Crime NY City o pay $17.5M for forcing Muslim women to remove hijabs...

[avenue94]

"Anti-islamophobia" = preferential treatment for muslims.

I am against it. I am against any preferential treatment for anybody, except children, people with real disabilities, etc. The law is the same for all.

P.s. being a muslim is not a disability, it's a choice. Your choice = your responsibility. The society should not bear any inconveniences because of your choice/responsibility.

It's preferential treatment for religious folks. You can oppose that, but there's no point in pretending like that's in line with the American conception of the First Amendment as is.

 

[oldshadow]

It's literally from the article you still have not read.

Damages from the settlement, which total just over $13 million once administrative costs and lawyers’ fees are deducted, will be split among the thousands of people who are expected to file claims on similar grounds.

I'm still waiting to hear this compelling state interest that you can't elaborate on.

As in you're giving excuses because your position is hollow and unsupported by American history? Yes, yes indeed.

"Expected" means they pulled some numbers out of their ass. Anyone could say it happened but if they need proof, like a mug shot where the scarf was removed. I'm going to say there are sure not thousands of them.

The lawyers need better oversight in their expense claims also.

 

[fungi]

As in you're giving excuses because your position is hollow and unsupported by American history? Yes, yes indeed.

My position is hollow?

Taking pictures of uncovered face AND head for identification purposes is hollow, because you found some pics on the internet?

Because some photographer didn't follow the protocol?

 

[fungi]

It's preferential treatment for religious folks. You can oppose that, but there's no point in pretending like that's in line with the American conception of the First Amendment as is.

You may misinterpret freedom of religion any way you want.
The rules are rules. End of story.

 

[avenue94]

"Expected" means they pulled some numbers out of their ass. Anyone could say it happened but if they need proof, like a mug shot where the scarf was removed. I'm going to say there are sure not thousands of them.

The lawyers need better oversight in their expense claims also.

Again, the point of the penalty is not only for plaintiffs. It's to disincentivize the NYPD, a billion dollar organization, from repeating its mistakes. And I wouldn't be surprised if it was thousands over the past several years given the population size we're dealing with for a major metro area.

I'm not sure if you're opposed to class actions in general or not, but a couple million dollars is a pretty normal fee for winning a case of that size.

You may misinterpret freedom of religion any way you want.
The rules are rules. End of story.

Yeah, and guess what is the highest rule of all in this instance? The constitution.

My position is hollow?

Taking pictures of uncovered face AND head for identification purposes is hollow, because you found some pics on the internet?

Because some photographer didn't follow the protocol?

Why would you need to see hair for mug shots?

 

[fungi]

Why would you need to see hair for mug shots?

For clearer identification.
Hair color is even written/indicated on one's DL.
The hairdo and color is often used to describe a person, especially for police sketches, etc.

P.s. Are you trolling? Or do you just love being a contrarian? Or are you a "true believer in the liberal cause"?

 

[Islam Imamate]

"Anti-islamophobia" = preferential treatment for muslims.

I am against it. I am against any preferential treatment for anybody, except children, people with real disabilities, etc. The law is the same for all.

But this isn't about preferential treatment, its about reasonable accommodation. To use your example of disability it would be like saying ramps are preferential treatment for the disabled when a reasonable person would instead see them as accommodations.

P.s. being a muslim is not a disability, it's a choice. Your choice = your responsibility. The society should not bear any inconveniences because of your choice/responsibility.

Being religious in general is a choice but that doesn't change the fact that people have a right to practice their religion which includes reasonable accommodations, that's what we have the 1st amendment for.

 

[avenue94]

For clearer identification.
Hair color is even written/indicated on one's DL.
The hairdo and color is often used to describe a person, especially for police sketches, etc.

P.s. Are you trolling? Or do you just love being a contrarian? Or are you a "true believer in the liberal cause"?

People change their hair all the time. You might as well argue that people who don't weigh what their ID says should be prosecuted for perjury.

Police sketches are very different from mug shots, which are not primarily used for that kind of identification. Let me ask you this. Should a women be asked to remove their hair extensions or what their natural hair color is for a mugshot?

 

[fungi]

But this isn't about preferential treatment, its about reasonable accommodation. To use your example of disability it would be like saying ramps are preferential treatment for the disabled when a reasonable person would instead see them as accommodations.

Being religious in general is a choice but that doesn't change the fact that people have a right to practice their religion which includes reasonable accommodations, that's what we have the 1st amendment for.

Dude,
Preferential treatment for a disabled person =/= preferential treatment for a religious nut who chooses to be a religious nut.

Your comparison is whack. Void of basic common sense.

Disability* =/= choice.
Religion = choice.

DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?!!

* - lately some morons choose to be truly disabled.

