Quote:
Originally Posted by geekette
I have a problem with this. It's not the government's job to tell me what sort of dress code I should be adhering to. I am *particularly* against people of a particular sect telling me how I should dress when I visit the public streets of their town. Suppose this was a Muslim town and all women were told to wear burqas? I bet that would go over real well.
Just to state my bias: I'm an ardent believer in separation of church and state, and the people who control Kiryas Joel have been trying to blur the line for decades. The Supreme Court held in 1994 that funding a school district that was specifically set up to the boundaries of a religious neighborhood was an unconstitutional aid to religion (Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet). There have been other cases on other subjects.
-----
According to the ACLU, the signs pass constitutional muster because they were put up by a private organization and there is no sanction for not adhering to the stated dress code. However, if the town council had put up the signs, that would be a different story.
|
You are wrong. The gubment requires food handlers to wear gloves and hairnets. That is separation. welders must wear gloves, helmets and eye protection. Tell us what to wear. Courts don't allow halter tops, undershirts, and sandals. We can write pages of rules and laws for what people wear.
If the law says certain pilots can't wear glasses, if you need them and must wear them, they can not let you fly.
Now that you are clear that there can be enforcible laws, have anything else?
Linear Mode
