Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The House

[Faun]

I hate to break this to you Sparky, but this woman did figure out how to live in our system, she figured out that the rule against headwear can be changed, and it will be. So your argument that she isn't living within our system is 100% dead wrong.

She is not living in our system, she is changing it to be HER system. We are the ones that are going to have to learn to live in it now.

Fucking hat bans on the fucking House floor are NOT "our system", for crying out loud unprintably! Please stop confusing your personal prejudices with essential American culture. It's a frigging dress code that applies to fewer than 500 people - none of whom are objecting, and none of whom are YOU - and matters to almost no one.

No one is asking you to "learn to live in" anything except for a world where everyone is not like you, and doesn't need to be, and where you just need to mind your own business and tend to your own life. And given the fact that you have ALWAYS lived in that world, whether or you were too ignorant to know it or not, I'd say it's long past time you learned that lesson.

It's a symbol of the utter lack of consideration given to our traditions and culture, in the larger course of events.

You dumbfuck, preserving and protecting constitutional rights is among our finest traditions and symbols of our culture.

It’s a pity you love your bigotry more than you hate the Constitution.

As has been pointed out, limitations on those rights occur all the time, such as not being allowed to carry firearms into the House.


You can shove your accusations of bigotry up your ass, asshole.

While it’s true that limitations on all rights, including religious freedoms, do exist, the aspect of that you willfully choose to ignore is that when limitations are applied, there must be compelling interests by the government to restrict rights.

As has been woefully demonstrated, you can’t cite any compelling interests in this case to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment right to exercise their religion.

So there is no reason not to change the rule accordingly.

Your whining about being annoyed is not a compelling interest. Your bigoted bitching about her being Muslim is not a compelling interest. Your nonsense about others failing to change that rule over fashion statements is not a compelling interest.

 

[bodecea]

Even if that were true, so what?

It is not fair to the community, to disregard it's choices and/or interests in favor of one individual, especially a newcomer.




When this type of privilege is granted and the stakes are higher, it rises to an Injustice.

Why can't you just admit your bigotry and get it over with? We all see it in your writings!

Because it is not true.


If you've been following my writings, you should have noticed that I am just as annoyed with changes from white liberals.


Freaking morons.

TFB for you that you being annoyed is NOT a compelling interest in denying a U.S. citizen their First Amendment right to exercise their religion in accordance with the tenets of their faith.

YOu want to address the point of the post you hit the reply button for?

Rhetorical question. I know you asshole libs don't roll that way. But I repeat myself.

Name calling again

 

[bodecea]

I hate to break this to you Sparky, but this woman did figure out how to live in our system, she figured out that the rule against headwear can be changed, and it will be. So your argument that she isn't living within our system is 100% dead wrong.

She is not living in our system, she is changing it to be HER system. We are the ones that are going to have to learn to live in it now.

Fucking hat bans on the fucking House floor are NOT "our system", for crying out loud unprintably! Please stop confusing your personal prejudices with essential American culture. It's a frigging dress code that applies to fewer than 500 people - none of whom are objecting, and none of whom are YOU - and matters to almost no one.

No one is asking you to "learn to live in" anything except for a world where everyone is not like you, and doesn't need to be, and where you just need to mind your own business and tend to your own life. And given the fact that you have ALWAYS lived in that world, whether or you were too ignorant to know it or not, I'd say it's long past time you learned that lesson.

It's a symbol of the utter lack of consideration given to our traditions and culture, in the larger course of events.

You dumbfuck, preserving and protecting constitutional rights is among our finest traditions and symbols of our culture.

It’s a pity you love your bigotry more than you hate the Constitution.

As has been pointed out, limitations on those rights occur all the time, such as not being allowed to carry firearms into the House.


You can shove your accusations of bigotry up your ass, asshole.

Even more rude name-calling.

 

[Faun]

More name calling.

No, Faun is supporting violence against a child and lying about his reason for doing so.


That means he is putting out nothing but shit, on this pages.

Calling him on his vile lies, is a valid point.



You are being willfully ignorant on this issue.

Where had Faun supported violence against a child? How about you show us where he did that.......and at the same time, you still haven't given us a link to this claim tho I asked for it at least twice: Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The House

I supported one student punching another student because he’s a known nazi at their high school. He got smashed in the face after making a racist gesture at the student who struck him, who’s black.

What Correll lies about is his fallacious claim that I lied about why I supported the beat down when I said I supported it because I see nothing wrong with beating up nazi’s since they tried to wipe out Jews.

Well, he was defending a NAZI, eh?

Nothing I said could reasonably, not, SANELY be called a defense of a nazi.


