Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
actually it IS different. someone wearing a hijab IS protected. Someone putting a religious symbol in front of a courthouse isn't.
you should probably stop pretending you understand the issue.
Neither is protected you idiot. You don't have a RIGHT to wear a hijab in Capitol building.
Yeah, you kinda do. That's what it means when something is listed in the Bill of Rights: that you have a right to it.
And yes, of course, there are tons of shadings, nuances, and compromises involved depending on circumstances, because human interactions are always going to be complicated and involve the balancing of one person's demands and rights against another person's.
Generally speaking, however, I would pitch an ungodly hissy fit if any official government body tried to interfere in any way with my personal obedience to God as I understood it, without an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so. Therefore, because I believe that my freedoms are only secured insofar as I am willing to secure them for others, I must therefore object to any official government body interfering in any way with Ms. Omar's personal obedience to her god as she understands it, absent an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.
No one has yet identified or explained that overwhelmingly compelling reason.
So there we have it.
No you certainly do not have a right to wear a Hoodie during a session of Congress, and this is EASILY proven.
Go to court in your local city wearing a hat, any hat. You will quickly be asked to remove the hat. Why? Because it is considered to be a lack of respect to wear a hat in court. Not exactly a compelling reason is it.
AND if some judge decided "I don't care about hats in my court room" he could allow it, because it's a rule, not a law.
Same thing here. You most certainly do NOT have a right to wear a hoodie in Congress. They simply had a rule against it, but now they are changing that rule.
Same reason courts routinely toss out cases against school dress codes, because you do not have a right to wear for example a t shirt with a marijuana leaf on it to school. I suppose a school could allow it within their rules if they wanted to, but there is no right.
I posted a link to a list of ACLU cases earlier. A number of them involved religious head covers. At least one involved an individual having the right to wear religious head cover in court.
NJ Appellate Division dismisses contempt finding against ACLU-NJ client who refused to remove religious head-covering in court
That ruling didn't say what you thought it said.
LOLOLactually it IS different. someone wearing a hijab IS protected. Someone putting a religious symbol in front of a courthouse isn't.NOT when it comes to separation of church and state you haven't. Stop with your fucking idiocy.And I've explained to you why the monument Moore had placed in the courthouse is different from Omar wearing a hijab.
Invoking your particular religion's God in any governmental context is forbidden as I've proved with my link giving Supreme Court decisionsI've provided evidence from a Supreme Court case that not all religious expression is treated the same. You, on the other hand, continue to repeat the same claim without providing any evidence at all.
on the matter. U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State
You haven't proved your case at all as you keep claiming as the circumstances and rationale of the court in each decision you cite can very greatly depending on the particulars.
Analyze, detail and explain the court's rationales in each case and then get back to me, or not.
In any event don't forget the Supreme Court has the last word so unless your few pitiful examples are from the Supreme Court itself, I don't want to hear about it.
That is funny because you want me to take it on faith that the couple of cases you cite have the exact same case facts and circumstances as Roy Moore's, the most pertinent example of a government representative being removed from office for failing to separate his job from his religion. But thanks for ironically pointing out your own erroneous contention.It would be like you looking at a murder with a gun, and a self-defense case with a gun, and getting upset that only one was prosecuted. After all, both involved someone being shot! They must be treated exactly the same!
It's OK. I understand that you can't actually support your claim.
you should probably stop pretending you understand the issue.
Neither is protected you idiot. You don't have a RIGHT to wear a hijab in Capitol building.
Yeah, you kinda do. That's what it means when something is listed in the Bill of Rights: that you have a right to it.
And yes, of course, there are tons of shadings, nuances, and compromises involved depending on circumstances, because human interactions are always going to be complicated and involve the balancing of one person's demands and rights against another person's.
Generally speaking, however, I would pitch an ungodly hissy fit if any official government body tried to interfere in any way with my personal obedience to God as I understood it, without an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so. Therefore, because I believe that my freedoms are only secured insofar as I am willing to secure them for others, I must therefore object to any official government body interfering in any way with Ms. Omar's personal obedience to her god as she understands it, absent an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.
No one has yet identified or explained that overwhelmingly compelling reason.
So there we have it.
No you certainly do not have a right to wear a Hoodie during a session of Congress, and this is EASILY proven.
Go to court in your local city wearing a hat, any hat. You will quickly be asked to remove the hat. Why? Because it is considered to be a lack of respect to wear a hat in court. Not exactly a compelling reason is it.
