ghm101 says:

How crap.

If someone can leagally compete (and win gold) in the olympics wearing this http://tinyurl.com/2ofvcv then this girls uniform shouldn’t be a problem

the answer says:

From that picture it looks like she should register with the Ministry of Silly Walks

Li says:

This is a tempest in a teapot. Let the girl run!

Sam says:

#4, I have to agree with you in a way, but what exception are we making here, allowing a runner to choose a disadvantageous uniform based on her beliefs? Mind you, I’m no Muslim. I have some serious problems with what I have read in the Qur’an based on my beliefs, but it’s not like we’re making an exception to allow them to legally kill Jews based on some interpretation of jihad. We have made minor exceptions for just about every religious group out there and it hasn’t hurt our country. After all, our bill or rights protects us from government infringement of our religion. So unless you want to abolish our freedom of religion, I think your argument doesn’t apply to this exception.

iGlobalWarmer says:

This was just a plant from another coach who got tired of seeing her kick ass in meets and has found something to use against her. He probably made an anonymous complaint then joined the other coaches in saying he had no problem with it.

Jennifer says:

Tihz, you’re wrong. Most (with obvious exceptions) Muslim countries allow women to dress as they please, which goes even more so for foreign women. That beiong said, assuming that rules in this country must be created on a ‘tit for tat’ basis is pretty playground, don’t you think? I prefer the grownups’ table…

Awake says:

America is a country of hypocrites.

The same person that is banning the outfit while disregarding religious necessity is probably very quick to use religious imperatives to define marriage, morality, freedom of assembly, etc.

DaveW says:

#12, “You can damn sure that if Holy Roller Bible Thumpers had a tradition of wearing something silly, no one would say boo about it. ”

Right you are! Specifically, clothes of any kind, except maybe shoes and socks, for running, in warm weather doesn’t make much sense. Unless you have a religious predisposition to consider the human body obscene.

But I have to go with the school on this one. It is an optional activity. It requires a certain form of dress. Get with the program or sit it out!

Phillep says:

Uh, Dave? You never got you ‘nads caught between your legs while running, eh? Injuns wore breech clouts for a reason. (Ooooo, that hurts.)

The “Silly walks”: Stretching and warming up. Check the two behind.

The only problem I can see is the outfit does not match up to the “single color” requirement. I wonder why they did not say that instead of all the other foolishness?

Mister Catshit says:

#4, Three Headed Moran,

Once again you show your lack of insight.

The First Amendment, the government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .

The Supreme Court has held in several cases that unless it can be shown that the infringement of religion by government can be justified for the good of society, the government may not interfere or impose restrictions. Since the restrictions on this young lady can not be justified as being good for society, the school is stepping over the line.

Because the “organized event” is a public function, supported through our tax dollars, it must conform to the Constitution. Dems da rules !!!

The Court held (9-0) that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable. The ordinances had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest and they had to be narrowly tailored to that interest. The core failure of the ordinances were that they applied exclusively to the church.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah
(A city banned the practice of animal sacrifice after a church opened)

Appellant’s employer discharged her when she refused to work certain scheduled hours because of sincerely held religious convictions adopted after beginning employment. The question to be decided is whether Florida’s denial of unemployment compensation benefits to appellant violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Yes because it prevented her from practicing her religion after offering reasonable alternatives to the employer. “The accommodation of religious practices here would not entangle the State in an unlawful fostering of religion.” (9-0 decision)
Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Florida

A School District must rent their facilities to a church after school hours in order to show religious films. The School District’s policy would rent the facility to any group except religious organizations.
Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches School District (9-0 decision)

Gary, the dangerous infidel says:

Three-Headed Cat, I’ll be the first to say “Uncle” on this for having suggested that the rule should be changed. The portion of the article quoted here in this blog seems to imply that the uniform issue that led to disqualification had to do with its amount of body coverage, which is a religious aspect. There’s no mention here of the true issue of uniform color, and I didn’t invest myself enough in the discussion to follow the link to the full article, where that was explained. Once again, you’ve proven yourself to be a bit more thorough than I am. Kudos to you.

OhForTheLoveOf says:

I’m with Gary in #27… There was nothing here to lead anyone to think anything other than this being a religious thing… But #28 brings relevant quotes to light.

If this is just about the rules then its just fucking petty and someone needs to bitch slap the offending judge.

