Polish court's ruling: A sikh vs. airport security checks

[Ed Anger]

Depends on what you are sikhing for.

Really it is just sikh how many puns about Sikhs you can do.

The best part is, somewhere BB is bashing his forehead into his computer keys. 

If I respond, I will only prompt more terrible puns.

Sikh out your feelings.

[Malthus]

Depends on what you are sikhing for.

Really it is just sikh how many puns about Sikhs you can do.

The best part is, somewhere BB is bashing his forehead into his computer keys. 

If I respond, I will only prompt more terrible puns.

Indeed. You must find the whole situation sikhining. 

[Valmy]

Poor BB.  Punsters always sikh him out.

[DGuller]

These puns are turban-worthy.

[Jacob]

I think this whole pun thing is a sikhlical phenomenon.

[Syt]

I find this dis-turban.

[dps]

As I understand it, for baptized Sikhs the hair is considered very intimate and private, so asking a devout Sikh to take his turban off is roughly in the same ballpark as asking you to strip down to your underwear.

Which might be necessary on occasion as part of a security check.  I don't have a problem with that when there's some cause for it, but it's unnecessary and excessive as standard procedure.

The tougher question for sikhs is when it comes to helmets.

Should a sikh motorcyclist be required to wear a safety helmet?  Should a sikh be refused employment on a job site that requires wearing a safety helmet?

I'm opposed to mandatory helmet laws in the first place, so obviously my answer to the first question is "no".  I agree with CC on the second one.

[Eddie Teach]

I find this dis-turban.

[Jacob]

Which might be necessary on occasion as part of a security check.  I don't have a problem with that when there's some cause for it, but it's unnecessary and excessive as standard procedure.

Yeah, that seems reasonable to me too, though I'd add the caveat that the turban-removal be done in private and with as much respect given to the dignity of the individual in question; i.e. do it away from view of the public and with courteous professionalism.

[DGuller]

Seriously, enough with the punjabs. 

[Jacob]

Seriously, enough with the punjabs. 

I don't know. I think it's been a pretty sikhcessful thread so far.

[The Brain]

A religious sikh sued the Warsaw airport security guard for asking him to take his headgear off for routine security checks (Polish rules require everyone to take off their hat/headgear). When he refused, they refused to let him on the plane.

He lost.

I agree with the ruling but I was wondering if someone would defend his side of this.

If reasonable steps were taken to inform him of the security rules when he bought the ticket then where would the problem be?

[OttoVonBismarck]

The sikh turban is an important part of the sikh religion.  It's not optional, or cultural - an observant sikh must wear a turban.

I've always said that reasonable accomodations must be made for religious observations.  In this case the individual has already gone through the metal detector.  Unless there is some reason to require further investigation I see no need to deny this man access to his flight because it is policy to make people remove their headwear.

Why must you accommodate all religions?

[Maximus]

Why would you accommodate some but not all?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Why would you accommodate some but not all?

Because some are more easily accommodated than others.