If religion wasn't part of the law then courts wouldn't be able to order the city to pay them. Like it or not but it was their right to sue and the court thinks that they are right and that the city didn't follow the law.
A change of law would be the only thing to prevent this.

Dare you to apply logic to a hate thread! Dare you!

That said the US is that crazy country, where you can sue McDonalds for billions just because the coffee was hot and you spilled it in your lap, am I right?!

Good, should show what happens when you fuck up on duty.

I was referring to the not wanting to take off their hijabs. They're obstructing the police from doing their work properly.

If they can get some easy money out of a bad law, good for them. But this shows that this law is flawed, and needs to be changed. The concept of 'religious freedom' is a bit pointless.

When you mess up on duty?

I would hardly call making someone remove a head covering so that they can get a mug shot of a criminal fucking up.

And just an FYI, this payout means that us citizens paid for it. That money comes out of our paychecks. Or at least those in New York City paying for that department. The government, city, law enforcement, ect getting sued is never a win for us citizens unless it results in a law change for the better.

In this case, a law change should be made that they should be forced to remove their headwear and take a mug shot.

Good. They shouldn't have had to take them off in the first place.

Well I mean, given that NYC had to pay, I assume that this was against the law. It is a stupid quirk of the law, but people, especially the frikking police department should follow it, regardless if they agree or not. It's a matter of principle - the police can't choose to disregard laws just because they're stupid.

Those are my five cents.

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.

Believe me, we are. Lots of shameful garbage going on here right now. 

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?