Quote:
Originally Posted by Narayanjot Kaur  Earlier I stated that to restrict the religious rights of anyone without a a compelling evidence of a clear and present danger is a violation of the constitution.
Let me make it simple. You see a man in the security queue. He is wearing a turban. You decide on the basis of complete ignorance that he must be a muslim. Then you jump to the conclusion that he "might be" a terrorist and he might be hiding something in his turban. So you take action. You tell him to remove his turban. He won't. You have him detained. All of this is called prior restraint because there is no compelling evidence of a clear and present danger. Because a turban is at issue, the violation is "prior restraint." based solely on seeing a turban (religious expression). He is also a Sikh (minority group) and is required to wear a turban. Therefore his constitutional rights have been violated solely because he is a member of a minority religion. Not only has the 1rst Amendment to the US 14th Amendment.
"But TSA's gotta do what they need to do to prevent another 9-11"
How far are you willing to let them go before you personally start making noise. Maybe by then it will be too late because no freedoms will be left to protect. |
A Sikh is not being targetted because he could be Muslim, even Muslims are not targetted because they are Muslim.
It only makes sense to check all those people with headwears big enough to hide explosive in them...