So, Anthracite: Which of your civil rights do I get to violate just because I don’t like the way you live your life?
give it a rest Monty you bitched me out claiming that I was violating civil rights of people based on what they may have done prior to a religious conversion, when in reality, I was pointing out that in these very specific cases, there were people who were demanding a consession based on religious grounds when they were failing at a very substantive way to follow the dictates of that religion, and I was refusing, not to ‘deny their civil rights’ but to acceed to unreasonable demands (there is no constitutional ‘right’ to certain types of breakfast meats. I was obligated to provide appropriate food based on dietary and religious concerns, but I was not obligated to provide absolutely everything that some one requested), regardless of the ‘rationale’ for the request. I also refused to purchase steak and lobster.
So, Antracite came in and tried to point that out to you gently and you want to take her to task over it?
try admitting that you were fucking wrong in your statement to me in the first place.
What’s truly amazing is that the State of Illinois actually issued a license with her wearing a mask (that’s what it is, when you get down to it.)
Ya gotta wonder what kind of morons work at the DMV in Illinois…
Just so you know, Monty, it’s well-established that the state may inquire into the genuineness of a person’s professed religious beliefs and discount them appropriately when found to be fake. The state may not, however, inquire into the truth or falsity of the underlying beliefs. wring’s refusal to provide a Muslim-friendly diet to people who apparently were not genuine Muslims easily passes the Free Exercise smell test.
Just so you know, forcing someone to eat something forbidden by their religion is a violation of their civil rights. I bitched you out because you didn’t make any kind of time frame (such as “hey, they’re doing this crap right now”) in your freaking post.
minty: No, it doesn’t. It easily passes the “hey, you don’t follow all the dictates of your religion so fuck it, I’m going to force you to not follow yet another one.”
BTW, I’m fucking stunned. I didn’t know you were such a hateful asshole against Musliims.
excuse the fuck out of me, Monty but just where in the fuck did I say that I forced anyone to eat anything?
hmmmm??
Nowhere, right?
Learn to read first, before you go shooting your fucking mouth off.
Oh, right. Let’s just continue to put food in front of people their religion forbids them to eat. You’re not forcing them to eat. But what’s the alternative? Right! Not eating.
I can read. I’m still stunned that you’re taking this approach.
BTW, asshole of the year, who posted this?
Oh blow it out your ass, Monty
The “right” to drive is not one of the freedoms afforded by our constitution. Nor is freedom of religion absolute.
So far, Wring, Anth and Minty have been clear and cogent and you’re having a tantrum (Minty is hateful to Muslims? bwahahaha!).
And while was kind of fun to watch you rant, it’s getting tiresome at this point…if you’re going to melt-down, why not get it ver with.
Fenris
And calling Minty Green “a hateful asshole against Muslims”?
Minty Green???
The dude is one of the most patient and rational posters on the board! You are so way out of line on this one, Monty. For writing
he gets called a hateful asshole? You need to apologize right fast, Monty.
asshole. I refused to provide beef bacon. I did not refuse to provide other foods that fit their dietary concerns. Show me where I wrote that the only thing I provided for breakfast was ham products, and or other things they couldn’t eat.
Try, really. Can’t do it, can you?
You fucked up here and are acting like a jerk. you misunderstood my original post, I corrected you and you’ve called me names and accused me of violating peoples civil rights, and telling me that I forced people to eat pork or starve.
I have said nothing of that sort, and did nothing of the sort.
Stop accusing me of wrongful acts w/o substantiation. That’s called ‘stop being a jerk’.
And how about stop being a liar?
What part of “I figured if they were ignoring their religious constraints regarding drugs, alcohol, extramaritial sex etc, they were already courting damnation and a bit o’ pig wasn’t going to push 'em anywhere they weren’t already” is the reading public supposed to know you really didn’t mean?
What part of the definition of “stunned” do you not understand?
Fenris: Blow it out your own ass. I directed that comment to wring. See that posting there with those very words in it?
I used to respect you, wring. I now see that you are a liar and a bigot. Frankly, I’m seriously disappointed in that.
Hey, I hope I’m wrong. Frankly, I find it disgusting to put something you know someone has religious objections against consuming in front of them, and the disgusting part (to me) is that the decision to do that is based on “I figured if they were ignoring their religious constraints regarding drugs, alcohol, extramaritial sex etc, they were already courting damnation and a bit o’ pig wasn’t going to push 'em anywhere they weren’t already.”
See that first sentence right there above? See it? See it? The one where I said I hope I’m wrong.