AND if some judge decided "I don't care about hats in my court room" he could allow it, because it's a rule, not a law.
Same thing here. You most certainly do NOT have a right to wear a hoodie in Congress. They simply had a rule against it, but now they are changing that rule.
Same reason courts routinely toss out cases against school dress codes, because you do not have a right to wear for example a t shirt with a marijuana leaf on it to school. I suppose a school could allow it within their rules if they wanted to, but there is no right.
Marijuana is an integral part of the Rastafarian religion, so a pot leaf on a t-shirt can be seen as a religious garment.actually it IS different. someone wearing a hijab IS protected. Someone putting a religious symbol in front of a courthouse isn't.NOT when it comes to separation of church and state you haven't. Stop with your fucking idiocy.
Invoking your particular religion's God in any governmental context is forbidden as I've proved with my link giving Supreme Court decisions
on the matter. U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State
You haven't proved your case at all as you keep claiming as the circumstances and rationale of the court in each decision you cite can very greatly depending on the particulars.
Analyze, detail and explain the court's rationales in each case and then get back to me, or not.
In any event don't forget the Supreme Court has the last word so unless your few pitiful examples are from the Supreme Court itself, I don't want to hear about it.
That is funny because you want me to take it on faith that the couple of cases you cite have the exact same case facts and circumstances as Roy Moore's, the most pertinent example of a government representative being removed from office for failing to separate his job from his religion. But thanks for ironically pointing out your own erroneous contention.
you should probably stop pretending you understand the issue.
Neither is protected you idiot. You don't have a RIGHT to wear a hijab in Capitol building.
Yeah, you kinda do. That's what it means when something is listed in the Bill of Rights: that you have a right to it.
And yes, of course, there are tons of shadings, nuances, and compromises involved depending on circumstances, because human interactions are always going to be complicated and involve the balancing of one person's demands and rights against another person's.
Generally speaking, however, I would pitch an ungodly hissy fit if any official government body tried to interfere in any way with my personal obedience to God as I understood it, without an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so. Therefore, because I believe that my freedoms are only secured insofar as I am willing to secure them for others, I must therefore object to any official government body interfering in any way with Ms. Omar's personal obedience to her god as she understands it, absent an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.
No one has yet identified or explained that overwhelmingly compelling reason.
So there we have it.
No you certainly do not have a right to wear a Hoodie during a session of Congress, and this is EASILY proven.
Go to court in your local city wearing a hat, any hat. You will quickly be asked to remove the hat. Why? Because it is considered to be a lack of respect to wear a hat in court. Not exactly a compelling reason is it.
AND if some judge decided "I don't care about hats in my court room" he could allow it, because it's a rule, not a law.
Same thing here. You most certainly do NOT have a right to wear a hoodie in Congress. They simply had a rule against it, but now they are changing that rule.
Same reason courts routinely toss out cases against school dress codes, because you do not have a right to wear for example a t shirt with a marijuana leaf on it to school. I suppose a school could allow it within their rules if they wanted to, but there is no right.
Oh, is that a fact? You have evidence that courts routinely ask people to divest themselves of religiously-related clothing, do you? Because I can tell you just from anecdotal evidence that I work for a legal transcription firm owned by an Orthodox Jewish man. Not only are a lot of our employees Orthodox Jews themselves (meaning the men all wear yarmulkes), but we deal with a LOT of different courts and legal cases. Never once have I encountered any occasion on which a judge thought it appropriate or legal to ask a Jewish man to remove his yarmulke, or a Muslim woman to remove her hijab.
And if some judge DID decide he had a right to do so, the legal uproar would be deafening. Because he's acting as a government official when he's in court, which makes it a violation of the First Amendment.
Same thing here. The House of Representatives is as "official government body" as you can get. And not only does it not have the right to interfere in someone's personal religious exercise, it would also be utterly inappropriate and wrong. Which is why they are correctly proposing to change the rule, now that it has become a matter of religion, rather than simply one of fashion.
Public schools can set dress codes, but they cannot legally set dress codes which violate the student's First Amendment rights. A t-shirt with a marijuana leaf on it is not remotely comparable to a hijab or yarmulke. Any public school that tried to ban such things on campus would 1) get slapped down by the district, 2) get slapped down by the school board, and 3) get sued out the ass.
LOLOLactually it IS different. someone wearing a hijab IS protected. Someone putting a religious symbol in front of a courthouse isn't.NOT when it comes to separation of church and state you haven't. Stop with your fucking idiocy.
