School Sued Over Muslim Teacher's Pilgrimage

Son don't you live in Canada?

Then stay out of American issues. :evil:

You have no power, no control over me. Yet you demand?

With no power? Are you also Palestinian? :cuckoo:

Will you also declare that you won this tete-a-tete, even if you have no power and I'm still posting?
 

Let's just say that we would effect a permanent "cure" for their vile affection. :eusa_angel:

I don't believe in extermination or genocide for homos.

Repeat offenders should receive long prison sentences.

It is a public safety issue to protect children and society.

But that's not "permanent" if they repeat? Throw the bums in jail for the rest of their lives?

I said before. Do you even have close to an understanding of the gay populations in the world?

Incarcerate all of them and put them through intensive therapy and if they repeat, then a more "Permanent Cure"?

I've heard that term before. The dictionary defines a Cure to be a Solution.

mufti_hitler2.jpg

Oh, yes, pretend moderation does not fit in with your true views Sunni Man. And my extrapolation is that just like the Muslim woman looking for "special dispensation", she is not looking for that event rather looking for the 'precedent' that the event creates.
 
I guess Ropey has achieved his goal of derailing this thread.

Too bad cause it was a pretty good thread and topic.

But he has trolled other similar threads and done the same to them :evil:
 
I guess Ropey has achieved his goal of derailing this thread.

Too bad cause it was a pretty good thread and topic.

But he has trolled other similar threads and done the same to them :evil:

Thank you for your help. :clap2:

But it's all the same. Muslims attempting to change our laws to their laws. If it was up to you, all Americas Homosexuals would be put into jail and if they re-offend (having relations with their own gender) then throw the bums in jail for life?

Moderate Sunni? I hate to see the Extreme Sunni (Al-Qaida). Hmm.. I have. They say the same things.

Hmmm....

Do you want that law changed, like the Muslim lady wants the current law changed for her case?

How many other Laws?

Sharia?


Here's what Canadians think. Even if you think you can isolate people's views by calling them names intending to be offensive and demanding them to not input what is arguably connected and not hijacked.
 
Well here's the "unintended consequence" that I was referring to. Two people - equally qualified come in for a job. Applicant "A" is wearing a hijab. Applicant "B" is not. Hmmmm. Which applicant would appear "more reasonable" and least likely to sue based on today's litigious climate? That's reality. I hope that woman has that on her conscience.
 
I apologize for jumping in mid-thread. I have to go to a meeting in a minute - so I only read to page 3 - but wanted to add my perspective as a teacher in a public school.

Most districts give teachers 3 personal days a year. I have worked in 3 public school districts - all 3 allowed teachers to "bank" up to 6 personal days to be used altogether.

A teacher in my building banked his 6 days and took time without pay for an additional 4 days in order to travel with his church group to Tibet for missionary work during the school year. It was done only with special permission from the school board and with a written understanding that this teacher would never be permitted to do such a thing again.

Seems to me that this woman should have used all her personal days and then been given time off WITHOUT PAY for this event.
 
Last edited:
Well here's the "unintended consequence" that I was referring to. Two people - equally qualified come in for a job. Applicant "A" is wearing a hijab. Applicant "B" is not. Hmmmm. Which applicant would appear "more reasonable" and least likely to sue based on today's litigious climate? That's reality. I hope that woman has that on her conscience.

But once the precedent is set, it is set regardless.

If she won while not wearing a hijab, and has created a precedent that might have been affected by her appearance of moderation, but the win applies to the lady wearing the hijab as well.

Sooner or later there will be enough precedents set to allow for legal extensions which, in a Democracy, are far easier to motion, table and win.

Two ladies coming in for a job. Both do not wear hijab. One wins the job and after a certain time comes in with the hijab and demands religious freedom.

She's got the job already and now the legal consequences are different than if she came in looking for the job, but not wearing the hijab.

It's about changing the laws. The hijab is simply a political machination, the conduit to radical reform. It is the symptom of the method, not the method.
 

Forum List

Back
Top