You are an asshole.

Well that’s not true. Using the Correll methodology of making up any reason you want in lieu of unanswered questions means others can apply that same philosophy to you. So where you say it’s not ok to beat up nazi’s, according to the rules you play by, means you can be categorized as a nazi sympathizer.

 

[Faun]

Really? You throw out "Well, other people have tried to get the rule changed, but they didn't get it. Only she did," and you don't think it's relevant to actually substantiate that? You make an argument, but the verifiable details can just be dismissed?

Well, let me make it relevant for you, Bigot Boy. No details = it's a lie you made up to sell your position.

Unless/until you prove otherwise, the rule was changed because she's the first person who has requested accommodation for her religious beliefs. You want to claim otherwise, do NOT expect to just say it and have it stand. I don't accept that shit when leftists do it, and I don't accept it here.

OK, asshole, if it means that much to you, though I doubt it does.

House Democrats hope to change 181-year-old rule barring hats to include exemption for religious headwear


"Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson, known for her wide collection of hats, tried to get the rule evoked in 2010, calling it “sexist,” according to the Miami Herald.

“It dates back to when men wore hats and we know that men don't wear hats indoors, but women wear hats indoors,” Wilson said. “Hats are what I wear. People get excited when they see the hats. Once you get accustomed to it, it's just me. Some people wear wigs, or high heel shoes or big earrings or pins. This is just me.” "

You dumbfuck, Wilson didn’t seek to get the rule changed in order to preserve her First Amendment right to exercise her religion. She wanted to wear hats on the House floor for fashion purposes, which violates the intent of the rule. The rule was put in place as a symbol of respect for that chamber. It was never intended to deny anyone their religious freedoms.

Others here are right. You’re fueled by nothing but bigotry.

I said the rule had been challenged before. Your moving of the goal posts is nothing but the standard intellectual and moral cowardice that defines the modern "liberal".


And, as your post was basically nothing but a name calling. You are an asshole.

LOL

And your example of the rule being challenged is one which is irrelevant to the reason the rule is being challenged now. The reason it’s being changed is due to its infringement on the First Amendment right to exercise religion. Your counter to that was to cite an example of where someone lost a challenge to change it based on a fashion statement, which violated no rights.

The practice of restricting rights in limited situations has already been established.


Your pretense otherwise, is either stupid, or dishonest.


I made a reference to the rule being challenged before, you lefties called on me to support it, even though I pointed out that nothing would change your minds, and you didn't care,

and so I did, and lo and behold, you are dismissing it.


Wow. What a surprise. I am shocked. Shocked I tell you.

Dumbfuck, the challenge to show where this rule has been challenged in the past was based on it being challened for the same reason it’s being challenged now. Challenges for any other reason are irrelevant. Damn, are you ever fucking stupid to not get that.

 

[Faun]

More name calling.

No, Faun is supporting violence against a child and lying about his reason for doing so.


That means he is putting out nothing but shit, on this pages.

Calling him on his vile lies, is a valid point.



You are being willfully ignorant on this issue.

”No, Faun is supporting violence against a child and lying about his reason for doing so.”

Liar.

Said the man that still won't admit that he does not support violence against communists, nor his real reason for supporting violence against the child in the op.

The real reason I support beating up Nazi’s is, as stated, because of their attempted genocide of Jews. I’m Jewish. It’s my people they brutally tormented and killed. It was my family members they horrifically murdered. It’s personal for me. Your failed attempt to divert that thread to be about Communism was irrelevant, just as I told you repeatedly.

Mmm, so genocide is only worthy of violence when it is your own people?

Interesting.

My apologies. I could not conceive of such a viewpoint, and thus did not see it as an alternative.


It will take me some time to process that one.

Personal experience never occurred to you??

 

[Faun]

More name calling.

No, Faun is supporting violence against a child and lying about his reason for doing so.


That means he is putting out nothing but shit, on this pages.

Calling him on his vile lies, is a valid point.



You are being willfully ignorant on this issue.

Where had Faun supported violence against a child? How about you show us where he did that.......and at the same time, you still haven't given us a link to this claim tho I asked for it at least twice: Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The House

IN the thread about the white kid attacked by the black kid.

He supports the attack because the kid supposedly made a white supremacist pose.

You’re still lying. Can you post without lying? The reason I said I support the nazi getting punched in the face was because he’s a nazi. I cited his racist gesture as justification for a black kid to smash him in the face.

That is what I said.

No, you said I support it because of the racist gesture. I understand it because of the racist gender; I support it because the guy is a nazi.

 

[Correll]

She is not living in our system, she is changing it to be HER system. We are the ones that are going to have to learn to live in it now.