Invoking your particular religion's God in any governmental context is forbidden as I've proved with my link giving Supreme Court decisions
on the matter. U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State
You haven't proved your case at all as you keep claiming as the circumstances and rationale of the court in each decision you cite can very greatly depending on the particulars.
Analyze, detail and explain the court's rationales in each case and then get back to me, or not.
In any event don't forget the Supreme Court has the last word so unless your few pitiful examples are from the Supreme Court itself, I don't want to hear about it.
That is funny because you want me to take it on faith that the couple of cases you cite have the exact same case facts and circumstances as Roy Moore's, the most pertinent example of a government representative being removed from office for failing to separate his job from his religion. But thanks for ironically pointing out your own erroneous contention.
you should probably stop pretending you understand the issue.
Neither is protected you idiot. You don't have a RIGHT to wear a hijab in Capitol building.
Yeah, you kinda do. That's what it means when something is listed in the Bill of Rights: that you have a right to it.
And yes, of course, there are tons of shadings, nuances, and compromises involved depending on circumstances, because human interactions are always going to be complicated and involve the balancing of one person's demands and rights against another person's.
Generally speaking, however, I would pitch an ungodly hissy fit if any official government body tried to interfere in any way with my personal obedience to God as I understood it, without an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so. Therefore, because I believe that my freedoms are only secured insofar as I am willing to secure them for others, I must therefore object to any official government body interfering in any way with Ms. Omar's personal obedience to her god as she understands it, absent an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.
No one has yet identified or explained that overwhelmingly compelling reason.
So there we have it.
No you certainly do not have a right to wear a Hoodie during a session of Congress, and this is EASILY proven.
Go to court in your local city wearing a hat, any hat. You will quickly be asked to remove the hat. Why? Because it is considered to be a lack of respect to wear a hat in court. Not exactly a compelling reason is it.
AND if some judge decided "I don't care about hats in my court room" he could allow it, because it's a rule, not a law.
Same thing here. You most certainly do NOT have a right to wear a hoodie in Congress. They simply had a rule against it, but now they are changing that rule.
Same reason courts routinely toss out cases against school dress codes, because you do not have a right to wear for example a t shirt with a marijuana leaf on it to school. I suppose a school could allow it within their rules if they wanted to, but there is no right.
I like how you switched from “hijab” to “hoodie.” Demonstrates even you know you’re wrong.
actually it IS different. someone wearing a hijab IS protected. Someone putting a religious symbol in front of a courthouse isn't.
you should probably stop pretending you understand the issue.
Neither is protected you idiot. You don't have a RIGHT to wear a hijab in Capitol building.
Yeah, you kinda do. That's what it means when something is listed in the Bill of Rights: that you have a right to it.
And yes, of course, there are tons of shadings, nuances, and compromises involved depending on circumstances, because human interactions are always going to be complicated and involve the balancing of one person's demands and rights against another person's.
Generally speaking, however, I would pitch an ungodly hissy fit if any official government body tried to interfere in any way with my personal obedience to God as I understood it, without an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so. Therefore, because I believe that my freedoms are only secured insofar as I am willing to secure them for others, I must therefore object to any official government body interfering in any way with Ms. Omar's personal obedience to her god as she understands it, absent an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.
No one has yet identified or explained that overwhelmingly compelling reason.
So there we have it.
No you certainly do not have a right to wear a Hoodie during a session of Congress, and this is EASILY proven.
Go to court in your local city wearing a hat, any hat. You will quickly be asked to remove the hat. Why? Because it is considered to be a lack of respect to wear a hat in court. Not exactly a compelling reason is it.
AND if some judge decided "I don't care about hats in my court room" he could allow it, because it's a rule, not a law.
Same thing here. You most certainly do NOT have a right to wear a hoodie in Congress. They simply had a rule against it, but now they are changing that rule.
Same reason courts routinely toss out cases against school dress codes, because you do not have a right to wear for example a t shirt with a marijuana leaf on it to school. I suppose a school could allow it within their rules if they wanted to, but there is no right.
Oh, is that a fact? You have evidence that courts routinely ask people to divest themselves of religiously-related clothing, do you? Because I can tell you just from anecdotal evidence that I work for a legal transcription firm owned by an Orthodox Jewish man. Not only are a lot of our employees Orthodox Jews themselves (meaning the men all wear yarmulkes), but we deal with a LOT of different courts and legal cases. Never once have I encountered any occasion on which a judge thought it appropriate or legal to ask a Jewish man to remove his yarmulke, or a Muslim woman to remove her hijab.
And if some judge DID decide he had a right to do so, the legal uproar would be deafening. Because he's acting as a government official when he's in court, which makes it a violation of the First Amendment.
Same thing here. The House of Representatives is as "official government body" as you can get. And not only does it not have the right to interfere in someone's personal religious exercise, it would also be utterly inappropriate and wrong. Which is why they are correctly proposing to change the rule, now that it has become a matter of religion, rather than simply one of fashion.
Public schools can set dress codes, but they cannot legally set dress codes which violate the student's First Amendment rights. A t-shirt with a marijuana leaf on it is not remotely comparable to a hijab or yarmulke. Any public school that tried to ban such things on campus would 1) get slapped down by the district, 2) get slapped down by the school board, and 3) get sued out the ass.
Oh, you don't think public schools can ban students from wearing head coverings? LOL of course they can, for obvious reasons.
Same reason, for example, some dumb Muslim bitch who wants to wear her face covering in her DL picture can be told "um no" is that a violation of her first amendment rights ? I mean she's free to wear a garbage bag over her head in accordance to her religion, isn't she ? Well, yes yes she is, but that doesn't mean she can do whatever she wants while doing so.
And of course on the subject of Muslim women who want to practice their religion, I must once again ask. Isn't serving in Congress, going to school, driving, working, or even being out in pubic without a male escort all violations of her religion? Yes they are. Meaning, of course, that they are fake Muslims, only practicing their faith when it is convenient for them.
”Go to court in your local city wearing a hat, any hat. You will quickly be asked to remove the hat. Why? Because it is considered to be a lack of respect to wear a hat in court. Not exactly a compelling reason is it.”actually it IS different. someone wearing a hijab IS protected. Someone putting a religious symbol in front of a courthouse isn't.NOT when it comes to separation of church and state you haven't. Stop with your fucking idiocy.And I've explained to you why the monument Moore had placed in the courthouse is different from Omar wearing a hijab.
Invoking your particular religion's God in any governmental context is forbidden as I've proved with my link giving Supreme Court decisionsI've provided evidence from a Supreme Court case that not all religious expression is treated the same. You, on the other hand, continue to repeat the same claim without providing any evidence at all.
on the matter. U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State
You haven't proved your case at all as you keep claiming as the circumstances and rationale of the court in each decision you cite can very greatly depending on the particulars.
Analyze, detail and explain the court's rationales in each case and then get back to me, or not.
In any event don't forget the Supreme Court has the last word so unless your few pitiful examples are from the Supreme Court itself, I don't want to hear about it.
That is funny because you want me to take it on faith that the couple of cases you cite have the exact same case facts and circumstances as Roy Moore's, the most pertinent example of a government representative being removed from office for failing to separate his job from his religion. But thanks for ironically pointing out your own erroneous contention.It would be like you looking at a murder with a gun, and a self-defense case with a gun, and getting upset that only one was prosecuted. After all, both involved someone being shot! They must be treated exactly the same!
It's OK. I understand that you can't actually support your claim.
you should probably stop pretending you understand the issue.
Neither is protected you idiot. You don't have a RIGHT to wear a hijab in Capitol building.
Yeah, you kinda do. That's what it means when something is listed in the Bill of Rights: that you have a right to it.
And yes, of course, there are tons of shadings, nuances, and compromises involved depending on circumstances, because human interactions are always going to be complicated and involve the balancing of one person's demands and rights against another person's.
Generally speaking, however, I would pitch an ungodly hissy fit if any official government body tried to interfere in any way with my personal obedience to God as I understood it, without an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so. Therefore, because I believe that my freedoms are only secured insofar as I am willing to secure them for others, I must therefore object to any official government body interfering in any way with Ms. Omar's personal obedience to her god as she understands it, absent an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.
No one has yet identified or explained that overwhelmingly compelling reason.
So there we have it.
No you certainly do not have a right to wear a Hoodie during a session of Congress, and this is EASILY proven.
Go to court in your local city wearing a hat, any hat. You will quickly be asked to remove the hat. Why? Because it is considered to be a lack of respect to wear a hat in court. Not exactly a compelling reason is it.
AND if some judge decided "I don't care about hats in my court room" he could allow it, because it's a rule, not a law.
Same thing here. You most certainly do NOT have a right to wear a hoodie in Congress. They simply had a rule against it, but now they are changing that rule.