It’s a goddamn track meet. Do you really worship your masters so much that you’ll follow them down any path they lead you?

the Three-Headed Cat™ says:

“No, they have allowed her a waiver to the rule because the rule violated her First Amendment right.”

Oh gimme a fucking break, OK? First Fucking Amendment my arse. Constitutional Rights don’t have the first thing to do with it. Another of your supremely idiotic, Bizarro World legal theories. You really need to stop talking about the law, knowing less than nothing about it as you do. First, and before anything else, you utter nincompoop, since her participation in this event is entirely voluntary and discretionary, the Constitutional is not involved. And if the rules state that she cannot carry a gun while competing, her Second Amendment rights are not violated, either.

A new height of arrogantly self-assured total idiocy, exceeding even your high standard.

“…this was a custom made outfit that allowed her to compete in athletics”

It didn’t “ALLOW” her to do Jack Shit any more than carrying your lucky rabbit’s foot ALLOWS you to drive on I-95 in rush hour.

Anyway, you miss the boat yet again. Since you’re too stupid to get the hint – their previous failure to enforce the rule does not constitute a waiver of the right to enforce it. Do you grasp that? It’s not that difficult a concept for anyone with their head not up their ass.

“Vollmer’s statement that she had to prove her religion every time is illegal.”

Wow. I guess you really ARE that fucking stupid.

No one even suggested she “prove her religion.” When you claim that you are exercising a protected religious right – ESPECIALLY ONE THAT DOESN’T EXIST – the burden is upon YOU to show that your action is prescribed by your religion.

And your lack of reading comprehension rears it’s ugly head yet again.

ISLAM, you brainless slug, has nothing to do with HER PERSONAL CHOICE of COLORS. It requires ONLY THAT SHE BE COVERED. AND SHE WAS. AND THEY NEVER DENIED HER THAT AT ANY TIME. SHE HERSELF ADMITTED THAT THE COLORS WERE NOTHING MORE THAN WHAT SHE LIKES.

Vollmer was actually being very nice, in a very low-key way, by suggesting that she could provide proof of the religious nature of her color scheme, instead of saying “what a crock of shit.”

And any of it most certainly CAN be denied, bozo. They have extended her a courtesy that they are not under any obligation to do.

“If your boss has no problem with your Jewish tradition then great. If he can demonstrate (which is probable not too difficult) that going barefoot is a health issue then that would probably over ride your religious claim. If you like to wear a yarmulke then he would have a very difficult time arguing you can’t wear one. Gee, a head covering. The same as this young lady felt her religion compelled her to wear.”

You are either illiterate or you’re an idiot. My employer is not required to accept my claim that I’m engaging in a protected religious practice. I am the one who is obliged to prove that it is. Same as in any other situation. The party MAKING THE CLAIM is the party with whom the BURDEN OF PROOF LIES. You assert something, that does not oblige anyone else to disprove it.

You’re using the same fucked-up and bogus argument all illogical lamebrains use. The existence of God, or space aliens or anything else IS NOT PROVEN BY A FAILURE TO DISPROVE IT. YOU claim something is so, YOU are the one who has to come up with the proof.

This is worse than talking to a retarded child. Crikey.

Feel free to share with us that part of Islamic law that says that women must wear orange and blue. Since she already admitted that it DOESN’T – that it’s NOTHING MORE THAN HER PREFERENCE – then pray tell how the fuck it “violates” any religious right.

This is not a case of some poor, shat-upon devout Muslim being forced to do something forbidden by Islam. This is about a common, familiar DC situation with yet another typical militant troublemaking follower of Farrakhan stirring the pot and making typical bullshit claims of “victimization.”

When and if you ever wake up, Batshit, you will be so overwhelmed with shame at the supreme idiocy of some of the shit you’ve said that you’ll need to be put under suicide watch.

Mister Catshit says:

#32, Three Times a Fucking Moran,

First, and before anything else, you utter nincompoop, since her participation in this event is entirely voluntary and discretionary, the Constitutional is not involved.

You are such an asswipe. What the hell does “voluntary” have to do with it. This is a government sanctioned event. The First Amendment prohibits the government from infringing upon her religion unless it is in the state’s best interest to do so.

BTW, a “Constitutional” usually means taking a dump. Which, I might add, completely augments your whole posting.
*
“…this was a custom made outfit that allowed her to compete in athletics”

It didn’t “ALLOW” her to do Jack Shit any more than carrying your lucky rabbit’s foot ALLOWS you to drive on I-95 in rush hour.

