They just want an exemption to the clothing restrictions that apply to everyone equally.

And these types of restrictions are generally seen as such by the courts.

There's nothing about them to single out Muslims or to target them for discrimination.

For wearing shorts or t-shirts. These were non-immigrant, not obviously Muslim people, both adults and children, and mostly sporting all the secondary sex characteristics of maleness (or, if pre-pubescent, showing traditional male-child behavior or clothing).

I've had staff, when I was wearing a t-shirt and cutoffs (because I didn't have a bathing suit) warn me when I was just sitting there, legs dangling in the water, warn me "no bathing suit, no swimming." And they didn't mean swimming in the buff, either. I'm neither immigrant nor Muslim. Nor female.

The claim has been that bathing suits don't produce lint or perhaps just not as much. Lint, they said (in a few different places) clogs their filtration system. Since it was a few different, unconnected places, I figure either it's a common myth or just possibly the truth and accurate.

So there's anecdotal evidence for the possibility that the other opinion is right.

And the same type of rules are also found at public beaches and lakes. All of this anecdotal evidence leads to one conclusion, in my view.

I don't think so.

Just don't ask why many Muslim women feel obligated to cover themselves in public at all times.

And DEFINITELY don't bring up the many Muslim women who claim that the dress rules are ridiculous and sexist to begin with and we shouldn't be deferring to the fundamentalist religious leaders who enforce them.

yes, one might be justified in suspecting that this is designed to target religions.

they target street clothes. I have been asked to leave pools when wearing a T-Shirt.
I now own a proper swim shirt.

But you love to exchange opinions for facts.

A burkini is a swimsuit.

from your article:

Her daughter was wearing a bathing suit layered with leggings and a T-shirt,

not my opinion.

at most public pools. They say the fibers clog the filters.

Not everything is persecution.

You really should read the article you posted.

Keep trying to force this to fit your agenda, though.

The rest of us will read the entire article and understand your desperate spin for what it is.

have been around as long as I can remember. Gil wants to believe religious people are being persecuted, though, so that explains his novel interpretation.

Agreed?

Fear of women?

be able to have her daughter swim after she goes through the proper channels.

Islamophobia is also, unfortunately, quite common even in liberal democracies.

It's a nonsense word anyway, but particularly in cases like this.

But again, we will disagree.

as has been explained to you. Why do you refuse to accept facts?

That is a fact.

"..wearing a bathing suit layered with leggings and a T-shirt,..."

That says burkinis...but not tee shirts which was the attire worn in your OP
?cache=yizde3vmob&ops=scalefit_720_noupscale

you read this:

He's got an agenda, and the facts be damned.

He posts an exact quote that contradicts his spin.

Another trainwreck for Engineer Gil.

conspicuous religious symbols worn in public schools as they proclaim themselves a secular society. They also criminalize anti-Semitic speech. So? What’s your point? We ban toplessness at most beaches. The French do not.

You are trying to tie everything in with your agenda without recognizing nuance. But your example is not apt in any case as what the daughter was wearing was not a burkini and violated a safety and health code having nothing to do with religion.

Re-read your article very carefully. She was wearing a swimsuit with a t-shirt and leggings. This is not a burkini. This is a swimsuit with street clothes. Street clothes are not allowed.

Why do you not seem to be able to grasp this?

Muslim women are not 'fighting for the right to swim' in the United States. The article is highly deceptive.

Or not, as you prefer.

or beating women who are out without a male relative.

You okay with those values too?

You can't even condemn those acts.

This is really sad.

It's like a Republican squirming to not call Trump a racist.

One which has nothing to do with the actual post.

why they must cover their whole body are not allowed either.
Only your agenda is allowed.

Got it, no discussion, only agreement with your opinion.

Next.

There's plenty of full-body-covering modesty ACTUAL SWIMWEAR without waterlogging your kid with a cotton T-Shirt and leggings. There was a valid objection, life-safety-wise IN THAT CASE as described.

There should not have been a policy against it, however, and the top laws in the nation protect an individual's right to expression of their religion, including modesty, so the headline is a bit of an exaggeration. There is no 'fight' in probably 99% of the country, and anywhere it IS a fight, call the ACLU and lodge a lawsuit and you're guaranteed a win.

Very well said.

But the fight is not just in the US.

And that within 5 minutes, all male followers must float on their back, facing the sky, and proceed to flog the dolphin, to completion, to celebrate the Life-Giving Rays of the Holy Sky Sphere!

No, really. It's part of my sky-daddy's Commandments. He Told Me So!

And I demand that everyone else respect my Religion, and allow me to publicly engage in my required rituals, otherwise I'm being horribly repressed by The Evil Ones ... and those who do so shall all be banished to an eternity in cold, murky Atlantis!

Do you also worship in this manner in the colder months?

Once again the OP failed to either read or comprehend the article he posted. How many times is this now? At least the op is consistent.

And that is consistent in this Group for that very small number of posters.

What really matters is posting “counterpoint” to news about priests raping children.

Consistently humiliating himself.

Parks & Rec typically prohibits street clothes, like leggings, from use in public pools because the materials used in their manufacture are too absorbent or break down in pool water, and thus pose a risk to public property, others, and the would-be swimmers themselves. These rules and regulations have secular purpose, do not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and do not constitute excessive governmental entanglement with religion.

You should probably address that.

If I'd posted something this bad, I'd have apologized long ago.