Same reason courts routinely toss out cases against school dress codes, because you do not have a right to wear for example a t shirt with a marijuana leaf on it to school. I suppose a school could allow it within their rules if they wanted to, but there is no right.
One is worn for religious reasons, the other is not. Your bigotry is irrelevant.LOLOLactually it IS different. someone wearing a hijab IS protected. Someone putting a religious symbol in front of a courthouse isn't.
you should probably stop pretending you understand the issue.
Neither is protected you idiot. You don't have a RIGHT to wear a hijab in Capitol building.
Yeah, you kinda do. That's what it means when something is listed in the Bill of Rights: that you have a right to it.
And yes, of course, there are tons of shadings, nuances, and compromises involved depending on circumstances, because human interactions are always going to be complicated and involve the balancing of one person's demands and rights against another person's.
Generally speaking, however, I would pitch an ungodly hissy fit if any official government body tried to interfere in any way with my personal obedience to God as I understood it, without an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so. Therefore, because I believe that my freedoms are only secured insofar as I am willing to secure them for others, I must therefore object to any official government body interfering in any way with Ms. Omar's personal obedience to her god as she understands it, absent an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.
No one has yet identified or explained that overwhelmingly compelling reason.
So there we have it.
No you certainly do not have a right to wear a Hoodie during a session of Congress, and this is EASILY proven.
Go to court in your local city wearing a hat, any hat. You will quickly be asked to remove the hat. Why? Because it is considered to be a lack of respect to wear a hat in court. Not exactly a compelling reason is it.
AND if some judge decided "I don't care about hats in my court room" he could allow it, because it's a rule, not a law.
Same thing here. You most certainly do NOT have a right to wear a hoodie in Congress. They simply had a rule against it, but now they are changing that rule.
Same reason courts routinely toss out cases against school dress codes, because you do not have a right to wear for example a t shirt with a marijuana leaf on it to school. I suppose a school could allow it within their rules if they wanted to, but there is no right.
I like how you switched from “hijab” to “hoodie.” Demonstrates even you know you’re wrong.
What are you talking about ? The hijab IS a hoodie. Hoodie just sounds funnier .
In EITHER case, you have no right to wear one in Congress, thus the 180 year rule that one couldn't be worn.
Seems to me it’s your head that’s pointy, not the yarmulke.So it's like a dunce cap, only smaller.
This is an expression of religion! I guess it’s OK when it comes to iSLAM. We’re screwed as a nation. Fucking ABNORMALS and worthless, spineless Repukes are taking us down the path of destruction!....Wherr are the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE scumbags when they should be up in arms....but dont let a 66 year old cross stand on public property to memorialize our fallen war heros!
For 181 years, the U.S. House of Representatives has imposed a ban on its members wearing head coverings. With Ilhan Omar, one of the first Muslim women to be elected to Congress, set to take her oath of office in January, that rule—which would have prohibited her wearing her customary headscarves or the hijab—is slated to change.
The change was proposed jointly by Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Incoming Rules Chairman Jim McGovern and member-elect Ilhan Omar as part of a larger overhaul package.
When Omar is sworn in next year, she will become the first federal legislator to wear a religious headscarf. Her arrival will mark a number of other “firsts” as well. The Minnesota Democrat will be the first Somali-American in Congress and the first woman of color to represent her state in Washington. She’ll be joined by fellow Midwestern Democrat, Michigan’s Rashida Tlaib, as the first two Muslim women in Congress.
Hats of any kind have been banned from the House floor since 1837.
Read more at citizenfreepress.com ...
No worries. You should tell the National Parks Services though that they got it wrong.FYI, your "torch" on the right is actually a light. Sorry to have to break it to you.Seems to me it’s your head that’s pointy, not the yarmulke.So it's like a dunce cap, only smaller.
LOLOLactually it IS different. someone wearing a hijab IS protected. Someone putting a religious symbol in front of a courthouse isn't.
you should probably stop pretending you understand the issue.
Neither is protected you idiot. You don't have a RIGHT to wear a hijab in Capitol building.
Yeah, you kinda do. That's what it means when something is listed in the Bill of Rights: that you have a right to it.
And yes, of course, there are tons of shadings, nuances, and compromises involved depending on circumstances, because human interactions are always going to be complicated and involve the balancing of one person's demands and rights against another person's.
Generally speaking, however, I would pitch an ungodly hissy fit if any official government body tried to interfere in any way with my personal obedience to God as I understood it, without an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so. Therefore, because I believe that my freedoms are only secured insofar as I am willing to secure them for others, I must therefore object to any official government body interfering in any way with Ms. Omar's personal obedience to her god as she understands it, absent an overwhelmingly compelling reason to do so.