See? This is how stupid you are. In order to follow her religious convictions she must remain covered from head to foot. If she wore the standard uniform she would be unable to compete. Thus, she made this uniform which conforms to her religious convictions.
*
“Vollmer’s statement that she had to prove her religion every time is illegal.”

Wow. I guess you really ARE that fucking stupid.
No one even suggested she “prove her religion.”

Say what???? I guess you didn’t read that part because of all the spittle on your screen. From #28
The district’s track commissioner Jim Vollmer suggested a solution, “What she needs to do is get some religious documentation saying it’s part of her heritage and bring it with her to every meet.”
*
When you claim that you are exercising a protected religious right – ESPECIALLY ONE THAT DOESN’T EXIST – the burden is upon YOU to show that your action is prescribed by your religion.

Wrong. It up to those in control to demonstrate that the bests interests of the state exceed those being claimed by the individual. Read the Constitution. It does not say the individual must prove anything, it says the government can not make any law that interferes. PERIOD.
*
And your lack of reading comprehension rears it’s ugly head yet again.

ISLAM, you brainless slug, has nothing to do with HER PERSONAL CHOICE of COLORS. It requires ONLY THAT SHE BE COVERED.

My lack of reading? Gee, the Coach said the reasons included the hood. Hey, didn’t some asswipe above also say the same thing. Let me find it. Ya, there it is, in post #29 from that self practicing brain surgeon himself, the Three Headed Moran,
Because hoods aren’t permitted, that’s why.
*
Vollmer was actually being very nice, in a very low-key way, by suggesting that she could provide proof of the religious nature of her color scheme, instead of saying “what a crock of shit.”

Telling her that she can’t participate and must prove her religious convictions is “very nice”? Maybe in some fishy asswipe perverted manner that normal people could never fathom. If you had of read the articles you would know why she chose those colors. I never saw anything about “because she liked them”. Ya fucking moran, they are her school’s colors !!!

HEY WAIT A MINTE THERE BUDDY !!! Didn’t you just say No one even suggested she “prove her religion.” and yet here you admit she has to “prove” a religious point.
*
You are either illiterate or you’re an idiot. My employer is not required to accept my claim that I’m engaging in a protected religious practice.

Sorry, but once again you show your idiocy. I wrote in #31:
NOTE: A private company does not have to hold or obey the same Constitutional standards as the government.

BTW, your boss doesn’t need a reason to fire you. If you commit infractions, such as health violations, that might interfere with collecting unemployment insurance.

Clean your fucking monitor.
*
You’re using the same fucked-up and bogus argument all illogical lamebrains use. The existence of God, or space aliens or anything else IS NOT PROVEN BY A FAILURE TO DISPROVE IT. YOU claim something is so, YOU are the one who has to come up with the proof.

Say what ??? Now you are chastising yourself because you haven’t proven anything you have said? Moran, if you insist SHE must prove something, BACK IT UP. I cited three US Supreme Court cases and quoted four reports of the incident. So if you can back up anything you have to say then I truly would like to see something. But all you have done is froth at the mouth and scream I’m an idiot.
*
This is about a common, familiar DC situation with yet another typical militant troublemaking follower of Farrakhan stirring the pot and making typical bullshit claims of “victimization.”

Prove it asswipe. You made the allegation, you prove it. Then explain how this makes her First Amendment rights somehow disappear.

I don’t care how silly this sounds. I don’t care if she worships Hey Zeus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Double Cheese Deep Dish Pizza, the devil, or any combination. The First Amendment allows her the right to do so. It denies the government the means to make or enforce any rule or law that infringes upon her beliefs provided there is no SUBSTANTIAL STATE INTEREST.

I’ll leave you with two last citations.
Lemon v Kurtzman, (8-1, 1971)
(Upheld in Santa Fe Independent School District v Doe (2000))
The Court’s decision in this case established the “Lemon test”, which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
1.The government’s action must have a legitimate secular purpose;
2.The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3.The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
If any of these 3 prongs is violated, the government’s action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Sherbert v. Verner , (7-2, 1963)
The Sherbert Test consists of four criteria that are used to determine if an individual’s right to religious free exercise has been violated by the government. The test is as follows:
For the individual, the court must determine
whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and
whether the government action is a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.
If these two elements are established, then the government must prove
that it is acting in furtherance of a “compelling state interest,” and
that it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.