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

[Martinus]

Besides, in statistical terms, a sikh probably travels through a Polish airport once in a blue moon, and usually much more rarely than someone who e.g. has deep psychological issues with having a stranger go through his or her personal luggage. Should we skip that if someone is carrying a psychiatrist's certificate that they feel awfully embarrassed when a security guard goes through their unmentionables?

[Josquius]

But that requires extra resources, e.g time spent, additional officers/staff, delay of routine checks. Again, I ask: why all of this for a lunatic?

I'd imagine having special reason to want to check under someones hat would go with also wanting to check beneath their other clothes.

[garbon]

Why would you accommodate some but not all?

The thing for me is again: why do religions get a special pass on the insanity train?

I'm not sure why you bother posting when you start with this.

[Razgovory]

Why would you accommodate some but not all?

The thing for me is again: why do religions get a special pass on the insanity train?

I'm not sure why you bother posting when you start with this.

Well, he's convinced me.  Gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.  To much extra hassle and paperwork.

[dps]

Why would you accommodate some but not all?

The thing for me is again: why do religions get a special pass on the insanity train?

I'm not sure why you bother posting when you start with this.

Well, he's convinced me.  Gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.  To much extra hassle and paperwork.

I wonder if he realizes that if there's no freedom of religion, the first thing to be outlawed in Poland would likely be atheism?

[Razgovory]

I suspect that Marty realizes very little.

[Iormlund]

I wonder if he realizes that if there's no freedom of religion, the first thing to be outlawed in Poland would likely be atheism?

What does freedom of religion have to do with handing out privileges to followers of certain religions? Marti is not arguing Sikhs should be banned from airports or their temples shut down. He's asking why shouldn't we apply the law equally to everyone regardless of beliefs. And he's right.

[Solmyr]

I have to agree with Marty on this one. Personal freedom of religion is fine, but it doesn't mean religion should get special rights under laws that apply to everybody. Liberalism doesn't mean everybody gets to do whatever the fuck they want.

[grumbler]

What does freedom of religion have to do with handing out privileges to followers of certain religions? Marti is not arguing Sikhs should be banned from airports or their temples shut down. He's asking why shouldn't we apply the law equally to everyone regardless of beliefs. And he's right.

The concept that should apply here is "reasonable accommodations."  If there really is a reason why everyone has to take off their headgear (I'm not sure just what that reason is, but if it is justifiable, then it should apply), then the security procedures should take into account people who don't want to do so publicly, just as they take into account, say, people with wheelchairs.  If the religious dictates of a person cannot be met with a reasonable accommodation, then they have to eschew whatever service the security is protecting.

It isn't a black and white issue, and making reasonable accommodations doesn't grant anyone special rights under the law nor does it say a law doesn't apply because of someone's beliefs.

Not that security procedures are a matter of law in any case.

[Ancient Demon]

If there's no compelling reason why Sikhs should have to take off their headgear, then there's no compelling reason why anyone should.

[DGuller]

If there's no compelling reason why Sikhs should have to take off their headgear, then there's no compelling reason why anyone should.

It's impolite to wear hats indoors.

[Admiral Yi]

I agreed with Marty's point back when we had the thread about the Austrian spaghetti strainer dude.

[Martinus]

If there's no compelling reason why Sikhs should have to take off their headgear, then there's no compelling reason why anyone should.

Precisely. I'd go further and say that if a spacious turban does not create a potential security risk as a matter of course, surely people's shoes (including flip flops) don't.

[Ed Anger]

All flip flop wearers should be barred from breathing.

[grumbler]

Precisely. I'd go further and say that if a spacious turban does not create a potential security risk as a matter of course, surely people's shoes (including flip flops) don't.

Surely you know, shirley, that the shoe requirement was implemented much later than the rest of the tests, because someone named Richard Reed took advantage of the fact that shoes aren't scanned by the walk-through metal detectors. 

Taking off hats makes as much sense as taking off pants or skirts, as far as I can tell.

Now, if there are special reasons why security forces have reason to suspect what is under the hat as opposed to under the pants or skirt, then the requirement to remove hats is reasonable, and Sikhs (and others) have to live with it (though, again, there can be a reasonable accommodation made that it not be public, any more than it is public when, as happens, people are required to remove pants or skirts).