Citadel considers uniform exception: allowing a Muslim hijab

[BluesStringer]

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.

I just checked again. There are zero links in any post of yours in this thread. That's zip, zero, nada. Your reference or allusion to a law does not equal a link. A link is (usually, depending on individual settings in a browser) blue in color, like this: Link Removed.

Scientific fact, or opinion?.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.That speaks volumes.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.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".Cited references and proofs?Or another opinion stated as fact?'Don't know about the pertinent law, but we'll assume you think it would be lies and obfuscation anyway.Statement of law without any way to back it up.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.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.Trick questions being those that ask you to prove what you state.

This is commonly referred to as thread-jacking. Right after I report this blatant and most egregious case of it that I've ever seen, I will attempt again to ignore you.

Blues

 

[Robgmn]

I just checked again. There are zero links in any post of yours in this thread. That's zip, zero, nada. Your reference or allusion to a law does not equal a link. A link is (usually, depending on individual settings in a browser) blue in color, like this: Link Removed.



This is commonly referred to as thread-jacking. Right after I report this blatant and most egregious case of it that I've ever seen, I will attempt again to ignore you.

Blues

Resistance is futile
I apologize for not providing an actual link to the text of the Civil Rights Act.
It is readily available through Google (unlike your statement of the "many bakers" who have been forced to bake in violation of their religion), but here it is, in all its glory. Maybe I'll forgo links from now on, and just post the entire text of documents such as this: http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/PPL_CivilRightsAct_1964.pdf

 

[BluesStringer]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, amendments included, can be found here at the EEOC website in text format that can be text-string and/or word-searched for anyone wishing to argue the applicability to this or any other case or thread being discussed on this site. I personally am done arguing with a thread-jacking incompetent who doesn't know the difference between an allusion to a law and a link. I'm reasonably sure that anyone with so much as 9th-grade reading comprehension skills can find within the link above absolute debunkery of the notion that it applies to student uniform requirements at a public higher-learning institution when the person seeking an exemption from said requirements is not required, herself, under the doctrines of the qu'ran to engage in the religious observance she claims to be seeking the exemption for, and even more to the point, the decision was not based on her religion in the first place. Not that that assertion hasn't already been previously proved over and over again, but if anybody's interested, now you can scour the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and prove it another way too if'n you're so inclined.

Blues

 

[Robgmn]

Since you insist on yammering on about your inability to understand the discussion, I will prove that I discussed the situation of being required by one's religion to wear a hijab as an IF, not an ABSOLUTE. It's right there in the 4th line of text. As plain as day.
I also stated that IF it was required by religion, then mandating that someone violate the rules of their religion would be discrimination, which it iS.
Like many other threads, there were additional topics discussed, and avenues of discussion.
You inability to keep up is not my problem:

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.

 

[mikestone967]

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

Link Removed



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mikestone967]

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.


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.

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


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.



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.


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.


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


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.


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.

You'll never get anywhere with this one... His mind is closed to any opinion other than his own.. Sad.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mikestone967]

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

I know I haven't been here long but I've gotta say this...

I love ya man! Your replies are incredible!




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mikestone967]

In the face of such complete and utter devastation, Rob has not only been schooled... He's been schooled in such an EPIC manner that if I were him, I'd not be coming back anytime soon!

Ouch!

ETA: this is my opinion as expressed by me.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Robgmn]

You'll never get anywhere with this one... His mind is closed to any opinion other than his own.. Sad.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Nice try to deflect from your failures in other posts, but height and weight are not "protected" under anti-discrimination laws.
Disability is protected, but only if they discriminate based on disability. A person being unable to perform a required task is NOT being discriminated against (I'll keep the analogy simple as you seem to need it: A transit authority is not discriminating against blind people when they require a bus driver to have eyesight).

The law is NOT my opinion; it is the LAW.

In the face of such complete and utter devastation, Rob has not only been schooled... He's been schooled in such an EPIC manner that if I were him, I'd not be coming back anytime soon!
Ouch!

ETA: this is my opinion as expressed by me.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And yet another opinion that is false.
You're really sinking fast, Mike.
Maybe you should retreat to your meme-laden "safe place" for a while until you can do something RIGHT.

 

[mikestone967]

Nice try to deflect from your failures in other posts, but height and weight are not "protected" under anti-discrimination laws.
Disability is protected, but only if they discriminate based on disability. A person being unable to perform a required task is NOT being discriminated against (I'll keep the analogy simple as you seem to need it: A transit authority is not discriminating against blind people when they require a bus driver to have eyesight).

The law is NOT my opinion; it is the LAW.



And yet another opinion that is false.
You're really sinking fast, Mike.
Maybe you should retreat to your meme-laden "safe place" for a while until you can do something RIGHT.

Seek help my friend. You most certainly need it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Robgmn]

Seek help my friend. You most certainly need it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

YOU'RE wrong and are afraid to admit it, yet you suggest that I seek help.
That's rich.

 

[mikestone967]

YOU'RE wrong and are afraid to admit it, yet you suggest that I seek help.
That's rich.

Your in need of severe help. Please, before you hurt yourself or someone else.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Reba]

Update:

"Norwich University, a nearly 200-year-old private military college in Vermont, has granted an accepted student’s request to wear hijab in keeping with her Muslim faith, a decision that was welcomed by some but also provoked outrage for some alumni and cadets...."

Link Removed



The school also granted her permission to wear long sleeves and long pants with all her uniforms.

It didn't address other religious restrictions such as dietary requirements or not being alone with a unrelated males.

 

[XD40scinNC]

Link Removed

 

[Blueshell]

The Citadel considers first-ever uniform exception: allowing a Muslim hijab​

The Citadel is considering a request from an admitted student that she be allowed to wear a hijab in keeping with her Muslim faith, a move that would be an unprecedented exception to the school’s longstanding uniform requirements.​

Link Removed​

Given 1 Corinthians 11, Christin women should be allowed to wear it, too.

Generaly speaking, however, it's just clothing. Please stop worrying about playing dress-up with the military and concern yourself which how the military is actually used.

 

[sethvas8]

If you can't wear the uniform you can't do the job. My job requires that I some times wear hair nets for food safety. I'm not allowed to wear hats or head covering while I wear hair nets. If I was a Muslim women would that be discrimination?

Sent from my HTC One M9 using Tapatalk