|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Carmike bans Muslims by accident in GA
|
Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene
Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 02-22-2002 02:04 AM
A group of Muslims is suing Carmike in GA after they were thrown out of the movie theater because they refused to take off thier head dress. The movie theater has a rule about no head gear as it apparently is used quite often there to promote gang affiliations and cause trouble in the cinema. In this case, the floor staff was not aware that it was their religeous right to wear it any damn place they wanted it too. The floor staff actually thought these people were part of a gang. It wasnt until the manager got into it when he realized what was happening. He tried to placate the group, to no avail. My questions is, HOW IN HELL CAN YOU NOT KNOW THIS STUFF??? Do these people NOT watch any television that doesnt involve cartoons? Good publicity dont you think? Not sure if this should have been here or in one of the other forums. Dave
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-22-2002 05:48 AM
Odd. AFAIK male muslims in the mainstream are not required to wear headware. Something doesn't smell right. I'm suspecting that this could be a gang or troublemaking group masquarading under a religious banner. If I were involved with Carmike, I'd guarantee that I'd have a P.I. tailing these guys and taking photos, nailing them with headware removed. I'd then publicize those photos and get comments from mainstream mosques prior to any court date.Splinter groups and cults sometimes make up their own dress codes. The Yahways come to mind, but this group was (treading carefully here) found to have members in high places that were engaged in serious felonious behavior. A dress code imposed by those leaders would not stand up under court scrutiny. Freedom of religion has definite limits in the U.S., as some extreme Jehovah's Witnesses have discovered after withholding medical care from their children. Carmike would still have insurance even if in financial difficulty. This is what the bottom sucking lawyers would be after.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 02-22-2002 06:15 AM
If I was the manager I would have unraveled tha dam things right off their heads! Even though I am not a believer in organized religion I do feel it is ones right to practice their beliefs but without intruding into another persons life while doing so, I.E. do it at home or at your local church of what ever faith you may be. Not in someones line of sight at a movie theatre! The thing here is that the ticket taker should have denied them entrance into the place before it got out of hand. Mark @ GTS
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gerard S. Cohen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 975
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: Sep 2001
|
posted 02-22-2002 08:50 PM
I am told by sikhs that males are required by their religion to wear their hair long under a turban, and to carry a dagger, (which is usually a tiny symbolic one hidden in the folds of the turban.) The dagger symbolizes their pledge of faithful protection. 3/5 of people named Singh belong to the sikh religion.Orthodox Jewish males may follow the Biblical injunction against cutting the corners of their beards, and most cover their heads with a hat or skullcap denoting humility before God. the way Christians uncover their heads in church for a similar reason. School administrators, sports teams and employers often allow such religious symbolic expression when it is based on sincere religious conviction.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene
Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 02-23-2002 03:05 AM
I will have to take a devils advocate stance on this one. I think that banning certain types of dress to avoid gang problems can be a noble effort, but the effort often infringes on others who are doing nothing wrong, and often the effort only forces the intended parties to alter thier appearance and method of attack. It is true that dress codes have to be applied across the board, but you do have to remember that not all persons that dress in a certain way are showing gang affiliation. Would you force orthodox jews to remove thier yammicas (sic)? The jewish community would have you across thier legal laps giving you the court equivilant of a good spanking. Even if you apply certain rules across the board regarding dress, you take away a persons right to express themselves, denying the freedom of speech. Violence and crude behavior is forbidden, but to say that you cant wear hats, thats like saying that you cant dance in Provo Utah after 10 pm. Oh wait, they do that now. I am all for security and safety, and even willing to give a little of my own personal freedoms to get it. But I would not bend even a small amount on what rights that as human biengs we should be able to enjoy. My true objection with what happened is that our educational system is so broken down that these kids don't even know a damn thing about the people around them. They don't even have an interest in caring anyway. And to think that in thirty years, these kids are going to be our senators and congressmen, and god forbid, the president. I think now is a good time to become canadian. Dave
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-23-2002 10:27 AM
Dave, I have to agree with Sean. The government tries to be very distinct on banning discrimination that is based on racism, and less so based on religion. I'll give a few quick things to consider.1. The laughable thing about religious dress codes is that people have the natural ability to wear all types of dress. Go to South Beach nightclubs if you don't believe me. Religions place dress RESTRICTIONS on people, and then complain when other restrictions interfere with their own restrictions. To me that makes the idea of it being a "freedom of religion" or "freedom of speech" issue ludicrous. 2. The state of Florida until recently allowed Muslim women to cover their faces when having their driver's licence picture taken. (Imagine a trooper looking at such a licence, looking at the driver, and then back at the licence... "You don't look like this piece of cloth...") It no longer does, as the "right to drive" is not a given constitutional right. 3. Technically, since graven images are forbidden as part of Muslim fundementalism, if these men were true believers, they shouldn't have been going to a theatre in the first place. People with extreme religious intolerances and views can't pick and choose from a smorgasboard of intolerances and expect to have people or the courts respect those choices. 4. Sometimes the religious intolerants have to be treated as the pricks that they are. I've seen orthodox members of one religion walk down the street, pass by a member of the reform version of the same religion, and spit on them. Some may call that religious freedom, but if G-- requires such behavior from his believers, I'm in the other camp and ready to fight. 5. If you stop and think about the climate of the middle east where the western religions sprung up, and then you consider that these religions were promoted and ruled by old men, you start to realize that just perhaps one of the reasons for the head coverings was to keep some frail old bald heads from getting sunburned. "Oh great teacher, why is your head covered?" "Err... Ummm... G-- told me to! You need to cover your head too!"
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|