How Far Will the SCOTUS Go On Behalf of Muslims ?

[protectionist]

]OK, so now you are limiting it to the head scarf only, which eviscerates your OP.

You destroyed your own OP.

I'm not limiting anything to anything. The only thing destroyed here is your credibility.

 

[JakeStarkey]

First off - the case wasn't about her "doing what she wanted" - you did get that part right?

If you still think it was then please, show me the SCOTUS discussion on that

Sure it was. She wanted to wear the rag on her head, and they said it violated their "look policy"

Islamapologists are always trying to redefine things.

You are projecting again. Show that SCOTUS discussed her doing whatever she wanted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Protectionist is reported for trolling his own thread.

He has shown absolutely nothing on this thread that SCOTUS favors Muslims.

The comments about pedophilia are ludicrous.

Pedophilia is accepted in the Koran (Sura 65:4) You know nothing about Islam, other than Islamist propaganda programming, and you've swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

You are swallowing something. The OP is not about pedophilia. Reported for trolling his own OP.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, people ARE reading this, and you are failing by a huge margin, Protectionist.

 

[protectionist]

Title VII outweighs the company policy when it comes to reasonable accommodation. A company cannot violate certain of your rights.

FALSE! This moronic case has nothing to do with Title VII. Yeah, I know what 8 clowns of the SCOTUS said. I know exactly what they said, THEY'RE WRONG!

Clarence Thomas was right, and so was the appeals court, that these idiots reversed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

]OK, so now you are limiting it to the head scarf only, which eviscerates your OP.

You destroyed your own OP.

I'm not limiting anything to anything. The only thing destroyed here is your credibility.

Yeah, you gave up the argument, and now you are in denial as if you were PoliticalChic.

 

[protectionist]

Yes, people ARE reading this, and you are failing by a huge margin, Protectionist.

Not needed, but nevertheless, thanks for the compliment. It's the thought that counts!

 

[Coyote]

Title VII outweighs the company policy when it comes to reasonable accommodation. A company cannot violate certain of your rights.

FALSE! This moronic case has nothing to do with Title VII. Yeah, I know what 8 clowns of the SCOTUS said. I know exactly what they said, THEY'RE WRONG!

Clarence Thomas was right, and so was the appeals court, that these idiots reversed.

Silly boy. The case is ENTIRELY about Title VII...sheesh kiddo!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only in the strange wilderness of your thinking, Protectionist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, people ARE reading this, and you are failing by a huge margin, Protectionist.

Not needed, but nevertheless, thanks for the compliment. It's the thought that counts!

Your thinking has almost everyone laughing at you.

 

[protectionist]

Yeah, you gave up the argument, and now you are in denial as if you were PoliticalChic.

I gave up nothing, and you can't win a debate by PRETENDING you won a debate, that you are getting your ass handed to you in.

 

[protectionist]

Your thinking has almost everyone laughing at you.

Yeah ? I don't hear them saying that. Maybe they're afraid I might pop the Islamization Quiz on them too, and maybe they're almost as afraid of it as you are.

You're on the wrong track. It's obvious you're trying very hard to diminish my confidence. HA HA HA. That might have been a viable course if it weren't for the fact that, on this subject of Islamization, next to me, you're just being born.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are projecting again. You destroyed your own OP, SCOTUS is neutral on religion, Title VII in this case outweighs company policy, and the great majority of posters here are laughing at you, Protectionist. Your delusions simply won't let you accept your argument is a failure.

 

[ogibillm]

Your thinking has almost everyone laughing at you.

Yeah ? I don't hear them saying that. Maybe they're afraid I might pop the Islamization Quiz on them too, and maybe they're almost as afraid of it as you are.

you cite pam geller as a source. everybody is laughing at you.

 

[protectionist]

Only in the strange wilderness of your thinking, Protectionist.

The "wilderness" of my thinking is in 25 books extremely well-researched books + thousands of their footnote reports, all of which YOU HAVEN'T READ,........MR QUIZ ZERO.

 

[protectionist]

you cite pam geller as a source. everybody is laughing at you.

That's OK. I'll cite Pam Geller all day long. She a good valid protectionist. And she doesn't lose one iota of credibility just because some ignorant dum dum Islamapologist (who couldn't get more that 5% on my Islamization Quiz) stabs at her. Th only ones "laughing" at me are the same Quiz zero flunkos, who know nothing about Islamization, because they watch liberal media.

And who might your sources be ? Lawrence O'Brien ? Al Sharpton ? Chris Matthews ? Or some other airhead from MSNBC ? HA HA HA.

The trouble with liberals, is you don't know how much you don't know, and you think you actually know something. And you think you can actually lay your silly brainwashing on others.

Poor, ignorant, information-deprived, confused liberals.

 

[protectionist]

You are projecting again. You destroyed your own OP, SCOTUS is neutral on religion, Title VII in this case outweighs company policy, and the great majority of posters here are laughing at you, Protectionist. Your delusions simply won't let you accept your argument is a failure.

I told you. Title VII has nothing to do with this case. You're a poor student.

 

[Skylar]

Your thinking has almost everyone laughing at you.

Yeah ? I don't hear them saying that. Maybe they're afraid I might pop the Islamization Quiz on them too, and maybe they're almost as afraid of it as you are.

you cite pam geller as a source. everybody is laughing at you.

He cited Gellar as a primary source?

LMAO!

You can't fix stupid.

 

[ogibillm]

you cite pam geller as a source. everybody is laughing at you.

That's OK. I'll cite Pam Geller all day long. She a good valid protectionist. And she doesn't lose one iota of credibility just because some ignorant dum dum Islamapologist (who couldn't get more that 5% on my Islamization Quiz) stabs at her. Th only ones "laughing" at me are the same Quiz zero flunkos, who know nothing about Islamization, because they watch liberal media.

And who might your sources be ? Lawrence O'Brien ? Al Sharpton ? Chris Matthews ? Or some other airhead from MSNBC ? HA HA HA.

The trouble with liberals, is you don't know how much you don't know, and you think you actually know something. And you think you can actually lay your silly brainwashing on others.

Poor, ignorant, information-deprived, confused liberals.

geller loses credibility because she gets basic facts wrong. you lose credibility because you can't see that.

take for instance your citing of geller on ahmed saleem. he wasn't the leader of cair, or even cair in florida. he didn't 'target for rape children between ages 10 and 14.' he drove to a house where he believed he was meeting a single 12 year old. there was no child trafficking, as geller claims, and there was no actual sex, as she puts in her headline.

that's why she loses credibility. she gets basic facts wrong.

 

[protectionist]

He cited Gellar as a primary source?
LMAO!
You can't fix stupid.

That was just refuted a few posts ago, Mr Oblivious. Have you read any of her 3 books ? No need to answer. I'll guess no, you haven't. All you're doing is reciting the programmed idiocy, you're fed by liberal media, which deprives you of knowledge of Islamization, to the point where many of you dum dums pathetically don't even know what the word means.

Want to take the Islamization Quiz, Skylar ? of course you don't. Because just like Coyote and Joke, you also wouldn't do that, because it would show how ignorant you are on this subject , which Pamela Geller is quite expert on. Just because you're methodology is that you're taught to laugh at your opponents, that doesn't mean you know anything about this subject.

Right now I'm watching 4 clowns on MSNBC disparaging Lindsey Graham for his hawkish policies on ISIS. In the meantime, he's 100% right, and everything these fools are saying is wrong, yet they sit there laughing, either pretending to be right, or being clueless about how in the dark they (and you) are.