P.s. REASONABLE is the key word here. $17 mil in damages is reasonable in WHAT BLOODY UNIVERSE?!!!

imamito, I truly hope you do understand reason. Otherwise, you're a lost cause.

 

[fungi]

People change their hair all the time. You might as well argue that people who don't weigh what their ID says should be prosecuted for perjury.

Police sketches are very different from mug shots, which are not primarily used for that kind of identification. Let me ask you this. Should a women be asked to remove their hair extensions or what their natural hair color is for a mugshot?

People change eye color with lenses all the time, people change lip shape with botox injections all the time, people change chin shape with beards all the time, etc.

Blahdy-fucking-blah...

 

[jk7707]

So what, some lazy ass photographer didn't follow the rules...

It's human nature to slack off. The rules exist to prevent the fall of society.

Good news! The NYPD changed the policy in 2020. The fall of society has been averted. Now you can finally stop with your hysterical hand wringing.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Dude,
a preferential treatment for a disabled person =/= preferential treatment for a religious nut who chooses to be a religious nut.

Your comparison is whack. Void of basic common sense.

A real disability* =/= choice.
Religion = choice.

DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?!!

* - lately some morons choose to be truly disabled.

P.s. REASONABLE is the key word here. $17 mil in damages is reasonable in WHAT BLOODY UNIVERSE?!!!

imamito, I truly hope you do understand reason. Otherwise, you're a lost cause.

The fact that religion is a choice is irrelevant, the 1st amendment protects the right to practice one's religion which the courts have decided includes reasonable accommodations. In this case those reasonable accommodations were denied these women and so their 1st amendment rights were violated, hence the ruling in tehir favor

We're not exactly talking about some obscure matter of constitutional law or like the 23rd amendment, its the first amendment to the Bill of Rights. If you don't agree with the first amendment or how its interpreted that's one thing but nothing here is new. I remember in high school my Jewish social studies teacher using me as an example and telling the class that I had a right to a reasonable accommodation for my prayer.

 

[avenue94]

People change eye color with lenses all the time, people change lip shape with botox injections all the time, people change chin shape with beards all the time, etc.

Blahdy-fucking-blah...

So again...there is no compelling state interest in ensuring hair is visible in mugshots given how easy and frequently hair changes, male or female.

Not to mention, for example, ID's only ask corrective lenses or not, not color of lenses. I wonder why...

 

[fungi]

Good news! The NYPD changed the policy in 2020. The fall of society has been averted. Now you can finally stop with your hysterical hand wringing.

17 mil of tax payers money paid to a couple of race/religion grifters is not a part of a fall of society? Defund the police, rise in crime, elderly asians and white women being punched in the face by some randos of "inidentified race" in broad daylight in NYC, etc?
All is fine. All is well. jk. Or not. Or 7707...

You wouldn't see that fall if it hit you in the face with all its "concrete" hardness.

 

[fungi]

The fact that religion is a choice is irrelevant, the 1st amendment protects the right to practice one's religion which the courts have decided includes reasonable accommodations. In this case those reasonable accommodations were denied these women and so their 1st amendment rights were violated, hence the ruling in tehir favor

We're not exactly talking about some obscure matter of constitutional law or like the 23rd amendment, its the first amendment to the Bill of Rights. If you don't agree with the first amendment or how its interpreted that's one thing but nothing here is new. I remember in high school my Jewish social studies teacher using me as an example and telling the class that I had a right to a reasonable accommodation for my prayer.

Imamito, listen to reason, truly listen to it, if you can. And tell me if $17 mil is the voice of reason.

 

[fungi]

So again...there is no compelling state interest in ensuring hair is visible in mugshots given how easy and frequently hair changes, male or female.

Not to mention, for example, ID's only ask corrective lenses or not, not color of lenses. I wonder why...

Dude, seriously, are you trolling?

 

[jamel]

Welp… their terrorist splinter cell is about to be very happy

 

[avenue94]

Dude, seriously, are you trolling?

Pointing out that this discussion is about the balance of state interests and individual rights is trolling to you? Again, you seem very ignorant of the Constitution and how it applies in this instance.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Imamito, listen to reason, truly listen to it, if you can. And tell me if $17 mil is the voice of reason.

Are you going to even try to respond to anything I said there? Have you even heard of the first amendment and the freedom of religion clause? If you're not even aware of these basic facts then I'm not sure where you get the gall to talk down to anyone else on the matter.

 

[jk7707]

17 mil of tax payers money paid to a couple of race/religion grifters is not a part of a fall of society? Defund the police, rise in crime, elderly asians and white women being punched in the face by some randos of "inidentified race" in broad daylight in NYC, etc?
All is fine. All is well. jk. Or not. Or 7707...

You wouldn't see that fall if it hit you in the face with all its "concrete" hardness.

My bad. Please continue your hysterical shrieking about the fall of society.