Fucking hat bans on the fucking House floor are NOT "our system", for crying out loud unprintably! Please stop confusing your personal prejudices with essential American culture. It's a frigging dress code that applies to fewer than 500 people - none of whom are objecting, and none of whom are YOU - and matters to almost no one.

No one is asking you to "learn to live in" anything except for a world where everyone is not like you, and doesn't need to be, and where you just need to mind your own business and tend to your own life. And given the fact that you have ALWAYS lived in that world, whether or you were too ignorant to know it or not, I'd say it's long past time you learned that lesson.

It's a symbol of the utter lack of consideration given to our traditions and culture, in the larger course of events.

You dumbfuck, preserving and protecting constitutional rights is among our finest traditions and symbols of our culture.

It’s a pity you love your bigotry more than you hate the Constitution.

As has been pointed out, limitations on those rights occur all the time, such as not being allowed to carry firearms into the House.


You can shove your accusations of bigotry up your ass, asshole.

While it’s true that limitations on all rights, including religious freedoms, do exist, the aspect of that you willfully choose to ignore is that when limitations are applied, there must be compelling interests by the government to restrict rights.

As has been woefully demonstrated, you can’t cite any compelling interests in this case to deny a U.S. citizen their First Amendment right to exercise their religion.

So there is no reason not to change the rule accordingly.

Your whining about being annoyed is not a compelling interest. Your bigoted bitching about her being Muslim is not a compelling interest. Your nonsense about others failing to change that rule over fashion statements is not a compelling interest.

You're are pretending that due consideration did take place?


Can you support that?

btw. your race baiting really, really undermines that claim.

 

[Correll]

It is not fair to the community, to disregard it's choices and/or interests in favor of one individual, especially a newcomer.




When this type of privilege is granted and the stakes are higher, it rises to an Injustice.

Why can't you just admit your bigotry and get it over with? We all see it in your writings!

Because it is not true.


If you've been following my writings, you should have noticed that I am just as annoyed with changes from white liberals.


Freaking morons.

TFB for you that you being annoyed is NOT a compelling interest in denying a U.S. citizen their First Amendment right to exercise their religion in accordance with the tenets of their faith.

YOu want to address the point of the post you hit the reply button for?

Rhetorical question. I know you asshole libs don't roll that way. But I repeat myself.

Name calling again

I've explained your complete lack of comprehension many times.

 

[Correll]

She is not living in our system, she is changing it to be HER system. We are the ones that are going to have to learn to live in it now.

Fucking hat bans on the fucking House floor are NOT "our system", for crying out loud unprintably! Please stop confusing your personal prejudices with essential American culture. It's a frigging dress code that applies to fewer than 500 people - none of whom are objecting, and none of whom are YOU - and matters to almost no one.

No one is asking you to "learn to live in" anything except for a world where everyone is not like you, and doesn't need to be, and where you just need to mind your own business and tend to your own life. And given the fact that you have ALWAYS lived in that world, whether or you were too ignorant to know it or not, I'd say it's long past time you learned that lesson.

It's a symbol of the utter lack of consideration given to our traditions and culture, in the larger course of events.

You dumbfuck, preserving and protecting constitutional rights is among our finest traditions and symbols of our culture.

It’s a pity you love your bigotry more than you hate the Constitution.

As has been pointed out, limitations on those rights occur all the time, such as not being allowed to carry firearms into the House.


You can shove your accusations of bigotry up your ass, asshole.

Even more rude name-calling.

I've explained your complete lack of comprehension many times.

 

[Correll]

No, Faun is supporting violence against a child and lying about his reason for doing so.


That means he is putting out nothing but shit, on this pages.

Calling him on his vile lies, is a valid point.



You are being willfully ignorant on this issue.

Where had Faun supported violence against a child? How about you show us where he did that.......and at the same time, you still haven't given us a link to this claim tho I asked for it at least twice: Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The House

I supported one student punching another student because he’s a known nazi at their high school. He got smashed in the face after making a racist gesture at the student who struck him, who’s black.

What Correll lies about is his fallacious claim that I lied about why I supported the beat down when I said I supported it because I see nothing wrong with beating up nazi’s since they tried to wipe out Jews.

Well, he was defending a NAZI, eh?

Nothing I said could reasonably, not, SANELY be called a defense of a nazi.


You are an asshole.

Well that’s not true. Using the Correll methodology of making up any reason you want in lieu of unanswered questions means others can apply that same philosophy to you. So where you say it’s not ok to beat up nazi’s, according to the rules you play by, means you can be categorized as a nazi sympathizer.

