Cucks for Clinton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First I'll state that I agree that she should not
> have been told she can't play while wearing her
> religious symbol of second class status. It's
> entirely her decision and if she gets injured
> while wearing it, which I doubt anyway would
> happen, then it's on her and her parents. Or her
> mother since there's not father in that photo.
> Natch.
>
> I'm just pointing out that the comparison to
> football players who have helmets to at least
> partially protect them is retarded and the poster
> posting the cute 'retort' of pro football player
> pictures with long hair is retarded. That's all.
If you're speaking only about sports, the "unfair advantage rule" applies. The whole reason for uniforms is to tell the difference between teams. Add a head covering that is different from everyone else's and you're only pointing out that the wearer is different in some way. Possibly making him or her a target by the opposing team or by raising him or her up as something special. What is fair for one should be fair for all, no? What about these "hats"? Should they be allowed on a playing field because of the wearers religious beliefs?
BTW...one of this is different from the others. Can you tell me which one?
Attachments: