irstupid on 28 February 2018
| StuOhQ said: It's funny that people explode without reading the article. The police simply have to offer a private photo with a same gender officer when booking... That is all. No one is above the law, the law is simply making sure that it doesn't infringe upon religious rights as it operates. This isn't the same as a "gay cake" episode, etcetera, as there is only one actor involved. In that case, a baker can't evoke their religious freedom to violate another person's civil rights by choosing who to sell cakes to based on gender, religion, race, etc. This case simply involves how the law should react in relation to individual religious rights. Seems pretty clear cut to me and not sure why it's in the "politics" section. It's not that hard people. |
And they had no female officer, and the Mug shot camera is screwed into a stationary spot. What do they do if they can't comply? Have her sit in booking for 24 hours until a female office comes in? Clear out the entire precinct of all people except females so that they can take their photo, due to it not being able to be moved to a private location?
Probably get sued for either one as well for some reason. But lets say they do comply to those requests. Then what? Her face is now on camera. Can she sue again if they show that mug shot on the news. What happens when its in a file and a male office is assigned to the case. He opens up the file and sees her face. Is he infringing on her religious rights?