But I did not do that. There were clues to what you meant by your refusal to answer.


I guessed that it was something dark and ugly.

And My God, was I right.

So, your claim as to my "methodology" is a lie.


And you are a godwinning asshole.

 

[Correll]

OK, asshole, if it means that much to you, though I doubt it does.

House Democrats hope to change 181-year-old rule barring hats to include exemption for religious headwear


"Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson, known for her wide collection of hats, tried to get the rule evoked in 2010, calling it “sexist,” according to the Miami Herald.

“It dates back to when men wore hats and we know that men don't wear hats indoors, but women wear hats indoors,” Wilson said. “Hats are what I wear. People get excited when they see the hats. Once you get accustomed to it, it's just me. Some people wear wigs, or high heel shoes or big earrings or pins. This is just me.” "

You dumbfuck, Wilson didn’t seek to get the rule changed in order to preserve her First Amendment right to exercise her religion. She wanted to wear hats on the House floor for fashion purposes, which violates the intent of the rule. The rule was put in place as a symbol of respect for that chamber. It was never intended to deny anyone their religious freedoms.

Others here are right. You’re fueled by nothing but bigotry.

I said the rule had been challenged before. Your moving of the goal posts is nothing but the standard intellectual and moral cowardice that defines the modern "liberal".


And, as your post was basically nothing but a name calling. You are an asshole.

LOL

And your example of the rule being challenged is one which is irrelevant to the reason the rule is being challenged now. The reason it’s being changed is due to its infringement on the First Amendment right to exercise religion. Your counter to that was to cite an example of where someone lost a challenge to change it based on a fashion statement, which violated no rights.

The practice of restricting rights in limited situations has already been established.


Your pretense otherwise, is either stupid, or dishonest.


I made a reference to the rule being challenged before, you lefties called on me to support it, even though I pointed out that nothing would change your minds, and you didn't care,

and so I did, and lo and behold, you are dismissing it.


Wow. What a surprise. I am shocked. Shocked I tell you.

Dumbfuck, the challenge to show where this rule has been challenged in the past was based on it being challened for the same reason it’s being challenged now. Challenges for any other reason are irrelevant. Damn, are you ever fucking stupid to not get that.

I stated that the rule has been challenged before.


You lefties called me on it.

If you heard "for the same reason" take that up with the voices in your head.

 

[Correll]

No, Faun is supporting violence against a child and lying about his reason for doing so.


That means he is putting out nothing but shit, on this pages.

Calling him on his vile lies, is a valid point.



You are being willfully ignorant on this issue.

”No, Faun is supporting violence against a child and lying about his reason for doing so.”

Liar.

Said the man that still won't admit that he does not support violence against communists, nor his real reason for supporting violence against the child in the op.

The real reason I support beating up Nazi’s is, as stated, because of their attempted genocide of Jews. I’m Jewish. It’s my people they brutally tormented and killed. It was my family members they horrifically murdered. It’s personal for me. Your failed attempt to divert that thread to be about Communism was irrelevant, just as I told you repeatedly.

Mmm, so genocide is only worthy of violence when it is your own people?

Interesting.

My apologies. I could not conceive of such a viewpoint, and thus did not see it as an alternative.


It will take me some time to process that one.

Personal experience never occurred to you??

Not caring about genocide because it was not directly targeted at your people,


such callousness, and lack of humanity, is beyond my comprehension.

 

[Correll]

No, Faun is supporting violence against a child and lying about his reason for doing so.


That means he is putting out nothing but shit, on this pages.

Calling him on his vile lies, is a valid point.



You are being willfully ignorant on this issue.

Where had Faun supported violence against a child? How about you show us where he did that.......and at the same time, you still haven't given us a link to this claim tho I asked for it at least twice: Democrats Change 181 Year-Old Rule To Allow Ilhan Omar To Wear Hijab In The House

IN the thread about the white kid attacked by the black kid.

He supports the attack because the kid supposedly made a white supremacist pose.

You’re still lying. Can you post without lying? The reason I said I support the nazi getting punched in the face was because he’s a nazi. I cited his racist gesture as justification for a black kid to smash him in the face.

That is what I said.

No, you said I support it because of the racist gesture. I understand it because of the racist gender; I support it because the guy is a nazi.

You're quibbling, you monster.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yeah, this isn't "joining a group" like signing up for the Kiwanis. This is the federal legislature, which makes laws for the entire country. And you're suggesting that it is reasonable to expect citizens of the United States to forego their Constitutional right to run for elected office and participate in political policy-making because of an obscure, obsolete dress code rule? It is so damned important that no one ever wear a hat in the House chamber that it should supersede multiple Constitutional rights? That is actually the position you want to stake out here?!