No one has yet identified or explained that overwhelmingly compelling reason.
So there we have it.
No you certainly do not have a right to wear a Hoodie during a session of Congress, and this is EASILY proven.
Go to court in your local city wearing a hat, any hat. You will quickly be asked to remove the hat. Why? Because it is considered to be a lack of respect to wear a hat in court. Not exactly a compelling reason is it.
AND if some judge decided "I don't care about hats in my court room" he could allow it, because it's a rule, not a law.
Same thing here. You most certainly do NOT have a right to wear a hoodie in Congress. They simply had a rule against it, but now they are changing that rule.
Same reason courts routinely toss out cases against school dress codes, because you do not have a right to wear for example a t shirt with a marijuana leaf on it to school. I suppose a school could allow it within their rules if they wanted to, but there is no right.
I like how you switched from “hijab” to “hoodie.” Demonstrates even you know you’re wrong.
What are you talking about ? The hijab IS a hoodie. Hoodie just sounds funnier .
In EITHER case, you have no right to wear one in Congress, thus the 180 year rule that one couldn't be worn.
Irrelevant! The defendant was presumably not representing the government in any way. What he wore in court in no wayI posted a link to a list of ACLU cases earlier. A number of them involved religious head covers. At least one involved an individual having the right to wear religious head cover in court.
NJ Appellate Division dismisses contempt finding against ACLU-NJ client who refused to remove religious head-covering in court
You are so frustratingly stupid. You know Roy Moore brought his slab of rock into his courthouse because he was barred from posting a poster of the Ten Commandments in it.When did the Supreme Court remove religion from all of society?
People already can bring religion out of their homes and places of worship. What you have to show is that wearing a religious head cover constitutes a government endorsement of religion. There may be a good argument that, in the case of Congressional representatives, religious head covers do create such an endorsement. Unfortunately, all you've done is whine about Roy Moore and try to create a link between the alteration of a government building and the personal apparel of individuals. You've repeatedly claimed that the Supreme Court views such things the same, but have not actually shown where the court has done so.
Still can’t tell the difference between express and exercise?? What a pity.You are so frustratingly stupid. You know Roy Moore brought his slab of rock into his courthouse because he was barred from posting a poster of the Ten Commandments in it.When did the Supreme Court remove religion from all of society?
People already can bring religion out of their homes and places of worship. What you have to show is that wearing a religious head cover constitutes a government endorsement of religion. There may be a good argument that, in the case of Congressional representatives, religious head covers do create such an endorsement. Unfortunately, all you've done is whine about Roy Moore and try to create a link between the alteration of a government building and the personal apparel of individuals. You've repeatedly claimed that the Supreme Court views such things the same, but have not actually shown where the court has done so.
It's an expression of his religion to the exclusion of others....just like Omar's hijab.
I don't have to prove that the Supreme Court would differentiate between the Ten Commandments or a Muslim hijab or a Christmas nativity scene in a public park, for that matter They are all viewed the same by the court. As a religious expression of one faith or another.
Period!
Prove other wise.
Van Orden v. Perry - WikipediaGiven that the case I've been bringing up (Van Orden v Perry) takes things like the historical context of the monument in question into account, and given that a variety of things which were acceptable in the past would be considered unconstitutional today, I think my points stand.
Irrelevant! The defendant was presumably not representing the government in any way. What he wore in court in no wayI posted a link to a list of ACLU cases earlier. A number of them involved religious head covers. At least one involved an individual having the right to wear religious head cover in court.
NJ Appellate Division dismisses contempt finding against ACLU-NJ client who refused to remove religious head-covering in court
indicates a government preference for one religion over the other.
The president is a private citizen with Constitutional protections however that doesn't give him the right to wear a John 3:16 ball cap or jacket when he goes out in public. When do you think you might finally understand?Neither does what is worn by individual people who happen to be employed by the government. For the 47th time, they do not stop being individual citizens with personal Constitutional rights just because they're elected to office.
Irrelevant! The defendant was presumably not representing the government in any way. What he wore in court in no wayI posted a link to a list of ACLU cases earlier. A number of them involved religious head covers. At least one involved an individual having the right to wear religious head cover in court.
NJ Appellate Division dismisses contempt finding against ACLU-NJ client who refused to remove religious head-covering in court
indicates a government preference for one religion over the other.
