty, Rob, and you still got nothin'.

Blues

You're stating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that I linked to is crap and not legit.
You've just destroyed any slightest bit of credibility you have.

The same is true of evolutionist's beliefs too. At some point, whenever you think monkeys or apes evolved into human beings, there had to be a first man and a first woman that all other human beings are spawned from. Substantively, what's the difference? And apparently you too, are fine with that, no?
Blues

Scientific fact, or opinion?

And those of us who keep telling the truth keep hearing people who can't (or won't) accept it call us whiners.

(Are you a registered voetr?) Nope, not anymore. Was registered before we moved to a new county, but took the opportunity to not volunteer any more information to government than absolutely necessary when we came here a year+ ago.

Nope. Don't vote in any elections anymore. Why? Because it's a corrupt system that forces one to choose between two (or more) either already-corrupted, or easily-corruptible, candidates, and I refuse to feel obligated or shamed into participating in the criminal enterprise otherwise known as "government.

Blues

And yet you spend this much time yammering on about the government and how much you hate it.
All while refusing to take part in it.

I read every post of Ringo's that I see. I click on the links to at least 75% of them. I learn from them and find comfort in their message.

What you're engaging in in the above is, in secular, psychological terms, called "projection." You have no idea how many people read what Ringo posts, no idea at all.

Blues

That speaks volumes.

You hate being wrong, don't you. There's nothing you can link to that says there's an anti-brandishing law in AL, and AL is not the only state without such a law. It's your canard, not mine.

There's also nothing that you can link to that suggests it's a great idea to state specifically what you would/will do in either a hypothetical or real-life scenario. There is plenty that I could link to that advises people to keep it general, not personal. You'll notice that I'm not alone in implementing that advice. Only one person has said specifically what they would do....well.... two I guess counting you, but whatever, I have been nothing but polite in stating my position(s) with you. How about you take your internet-forum psychology degree and stick it where the sun don't shine? That's what I would do if I were you. There. You got a specific answer about what would I do.

Blues

Incorrect, but when you were proven wrong, you tried to deflect by stating that the information contained in the Clanton, AL Police Department's own website is wrong.
Obfuscatory, perhaps?

Not if you open your mouth to ask the cop a legal question. The only time you waive your right to refuse to answer the cops' questions is when you're answering the cops' questions. You waive nothing by putting the cop on record concerning the nature of the interaction. Nothing at all from a legal perspective. One could counter that it does no good to put them on the record, but it is not accurate to assert that one's rights are voluntarily waived when they do so.

Blues

Quite possibly you meant the right to remain silent?
Incorrect, either way. When you speak, you have waived the right to remain silent, even if you want to believe you're just "putting the cop on notice".

Not to draw this off-topic, but that one is easy. Many bakers, photographers, florists, party favor makers and business owners offering other services/merchandise have been forced at the point of government guns to accommodate the LGBT mafia in direct contravention of their own feelings.

It is absolutely a one-way street, however, that doesn't begin to address the feelings of the deepest and widest segment(s) of society, which I think is the gist of your point(?).

Blues

Cited references and proofs? Or another opinion stated as fact?

Not one single word of my above post came from Faux News. I also didn't read about the pertinent law on their, or any other mainstream media's, website. But you go ahead and pretend that linking to and quoting the relevant law doesn't thoroughly debunk the credibility of the incomplete CNN report that you linked to.

I agree with you on one thing though. You are sorry.

Blues

'Don't know about the pertinent law, but we'll assume you think it would be lies and obfuscation anyway.

Anyone still on the property that he robbed and/or burglarized after having threatened the occupant with a gun, and running in any direction with the loot he stole, is still in the act of committing the crime(s), whether the occupant of the dwelling is 11 years old, or 111 years old, or anywhere in between. The presumption of a threat remains for however long it takes for the meth-head to complete his crime(s) and leave.

If for some unfathomable reason you believe either or both of the above statements don't express the law as it existed on the day Chris Gaither opened fire on a burglar/robber, then show the section(s) of the Code that debunks them. You have to read into the Code before you can say "the way you read it." The way you read it is clearly not in the Code that controls use of force law in Alabama.

Blues

Statement of law without any way to back it up.

The Kleins' case isn't about sex or sexuality as you previously asserted. It's about being penalized financially in an extra-constitutional administrative law "court" that lacked any due process and where the "judge" quashed their First Amendment rights of free speech by issuing a cease and desist order preventing them from talking about the lowly case on their Facebook page(s). The case being discussed in this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the BoR as they might apply to the gay mafia members who sicced government pirates on the Kleins because of their hurt freakin' feelings. This case is about the Kleins only, and would only ever encompass the initial denial of service if the Kleins win this case and then appeal the extra-constitutional penalties that came out of a no-due-process process known as "administrative law court." People are entitled to due process. Administrative law courts should never take up any issue involving legal disputes between people, because no due process is even available at that level of "court."

And I did cite a case that supports my position - Hobby Lobby v. Burwell. Just because it wasn't a sodomite-issues case doesn't mean that upholding the Kleins' religious liberties won't eventually happen just the way it did for Hobby Lobby, because their case isn't a sodomite-issues case, it's a private business operating under Biblical principles case just like Hobby Lobby's case was.

Blues

Funny, the bakers refused to bake a cake because of the customers sexuality. The case also had "absolutely nothing to do with the BOR".
Maybe you should have explained that to all parties involved before the legal battle regarding discrimination.
A court case based on "hurt feelings" might have gotten a lot less press.

Unwilling. With you specifically. The last question you asked is precisely why I asked what would be the point of offering proofs of what I say? You will "accept" whatever "implication" you conjure up in your mind, and the discussion would inevitably spiral into a series of circular logic calls and responses that I have no interest in participating in. That's because your view of the world is diametrically opposed to mine. We will never see the world through each others' eyes.

I broke my self-imposed rule just this once and answered one of your questions directly. That's just going to have to be enough for you, because I have no interest in answering any more. Not "unable," just unwilling, which is my right, and which you should respect.

Blues

You refuse to offer proof to back up what you say, because you won't like how that proof will be understood?
'Interesting way to avoid backing up what you state.

I don't answer trick questions, nor do I answer questioners who I already know ask trick questions.

Blues

Trick questions being those that ask you to prove what you state.


I've tried to find posts of yours where you support what you state, but there are far too many that are just youtube video links, or photobucket images (memes?) and the pages that I have gone through.
I did see that any time I asked you for proof of your statements, you declined, or spun off on a tangential thought instead.
But heaven forbid I accuse you of not posting facts.