It could be argued that several of my “civil rights” are already either heavily restricted or taken away, depending on how one defines them. I mean, there has to be some sort of consensus on what constitutes a “civil right” and what constitutes “what someone wants to have”.
Let’s take the example - Sikh children wanting to carry their tiny ceremonial knives into schools. Now, imagine it’s a “zero-tolerance” school - you know, where you can expelled for having a butter knife in your car? Well…haven’t the civil rights of the Sikh been violated, if they can’t carry their knives?
And let’s say I don’t especially like the idea of Some People being allowed to carry deadly weapons in school with impunity, because that’s their religion. So I decide to carry my Gerber Mark II into school, because in the Religion of Una, all women must be armed to protect the flower of their virginity from the wickedness of the men, who would steal their nectar and spread their loathsome pollen into their flower…
And now the school decides to expell me. Why? Don’t they have to prove that my religion is not “valid”? And how do they do that, exactly? Why isn’t my religion true and valid, if it is a belief system that I truly believe in? Or maybe, even better, they can get into micromanaging exactly what type of knife we all can carry: Sikhs from West India can carry a 2-inch blade, non-folding. Sikhs from East India, since straight blades are an abomination before God, must carry a 1-inch folding blade…meanwhile, the followers Religion of Una are asking a judge what acid test was used exactly to determine that her religion was not “real” and other religions were “real”. And the judge is wondering why he didn’t retire 3 years ago and buy that lake house he wanted.
The State can easily get caught up in nitpicky Mickey-Mouse bullshit like this very quickly. So why not treat people as equally as possible, as fairly as possible? Yes, some people will get the short end of the stick - but then, my Manual of Life had the Chapter on “Fairness” torn out and used in an outhouse, when the old Sears catalogue done’ ran out of pages.
Here’s what Wring wrote:
Women in jail decide to call themselves Muslim and fuck with the jailer by asking for special foods in addition to their regular diet are in no danger of starvation. YOU, Monty are the liar and bigot here. You are accusing Wring of torturing and starving prisoners–that’s fucked up.
Dude, take the lithium, you’ll feel better.
Show me where the fuck I lied you twit.
In the point you’re quoting, I didn’t say they were forced to eat anything.
It was less than clear, but a simple question would have clarified it, instead you’ve escalated it to enormous levels.
Bigot?
Where?
I said (and still maintain) that for those people who I worked with who claimed to have converted to Islam, yet still Swore, drank, shot up heroin, cocaine, and everything else around, stole, lied, etc, weren’t in a position to demand that I make large concessions to their dietary concerns, and didn’t appear to be serious in their conversion. It seemed from working where they lived and watching their actions over a course of several months that the only tenents of Islam that they did adhere to was a desire for non pork products and a preference for the tag ‘el’ at the end of their name.
Not that you fucking asked (rather than accused) but I provided ample food that was DID adhere to their claimed religious concerns, but chose to not provide absolutely everything they asked for. I drew the line at Beef Bacon which was substantially more expensive at the time. During the entire 14 years that I did this, there wasn’t a single grievance that was found having merit. Not a single one.
It was a reasonable line, and I stand behind my decision.
You’re acusing me of serious board violations.
Show me where the fuck I lied and where I’m being bigotted.
To steer this flame fest back on track, I will be following this case with interest as the Florida DMV tries to explain why it’s necessary to have a license with a photograph in their state. I’m especially interested in hearing their rationale in contrast to other states which permit those with a religious objection to photography (or inability to be in the state at the time that their prior license expires) to have a license without a photo, like Pennsylvania. Or in contrast to those states which regularly issues licenses without a clear photo of a full face, like all of those states which picture under 21 drivers in profile instead of straight on, which was SOP for several midwestern and southern states for quite a few years (and may still be – can anyone confirm?).
Freeman has offered to have a thumbprint on file and pictured on her license. Florida turned down that offer, btw, even though a thumbprint is far better identification than a picture – with or without veil – could ever be.
From the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code:
So, not that I want to start a big war over this, tlw, but I think you need to check on stuff before you speak of it.
And fingerprints are inadequate for immediate identification, which is what driver’s licenses are all about.
A thumbprint cannot conveniently be checked. Yes, the technology to do so is getting better, smaller, and cheaper, but still costs too much for PD’s.
A picture is simple, cheap, effective (enough), and the vast majority of people have no problem with it. Like many people said, she is under no obligation to get her bare-faced picture taken. But if she does not, she does not meet the requirements for a DL.
Monty, I cordially and respectfully ask you to retract that slur on my motives. Immediately.