Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE
Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Carmike bans Muslims by accident in GA (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: Carmike bans Muslims by accident in GA
Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 02-22-2002 02:04 AM      Profile for Dave Williams   Author's Homepage   Email Dave Williams   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
A group of Muslims is suing Carmike in GA after they were thrown out of the movie theater because they refused to take off thier head dress. The movie theater has a rule about no head gear as it apparently is used quite often there to promote gang affiliations and cause trouble in the cinema.

In this case, the floor staff was not aware that it was their religeous right to wear it any damn place they wanted it too. The floor staff actually thought these people were part of a gang.

It wasnt until the manager got into it when he realized what was happening. He tried to placate the group, to no avail.

My questions is, HOW IN HELL CAN YOU NOT KNOW THIS STUFF??? Do these people NOT watch any television that doesnt involve cartoons?

Good publicity dont you think?

Not sure if this should have been here or in one of the other forums.

Dave

 |  IP: Logged

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99


 - posted 02-22-2002 02:42 AM      Profile for Brad Miller   Author's Homepage   Email Brad Miller       Edit/Delete Post 
Hey, it's all videogames nowadays.

Moving to Yak.

 |  IP: Logged

Jim Ziegler
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 753
From: West Hollywood, CA
Registered: Jul 99


 - posted 02-22-2002 03:55 AM      Profile for Jim Ziegler   Email Jim Ziegler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Carmike will probably win this one. If the policy was evenly applied regardless of "class", the plantiffs claims that they were being discriminated against because of their religion does not hold merit. This is affirmed by the managers attempt to rectify the situation when he learned the garments were required by religious beliefs. "Equal Protection" does not prohibit rules, regulations and laws that might affect one class of people differently than another class of people *IF* that rule or law has a purpose that is, in and of itself, nondiscriminatory.

Carmike should stick to their guns on this one. Besides, the plantiffs might want to read the news before filing suit. What, exactally, do they think they will be able to get out of Carmike?

 |  IP: Logged

Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 02-22-2002 05:48 AM      Profile for Jerry Chase   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Odd. AFAIK male muslims in the mainstream are not required to wear headware. Something doesn't smell right. I'm suspecting that this could be a gang or troublemaking group masquarading under a religious banner. If I were involved with Carmike, I'd guarantee that I'd have a P.I. tailing these guys and taking photos, nailing them with headware removed. I'd then publicize those photos and get comments from mainstream mosques prior to any court date.

Splinter groups and cults sometimes make up their own dress codes. The Yahways come to mind, but this group was (treading carefully here) found to have members in high places that were engaged in serious felonious behavior. A dress code imposed by those leaders would not stand up under court scrutiny. Freedom of religion has definite limits in the U.S., as some extreme Jehovah's Witnesses have discovered after withholding medical care from their children.

Carmike would still have insurance even if in financial difficulty. This is what the bottom sucking lawyers would be after.



 |  IP: Logged

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-22-2002 06:15 AM      Profile for Mark Gulbrandsen   Email Mark Gulbrandsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
If I was the manager I would have unraveled tha dam things right off their heads! Even though I am not a believer in organized religion I do feel it is ones right to practice their beliefs but without intruding into another persons life while doing so, I.E. do it at home or at your local church of what ever faith you may be. Not in someones line of sight at a movie theatre!

The thing here is that the ticket taker should have denied them entrance into the place before it got out of hand.
Mark @ GTS


 |  IP: Logged

Gerard S. Cohen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 975
From: Forest Hills, NY, USA
Registered: Sep 2001


 - posted 02-22-2002 08:50 PM      Profile for Gerard S. Cohen   Email Gerard S. Cohen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I am told by sikhs that males are required by their religion to wear their hair long under a turban, and to carry a dagger, (which is usually a tiny symbolic one hidden in the folds of the turban.) The dagger symbolizes their pledge of faithful protection. 3/5 of people named Singh belong to the sikh religion.

Orthodox Jewish males may follow the Biblical injunction against cutting the corners of their beards, and most cover their heads with a hat or skullcap denoting humility before God. the way Christians uncover their heads in church for a similar reason.

School administrators, sports teams and employers often allow such religious symbolic expression when it is based on sincere religious conviction.


 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-22-2002 08:59 PM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
In Canada the supreme court has ruled that no regulation or legestlation can infringe on religious dress codes. A Shik construction worker can not be made to wear a hard hat. Nor can they be barred from carrying there dagger in schools.
There is a court challange regarding aircraft security regulations under way now

 |  IP: Logged

Chad Souder
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 962
From: Waterloo, IA, USA
Registered: Feb 2000


 - posted 02-22-2002 09:25 PM      Profile for Chad Souder   Email Chad Souder   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm with Gerard that they may not have been muslim. Only the women are required to wear a head dress. The only men I know that wear them are, as Gerard also said, Sikhs. I knew a guy at college that was Sikh, and he always wore that thing, except in the mornings for a shower, then as he walked back to his dorm you could catch a glimps of his long, long hair.

 |  IP: Logged

Gordon McLeod
Film God

Posts: 9532
From: Toronto Ontario Canada
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 02-22-2002 09:56 PM      Profile for Gordon McLeod   Email Gordon McLeod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Sikhs are part of the muslim religion

 |  IP: Logged

Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 02-22-2002 10:30 PM      Profile for Jerry Chase   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Sikhs are not Moslem. If any grouping is made, they would be considered montheistic Hindus. I suppose Jainism would be lumped in there as well.

