Absurd bank policy

[frankie_the_yankee]

I can see where some types of religious attire could be problematic. If I were running things I would probably say, "Too bad. Establish your own bank if you don't like it." But our courts might not be so "enlightened".

I suspect that telling a bunch of guys in yarmulkes that they should go open up a competing bank would be rather unhealthy for your business.

I wouldn't have a problem with yarmulkes if they are as I am picturing them in my mind. They do not cover the face. It's the hoods and types of hats and or other covering type garments that would be problematic for me.

[frankie_the_yankee]

But I was asking how FL's case came out in particular. FL required a clear face shot, and a DL applicant contested it, claiming a religious exemption. FL did not agree, and the case went to court - federal court as I seem to recall.

I was wondering if the case was resolved, and how.

They compromised after the plaintiffs lost in court. Google "Najat Tamim-Muhammad" and "Sultaana Freeman." Good luck on who's telling an accurate story.

- Jim

So what was the compromise?

[frankie_the_yankee]

I think it's interesting. Banks are public accommodations, but as far as I'm concerned if they want to have a "hats off" policy or some such, it's OK by me. Anybody who doesn't like it can go do their banking somewhere else.

I would be one of those people going somewhere else. Businesses that want my money do not get to tell me how to dress when I'm buying whatever product or service they're trying to sell me, if I have a choice.

And I'm sure some banks will be delighted to get your business.

I can see where some types of religious attire could be problematic. If I were running things I would probably say, "Too bad. Establish your own bank if you don't like it." But our courts might not be so "enlightened".

Enlightened? How 'bout if you're running things you also ban black people, since according to the FBI statistics they comprised the majority (just over 50%, in 2006) of all bank robbers? You can "enlighten" your banking system right back into the nineteenth century, when, guess what....They still had bank robberies.

Banning black people would be both wrong and illegal.

I see no equivalence between someone being black and someone choosing to wear a cover garment of some sort whether due to religion or simply out of personal choice.

Someone's religion could call for sacrificing animals and I would have no problem with it. Just don't go doing it in my bank.

Likewise, if they want to cover their faces they can. Just not when they come to my bank.

And I'm sure banks could do all sorts of other things to enhance their security. And if they want to, they can do them. But as I see it, if they want to ban people from wearing masking or covering garments, they should be free to do that.

Other banks may well welcome the "masked and hooded clientel" and they should be free to do that.

[KC5AV]

2003

* May 27-29 - Freeman vs DMV trial takes place in Orlando residing under Circuit Court Judge Janet C. Thorpe
* June 6 - Janet C. Thorpe rules against Freeman
* July 3- Sultaana Freeman appeals
* Oct 31- Freeman files Appellate briefs. Awaiting a response from defendant by end of year.

2004

* June 9 - Appellate Court Oral arguments

John

[frankie_the_yankee]

I'm not arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to institute any rule they want, within reason. Forcing an Islamic woman to remove her burqa, or banning blacks are two measures that would be unreasonable.

I see no equivalence whatsoever between the two situations.

I also see no obstacle to any bank actively going after the "burqa banker" by advertising that they are a "burqa friendly" bank.

That's how freedom, private property rights, and the right to contract, are supposed to work.

I'm simply arguing that it's stupid, it won't stop determined criminals any more than no guns signs, and there are better ways to stop less resolute criminals *without* annoying the customers you claim to serve in the process.

You certainly may think it is stupid. But someone with their own capital and livelihood tied up in a business certainly has the right to make their own decisions as to business and marketing strategy.

Sure, it won't stop determined criminals. But it does not follow that it wouldn't make some criminals choose a different target.

And if you think there are better ways of doing this or that, you are certainly free to apply them to any retail business (or any business) you are responsible for or advise.

And if the "burqa banker" is annoyed, I wouldn't much care one way or the other. They are not the market I would be looking, or claiming, to serve.

[fiftycal]

Why don't they just post a "NO ROBBERYS" sign?

[Liberty]

Why don't they just post a "NO ROBBERYS" sign?

I like it that is sure to stop them. Maybe put a no guns sign will help

If hats are outlawed only Crimminals will have hats. Ever notice bad guys almost always wear sneakers maybe we should make them illegal too or at least put up another sign.

Should this icon be taken away also? =--->

[seamusTX]

They compromised after the plaintiffs lost in court. Google "Najat Tamim-Muhammad" and "Sultaana Freeman." Good luck on who's telling an accurate story.

So what was the compromise?[/quote]Idon't know for sure. This issue is polluted with millions of rants on the web. Court TV said one or maybe both were allowed to have their driver license photos take with their face partly covered.

- Jim

[KC5AV]

The courts ruled against Sultana Freeman. That last information I was able to find indicated it is still in the appeals process.

John