It is on them to figure out how to live in our society, not the other way around.


Or at least, in a sane world, it would be.


That is the principle here.

I hate to break this to you Sparky, but this woman did figure out how to live in our system, she figured out that the rule against headwear can be changed, and it will be. So your argument that she isn't living within our system is 100% dead wrong.

She is not living in our system, she is changing it to be HER system. We are the ones that are going to have to learn to live in it now.

Fucking hat bans on the fucking House floor are NOT "our system", for crying out loud unprintably! Please stop confusing your personal prejudices with essential American culture. It's a frigging dress code that applies to fewer than 500 people - none of whom are objecting, and none of whom are YOU - and matters to almost no one.

No one is asking you to "learn to live in" anything except for a world where everyone is not like you, and doesn't need to be, and where you just need to mind your own business and tend to your own life. And given the fact that you have ALWAYS lived in that world, whether or you were too ignorant to know it or not, I'd say it's long past time you learned that lesson.

It's a symbol of the utter lack of consideration given to our traditions and culture, in the larger course of events.

So we have to defend our traditions and culture - which include tolerance of and freedom for individual personal religious beliefs - by suppressing freedom of individual personal religious beliefs?

Or is it just that you've decided that religious freedom is a much less important part of our traditions and culture than "Damn it, only what descendants of Western European white people is okay!"?

 

[danielpalos]

Our federal Constitution was designed to be both gender and race neutral, from Inception.

It must about equality and equal protection of the law. It can't be about Religion.

The Religious must keep it themselves; asking for aid from a secular and temporal Government invokes our supreme law of the land.

 

[danielpalos]

How is it that Men, can still blame women in modern times?

 

[DandyDonovan]

Our federal Constitution was designed to be both gender and race neutral, from Inception.

It must about equality and equal protection of the law. It can't be about Religion.

The Religious must keep it themselves; asking for aid from a secular and temporal Government invokes our supreme law of the land.

The COTUS most certainly was not designed from its inception to be gender and race neutral.

Do you EVER write anything that is either worth reading or correct?

 

[DandyDonovan]

It is on them to figure out how to live in our society, not the other way around.


Or at least, in a sane world, it would be.


That is the principle here.

I hate to break this to you Sparky, but this woman did figure out how to live in our system, she figured out that the rule against headwear can be changed, and it will be. So your argument that she isn't living within our system is 100% dead wrong.

She is not living in our system, she is changing it to be HER system. We are the ones that are going to have to learn to live in it now.

Fucking hat bans on the fucking House floor are NOT "our system", for crying out loud unprintably! Please stop confusing your personal prejudices with essential American culture. It's a frigging dress code that applies to fewer than 500 people - none of whom are objecting, and none of whom are YOU - and matters to almost no one.

No one is asking you to "learn to live in" anything except for a world where everyone is not like you, and doesn't need to be, and where you just need to mind your own business and tend to your own life. And given the fact that you have ALWAYS lived in that world, whether or you were too ignorant to know it or not, I'd say it's long past time you learned that lesson.

It's a symbol of the utter lack of consideration given to our traditions and culture, in the larger course of events.

So we have to defend our traditions and culture - which include tolerance of and freedom for individual personal religious beliefs - by suppressing freedom of individual personal religious beliefs?

Or is it just that you've decided that religious freedom is a much less important part of our traditions and culture than "Damn it, only what descendants of Western European white people is okay!"?

As has been amply illustrated to you several times in this thread now, this woman does NOT have a right to wear her hoodie in Congress any more than I have a right to carry a gun into a court room.

Pretty simple fucking concept , why you can't just be honest is obvious.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

So we have to defend our traditions and culture - which include tolerance of and freedom for individual personal religious beliefs - by suppressing freedom of individual personal religious beliefs?

It worked for the judges that said Roy Moore could not post the Ten Commandments in his courtroom.
Of course he has the right to cover the walls in his own personal home with Ten Commandment wallpaper if he wishes. No one is stopping him from doing that.
Can you guess how Ilhan Omar's hijab is like that copy of the Ten Commandments?

Both Omar and Moore have the right to believe whatever they like. What they may not do
is display their beliefs publicly, if the Moore ruling is any indication.
So why are Moore's beliefs less important than Ilhan Omar's? No one can explain that.

Or is it just that you've decided that religious freedom is a much less important part of our traditions and culture than "Damn it, only what descendants of Western European white people is okay!"?

LOL...what a non sequitur! Do you realize Roy Moore is a white gentleman?
Such blatant pandering to racism and idiocy.