Sufis are generally (Shi'ite) Moslem, although they don't have to be. Perhaps you were mixing the Sikhs and Sufis up. Sufi dress varies according to the group. Whirling dervishes have a stylized code of dress but most don't have any dress code.



 |  IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 02-23-2002 03:05 AM      Profile for Dave Williams   Author's Homepage   Email Dave Williams   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I will have to take a devils advocate stance on this one. I think that banning certain types of dress to avoid gang problems can be a noble effort, but the effort often infringes on others who are doing nothing wrong, and often the effort only forces the intended parties to alter thier appearance and method of attack.

It is true that dress codes have to be applied across the board, but you do have to remember that not all persons that dress in a certain way are showing gang affiliation. Would you force orthodox jews to remove thier yammicas (sic)? The jewish community would have you across thier legal laps giving you the court equivilant of a good spanking.

Even if you apply certain rules across the board regarding dress, you take away a persons right to express themselves, denying the freedom of speech. Violence and crude behavior is forbidden, but to say that you cant wear hats, thats like saying that you cant dance in Provo Utah after 10 pm. Oh wait, they do that now.

I am all for security and safety, and even willing to give a little of my own personal freedoms to get it. But I would not bend even a small amount on what rights that as human biengs we should be able to enjoy.

My true objection with what happened is that our educational system is so broken down that these kids don't even know a damn thing about the people around them. They don't even have an interest in caring anyway. And to think that in thirty years, these kids are going to be our senators and congressmen, and god forbid, the president.

I think now is a good time to become canadian.

Dave

 |  IP: Logged

Sean McKinnon
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1712
From: Peabody Massachusetts
Registered: Sep 2000


 - posted 02-23-2002 04:55 AM      Profile for Sean McKinnon   Author's Homepage   Email Sean McKinnon   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Right but...

It is my feeling that Private Property is Private Property. No one is forcing people to attend the theatre. It is not a public building like a school that people HAVE to go too. If I owned private property and did not like the color orange, I may decide to not allow anyone onto my property who was wearing orange, I may be wrong but I think that it would be my right as the owner of the property.

 |  IP: Logged

Charles Everett
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: New Jersey
Registered: May 2001


 - posted 02-23-2002 10:01 AM      Profile for Charles Everett   Email Charles Everett   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Looks like Mark G wants to start a religious riot. After all, most major riots begin with something supposedly innocuous. In addition, the US gov't has had an official policy of being anti-Muslim and anti-Arab since 9/11/2001.

What happened in Columbus GA can easily lead to calls for a nationwide boycott of Carmike. That's something the company doesn't want to have to put up with, especially since it just got out of Chapter 11.

 |  IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 02-23-2002 10:23 AM      Profile for David Stambaugh   Author's Homepage   Email David Stambaugh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Regal Cinemas has banned its patrons from bringing in any packages, backpacks, etc., ostensibly over concerns about Sept. 11th (no way this policy has anything to do with preventing outside food and beverages from being brought in). Surely the rights of shoppers and kids with backpacks are being violated.

------------------
- dave
Look at this! His chin strap has been cut!


 |  IP: Logged

Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 02-23-2002 10:27 AM      Profile for Jerry Chase   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Dave, I have to agree with Sean. The government tries to be very distinct on banning discrimination that is based on racism, and less so based on religion. I'll give a few quick things to consider.

1. The laughable thing about religious dress codes is that people have the natural ability to wear all types of dress. Go to South Beach nightclubs if you don't believe me. Religions place dress RESTRICTIONS on people, and then complain when other restrictions interfere with their own restrictions. To me that makes the idea of it being a "freedom of religion" or "freedom of speech" issue ludicrous.

2. The state of Florida until recently allowed Muslim women to cover their faces when having their driver's licence picture taken. (Imagine a trooper looking at such a licence, looking at the driver, and then back at the licence... "You don't look like this piece of cloth...") It no longer does, as the "right to drive" is not a given constitutional right.

3. Technically, since graven images are forbidden as part of Muslim fundementalism, if these men were true believers, they shouldn't have been going to a theatre in the first place. People with extreme religious intolerances and views can't pick and choose from a smorgasboard of intolerances and expect to have people or the courts respect those choices.

4. Sometimes the religious intolerants have to be treated as the pricks that they are. I've seen orthodox members of one religion walk down the street, pass by a member of the reform version of the same religion, and spit on them. Some may call that religious freedom, but if G-- requires such behavior from his believers, I'm in the other camp and ready to fight.

5. If you stop and think about the climate of the middle east where the western religions sprung up, and then you consider that these religions were promoted and ruled by old men, you start to realize that just perhaps one of the reasons for the head coverings was to keep some frail old bald heads from getting sunburned.

"Oh great teacher, why is your head covered?"

"Err... Ummm... G-- told me to! You need to cover your head too!"

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.