are you seriously comparing 'no headgear' to 'no blacks'??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Do headscarves? I mean, what is this decision of Playland which has never had any accidents related to headscarves based on? Do they ban Indian women in sarees? Sikh men? Arabs in thobes? It would be interesting to know exactly how their rules about clothing work out in practice As stated its the only one they own.
Once again, are you saying that if they made congress shirtless it wouldnt be impinging on women's ability to paticipate? Anything which delibratly impinges on the ability of a group to paticipate fully in sociaty is discrimination. For instance businesses used to say "oh well we dont discriminate against the disabled but if they cant get up here thats too bad", wrong businesses are required by law to put in ramps for this reason, disabled toilets ect. There has been discussions about child care centers in large companies to allow women to more fully paticipate, here there was a MASSIVE debate about a women breast feeding on the floor of the house because she was called for a division while she was feeding her child. The parliment got slamed for that. Incidental discimination is still discrimination And i was right BTW, all this crap about "its private, they can do what they want" is just that, crap http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/12/strip_club_owne.php Wether your antidiscrimination laws are as comprehensive as ours or not is irrelivent, they exist in your country too.
I'm saying no such thing. This is about banned headgear, not a shirt Do you aussies have a law against banning caps/hats/scarves for safety reasons?
so they are discriminating against atheists and christians as well when they ask them to remove their caps?
are you really this thick? or are you doing this on purpose since when do athiests and christans feel uncomfertable being around the oposite sex without there cap? that they feel its imodest ect, ie they feel about not wearing a head scarf the same the same way you probably feel about walking around with your nipples out.
why are you making this about sex? Its not like they held the woman down and stripped her. Due to safety reasons, no one with head covering could ride certain rides. NO ONE If you don't like the safety rules on specific rides in the park, you go to a different park. You take your money elsewhere
there is a difference between 'no typos' and 'coherent' Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
She wasn't banned from the amusement park. She was banned from riding a high velocity ride with headgear because headgear of any kind on high velocity rides has resulted in: * Headgear ending up on the tracks of rides (causing mechanical failure and endangering rider safety). * Headgear ending up under the tracks of rides (causing people to jump fences to retrieve it... and they get killed). It's kind of a no-brainer why the rule is in place and if someone can't comply with the rule then they should avoid high velocity rides. I do however, think (given the information in the article) that the park security could have handled the situation much less aggressively. A simple statement "it's a safety rule that we have to enforce" would probably do, but if not then the statement "if someone attempts to break the rule then we have to arrest them" would have sufficed.
Instead of getting too "philosophical" about the whole situation, just look at it from a practical "where the rubber meets the road" viewpoint. a) These ladies were most likely refused access to a ride by the operator (who would be following policy of no headwear) and not the governing committee of the park. b) Any "guy" wearing a "git 'r done" ball cap would have been asked to remove it per ride policy. c) The same "guy" would have been arrested for badgering the police (who would be crazy to go against park policy and allow access to the ride) after being told repeatedly that there was nothing they can do. d) Unfortunately, we all have to deal with regulations that don't apply to all people but are for the general safety of the populace. Please read this link http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/article671381.ece . e) Even if the ride operator felt differently, or the police, allowing them access to the ride, which even possibly could have violated policy (based likely on insurance protocol), would have been a terrible career decision. Just because women that are used to wearing some article of clothing in the correct way and thereby safely, does not make the article safe for all. Imagine if the scarfs became a popular item with teenage girls.
Contrast this with below: Well, since they own but a single such park, no conclusion can possibly be drawn. Is there anything special that one should take from it being the last day of Ramadan?
It's interesting to me that the people who have attempted to cultivate this completely unremarkable incident into some grand statement from the American establishment in which it actually persecutes women of a particular faith from practicing their religion with the freedom afforded the rest of the country, have effectively ended their protestations.
